Who You Need to Call to Save California High Speed Rail
This week is the make or break week for the California high speed rail project. The legislature is still
likely to vote on the project in a few days’ time, probably on Thursday. If the voter-approved bond money is not released by the legislature, California will forfeit the federal stimulus money as it will be redistributed around the country. Governor Jerry Brown is pulling out all the stops, now planning to link HSR funding to other rail projects, according to Matier and Ross at the San Francisco Chronicle:
In a move some see as an attempt to round up badly needed “yes” votes for the project, Gov. Jerry Brown and state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, are insisting on an “all or nothing” vote on both the $68 billion rail line and millions of dollars for local “connectivity” projects.
In the Bay Area, those connections include:
– $140 million for new BART cars.
– $105 million to modernize Caltrain.
– $61 million for San Francisco’s Central Subway.
– $46.5 million to improve the tracks on the Capital Corridor commute line between Oakland and San Jose.
High-speed rail needs 21 votes in the state Senate to get the green light to start spending voter-approved bonds in a major way.
So far, however, insiders say it’s falling short by at least six votes.
It should be appalling to all of us that the California State Senate, led by Democrats, would consider following the lead of Tea Party Republican governors in rejecting $3.3 billion in federal stimulus and the thousands of jobs it would bring. California is in no position to turn down stimulus, to refuse jobs, and to reject a badly needed transportation project that would reduce the state’s dependence on oil. These Democrats would also be doing Mitt Romney’s work for him, dealing a major blow to President Barack Obama by validating right-wing arguments that HSR is wasteful and unpopular.
But that may be what happens. Three anti-HSR Senate Democrats, espousing Tea Party rhetoric, remain vehemently opposed to economic stimulus and mass transportation, are continuing to organize to defund the project:
Both Simitian and DeSaulnier are skeptical of the current plan, especially the idea that the first phase of construction will be the 130-mile “train to nowhere” stretch in the Central Valley.
Instead, the senators want the first round of money to be spent building up high-speed rail in the Bay Area and L.A., then move into the valley.
How will the “all or nothing” deal affect their vote?
“I’m a ‘no’ on all or nothing,” DeSaulnier said.
As for Simitian: “I’m voting for what’s best for the whole state,” he said. “Local considerations will be part of that, but I can’t let them drive my decision on a project of this magnitude.”
Senator Alan Lowenthal meanwhile is busily undercutting his future colleagues in the Congressional Democratic Caucus by organizing anti-HSR forces to lobby key State Senators. The anti-HSR Community Coalition on High Speed Rail today sent out an email to their list asking people to lobby certain Senators to kill the project and destroy jobs. The list is a useful guide to HSR supporters – here’s who you need to call tomorrow morning to help save this project, along with your own legislators:
1. State Senator Christine Kehoe (San Diego) – 916-651-4039
2. State Senator Noreen Evans (Santa Rosa) – 916-651-4002
3. State Senator Michael Rubio (Bakersfield) – 916-651-4016
4. State Senator Curren Price (Los Angeles) – 916-651-4026
5. State Senator Jean Fuller (Bakersfield) – 916-651-4018
6. State Senator Bob Huff (Walnut – Los Angeles County) – 916-651-4029
7. State Senator Lou Correa (Santa Ana – Orange County) – 916-651-4034
8. State Senator Loni Hancock (Berkeley) – 916-651-4009
9. State Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod (San Bernardino County) – 916-651-4032
10. State Senator Leland Yee (San Francisco) – 916-651-4008
11. State Senator Fran Pavley (Santa Monica) – 916-651-4023
And here are your talking points:
Jobs: California is still suffering from high unemployment. The high speed rail project will create thousands of jobs in the next few years across the state, good jobs that California families need to help the economy recover. Please do not kill these jobs – please release the high speed rail funds voters already approved.
The project is sound: Do not believe the anti-rail people – instead believe the facts. High speed rail systems all over the world cover their costs, including the Acela in the US Northeast. The independent peer review study of the California high speed rail project showed it would cover its operating costs through ridership. Californians want to ride this train, and the demand is there. Please do not kill this project – please release the high speed rail funds voters already approved.
The Central Valley is a good place to start: The idea that the Central Valley segment is a “train to nowhere” is a lie. Nobody plans to build track just in the Valley and nobody plans to run trains just in that area alone. It’s the starting point of a statewide system, just like the first segments of the interstate freeway system. The current HSR plan includes funding for rail projects in the Bay Area and Southern California, which is going to be helpful. But you can’t build HSR between SF and LA without going through the Valley. It’s the missing link and the best place to begin. Plus, the Obama Administration has said they will take away our stimulus money if Senators do not release the voter-approved project.
HSR is necessary for the environment: (especially useful for Hancock and Pavley): High speed rail is a key piece of California’s environmental efforts. The California Air Resources Board declared it essential to meeting the AB 32 carbon reduction goals. Motor vehicles are responsible for 57% of the pollution in the Central Valley and a key cause of asthma in Valley children. If the legislature kills high speed rail now, it would saying that California is not serious about addressing climate change or improving public health.
HSR is good for the state budget: (not useful for Bob Huff) The argument that infrastructure stimulus is bad for the budget is a right-wing talking point. HSR funds will create desperately needed jobs that in turn contribute new tax revenues to the state. Further, the interest payments will come from truck fees, not from schools or health care. Legislators voted for bond funding to build bridges and dams in the depths of the Great Depression and it did not hurt schools or other public services. We should follow that proven path.
Feel free to add your own points, but keep it friendly and civil. These people all should be on our side, so let’s not alienate them by being unpleasant to a staffer on the phone. We can win this fight, but only if we get active now.
You know, this is all pretty much a problem of the Authority’s own making.
Also, if Governor Brown can’t get this done, he’s pretty much lame-ducked for the rest of his term, given how central he’s made this project to his policies.
Tom McNamara Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 12:46 am
….a problem of the previous Board’s making… What’s flipped over and burning in the cornfield is “Arnold’s Train”…. Jerry Speed Rail still has some life left in it.
And no, Brown is not done, because he’ll veto Plan B and let the feds reallocate some dollars to other states. Then after that, they will go back again with a revised and smaller ICS with what is left.
flowmotion Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 1:31 am
I suppose the question comes down to how much you can trust the national Democratic party leadership. How important is HSR to Obama? Pelosi? Feinstein? Because if you can’t trust them to deliver funding for the entire system, then it reverts to a local political calculation of creating immediate improvements in Democratic districts for your own voters.
On the other hand, there’s a big barrel of pork lying there, so let’s eat it!!
BruceMcF Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 4:43 pm
Why are you thinking in terms of the current leadership? Indeed, why are you thinking about Obama? If California begins construction on the ICS, Obama won’t be President when California needs the next round of funding to be available.
Over the course of the current Transport bill through to 2014, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, Michigan, Virginia, North Carolina and the 11 states in the NEC cluster will all be wanting to have HSR funding in the next bill. Getting it into the current one was not a high priority because they all have money being spent on their own upgrades at the moment, but its going to go up in priority as those upgrades are completed.
If California spends the next five years building the ICS, it will be well positioned to ensure that there is a Federal funding stream available for Express HSR. If it spends the next five years naval gazing and twiddling its thumbs, its less well positioned.
Nathanael Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 6:09 pm
Other states which are almost certain to be calling for HSR funding in addition to the ones you mentioned: Minnesota, and Missouri. (BTW: 11 states? Are you including Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine? Two of those will support HSR, NH is uncertain.)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 7:16 pm
The Census defines the Northeast as New England and the Mid-Atlantic.
1) Maine
2) New Hampshire
3) Massachusetts
4) Vermont
5) Rhode Island
6) Connecticut
9) New York
10) New Jersey
11) Pennsylvania
The Census places Maryland and Delaware in the South Atlantic area. The border of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Delaware was delineated by Mr. Mason and Mr. Dixon….
So it’s either the 13 states of the Northeast – if you include Delaware and Maryland. Or the 11 States of the Northeast, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina.
Though he did say “NEC” not Northeast. NEC is MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD if you define by places that have Acela service. Throw in Virginia if you include Regionals. And DC but DC doesn’t have any voting members of Congress.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 8:14 pm
NH is currently controlled by Teabaggers who canceled an extension of the MBTA to Nashua and Manchester.
VT and ME may be more interested in bolstering up their Amtrak service, possibly branded as HSR if it’s Amtrak-plus, but they probably don’t give a crap about New York-Boston HSR.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 8:53 pm
The people who get on the Ethan Allen aren’t going to Poughkeepsie. And the people on the Vermonter aren’t going to Wallingford. “fast as driving” between Rutland and Albany means you don’t have to pay for parking in Rensselaer. Or walk from the nether end of the parking lot. Faster than driving between Albany and New York makes it faster than driving for Rutland to New York. And Rutland to most places all the way to Washington DC. Same thing for the Vermonter…. the people of Vermont are very interested in the speed of the NEC, at least the speed of the NEC between New Haven and DC.
… then there’s the comments on this blog,
http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/
about how Back Bay is an important stop on the NEC because it’s the station that connects to North Station easiest.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 10:59 pm
Possibly – it’s just that the state effort I’ve seen (which is not much, granted) focuses on the Northern New England corridor.
BruceMcF Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Also, on the fence is Iowa ~ they’ve punted on the Chicago / Quad Cities / Iowa City corridor
but as part of the punt are studying taking that through Iowa City, Des Moines and Omaha along the old Rock Island Line (that is, the namesake line, that actually runs through Rock Island, Illinois).
BruceMcF Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 12:46 am
13 then, I probably skipped the New’s other than York ~ its easier to count states on your fingers on the southwestern Pacific coast of the US ~ you only need the thumb of one hand. Just perfect for an innumerate Math major like me ~ that’s why I liked Game and Graph theory, all of the 1′s and 0′s of a graph matrix and the fractions adding up to 1 of a payoff matrix.
Combining the Northeast Senate delegation and the California delegation in the House adds up to quite a big block of votes, and with California in a position to either use the 2015 and the 2017 cycle to get an HSR funding stream approved, the odds of losing two or more years by starting building now and there being no further source of funds is lower than the odds of losing two or more years now by not getting started and having to wait until the next round of funding is put together before being able to get efforts back under way.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 7:23 am
The things you stumble across on the intertubes.
http://www.necfuture.com/
http://nec-commission.com/commissioners.htm
Though I’m sure there were commissions and coordinating committees at the PRR and NYNHH when the High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965 was passed. And all the other plans that have come and been underfunded since then.
8 states and DC as voting members. MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ. PA, DE, MA and DC
4 non voting states VT, NH, VA and NC.
Joe Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 8:59 pm
True i.
If alan lowenthal can screw this HSR project then the national leadership has to regroup.
Frankly they woud not be national party leadership and let themselves get rolled so easily and not push back.
Are you implying the Authority should of pandered exclusively to the communities with the most wealth, power and prestige? Give them special privileges over every one else in the state? How virtuous and democratic!
Alon Levy Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 12:55 am
Wait, what? Hell, Robert went down against Peninsula NIMBYism a lot harder than against NIMBYism elsewhere (e.g. Gardiner, Tejon Ranch).
BrianR Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 1:55 am
actually didn’t mean this as a reply to Robert. Thought I was replying to Paul Druce but forgot to hit that reply button.
tbert Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 5:40 am
“should’ve”, the contraction you’re looking for is “should’ve”; “should of” is grounds for homicide in no fewer than 7 legal jurisdictions
Neville Snark Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 6:29 am
+1!
BrianR Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 1:21 pm
@tbert,
Ok. Thanks ALOT for your grammar correction:
http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html
Paul Druce Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 9:29 am
No, I mean that the Authority’s loss of popular and political support is entirely a creation of their own doing.
jim Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 10:33 am
I think it’s because Prop 1A is unworkable. It asks for the construction of the hardest, most expensive possible HSR route supporting unattainable speeds. No Authority was going to be able to pull it off. This one may have done a worse job than others might have, but any Authority would have lost popular and political support trying to implement the Proposition.
Paul Druce Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 10:38 am
But Prop 1A was of course based on the Authority’s earlier planning. It’s a mess of their own making.
To be honest, my preference is to sell a franchise, with certain basic requirements, on a DBO scheme, with a certain amount of state financing and the ability for the franchisee to use tax free bonds and the like to boost the power of private capital investment.
synonymouse Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 11:53 am
The Roundabout is primarily a regional and commute operation with an idiotic extension in mind to Sin City. It just cries out subsidy. No “private capital investment” without taxpayer guarantees, in which case you might as well just tax, tax, tax directly.
Hollande wants to put a monthly tax on computers – Moonbeam’s next brainstorm after Carbon Cap.
jim Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 1:53 pm
There was a certain amount of politics mixed in, too, wasn’t there? :) In a parallel thread, someone, perhaps even you, was arguing for LA-SD. But Prop 1A ruled out LA-SD. LA-SF before all. The easier routes, LA-SD and SF-Sac were explicitly deferred, lest the Authority realize that they were much easier and prioritize them.
Nathanael Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 5:47 pm
The politics was clear, yes: the requirement to do LA-SF before LA-SD was politics, and the “must terminate in the Transbay Terminal” was politics.
The Authority? No, there’s nothing wrong with the proposals in Prop 1 before the politicians got to them. Paul Druce and Jim, you’re just wrong about this.
It’s not the hardest possible route (Coast Route HSR!), kit’s not the most expensive (Second Transbay Tube!) and the speeds are perfectly attainable.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 8:32 pm
The plans from the mid-2000s are the ones that locked in the state of sprawl then, leading to underestimating the number of grade separations that are required now.
Elizabeth Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 7:56 am
This is simply not true. PB has blamed changes on growth in the 2000s but the cost escalation does not come from this. They made completely unjustified assumptions about sharing ROW with freight and that any grade separation in the Central Valley would be cost something like $1 million. There should be an investigation about how the numbers were so low balled.
The one place where there has been some growth has been along the Antelope Valley freeway. In this case, the original plans didn’t even assume you would follow it – they were going to go along the Soledad Canyon which turned out to be non-starter from environmental perspective.
I got this email from CC-HSR, asking people to call in to Senators and vote no on High Speed Rail.
Time for us as advocates to counter these Bozos and call in for a YES vote on HSR!!
From the Community Coalition on High Speed Rail:
Fifteen Minutes To Make A Difference
Are you willing to spend fifteen minutes to make a difference on high-speed rail? We hope so!
Members of the State Senate will probably vote this week on the Governor’s proposed high-speed rail project. Senators are under terrific pressure to vote “yes,” despite the project’s many and obvious flaws. The vote will be close, and a few Senators are really thinking about casting a “no” vote. They are “tallying” calls made to their offices, to gauge how strongly members of the public feel about this project.
If you are willing to help, please make TWELVE SHORT CALLS (or fewer, though we really hope you will make all twelve calls). You can leave the messages shown below (or your own message) with whoever answers the phone in the Senator’s office. Here is a list of key legislators who are trying to make up their minds, and a brief suggested statement:
1. State Senator Christine Kehoe (San Diego) – 916-651-4039
Hi, this is ________________. I am calling Senator Kehoe because she is on the Senate Appropriations Committee. While I do not live in Senator Kehoe’s district, her votes on the Appropriations Committee will directly affect me. I want her to know that I hope she will vote “no” on the proposed high-speed rail project. Voting for this project will cause a huge new impact on the State’s General Fund, ultimately over one-half billion dollars per year. This project is not well thought through, and other things (like education and public safety) are much more important. Thanks for letting Senator Kehoe know how strongly I feel about this. I really hope she will vote “no” on high-speed rail.
2. State Senator Noreen Evans (Santa Rosa) – 916-651-4002
Hi, this is ________________. I am calling Senator Evans because she is on the Senate Agriculture Committee. I am urging the Senator to vote “no” on the proposed high-speed rail project, because that project would have a really terrible impact on agriculture in the Central Valley. While I do not live in Senator Evans’ district, her vote on high-speed rail will have a statewide impact. Not only will it hurt agriculture, voting for this project will also cause a huge new impact on the State’s General Fund, ultimately over one-half billion dollars per year. This project has been well designed, and other things (like education and public safety) are much more important. Thanks for letting Senator Evans know how strongly I feel about this. I really hope she will vote “no” on high-speed rail.
3. State Senator Michael Rubio (Bakersfield) – 916-651-4016
Hi, this is ________________. I am calling Senator Rubio because he is on the Senate Agriculture Committee. I am urging the Senator to vote “no” on the proposed high-speed rail project, because that project would have a really terrible impact on agriculture in the Central Valley. While I do not live in the Central Valley, I rely on the Valley for my food, and I don’t think that the high-speed rail project has been properly designed, to minimize impacts on agriculture. Besides, not only will the proposed project hurt agriculture, voting for this project will also cause a huge new impact on the State’s General Fund, ultimately over one-half billion dollars per year. Other things (like education and public safety) are much more important. Thanks for letting Senator Rubio know how strongly I feel about this. I really hope he will vote “no” on high-speed rail.
4. State Senator Curren Price (Los Angeles) – 916-651-4026
Hi, this is _______________________. I am calling Senator Price because he is on the Senate Budget Committee. While I do not live in Senator Price’s district, his votes on the Budget Committee will directly affect me, and I want to urge him to vote “no” on the proposed high-speed rail project. Voting for this project will cause a huge new impact on the State’s General Fund, ultimately over one-half billion dollars per year. This project is not well thought through, and other things (like education and public safety) are much more important. Thanks for letting Senator Price know how strongly I feel about this. I really hope he will vote “no” on high-speed rail.
5. State Senator Jean Fuller (Bakersfield) – 916-651-4018
Hi, this is _______________________. I am calling Senator Fuller because she is on the Senate Budget Subcommittee that oversees high-speed rail. While I do not live in Senator Fuller’s district, her votes on that subcommittee will directly affect me, and I want her to know that I am urging her to vote “no” on the proposed high-speed rail project. Voting for this project will cause a huge new impact on the State’s General Fund, ultimately over one-half billion dollars per year. This project is not well thought through, and other things (like education and public safety) are much more important. Thanks for letting Senator Fuller know how strongly I feel about this. I really hope she will vote “no” on high-speed rail.
6. State Senator Bob Huff (Walnut – Los Angeles County) – 916-651-4029
Hi, this is _______________________. I am calling Senator Huff because he is on the Senate Education Committee. I am urging the Senator to vote “no” on the proposed high-speed rail project, because that project would have a really terrible impact on education. While I do not live in Senator Huff’s district, his vote on high-speed rail will have a statewide impact, and a vote for high-speed rail will cause a huge new impact on the State’s General Fund, ultimately over one-half billion dollars per year, which hurts not only education, but also public safety and other higher priority areas. Thanks for letting Senator Huff know how strongly I feel about this. I really hope he will vote “no” on high-speed rail.
7. State Senator Bob Huff (Walnut – Los Angeles County) – 916-651-4029
Hi, this is _______________________. I am calling Senator Huff because he is on the Senate Education Committee. I am urging the Senator to vote “no” on the proposed high-speed rail project, because that project would have a really terrible impact on education. While I do not live in Senator Huff’s district, his vote on high-speed rail will have a statewide impact, and a vote for high-speed rail will cause a huge new impact on the State’s General Fund, ultimately over one-half billion dollars per year, which hurts not only education, but also public safety and other higher priority areas. Thanks for letting Senator Huff know how strongly I feel about this. I really hope he will vote “no” on high-speed rail.
8. State Senator Lou Correa (Santa Ana – Orange County) – 916-651-4034
Hi, this is _______________________. I am calling Senator Correa because he is on the Senate Appropriations Committee, and has oversight of the state’s bonded indebtedness. I am urging the Senator to vote “no” on the proposed high-speed rail project. A vote for high-speed rail will increase our debt and cause a huge new impact on the State’s General Fund, ultimately over one-half billion dollars per year, which hurts not only education, but also public safety and other higher priority areas. Thanks for letting Senator Correa know how strongly I feel about this. I really hope he will vote “no” on high-speed rail.
9. State Senator Loni Hancock (Berkeley) – 916-651-4009
Hi, this is _______________________. I am calling Senator Hancock because she is on the Senate Education Committee. I am urging the Senator to vote “no” on the proposed high-speed rail project, because that project would have a really terrible impact on education. While I do not live in Senator Hancock’s district, her vote on high-speed rail will have a statewide impact, and a vote for high-speed rail will cause a huge new impact on the State’s General Fund, ultimately over one-half billion dollars per year, which hurts not only education, but also public safety and other higher priority areas. Thanks for letting Senator Hancock know how strongly I feel about this. I really hope she will vote “no” on high-speed rail.
10. State Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod (San Bernardino County) – 916-651-4032
[Pronounced: MAC CLOUD, or Negrete-MAC CLOUD]
Hi, this is _______________________. I am calling Senator McLeod because she is on the Senate Budget Committee. While I do not live in Senator McLeod’s district, her votes on the Budget Committee will directly affect me, and I want her to know that I hope she will vote “no” on the proposed high-speed rail project. Voting for this project will cause a huge new impact on the State’s General Fund, ultimately over one-half billion dollars per year. This project is not well thought through, and other things (like education and public safety) are much more important. Thanks for letting Senator McLeod know how strongly I feel about this. I really hope she will vote “no” on high-speed rail.
11. State Senator Leland Yee (San Francisco) – 916-651-4008
Hi, this is _______________________. I am calling Senator Yee because he is on the Senate Human Services Committee, and I want to urge his “no” vote on the proposed high-speed rail project. Voting for this project will cause a huge new impact on the State’s General Fund, ultimately over one-half billion dollars per year, and this money will essentially be “taken away” from human services, education, and public safety. This project is not well thought through, and I really hope the Senator will vote “no” on high-speed rail.
12. State Senator Fran Pavley (Santa Monica) – 916-651-4023
Hi, this is _______________________. I am calling Senator Pavley because she is on the Senate Environment Committee, and I want to urge her “no” vote on the proposed high-speed rail project. This project has not been well designed, and it is not really good for the environment. It will destroy both natural habitat and farmlands throughout the Central Valley, Besides, voting for this project will cause a huge new impact on the State’s General Fund, ultimately over one-half billion dollars per year, and this money will essentially be “taken away” from human services, education, and public safety. This project is not well thought through, and I really hope the Senator will vote “no” on high-speed rail.
Thanks For Your Help!
VBobier Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 10:25 am
Sounds like a Con job to get Democrats to do their dirty work for them…
Nathanael Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 5:44 pm
The Community Coalition Against High-Speed Rail are really bad people, and they’re lying outright in their scripts.
Joe Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 8:51 pm
They literally live next to the ROW.
Jeff Carter Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 9:14 am
Yes CC-HSR (and Boondoggle) are EVIL people, they will lie, cheat, steal, anything, to get their fear-mongering misinformation across.
HSR will destroy thousands of homes and business on the peninsula!
HSR will cut down thousands upon thousands of trees on the peninsula!
HSR will scare dairy cows into NOT producing any milk!
HSR will destroy thousands of acres of pristine farmland!
HSR will be built on 60-100 foot high, by 100 foot wide freeway-like overpasses!
San Francisco doesn’t care because it will be underground through all of The City!
Electric trains will be much noisier and create much more vibration than heavy diesel trains!
In Burlingame….
HSR will destroy nearly every home and business along California Drive and Carolan Avenue!
HSR will disrupt classes at Burlingame High School (and nearby San Mateo High School)!
They have a never ending supply of filthy lies to scare the uneducated public into their line of thinking. They are not about making HSR a good project, yes HSR does have it flaws, but instead of working to correct HSR’s failings, these unscrupulous people want to kill HSR at all costs!!!
Isn’t there a famous story about Jerry Brown’s dad convincing a naysayer to change his vote to yes at a coffee shop and thus BART was born?
Get on the phone, folks.
Loren Petrich Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 8:55 pm
Indeed there is. That naysayer had lived in Brentwood, in east Contra Costa County.
First time I’ve ever called a legislator’s office to voice a position on an issue. She knew before I said anything that it was about high speed rail – must be motivating a lot of callers.
Call this Plan B2?
St. Sen. Michael Rubio (D) has made a last minute request that the ROW be moved to rural areas south of Bakersfield rather than using a downtown Bakersfield alignment and station. He has also requested an Agricultural Czar for HSR be appointed to protect farming interests.
http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/special-sections/rail/x577921823/Rubio-wants-high-speed-rail-out-of-Bakersfield
Meantime, Fresno has issued a RFP for consulting services to create a downtown station area master plan. The station area plan would look at financing methods, economic development, transit integration, pedestrian access, etc. This master plan would build on Fresno’s nearly completed new downtown plan which revises planning, development and zoning ordinances in the area.
http://www.fresno.gov/NR/rdonlyres/A367226C-D423-4DD0-9AE9-C110737C4DF2/25073/CityOfFresnoRFP9201_HSRStationAreaMasterPlan_20120.pdf
synonymouse Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 12:19 pm
If this move is south and west it enhances the Tejon option, just as has the “new” Antonovich Fault.
The aegis has moved from north to south with the departure of Kopp and Diridon and the emergence of Villa and Antonovich. LA County is calling the shots, of course totally leveraged by the Tejon Ranch Co., whose clout the Cheerleaders conveniently ignore. Note how Van Ark was almost immediately shut down with the obvious call to revisit Tejon stillborn.
Northern California and SF in particular would be wise to go for Plan B. The TBT Tunnel is vastly more valuable than any PB nonsense at PAMPA. Now that Brown has mind-melded with Villa the City would do well to grab the scraps before other scavengers, like BART, get to them.
Methinks it would take someone like a Larry Ellison or Richard Branson to make the Chandlers an offer they can’t refuse. Brown-Richard are not up to the task.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 1:05 pm
You sure it was mind melding and not Nancy Pelosi mind rays that made them both think alike? Anything other than building in the Central Valley means the people of the Northeast and Midwest get to fight over how to spend the 3.3 billion.
Nathanael Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 5:43 pm
We probably don’t even have to fight much over it. The only Midwestern state which is in a position to get more money is Illinois; the only Northeastern ones are Vermont, Connecticut, NY, Pennsylvania. There’s also Amtrak on the NEC, of course. If it doesn’t all get dropped into new Baltimore tunnels, $3.3 billion goes a long way towards all the plans of all of these states.
jim Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 5:51 pm
NC, too. Even if the ROD on the FEIS for Raleigh-Richmond won’t be until next year, construction could start in the Charlotte-Raleigh section.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 7:23 pm
2 billion for constant tension catenary and completing ACSES ahead of schedule. Everybody else can squabble over the leftover 1.3 billion. The FONSI/ROD for Scranton to Port Morris was 550 million. How’s three hours from Scranton to NYC strike you?
BruceMcF Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 4:46 pm
Is this serious, or is this based on knowledge that a study of a Bakersfield bypass option could not be completed in a day or two, to give an excuse for voting no?
jim Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 4:57 pm
I assume this is not serious. If there is to be Bakersfield based ridership, a downtown station is necessary.
Elizabeth Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 5:00 pm
Have you been to downtown Bakersfield? The economic center of the city is on the westside.
jim Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 5:20 pm
That’s not “rural areas south of the city.”
BruceMcF Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 12:51 am
If the ROW runs in rural areas south of the city, it’ll get there by passing to the west of the city, so the station would be to the west of the city.
Nathanael Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 5:39 pm
What Jim said. “rural areas south of the city” is a *terrible* location for a Bakersfield station. And Rubio is speaking out of both sides of his mouth: he wants to protect agricultural areas, while moving the train station into agricultural areas? Which would, if anything, induce people to build commercial and residential buildings on those areas?
datacruncher Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 7:11 pm
Moving the Bakersfield station south of the city would probably have Synomouse pointing at Tejon Ranch as backers (although no one says Rubio is talking Tejon over Tehachapi, the ROW still could turn east).
A south of Bakersfield station site would be closer to the Tejon Ranch Center at the base of the Grapevine. Besides the warehouses and truck stops, Tejon just announced they will build an outlet center similar in size to the Gilroy Outlets.
Additionally, the Tejon Indian Tribe was recently reaffirmed as a recognized tribe by the Feds after previously losing status. The Tejon tribe is rumored to be seeking a reservation on Tejon Ranch lands also near the base of the Grapevine with possibilities of opening a casino in the future (tribe members previously were challenging the Tejon Mountain Ranch development location).
Let the conspiracy theories fly.
synonymouse Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 8:58 pm
HSR at Tejon will not damage anyone’s interests; on the contrary it is in the best interests of California as a whole and will make for a more viable railroad.
We all know hsr can be engineered there in a very tasteful way and with minimal impact on the environment at the relatively modest speeds occasioned by the 3% gradients and two large tunnels.
Be a nice surprise if the tribe came out in favor of the train.
datacruncher Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 11:08 am
A now-recognized tribe might also be a hinderance to a Tejon routing. I’ve seen documents talking about Native American cemetaries in Bear Trap and other Native American archeological sites located in the TMV footprint.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 11:13 am
And remarkably affordable!
Alon Levy Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 8:27 pm
Development and infrastructure for it in rural areas are fine, as long as it’s roads and sprawl rather than TOD.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 6:12 pm
http://www.cahsrblog.com/2012/02/whats-behind-hsrs-recent-political-struggles/#comment-138964
http://www.cahsrblog.com/2012/04/kings-county-needs-to-make-up-its-mind-on-rail/#comment-149200
etc
Clem Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 9:37 pm
I like your new style of hyperlinked past comments. After a while it does seem like we’re repeating the same points over and over.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 9:48 pm
and it does cut don’t on the invective.
Clem Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 10:06 pm
…but unfortunately not the counter-sniping.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 10:57 pm
I wish I knew how to link to an old comment. The only way I know to generate comment URLs is the right sidebar, but that’s only for the most recent few.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 11:46 pm
Alon, it ought to be simple, but it isn’t. (I’m sure there’s a wordpress configuration option which would make this simple, but like other potentially useful things it isn’t turned on hereabouts.)
You’ll note that “top-level” comments have a link at the top-right labelled with, for example, “#6” but threaded comment replies to them are not graced by such a “permalink”. (And really, the notion that any URL should not be “permanent” is wrong wrong wrong wrong.)
I’m a total caveman about working around that lacuna. No automation, no skill. I look at the HTML source of the page with the comment, find the text of the comment, search backwards for from there for the enclosing (ie textually preceding) <div … id=”comment-…”> HTML tag and copy that “comment-…” attribute to form the “#comment-…” anchor URL suffix.
So <div class=”comment-childs chalt” id=”comment-155776″>
→ comment-155776
→ http://www.cahsrblog.com/2012/07/who-you-need-to-call-to-save-california-high-speed-rail/#comment-155776
The process is, of course, insanely error-prone. (Much like attempting any sort of markup in any comment on a bare wordpress installation.) No doubt some clever (ie unspeakable) CSS or greasemonkey action could do better, but I don’t care. It takes me hundreds of times longer to search for past comments than create a links to them. There’s not a lot of gratification involved in any part of the undertaking, including the final sad “Submit Comment” clickery jiggery pokery.
So now you know. You may wish you didn’t, but it is too late for you to refuse this gift.
The horror. The horror.
Neil Shea Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 10:11 pm
Good comment. I’m sure many folks here would agree on the benefits of http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/live-comment-preview/
I wonder how difficult that is to activate and whether our good host would want to try to do that.
BruceMcF Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 1:00 am
The Bakersfield local train option would work fine for a bypass running west then south of Bakersfield. Its not as if Bakersfield has any core destination zone ~ Bakersfield is going to be primarily origin traffic, and its too sprawling as a city to have any single dominant walkable origin point.
If the Bakersfield State Senator was looking for an excuse to vote for the system, then there could be a rider requiring completion of a study of a West & South Bakersfield bypass option before construction can proceed south of Hanford.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 11:15 am
It’s not much less compact than San José, the Capital of Silicon Valley.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 11:57 am
No no no, San Jose has one of the densest Urbanized Areas in the United States, denser than even Metro New York…
BruceMcF Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Which is another example of qwhat seems likely to be a mostly origin recruitment station. As long as the station connects to Caltrain, the BART when it gets there, and is accessible from the expressway, that’s fine.
Called Curren Price’s office. The guy who answered the phone said he didn’t have a position on either proposal at this point. Took 2 minutes. Every call counts.
High-speed rail funding poised for approval
nslander Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 6:03 pm
If this bears true, I’m sending my “Suck It” invitations to the engravers this week.
Neil Shea Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 6:14 pm
Interesting — It seems Richard (and Brown) said they would come back next year to request the funding for the bookends to give the legislators something to negotiate for, a grand bargain, something to tell their constituents they fought for them for.
What all can they put in this? They can shoot the whole wad of $950m of connectivity funds, plus some of the HSR funds going to the endpoints such as Caltrain. And in these totals they can include the ~50% regional funds that were already identified, e.g. the $1.5B total for Caltrain.
So this whole controversy was probably about getting the rest of the connectivity funds and whatever else was laying around. I think much of it is a good trade, as HSR will have huge momentum with 130 miles plus blended endpoints built.
Spanning SFV-Bakersfield is a well defined goal that a lot of folks can get behind (many commenters here excepted), including much of the SoCal political establishment. If it costs $10B and we could get $3B from the Feds and $3B from Prop. 1a, how will we find the rest?
Neil Shea Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 6:20 pm
BTW, I exchanged emails with my senator Simitian’s transportation staffer who said ‘I really have no idea how the senator will vote and I don’t think he does either.’ Perhaps. But some of their communication may have been closer to ‘Watch how stuff like this is played’.
Neil Shea Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 6:21 pm
Final thought — if this package gets put together it will be a big shot in the arm for Brown. And I don’t think it will hurt approval of new revenues in Nov.
fake irishman Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 7:17 pm
Neil,
On your first point, I think it would be good of Robert to do a post on possible sources of funding. There are a few sources I can think of in addition to the voter-approved bond money and federal high-speed rail grants (that second one is dicey, but possible depending on who is in charge of the House of Representatives.)
1. Cap-And-Trade fees. (I’m not sure on the projected revenues from this and can’t find quick estimates from the CARB, but the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the NE brings in several hundred million $ a year — and that just caps power generation, not industrial uses)
2. TIGER (small program — 500 million total a year) This won’t do much, but it could maybe supply a few key $20 million grants on some small discrete projects, or help leverage FRA loans — see below) Of course, this depends on riders that forbid grants to CHSR getting wiped out.
3. FRA capital loan program. It has $35 billion in capital to loan out, which railroads then repay at (very very low) federal interest rates. Generally freight Railroads have used this, though Amtrak is using it to finance the purchase of hundreds of new rail cars on two occasions. The program has tended to be quite under-subscribed — less than $2 billion has been loaned out over the past decade. The Desert X-press people have applied for a loan from this program.
Other sources of funding? I’d be interested to hear what people have to say. In my rank amateurism, I of course yield to the great Alon Levy (among others) who have a much better idea of how these things could work policy wise.
VBobier Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 7:25 pm
#3 sounds good, that could be used with prop1a bonds to build the Bako to Palmdale to LA segment at the same time as the CV and the Bookend enhancements. Having both going at once would speed up deployment of HSR and put a more people to work sooner.
BruceMcF Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 12:16 am
For #3, first you need to identify the income with which the loan will be paid back. Its a source of finance, but not a source of funding.
fake irishman Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 3:40 am
OK. That makes sense. So the FRA program could be used as leverage to speed up construction when a financial source is dribbling in over 10 years or so. How are the Desert X-Press people proposing that they will pay back theirs? If they cite revenues from ridership AND they get approved, (two big ifs granted,) then it would seem CHSRA would have that much stronger of case, wouldn’t it?
BruceMcF Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 9:03 am
Desert Xpress has not taken up the challenge of getting an Express HSR corridor down into the LA Basin, for good reason: that’s going to require a capital subsidy.
Depending on the business plan, if there is a revenue sharing component, it certainly could be used for revenue bonds, which could well be used for the Bay to Basin. If it were decided that Cap and Trade funds could be used, the rail improvement loans could also be used to frontload the cap and trade funding.
VBobier Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 9:25 am
Correction that would be a one time “capital subsidy”, just for clarification of course.
BruceMcF Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Yes, capital subsidies are one-offs, by the meaning of “capital”.
VBobier Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 12:32 pm
@ BruceMcF: Some of course don’t know that I’ll bet.
BruceMcF Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 12:22 am
Note that several of the objections raised by the LAO for using the Cap & Trade funds on the HSR system either do not apply or are not as strong if the Cap & Trade funds are directed to immediate improvement in local transit. And while the relevant trailer bill forbade using Cap & Trade funds on HSR over the next two years, I did not see any provision forbidding the use of Cap & Trade funds for local transit.
fake irishman Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 12:29 pm
Right. There’s plenty of room to do things like electrify Metrolink and Caltrain and add capacity and speed to those services through curve straightening, grade separation, additional trackage, positive train control….. and it would merely be a highly fortunate coincidence that HSR would benefit from all those.
VBobier Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 12:33 pm
That’s if our Governor didn’t Blue Pencil out that provision that forbids HSR from using Cap & Trade funds…
fake irishman Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 1:41 pm
The line-item veto is a nice thing when a half-decent chap is in the Governor’s office, isn’t it?
YESONHSR Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 2:01 am
If this not approved ..We have lost due to shear Ignorance and the total collapse of vision for the future..anyone under 30 should riot on these people heads
Revote the High-Speed Rail: An Initiative to Put the Boondoggle Back on the Ballot
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 10:30 pm
Only four comments with that one, but three are supportive–maybe a good sign?
VBobier Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 9:56 am
Now there are more for HSR, like 5 for, 2 against and 1 not excited about a revote that’s so far away…
SJ Mercury editorial: Stop California high-speed rail in its tracks
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 10:31 pm
And again, no words on the cost of continuing with what we have. . .
Clem Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 9:37 am
Give them Altamont, that’ll serve ‘em right.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 10:06 am
Since trains of any sort are an unmitgated disaster for the Peninsula, run it over Altamont and up the Bay to Oakland…. Let ‘em sit in traffic.
BruceMcF Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Running away from the NIMBY’s just to get away from them doesn’t work when there will be as many NIMBY’s on the other alignment.
… though if there was a project underfoot to get standard gauge passenger trains between Oakland and San Francisco, Altamont / Oakland / SF would be one fine alignment …
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 3:57 pm
Not running away from the NIMBY’s but giving them what they want. Let ‘em all wend their way to San Jose to get on a train to LA. Think of what it would do for the BART ridership numbers.
Central Valley Business Times: Farm Bureau wants high-speed rail plan scrapped
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 10:32 pm
Double standard again, combined with fears of trains making cows go dry. . .
How did my country turn into such a mess?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 10:34 pm
…and nobody will be able to breathe at 220 MPH.
VBobier Reply:
July 3rd, 2012 at 11:06 pm
Better not tell anyone who flies on Jets then, they fly at about 550mph.
VBobier Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 9:58 am
I’d be amazed if cows even cared, they’d just chew their cud, over and over as their want to do, completely boring of course, but that’s a cow…
FYI, here is the response I sent today to the friendly transportation staffer at Sen. Simitian’s office, asking him of course to pass it along to the senator.
———–
1. California’s growth is not coming to a halt. The state Department of Finance projects us to continue growing by many millions in the years to come, with some of the fastest growth in the Central Valley. How do we expect these folks to move around our state? The risk of a quote ‘stranded investment’ is probably far less than the cost escalations and risks of sitting on our hands.
2. Petroleum costs are not likely to stay put either. And our nation spends $Trillions endeavoring to secure petroleum supply lines. What is the black-scholes option value to having an alternative underway if and when the price of oil should double in the next 20 years?
3. We are still in the midst of a Great Recession with obscenely high unemployment rates, espeically in the Central Valley of our state. In the Great Depression we built major infrastructure projects that continue to pay us big dividends 75 years later, including the Golden Gate and Bay bridges and Hoover Dam. Should we not take advantage of reduced construction costs to plan for our future needs while putting Californians to work?
4. What is the cost of NOT moving forward with HSR? The cost of the additional airport and road capacity is far from zero. But the value of alternatives in our transportation system is very high, giving us resiliency in the face of future changes.
5. $3.3B from the Federal Government is an awful lot of money to walk away from. The ICS will be used to speed up the popular San Joaquins, and it also preserves maximum flexibility for how to expand California’s rail network both north and south. Do we really think that California will never have HSR or improved rail? Otherwise there is no reason for us not to get this 130 mile stretch built now. Alternatively, without the Federal Match the Prop. 1a funds will not be available to help us in the big urban areas either.
6. The California Air Resources Board identifies HSR as part of the way we will meet the requirements of AB32. [thanks Robert!]
7. The note below says that we had some of the wrong people working at the CHSRA, and they ruffled feathers (including it would seem, yours Senator). But most of the people have been replaced including the Chairman and Executive Director. We can’t let hurt feelings override reason on something this important.
8. Caltrain is critically important to transportation on our Peninsula. Now I know that some of the same NIMBYs who don’t want HSR also do not want to improve and maintain Caltrain, but I don’t think any realistic future plan for transportation the Peninsula would not want to electrify Caltrain and add PTC signalling. I live very close to the corridor and I very much look forward to the day when the diesel fumes and noise give way to faster, quieter, more frequent service. After the Senator proposed the blended plan with Rep. Eshoo, why would we now walk away from these Caltrain improvements?
9. HSR the world over covers its operating costs and sometimes even pays back construction costs. We have two great economic centers of creative professionals — entertainment and technology, north and south. Linking us together will unleash tremendous economic potential for the state that will solidify California’s leadership position for decades to come.
10. Senator, you have been a leader on this issue and many others. If you now play a central role in it going down in flames this will reflect very poorly on your legacy. You will not be able to put Humpty back together. Alternatively if you play a key role in moving it forward then you, your constituents and the state will all reap a big reward.
Big undertakings are always controversial. We greatly appreciate that you are careful with our money, and you ask the hard questions. But on this big decision it is now time to move forward. Thank you for forward-looking leadership.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 5:01 am
Wonderful letter–let’s hope it helps us see good results.
SacBee – “How Senate districts would benefit from CA high-speed rail”
“As lawmakers prepare for a contentious vote later this week over billions of dollars in funding for high speed rail, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg’s office distributed a chart that shows the potential benefit of the project to each member of the upper house”
The distributed chart showing each State Senate District is at:
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/07/how-senate-districts-would-benefit-from-ca-high-speed-rail.html
The honey pot is getting bigger…
http://www.ocregister.com/news/steinberg-362062-rail-vote.html
Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg said Tuesday afternoon that there would definitely be a high-speed rail vote on either Thursday or Friday of this week.
…
Steinberg revealed Tuesday that the high-speed rail package the Legislature will consider has grown from the $2 billion-plus appropriation initially proposed to $4.7 billion, with more than $800 million going to improvements of existing transportation systems that would feed into the rail line and $1.1 billion for projects at the “bookends” of the rail line along with the original $2.6 billion going towards the Central Valley “spine.”
…
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2012/07/high-speed-rail-funding-poised-for-approval.html
Steinberg said lawmakers will vote on $5.8 billion for the Central Valley track — $2.6 billion from state bonds and $3.2 billion in federal funds. Another $815 million would help local transit systems connect to high-speed rail in Southern and Northern California.
There’s also more money to help sweeten the pot for skeptical lawmakers. Steinberg said he expected $1.1 billion would be dished out to other rail projects, such as electrifying the Caltrain system in the Bay Area to allow the use of more efficient train engines.
Off topic, but appropriate for today–recalling the American Freedom Train of 1976:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FePCj1j8qGI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpfTnhnk … re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90XBcg9kpi8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OVCt1bN85k
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 5:32 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcZjf27YHF4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Sf3vtwj … re=related
And a site dedicated to the 1947 and 1976 editions.
http://www.freedomtrain.org/
Just a little bit to celebrate July 4.
Correa holds his hand out
http://www.ocregister.com/news/steinberg-362062-rail-vote.html
“Correa, Orange County’s only Democrat in the state Senate, said Tuesday that he doesn’t know how he is going to vote on the high-speed rail plan because he’s yet to see the actual legislative language. But he promised that he his vote would be based in large part on how many jobs it would create in California and Orange County.”
Clem Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 10:24 am
That’s interesting, so they’re now talking about appropriating a lot more of Prop 1A than I had thought:
- $2.6 billion for the central valley (combined with $3.3 billion of federal funding)
- $0.8 billion of connectivity funds, sprinkled all around
- $1.1 billion of “bookends” funding, presumably including the full $0.6 billion recently agreed in the MOU for Caltrain improvements
TOTAL: $4.5 billion Prop 1A + $3.3 federal = $7.8 billion. That’s a chunk of change.
It’s not Plan A or Plan B, it’s Plan A and Plan B.
Clem Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 10:27 am
BTW there is no way that Simitian will vote down $600M in bond funding for the Caltrain corridor (plus the $106M in connectivity funds already earmarked for Caltrain). His playing hard-to-get will probably swing this deal… he will really have brought home the bacon.
Tony d. Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 10:38 am
Interesting Clem. I hope you’re right.
VBobier Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Me too, I do hope Simitian will vote Yes for the Bonds.
synonymouse Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 10:55 am
If you have the TBT funding in there and the San Joaquin Valley trackage is west and south and connects Bako and Fresno only you could still do I-5 and Tejon.
Perhaps the Tejon crowd and Santa Clarita will come to terms that hsr is in their best interests, with a relatively tiny footprint and that huge developmental pressures from LA swamp any other worries and/or problems. HSR at Tejon will not induce sprawl because a stop is not operationally feasible on the hill. Tejon carries the water for the hsr’s environmental argument – it is competitive with more damaging modes – auto and air. Tehachapi is too slow and operationally expensive, under-utilized.
This could work but Brown-Richard are more hindrance than help.
Neil Shea Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 11:22 am
It seems so. He’s schoolin’ us all in how Legislatin’ is done. What are Lowenthal and Desaulnier getting? Maybe they were bit players in Simitian’s play
peninsula Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 10:50 am
Just out of curiosity, for those on this blog that rushed out at Roberts bidding to phone in their last minute support… What is it that they have approved to support – exactly? The legislative language hasn’t even been published yet – but they’ve been phoning in furiously to voice a ‘yes on hsr’ – whatever that now means? Then again, I guess its really not the minions’ place to question, they just do as told.
My second question is for anyone who might understand budget rules – Didn’t they just approve the budget and all the trailer bills – with deadlines passed for budget passage? And none of this spending is in the budget or trailers already passed? So how is it that they now approve all this spending not in budget. Is this budget related legislation or is it something else?
How is its that they think that this congrues with Jerry Browns upcoming tax initiative message (ie: we’re broke)
How does the legislature receive bill language, and vote on a bill, on the same day, without public review, public comment?
Are they seriously thinking any of this, even one cent of this shenanigan doesn’t end up tied up in court? Or maybe they are just saying look – we’ll approve the absolute lavish max – so that we look good and obedient to our political bosses, and then it will all get shot down anyway in courts, so we are off the hook.
VBobier Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 11:21 am
Let’s see:
1. People for HSR are not minions, We’re just not short sighted delusional idiots who only see the here & now.
2. All except the one or ones for HSR from what I’ve read.
3. The State of CA is not broke, that implies that there is No tax money or fees coming in and that’s a Myth and/or a LIE.
4. I don’t think public comment is required, this is a legislative and elected body, not a blog.
5. No comment.
Clem Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 11:26 am
The question is equally valid for opponents. What exactly are you opposing in your furious rush to call legislators, before legislative language has even been published?
J. Wong Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 11:42 am
We’re supporting disbursement of the Prop 1A bond funds for the ICS, and no this is not part of California’s budget since the money is coming from the sale of bonds not revenue. And I know you’re hoping and praying that a judge will enjoin the project but none of the suits have put forward any very good reasons for doing so.
VBobier Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 12:29 pm
Cap & Trade funds to pay for interest on the HSR Bonds that get sold, neat, so no impact on the taxpayer, sold or not, I like that.
Jeff Carter Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 2:06 pm
Well Peninsula, turnabout is fair play… I guess it’s okay for CC-HSR to direct its’ minions to do their bidding by feverishly calling in their last minute opposition???
Sounds like a huge double standard to me…
peninsula Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 2:24 pm
Lets see –
1) oppose HSR.
2) support HSR and any/all sort of other funding (HSR related or not) blindly. without any details.
I’m not sure I understand why #1 requires that we see the wording of the legislation. On the other hand support of the legislation – before you know what’s in it. I see that as pretty much blind faith/blind support without any regard to what that might actual mean (or not mean).
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 3:54 pm
.. so no matter what is in the bill you oppose it?
Clem Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 8:18 pm
Let me finish that for you: 1) Oppose HSR and any/all sort of other funding (HSR related or not) blindly. Without any details.
You can’t accuse others of being indiscriminate when that also describes you…
If this thing dies tomorrow, that may well be the end of California HSR. But what about the future of rail transportation in California? Folks are still going to need an alternative to driving. Can Caltrain, Metrolink and ACE (to name a few) still be upgraded/modernized? If no statewide HSR, fine…but we’ll still have transit/commuter lines that need to be brought into the 21st Century.
Tony d. Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 10:31 am
Oh yah…HAPPY 4th of July!
Neil Shea Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 11:05 am
Well if cars are good enough for Republicans and Tea Party Democrats, then we’ll just drive to work like god meant us to do.
VBobier Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Then We’d be born with 4 wheels attached and be CARS like in the 2 movies of the same name…
synonymouse Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 11:16 am
This thing is not dead on its own. The CHSRA has gone out of its way to alienate.
And they refuse to even execute the basics: exhaustively study the alternatives and do a genuine objective cost-benefit. They should know the public hates cover-ups and fixes. Spin is the mother of conspiracy theories and the CHSRA is pure Chinatown, Jake.
VBobier Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 12:44 pm
Considering how short of staff and money the Legislature allocated to the CHSRA, it’s a wonder it wasn’t worse. I think it’s getting better, the CHSRA is still short staffed, as to a cover up I don’t think there is one, it’s not like the CHSRA is holding any secrets, they just don’t do PR all that well as their not experts on that and the CHSRA could use some help there from a real PR firm.
Jack Reply:
July 4th, 2012 at 3:42 pm
They tried to hire a decent firm; and then Morris; CAARD et. al. had a heart attack because Arnie had lunch with some guys college roommate that happened to work for the firm. So they blew money on their 2nd choice; who submitted a half hearted proposal, since everyone knew the first firm was the best choice to get the project done.
This was what led CARRD to further challenge board members based on “conflict-of-interest” issues. Wow what a ride that all was…
Maybe Clem and others saw this, but it seems we’re starting to hear similar reports from different sources: http://www.mercurynews.com/california-high-speed-rail/ci_21007332/california-bullet-train-likely-pass-friday-but-not
Gov. Jerry Brown’s final bullet train funding proposal released Wednesday includes the last $705 million needed to electrify the existing train line between San Francisco and San Jose. The Caltrain money was supposed to be debated next year as a separate plan.
…
Along with $500 million for upgrades in Los Angeles, Brown’s final $8 billion proposal is designed to appease everyone in the state at a time when tensions over the bullet train are higher than ever. The centerpiece of the deal is nearly $6 billion to lay the first high-speed rail track in the Central Valley early next year, the first step needed to build the entire $69 billion railroad that would connect San Francisco and Los Angeles by 2030.
…
“Without this, electrification will be a long way off,” said Caltrain board chair Adrienne Tissier. “I don’t know how much longer Caltrain can last” without electrifying.
…
“This isn’t free money,” said state Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, who is still against the plan despite his support for the Caltrain project because “I can’t vote to spend $6 billion” in the Central Valley.
…
As a compromise, some lawmakers led by DeSaulnier have in the past week proposed a “Plan B” to split the money into the three regions, with San Francisco, Fresno and Los Angeles getting about $1 billion each for local transit projects that would lay the groundwork for high-speed rail. In the Bay Area, for instance, they would build a short tunnel between the end of the Caltrain line in San Francisco and the new Transbay Terminal downtown, to be used by both Caltrain and state bullet trains.
But Brown, the federal government, Senate leadership, business groups and labor unions are pushing hard to lay the big, connected stretch of track in the Central Valley, saying it is the best road map toward constructing the entire railroad because it would be harder to abandon.
“It’s going to be very hard to come back in 10 years and build that Central Valley segment at the same cost,” said Michael Cunningham, vice president of the pro-business Bay Area Council, one of the groups fighting Plan B. By building now, “you have that in the bank.”
Brown’s $8 billion plan also includes several new oversight provisions that would allow lawmakers to pull the plug on funding during construction if they are not satisfied. Rounding out the proposal are $714 million for local transit projects designed to connect to a future high-speed rail line and $253 million set aside for planning and property acquisition needed to clear space for the train line.
About $4.7 billion will be paid by voter-approved bond funds, along with the $3.3 billion from the federal government. It is still unclear where the remaining funding for the entire $69 billion project will come from.
————–
It seems that Simitian’s and DeSaulnier’s approaches are diverging here. Simitian seems to have just been playing hard to get, to get the Caltrain appropriate now (before he retires) and some additional funds for the bookends. Let’s make a deal (which he foreshadowed a few weeks ago).
But DeSaulnier seems to be taking some kind of principled stand against constructing HSR in the CV. I don’t get it really. It’s not clear that there is anything needed for his Concord-area district. His non-workable idea (without the required match) is to spend $1B on the tunnel to the TBT/TTC?
Finally, not sure what SoCal is getting exactly or where Lowenthal is in all of this.