Curt Pringle Resigns from CHSRA Board
Former chairman of the California High Speed Rail Authority Board and former mayor of Anaheim Curt Pringle has resigned his seat on the board this week:
Former Anaheim Mayor and Assembly Speaker Curt Pringle resigned from the California High-Speed Rail Authority Board today, saying in a letter he would like to focus on a his lobbying firm and “other responsibilities.”
Which is ironic since Pringle stepped down as both mayor of Anaheim and as a member of the Orange County Transportation Authority at the end of 2010 after coming under criticism for supposedly holding “incompatible offices” – apparently sitting on a local transportation agency and on the CHSRA board was somehow a bad thing.
There’s no indication that Pringle’s resolution was directly tied to that, but with Democrats retaking the governor’s mansion – and an Orange County Democrat, Tom Umberg, recently elected chair of the CHSRA board, it may have been that Pringle, a Republican, felt his influence had faded, his time had passed.
Pringle’s resignation makes him the fifth person to leave the nine-member board in the last few months. In fact, one might wonder why exactly we need the Alan Lowenthal bill that would replace the Authority board when in fact a majority of the board will already have been replaced.
Assessing Pringle’s legacy is difficult. He was Arnold Schwarzenegger’s tool on the board, and while Pringle did help land about $3.5 billion in funding, he also didn’t do a particularly good job navigating the anti-HSR minefield placed by people like Lowenthal, the NIMBYs, and right-wingers.
On the other hand, I’m not sure I agree with Mike Rosenthal’s take on Pringle’s tenure, particularly the state of public opinion about the project:
Public opinion of the project swung significantly during his term, especially among fiscal conservatives and on the Peninsula, as the cost of the project soared, with the authority securing a fraction of the funds it needs to build the railroad.
I don’t see any evidence at all for Rosenberg’s claim that public opinion swung significantly. I actually haven’t yet seen any evidence public opinion has swung at all. 52% of voters approved Prop 1A in November 2008. In February 2011 a Harris Poll found 70% of Californians still support state and federal HSR funding. The flawed criticisms of the HSR project have only gained traction among people already opposed to the project.
Overall, I think it’s a good thing that there’s a new chair of the CHSRA board, and it can’t hurt to have new blood on the board. Of particular interest will be the status of the LA-Anaheim segment, and the plans for running tracks into ARTIC. Pringle had championed a particularly expensive option for the approach to ARTIC, for which he had come under criticism from other board members such as Quentin Kopp. Both Kopp and Pringle are now off the board, and presumably the ARTIC issue will be at least revisited.
Robert writes:
I don’t see any evidence at all for Rosenberg’s claim that public opinion swung significantly. I actually haven’t yet seen any evidence public opinion has swung at all. 52% of voters approved Prop 1A in November 2008. In February 2011 a Harris Poll found 70% of Californians still support state and federal HSR funding. The flawed criticisms of the HSR project have only gained traction among people already opposed to the project
Well you must have blinders on Robert. AS an example at the federal lever H-2354 passed through the house and may well result in rescission of a couple hundred million dollars presently awarded to the project.
The upcoming 6 year transportation bill, will have no funding for High Speed Rail in California. The Central valley was supposed to be where they would love the project and now is the scene of fierce opposition.
If you really believe that the voters in San Francisco, where Prop 1A passed with 80%, are happy that the plans to get to SF are now on the back burner, and as presently planned, the Peninsula will be the last to be developed last in Phase I, you are in your own dream world.
The funding is not there. You only fool the public for so long.
VBobier Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 9:22 am
Opposed in the CV by a couple of Farmers, Come back when their are thousands pictured that are against HSR and have signs up and who are seen on CNN, Until then go away, TROLL. As to Funding that will change, not everyone is as close minded as the Repugnican Zombies in DC… ;p Fools? You should talk, Loser…
Arthur Dent Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 9:51 am
Great. We have another YesonHSR in training.
VBobier Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 9:58 am
Sorry, that wasn’t My intent, He does hit and runs, I actually like HSR, nuff said…
William Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Same goes for you, Authur, even though you don’t use foul languages, sniping people with wise-cracking comment is also not welcomed.
tony d. Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 10:52 am
You’re so full of crap Morris that I don’t know where to start (I’ll just leave it at that).
Rosenberg’s MO is to completely blow up “opposition” to the project and ignore the reality of support.
I guess negativity is what sells papers these days.
Peter Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 10:58 am
Given that the Murky News is selling OHHH so many papers these days, anything helps.
Interestingly, one of my law school profs was/is the general counsel to Media News Group. He asked us (a class of 90 or so students at Santa Clara University) if anyone subscribed to any newspaper. There were no hands raised.
synonymouse Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 11:05 am
There is a very real desire and need for improved passenger rail transport in California but the CHSRA has dropped the ball. It rushed to judgment and hard-selected route alternatives which, on the face of it, were inferior to the other options. It painted itself into a corner in order to pander to a handful of special interests.
We have incontrovertible proof that its examination of alternatives was inadequate, despite the years and mounds of paperwork involved, in its belated “discovery” of problems and pitfalls with its holiest of holy Palmdale-Tehachapi Detour. We know that Tejon was summarily dismissed with the most cursory of looks, but clearly they did not even bother to put a magnifying glass to their pet plan.
Same applies to Altamont and I-5. But I have to admit the CHSRA’s work was complicated to say the least by extreme prejudice from 2 big-time players, namely UP and BART. The San Joaquin Valley might have more to gain from a subsidized rebuild, grade separations etc., of the UP’s 99 corridor trackage than Stilt-Rail along the same route. Cost out the hsr express route relocation to I-5.
As to BART I suggest it is time to consider a State takeover. Whenever I suggest local use taxation districts to fund the CHSRA I get shot down with it is a State prerogative as all residents benefit. Conversely that approach needs to be applied to the BART Empire, which is now huge and still growing apace, and is sitting on most all the entrees to the Bay Area. BART broad gauge needs to lose its sacred cow status and standardization needs to be broached. Also if we are going to get Ring-the-Bay a state takeover would ease the financing for the Peninsula. That said, I still prefer Caltrain.
Peter Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 11:08 am
I’ve been following this blog for a number of years, and I’ve NEVER heard you “suggest local use taxation districts to fund the CHSRA”. You’re just making that up now in order to invent a basis for your BART argument.
synonymouse Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 11:24 am
Yeah, I suggested local use districts ala BART several times. Basically the point I was trying to make is that there are huge regions that are and will remain far removed from any hsr line and these areas will receive nil benefit and should be excused from having to pay for hsr.
But it was argued that, as with freeways, all state residents benefit in some way.
Accordingly my counter-argument is that BART is now so big it is extra-regional and should fall under state purview.
Peter Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 11:39 am
You show me where you argued it on this blog, and I’ll believe that you argued for it.
In what way is BART more extra-regional now than HSR is meant to be? Are you seriously arguing that more state residents benefit from BART than would benefit from HSR? How do residents in Los Angeles, San Diego, Bakersfield, Fresno, and Sacramento benefit from BART, but wouldn’t benefit from HSR?
synonymouse Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 11:45 am
Once you successfully imposed the argument that folks in Yreka should pay for hsr in Fresno it can also be applied to paying for BART, whose territorial ambitions now stretch into the CV.
Peter Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 11:47 am
That’s what I thought.
In the meantime, hey, it’s your argument, not mine. I’m pointing out the flaws in it. It’s up to you to make sense out of it.
synonymouse Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
BART is really crying out for a state “intervention”; the Dugger fiasco demonstrates that.
Ultimately the State willl have to adjudicate the incipient turf war between BART and the CHSRA, both for territory and funding. We have already seen the opening salvo with BART’s recent initiative to grab monies, rejected by Jerry Brown. Expect MTC and the East Bay(notably the Oakand Tribune)to be firmly in BART’s camp.
jonah Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
You are aware that Siskiyou County (Yreka) only has a population of about 44,000 (about half of Redwood City) right? As opposed to say Fresno County with a population over 900,000 or Kern County with a population over 800,000.
95% of California’s population lives south of Sacramento, and most of it is served by the planned HSR route. Add a supercharged Pacific Surfliner to cover Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties and you’re almost there.
Also, why on earth would the State take over a transit system (BART) that only serves 4 of the states’ 58 counties?
Do you actually write this stuff, or do you have some kind of “Talkin’ John Birch Paranoid Blues” random comment generator app on your iPhone?
Mike Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 11:56 am
I’ll stipulate that BART has some serious problems and deficiencies. But how did BART complicate the job of the Authority to plan the statewide high speed rail system? I get the point about how UP made it more difficult, but I don’t see what your point is about BART.
Peter Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
Expect some half-assed argument about BART-to-San Jose being a conspiracy to prevent HSR to be built via Altamont, leading to some other outlandish claim about Palmdale. Does that about cover it?
Spokker Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
No conspiracy, but BART to San Jose is the wrong mode for the job and hinders other transportation projects.
Peter Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Agreed.
tony d. Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
To bad supermajorities TWICE disagreed with you! (SCCo. Voter support for BART)
Clem Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
You got that backwards. More like Pacheco HSR being a conspiracy to protect BART-to-San Jose.
joe Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Never mind the historical travel corridors routes and geography back up running trains south from San Jose.
It’s a conspiracy and plate tectonics and geomorphology are all in on it. Follow the money.
tony d. Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
I like this!
synonymouse Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
MTC is for all intents and purposes BART’s creature. Conspiracy implies they are in hiding – MTC will fight any attempt to contrary BART’s ascendancy, right out in the open.
William Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
To be fair, BART-to-SJ provides a much higher frequency trains than other alternatives such as commuter rail. This high frequency and completely new right-of-way infrastructure are the primary reason for the high cost. Also, BART-to-SJ would provide one-seat ride, which most people find important.
BART-to-SJ is also popular in Santa Clara county, despite its high cost. Voters voted twice to tax themselves for BART, and not simple majority, but a super majority of 66%.
So, conspiracy or no conspiracy, unless one can dramatically change public opinion on this, BART-to-SJ is a done deal, and CAHSRA has to plan CAHSR with this in-mind.
I voted “No” on both the taxes, and I would encourage people who apply the same level of scrutiny as CAHSRA on BART-to-SJ.
synonymouse Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
The Ring-the-Bay concept is similarly popular, tho Caltrain could be vastly superior.
IMHO it is either Simitian style or the Ring lacking hsr.
Clem Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Exactly correct.
jonah Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
Democracy is a real son-of-a-bitch huh?
Jon Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
No chance. There are too many people with interests in HSR being completed to SF Transbay to allow BART Ring-the-Bay to happen without HSR. Simitian-style HSR/Caltrain is more likely, although HSR will not be happy with the resulting capacity constraints.
political_incorrectness Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Who said CR couldn’t provide it? ETCS level 2, 125 mph tracks, trains every 3 minutes on a double track. There was an example of this in Switzerland and it can be used on HSR lines according to this UIC pdf. http://www.uic.org/apps/presentation/gehrenbeck.pdf Page 2
Matthew B. Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 1:45 am
Belgium, not Switzerland.
Jon Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Amusingly, Google Maps is messed up at the moment and shows BART extending down the peninsula to San Jose :-)
Jon Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
Actually, it looks like they’re trying to show different colors for Bullet/Limited/Local services but don’t have it quite working yet.
thatbruce Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
There is nothing inherent in BART’s technology that gives it a higher frequency than any other standard system. Frequency of service, especially with two tracks, is a matter of how many trains you have available, and how deep your pockets are to maintain the service. Having a high frequency along a line with limited overtake points and services with different speeds (eg, the Peninsula), that’s hard, and takes some careful planning.
The main issue with BART’s design model is that the lack of overtake locations makes it extremely hard to provide more than one, all-stops, service level. Express services? BART in its present form just can’t do it.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Yup. BART’s Achilles Heel (and only weakness with Cal Train) is that it can’t do expresses. For example, if BART “Rings the Bay” there will be a contingent of people who would take HSR from San Jose to San Francisco (or SFO ) to San Francisco and San Jose. It’s going to be faster and HSR will charge a premium for it.
joe Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
I beg to differ.
The Chicago of my childhood and youth ran 2 trains along a dual track alignment along the Kennedy Expressway. A and B trains and alternate A and B stops with occasional A/B transfer stops. These A/B stations allowed faster service to the Loop and each stop had frequent service. I beelive at night they ran A/B trains and service slowed.
So BART could run that kind of A/B service and not stop at every stop.
thatbruce Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
BART would need to build additional trackwork and station platforms to support the A/B transfer stations of that sort of service model, as their current form does not support it.
I personally don’t like skip-stop services, as I feel that if you’re going to skip a station, skip more than one and give people a faster ride.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Sigh. Skip-stop service is a horrible idea, used only in cities that don’t care enough about local service. Want to go from one station in Queens to another? You have a 50% chance of being able to. Want to go to Manhattan? It’ll be 5 minutes faster, if you don’t mind the frequency being halved.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
So …
1. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority determined that Santa Clara Street doesn’t have enough transit demand to justify construction of a single-car non-articulated streetcar line … but … this boulevard of tumbleweeds, surface parking lots, strip malls</a and sad left-overs from Brasília somehow needs a third-rail, PBQD/Bechtel-designed, urban subway line; and …
2. There’s no way that “alternatives such as commuter rail” could provide the incredible levels of service required by the tens of thousands of people who crowd San José‘s (The Capital of Silicon Valley’s) sidewalks so densely that movement is nearly impossible.
Which is interesting, because I just looked up the commuter rail schedule for trains departing this morning on the two-track commuter rail line between Hardbücke and the main train station in Munich, and I found commuter trains departing at:
06:01
06:06
06:08
06:10
06:13
06:16
06:18
06:21
06:26
06:28
06:30
06:33
06:36
06:38
06:39
06:41
06:43
06:46
06:48
06:50
06:51
06:53
06:56
06:58
06:59
A mere 25 commuter trains per hour are clearly not equal to the needs of San José, Capital of Silicon Valley. Must … have … BART!! BART!!!!! BART!!!!!!!!!!!! Because, well, the CHRSA’s professional and highly ethical lead consultant says so.
Matthew B. Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 1:51 am
In every one of your streetview examples, if you just turn the camera you find much more dense and walkable development. Pretty much every Californian city has automobile oriented development somewhere. Build transit systems, and connect those cities to other destinations, and people will be able to live attractive lifestyles without a car. Demand for urban amenities increases, and infill development takes out a strip mall here and a surface parking lot there.
Miles Bader Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 4:08 am
What, Richard post misleading cherry-picked links?! Say it ain’t so!
Actually that street scene reminded very much of Central Square in Cambridge MA (which of course has a subway stop). The street-view shots of Central Square also look rather barren of pedestrians, but in fact, the sidewalks often get quite crowded.
That sort of thing is actually a common issue with street-view: the times when the google photo cars/bikes/whatever go through don’t necessarily correspond very well with times that are the most interesting; someplace that’s hopping after 6pm and on weekends is often a bit less fun at 10:30am on a tuesday!
[Not that I'm suggesting downtown SJ is ever hopping of course!]
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
We have incontrovertible proof that its examination of alternatives was inadequate
You have a cite for that?
synonymouse Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
By their own admission they inadequately examined Tehachapi. They did not want to find any warts – it would screw up the fix.
Clem Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Sacramento Superior Court civil case 34-2010-80000679
Peter Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
Uhhh, Clem, what you’re citing to is alleged proof of alleged inadequacies.
Citing an ongoing case as proof positive of, well, anything, really, does not help your argument.
Clem Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Semantics.
Peter Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Bullshit. Alleged means it’s not yet proven. Here, the result of the EIR was not to your liking. Tough. To win a suit under CEQA or NEPA, you have to prove that the analysis was inadequate, not that the result could have been different.
Additionally, even if the plaintiffs win in Atherton I, which is highly unlikely, the plaintiffs in Atherton II are still going to lose because under CEQA and NEPA, the responsible agency does not have to consider EVERY possible alternative, not even all reasonable alternatives. They only have to consider a reasonable range of alternatives.
Clem Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Sorry, I was too concise. I meant to say that I personally don’t care about semantics.
Peter Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 5:07 am
It’s not just a matter of semantics. The plaintiffs in both cases have made a number of claims that don’t square with CEQA or NEPA law.
joe Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
The Antherton et al lawsuit is a citation of an argument against HSR but it isn’t evidence of any inadequacy, let alone proof.
The lawsuit claims: “The RFPEIR failed to adequately evaluate a feasible new alternative that would have substantially reduced or avoided significant Project impacts, but which the Project sponsor refused to either seriously consider or adopt;”
On Peninsula, bullet train’s cost projections scrutinized
political_incorrectness Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
*snore* Also known as slow newsday syndrome. Let me see problems with I-580
1) Too curvy
2) Bart already has that ROW.
I highly doubt they’d prevail.
Peter Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
In order for them to even get to the merits of that suit (Atherton II), they have to win in the first suit (Atherton I). Without getting into the details, it seems unlikely that they will in fact be successful in Atherton I, so no need to go into the quite ridiculous claims of the second suit.
Clem Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Have you examined the SETEC Ferroviaire proposal? Not curvy, no clash with BART
political_incorrectness Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
I have indeed. I was taking the quote from the article stating they wanted trains along the 580. The SETEC proposal actually made quite a bit of sense for express HSR service through Altamont and would allow trains to reach higher speeds sooner. I am sure that it would probably be equivalent for the time of going through to Gilroy even going via San Jose since their proposal wasn’t studied in the EIR.
Peter Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Unless some major new issues arise against Pacheco, as did with the Antelope Valley alignment, there is essentially no chance of Altamont being resurrected. Altamont died the moment Judge Kenny refused to enjoin continued planning of Pacheco.
synonymouse Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Funding issues could easily force a re-think. And which is only fair and just – why should the taxpayers have to bankroll a more expensive route. The difference in cost could prove to be very significant.
Clem Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
The major new issue arising against Pacheco is the lack of federal and private funding for California high-speed rail, which makes a viable “Phase Zero” an absolute necessity. The bang-for-the-buck of Altamont to Livermore BART has been discussed before: $2 to 3 billion less tunneling, much faster link into SF, and half of the Phase 2 Sacramento branch already built.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 2:33 pm
Why not just pull into Oakland via San Joaquin routing for the Phase 0 service?
political_incorrectness Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
3 hours from Merced-Oakland. If it went to Modesto, then it would only be 2 hours. Stockton, 90 minutes.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Over two hours of extra travel time, near-zero reliability, and a “connecting” train every two or three hours (vs BART every 15 minutes, and there’s every reason to expect that ransom to UPRR to allow any more trains than that will cost roughly on the order of the ransom to PB/Bechtel to extend BART one station), and you still have to get get on BART or a bus to get to SF in the end.
In short: look at a map, look at a timetable. Or just recall the horror of the last time you mistakenly rode Amtrak.
Phase 0 HSR LA-Modesto-Livermore to BART Livermore-Oakland-SF isn’t perfect, but it’s about as close to perfect a real-world economics/engineering compromise as I can imagine.
synonymouse Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
Wouldn’t it be nice(to quote the Beach Boys intro)if BART were built to standard gauge 25kv ocs?
Brian Stanke Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Only the small problems with your idea that:
1. The BART Livermore extension doesn’t actually exist.
2. BART to Livermore project isn’t actually funded.
3. The city council approved a citizen initiative against BART going downtown, moving it to 580, making any future funding even more unlikely. http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyherald/localnews/ci_18485094
http://www.independentnews.com/news/article_4fd20ef8-ada1-11e0-bf68-001cc4c002e0.html
4. Pleasanton and Fremont don’t want any Altamont rail through their cites, even in a tunnel.
http://pleasanton.patch.com/articles/high-speed-train-through-downtown-pleasanton-over-my-dead-body-councilman-says
5. The entire Bay Area political and financial establishment is against the idea.
synonymouse Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
BART = The entire Bay Area political and financial establishment. Ergo, if BART wants it, it’s a done deal. I have 50 years of Bay Area politix on my side.
synonymouse Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Besides, stand Bart to Livermore up against BART to SFO and it looks like a fabulous and obvious idea.
tony d. Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
I like this to!
Clem Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
Good points, I hadn’t thought of these. The Pacheco route probably has no such “small problems.” Right? Right??
tony d. Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
At worst lack of funding means phase 1 ends in SJ via Pacheco,
Not some pie in the sky Altamont HSR to Livermore BART.
One of the dumbest ideas I’ve ever heard on this blog!
Yeah! Livermore more deserving of HSR over SJ/Silicon Valley.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
Um, no. Altamont spends less money than Pacheco crossing to the Bay Area (Altamont Pass is gentler than Pacheco) and more money within the Bay Area (Gilroy-SJ-SF is much simpler than a new Dumbarton crossing).
Joe Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 6:13 pm
Altamont is longer track for reaching the bayarea, livermore is a tad closer than sj from fresno and I believe crosses more populated areas getting to SJ and sf. SJ coyote valley is open space slated for development.
If Livermore counts as the bayarea then so does Gilroy.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Livermore’s connection to SF will be vastly better. And Altamont is longer than Pacheco, but flatter.
Miles Bader Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 7:59 pm
btw, when posting these various claims, could people be more explicit what case they’re talking about? “… with full buildout” vs. “… using dedicated trains but sharing tracks” vs. “… if the project gets stopped halfway and everybody has to get off and take bart/caltrain”, etc…
There have been so many different scenarios posited that it’s hard to know what exactly people mean.
["But my plan is vastly faster ... assuming a deep underground vacuum maglev!" :]
Clem Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 8:12 pm
The Altamont to Livermore BART scenario is an intermediate “Phase Zero” project that puts the extremely limited funds for HSR to optimal use, providing an effective interim connection to most of the Bay Area. This interim stage is emerging as a necessary step on the way to full system build-out, and if it isn’t done right, there will not be a full system build-out. That’s why, as a strong HSR supporter, I’ve come to the opinion that this is the most viable way forward.
joe Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 8:20 pm
Alon
“Vastly better” for who?
Not for the political interests of CA. I get it, PB rules the world and ruins every awesome idea rail advocates offer. IMHO that’s nuts. It’s the other way around.
I prefer to see it more a matter of the obvious, the route will service the existing interests including Pennisula interests that want HSR and Caltrain. Is that wrong? Yes, we really need a benevolent dictator to optimally service the people by concocting and then optimizing rail for their chosen metrics. Hence the Livermore gateway to SF and the Silicon Valley.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 11:42 pm
Vastly better = SF-Livermore will be faster and more frequent than SF-Gilroy-on-legacy-track could ever be. Both require a transfer to another train, but BART offers higher service levels than Caltrain’s Gilroy extension.
This is strictly phase 0. If there’s extra money for urban construction, and there’s already a decent connection to LA, then a connection to SJ through Pacheco is more valuable than intermediate segments using Altamont. Electrifying SF-SJ will be done anyway and doesn’t cost that much by the standards of everything else that’s on the table, and offers an option of a decent one-seat ride to SF.
Effectively, Altamont has a much better phase 0, while Pacheco has the better phase 0.5. (Pacheco is slightly ahead on phase 1, and Altamont offers the better phase 2, because of the improved SF-Sac connection.) Or, more precisely, Altamont has the better phase 0.5 while Pacheco has the better phase 0.75; the best phase 0 is one that focuses on connecting LA to the Central Valley, since LA is larger than than SF and LA-Bakersfield is a bigger gap in the state public transportation network than the connections to the Bay Area.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 12:51 am
Livermore’s connection to SF will be vastly better.
Vastly better than to the belly of the Transbay Terminal?
It’s PATH to Princeton, the 6 train to Stamford…… ending Acela in Baltimore and putting everybody on the Orange line.
Clem Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Gilroy-SJ-SF is not something I would call simple. It will be one of the most expensive bits of the system, if ever built. You see, the viability of HSR would need to be demonstrated before adequate funding can be secured. Building HSR to Gilroy or San Jose is not a lot of bang for a hell of a lot of buck. The moment a private operator becomes involved in route selection, Pacheco’s out the window… Better hope that never happens!
joe Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 8:12 pm
Clem – it’s backward chaining logic here. What paths lead to Altamont and how to argue for them. Follow the alignment.
No way Livermore to SF and SJ is easier than from Gilroy to SJ and SF, Absolutely, positively. The city boundaries in the south are undeveloped land and that runs into the city.
As for now CA needs to demonstrate the viability of HSR – that’s just a new crank to turn to push Altamont. By 2015 we’ll be seeing gasoline pushing 5/gallon.
The Awesome Livermore plan will kill HSR – it fails the political test of servicing the interests that drive HSR. Hint SF and SJ are not going to let Livermore be the gateway to Silicon Valley and rely on BART.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 8:25 pm
SJ has chosen BART over everything else — EVERYTHING else, including Caltrain service, including bus service, including all other rail service — quite unambiguously. So suck it down, Capital of Silicon Valley.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 9:57 pm
Don’t forget paratransit. And the attempted hijacking of a hospital tax.
Clem Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
Joe, you seem to be mixing apples and oranges… By suggesting a “Phase Zero” system that serves the Bay Area via Livermore BART, I am not suggesting that Livermore would forever be the HSR terminus. That would be a singularly pessimistic view. Livermore BART is an intermediate phase on the way to bigger and better things such as direct HSR service to SJ and SF. What will truly kill HSR is to build a half-assed “Phase Zero” that barely makes it over Pacheco Pass to Gilroy before the money runs out (remember, while Pacheco-Gilroy is a bit shorter than Altamont-Livermore, it is far more difficult and expensive terrain to build through). Failing to reach San Jose is simply not an option, if building from the south… And the chance of failure is large and increasing, as a direct and unforeseen consequence of ballooning costs and shriveling funds. Time to get real.
CARRD getting great PR in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/07/20/20climatewire-liberal-communities-join-libertarians-in-fir-83155.html
“Naik calls herself a “huge Obama fan.” Her relaxed-chic outfit and business-school candor fit well in downtown Palo Alto, where the locals are settling down to lunch.
About three years ago, she met three other moms at a city council meeting. They all felt that the locals’ furor over the high-speed train was drowning out the answers they wanted.
Since then, they’ve summoned public records from the California High-Speed Rail Authority. They’ve demanded transparency from the authority’s private meetings. They’ve accused it of designing the train to enrich contractors rather than benefit the public.
One of the volunteers, Elizabeth Alexis, has a background in economic statistics. She routinely dives into the thick planning documents most people would rather not read. She has questioned the authority’s cost figures for the train and called its ridership study “worse than having nothing at all.”"
BAM.
The article is absolutely perfect for CARRD. No longer can you accuse them of being NIMBYs or “CONCERNED MOMS” that are absolutely annoying, because they dive into the data and make public records requests that don’t get fulfilled, possibly in violation of state law and love Obama. Every single New York Times reader who read this most likely warmed up to the high speed rail opposition on the Peninsula.
Only thing I would suggest is to get rid of Kathy Hamilton whose Examiner articles are absolutely atrocious, unless she doesn’t something else I don’t know of.
Joe Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Ha.
The NYT is casting CARRD as ideal targets for GOP daddies to ram HSR along the peninsula.
The #1 rule for the GOP is to piss off PAMPA liberals. Bohner will earmark a 4 track elevated if he reads the NYT.
Miles Bader Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
For whatever reason, the NYT (which on many issues is one of the best newspapers around) has often been a real pushover for anti-rail faux-academic types. It just doesn’t seem to be an issue they really care very much about, and that shows…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/20/us-california-rail-idUSTRE76J7RQ20110720
Here is a report from Reuters News:
Analysis: California bullet trains may not leave station
But state lawmakers, even those quick to wrap themselves in green mantles, aren’t buying what the California High-Speed Rail Authority is selling — and they may put plans for bullet trains zipping across the most populous U.S. state on hold.
State Senator Alan Lowenthal, who chairs a legislative committee overseeing the planned high-speed rail system, said lawmakers are losing patience with the authority and that a verdict on the rail system’s fate could come in a few months.
“We’re really waiting for October for when they give us a real financial plan,” Lowenthal, a Democrat, said. “What the legislature is most concerned about is the financing, obviously, and the implications of the financing.”
“Their plan was predicated on all this money coming,” Lowenthal said. “It may be more wish than reality.”
A bit of reality I think..
Eric M Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 8:14 pm
“A bit of reality I think..”
That’s funny, because didn’t you say the same thing about Prop 1A not passing before the vote?
joe Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
The Menlo Park NIMBY plan is to 1) kill all HSR and local rail 2) claim all new development is all car based and violates environmental law 3) use environmental law to stop Facebook’s massive new campus and Menlo Park’s extensive downtown redevelopment.
As a former CHSRA employee, I thought Curt did an excellent job running the board meetings while I was there. He has a great way of connecting with people on all sides of the political spectrum and calming potentially explosive situations. While I don’t know all of the politics behind certain things, I’m pretty confident that his leadership and vision will be missed on the Authority board.
joe Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
There’s nothing bad or unusual when appointees step aside with a change in administration. It offers the new executive a chance to appoint someone he/she is comfortable.
The success of the ARRA grants indicates CAHSRA was prepared and could execute.