Council members have said they were unaware of just how many people opposed BART in the downtown when they voted in April 2010 for the off-freeway alignment. That was in part due to consultant-led public forums — attended by a small but passionate mix of Livermore residents — that showed a majority of participants supported a route with stations downtown and at Vasco Road. The BART board unanimously approved the downtown/Vasco route in July 2010.

It is now clear a large portion of Livermore’s population wants BART to be kept far from downtown, as evidenced by the more than 8,000 signatures collected for the “Keep BART on 580″ initiative, city leaders say.

As is sadly typical, “city leaders” are assuming that this “small but passionate” group speaks for the whole city. They don’t, but the City Council caved to them anyway.

Livermore will regret this move for a long, long time. An I-580 alignment ensures Livermore will never be a destination, only an origin. Downtown Livermore is a very pleasant, walkable place with a lot going for it; I’ve always enjoyed my visits there. And a BART station would provide a dramatic boost to those local businesses, as well as the property values of nearby residences. Without a BART station, however, residents in other Bay Area locations are much less likely to make the schlep out to Livermore, given the inconveniences of driving such as traffic and an inability to stay connected to digital devices.

This situation is further evidence that Northern California is turning away from mass transit, whereas Southern California is embracing its passenger rail future. True, there are NIMBYs in LA too, as the debates over the route for the Expo Line and the Westside Subway show. But the NIMBYs haven’t prevailed there the way they have in NorCal.

And that has implications for the proposed Altamont rail corridor. Earlier this year the Pleasanton City Council reacted negatively to the proposed Altamont improvements, with one councilmember saying it will happen “basically over my dead body.” To my knowledge the Livermore City Council has not weighed in on the project yet. But their flip to an anti-rail position in the BART debate doesn’t bode well for the Altamont corridor. Sure, Livermore already is served by ACE trains on a railroad that dates back to the 1860s. But so too is Pleasanton, and that didn’t stop their Council from attacking the corridor upgrades. And as we all know, Palo Alto is in the exact same position and also flipped to an anti-rail stance.

The Altamont rail corridor deserves the promised upgrades. It too will benefit Tri-Valley cities, and turn places like Livermore into a destination (although in this case only for residents of Santa Clara County and not the rest of the region). But residents and local electeds who were spun up into taking an anti-rail stance on BART are not going to suddenly flip and remain quiet about improvements on the line that already does go through downtown.

Whether one supports the existing Altamont corridor plan or would prefer that Altamont become the primary route for SF-LA HSR trains instead of Pacheco, NIMBYism is a serious obstacle to getting those plans into action. This is a rather ironic development for Peninsula NIMBYs, who would love for HSR to follow an Altamont alignment (and potentially avoiding most of Menlo Park, Atherton and Palo Alto). Their anti-HSR advocacy has created narratives and tactics that have been employed to ensure that the Altamont alignment can’t be used save them.

It would be funny if it wasn’t another sign of how the San Francisco Bay Area is turning against passenger rail and mass transit. There are still some places where there’s hope – Sonoma and Marin counties, where the SMART trains are proceeding despite regulatory delays, and of course Santa Clara County, where BART extension plans remain extremely popular.

But in San Mateo County and large parts of Alameda County, mass transit is under attack. While Southern California moves forward with its ambitious plans to expand a modern mass transit system, Northern California is at risk of stagnating. In an era of rising gas prices, that doesn’t do anyone any good – including the NIMBYs who have placed their own aesthetic values above the economic future of their communities.

Looking at those stats, it’s really difficult to imagine why anyone would prefer the status quo, why anyone would argue against strong measures to produce economic recovery. Unfortunately, too many people became convinced that the last 30 years of boom and bust – where recessions appear to have come and gone like a fierce winter storm – are the norm. After three years of Depression, it ought to be clear that recovery isn’t just magically going to happen. We have to make significant changes to the way we do things in this state and this country. The status quo is unacceptable.

But because a lot of people refuse to face the new reality, we get things like this piece of HSR denial in the Manteca Bulletin from managing editor Dennis Wyatt. Wyatt’s argument is that HSR is something California can’t afford, and that if we just sit around not spending any money, somehow we’ll have economic recovery. Nowhere at all does Wyatt explain that HSR would provide a massive economic stimulus to California, particularly to the Central Valley and including San Joaquin County. Wyatt doesn’t realize it or doesn’t care, which is bizarre considering the aforementioned 16.7% unemployment rate in his home county.

As is typical for pieces of HSR denial, Wyatt never once considers the cost of not building HSR – including dependence on oil. And he doesn’t list out the financial benefits. That leads him to make a false assumption that merely improving commuter rail would help California and that nobody will ride bullet trains from LA to SF, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Is high speed rail in its present form worth mortgaging California’s future?

Wyatt opens with this, without realizing California long ago mortgaged its future to suburban sprawl and automobile dependence. Manteca has been hit harder than almost any other place in the state by that bad deal. When gas prices hit $3/gallon in 2006, it made the long commute to the Bay Area too expensive for people who had flocked to Manteca, Tracy, Stockton, and other nearby cities. The result was a decline in home sales, a decline in home values, and a huge foreclosure and jobs crisis from which the region has still not escaped.

High speed rail is one way Manteca and California as a whole can essentially refinance that mortgage on better terms. Oil dependence was a key cause of the Depression. HSR not only provides immediate economic stimulus in the form of construction jobs, but it can help bring jobs and businesses to places like Manteca. By being within an hour’s commute of San Francisco, it can offer space for tech companies and startups looking for affordable rents while enabling workers to live in the desirable coastal cities. And for those workers who might want a more affordable single-family home, HSR would help Manteca do that.

Wyatt grasps this – to a point. His argument is that the state should invest in upgrading ACE but not in the SF-LA system:

If high speed goes forward, does it make sense to put in a Los Angeles to San Francisco component first? Does it pencil out as effectively or have as high of economic returns as doing high speed rail along heavy commute corridors such as the Inland Empire to the Los Angeles Basin or the Northern San Joaquin Valley to San Jose and even Sacramento?

This is a symptom of early Depression-era thinking, of people who haven’t completely reoriented their mindset to the new reality. Wyatt basically accepts that we can’t spend any new money and that we just have to suck it up and deal with it. That’s not how you get out of a Depression. You have to do things radically differently. And that includes doing a lot of things at once. ACE needs to be upgraded, absolutely. And HSR between LA and SF needs to be built too. It’s both, not either/or.

Wyatt’s argument boils down to the absurd and evidence-free argument that nobody will ride bullet trains in California:

The Los Angeles to San Francisco route can’t count on such a high concentration of potential day-to-day users that could keep ridership up and fare costs down to give high speed rail a fighting chance of at least covering operating expenses.

Vacation traffic is subject to economic ebbs. High speed rail projections for LA to San Francisco have relied on substantially cutting into passenger counts on the heavily used air corridor between the two cities. While there is substantial travel, there are extremely few who make it a five-day-a-week habit.

Nobody’s talking about daily commuters between LA and SF. What people ARE talking about is shifting over a lot of the people who make various kinds of trips between LA and SF during the day. When I worked at the Courage Campaign I flew from NorCal to SoCal about once a month for business. Lots of people fly regularly for all kinds of reasons. Every plane I was on was packed. Because HSR is competitive door-to-door from downtown SF to downtown LA, and because it offers a better travel experience than a plane, there’s every reason to believe people will ride it.

After all, that’s what the evidence from the Madrid-Barcelona corridor – once the world’s busiest air route – indicates. The Acela has a majority of the air/rail market share [thanks Alon] on the Northeast Corridor.

Ultimately, Wyatt’s argument falls on its face because if he were right, nobody would fly between LA and SF.

He continues anyway:

The real question is whether Los Angeles to San Francisco really is the best use of limited funds to boost the state’s economy.

And is it as effective as an Altamont Commuter Express or Inland Empire high speed rail system would be at reducing air pollution by getting a significant number of vehicles off the freeways?

HSR between SF and LA probably wouldn’t get as many cars off the road as those two other routes. So? We build all three. If you like this new Depression, then yeah, define your choices narrowly. If you don’t, define your choices broadly. And of course, getting cars off the road is NOT the same as an HSR system penciling out or boosting the state’s economy.

On the economic benefits, I am guessing Wyatt never read the US Conference of Mayors report showing the Green Dividend from California HSR. The study found it would generate $10 billion a year in new business sales and wages. In a Depression, you just cannot turn down that kind of stimulus.

The infamous bullet trains in Japan aren’t filled with executives moving from one part of the country to another. They are mostly rank-and-file workers.

Huh? Infamous? The Shinkansens are regarded as a marvel of both engineering and ridership. The trains are hugely popular in Japan and for nearly 50 years have been a model for the rest of the globe. And if they’re moving mostly rank and file workers, then it shows the HSR system can do the same in California.

The aftermath of the crash increased scrutiny on high speed rail. Despite all of its promises, it isn’t generating the fares needed to make it work on its own. The fares are out of the reach of the very people it supposedly is targeting. Toss in the factor they may not be able to secure additional bonds due to the economy and you understand why China may have to bail out the system.

This is ignorant stuff. The fares are high because the Chinese government wants the bonds repaid quickly. That’s a political choice, since the government floated the bonds to the railway builders. Beijing could simply redefine the terms of the loans to bring down fares if they wished. This is not an argument against HSR but an argument against using too much private sector financing to build it.

California can’t afford to bail out a high speed rail project once it is in place. There are too many other critical needs for dollars ranging from education, freeways, safety net services, water storage/flood control, prisons, and more.

Again, this is pre-Depression era thinking. We need to fund all those needs. And if the state and federal government currently don’t have the money, we can go get it from the rich, who aren’t doing anything useful with the huge amounts of wealth they are sitting on. If you define your choices as narrow, then your future will be narrow as well.

Even if it is a given that the cost of building it will be an investment that won’t be paid back, a high speed rail system must stand on its own in terms of operation and maintenance.

The best way to prove it can be done is to move forward with a less ambitious project on a heavily traveled commuter corridor.

This is nonsense, since a commuter corridor and the SF-LA corridor are by nature very different travel markets. You don’t judge the success of SF-LA flights by the success of Stockton-SF flights.

Wyatt’s column is just a collection of anti-HSR talking points. It’s a shame that Manteca residents don’t have a newspaper editor who has their interests in mind, who isn’t willing to do whatever it takes to address the economic crisis that San Joaquin County has been mired in for years now.

We know HSR will be a success, as the evidence clearly proves this. And we know that ACE is worth investing in too, and we also know we don’t have to choose between the two. Depression era thinking requires us to be bold, to determine what we need in order to get out of the crisis, and to figure out how we get there. We need people who can tell us how to do something, not spout off reasons why it can’t or shouldn’t be done.

THE EVOLUTION OF INTIAL OPERATING SEGMENT PART I: THE ROLE OF AMTRAK CALIFORNIA
By Tom McNamara

In this four part series, we will discuss perhaps the most sensitive decision that the California High Speed Rail Authority will make: selection and implementation of its Initial Operating Segment. The choice is beholden not only to state and federal laws, but also private participants looking to invest within the system. In the first installment, we will discuss one strategy the Authority could use. Then, we will look at three major players who could give the project a huge boost.

California High Speed Rail Authority CEO Roelof van Ark confirmed at the agency’s July 2011 Board Meeting that the upcoming business plan for the project will include discussion of an “initial operating segment”. The presentation stressed that this is not the same as the “initial construction segment” which already has been selected by the Board.

Perhaps more tellingly, each proposal by the Authority included within the “initial operating segment” track that does not have funding currently. One approach would connect San Jose to Bakersfield, the other Merced to Los Angeles or Palmdale. Both have pros and cons, but both require additional funding at a time when none may be available until after the 2012 election cycle.

Although that sounds innocuous, it’s not. The fact remains that without a completed right of way between “the Bay and the Basin”, private investors may very well decide to stay away. State and federal officials would be faced with a difficult choice of delaying completion of the initial construction segment to avoid liabilities associated with an unused, and unprotected track or going forward and hoping that other funding materializes.

There is, however, another way.

Currently the California Department of Transportation’s (CALTRANS) Division of Rail pays for three intercity passenger train routes. One, the San Joaquins, has six daily departures from Bakersfield north. Four terminate in Oakland, two in Sacramento. It is the sixth most travelled line in Amtrak’s entire system, although ridership data for individual stations has not been published.

Thus, it is very possible that two of the daily trains that would terminate in Oakland could be re-routed to… San Jose. In the meantime, the Governor and Department could then switch the San Joaquins to use the new, high speed rail line upon its completion. As of now, every San Joaquin train travels between Bakersfield and Stockton and much of using the same ROW that will become high speed track. This proposal would continue that practice, and send the two San Jose bound trains south from Stockton using the Altamont Pass.

The service would be faster than the current San Joaquin service for several reasons: with FRA approval, existing Amtrak California trains can reach 110 mph on the portion of track used exclusively for high speed rail. There will be also fewer stops involved. The distance will be shorter, too. In addition, because Amtrak California is already funded from the Public Transportation Account and would not be adding service, the start up costs associated would be very small.

It is obvious that such a strategy would face plenty of resistance, both among the project’s supporters and opponents. Yet it is important to note the magnitude of problems this approach would solve.

First, the State would be creating a separate rail service that goes between San Jose and Bakersfield. Currently no such service exists. That fuels in no small part the uncertainty that planners, investors, and officials have to face when making estimates for HSR. Establishing regular passenger rail service between San Jose and Bakersfield wouldn’t be a complete remedy, but would demonstrate a baseline of ridership which could then be used in future calculations.

Next, San Jose to Bakersfield would help increase connectivity between the Central Valley and Bay Area airports. Current passengers on the San Joaquins can only transfer to BART in Richmond. From there, it takes over one hour to reach SFO, after transferring at MacArthur Station. Oakland Airport is a little better, at 35 minutes. San Jose isn’t even an option. Under the proposal, (which assumes a San Joaquin stop in Livermore and a complete BART station) Oakland Airport would become a 25 minute connection, SFO would range from between 45 minutes to an hour via Cal Train, and San Jose Airport would be about 35 minutes. This would increase revenue potentially for Amtrak California and the cities that operate the airports.

Another benefit to this approach is it delays the need for the initial construction segment to include electrification. This is because California Streets and Highways Code 2704.08 stipulates that the Authority must submit before using bond proceeds:

A report or reports, prepared by one or more financial services firms, financial consulting firms, or other consultants, independent of any parties, other than the authority, involved in funding or constructing the high-speed train system, indicating that (A) construction of the corridor or usable segment thereof can be completed as proposed in the plan submitted pursuant to paragraph (1), (B) IF SO COMPLETED, the corridor or usable segment thereof would be suitable and ready for high-speed train operation, (C) upon completion, one or more passenger service providers can begin using the tracks or stations for passenger train service, (D) the planned passenger train service to be provided by the authority, or pursuant to its authority, will not require operating subsidy, and (E) an assessment of risk and the risk mitigation strategies proposed to be employed.

Thus, Amtrak California can use the high speed rail segments until they are completed by electrification. The law though, does not prohibit explicitly passenger rail service on the track before its “completion”. That allows the Authority to delay electrification until the last possible moment while charging Amtrak California a small fee to use the “incomplete” tracks.

Lastly, sending fewer San Joaquin trains to Oakland actually helps relieve traffic congestion within the Central Valley. This is because it frees up more rail capacity bound for the Port at Oakland, and allows Union Pacific to carry more goods via railroad and less by the highway. It also helps the UP’s bottom line and increases the chance that they will more strongly advocate for high speed rail going forward.

Yet what this approach can’t promise is revenue commensurate enough to fund the Authority’s capital needs to complete the remaining segments needed to complete the “Bay to Basin” route. To accomplish that, the Authority will have to look at other partnerships. Next up, we will explore three such possibilities.

One of the many flaws to this logic is the fact that the Altamont route wouldn’t be any less contentious – there are NIMBYs there too, and they probably do not want to be the Peninsula’s dumping ground. As if there was any doubt about that, the Pleasanton City Council threw a NIMBY temper tantrum this past week over the proposed Altamont Rail Corridor Project, which would improve the tracks from Stockton to San Jose to enable higher speeds:

Possibilities include having the rail line go through downtown Pleasanton through tunnels or on elevated tracks.

Councilman Jerry Thorne said he strongly opposed the idea.

“It’s basically over my dead body,” Thorne said….

“I can’t be more strong in my objection to having it go through downtown Pleasanton,” Vice-Mayor Cheryl Cook-Kallio said. “It seems that there’s a misunderstanding of what’s there.”

Councilman Matt Sullivan wanted to know who would have the authority to approve a plan to have a railway go through Pleasanton without the city’s approval.

City attorney Jonathan Lowell responded that the city would contest such an action and would go to court to stop it.

“I can’t fathom under any circumstances putting this alignment through downtown Pleasanton,” Cook-Kallio said. “I just, in the strongest terms, want to indicate to you all that universally, we will be extremely difficult and lengthy in terms of dealing with us, and would use every option at our disposal to ensure that it goes somewhere else.”

Let’s be clear: these claims are absurd; these councilmembers are ridiculous. Pleasanton is a city that has bet heavily on automobile-dependent sprawl, and it’s a bet they’re about to lose. With gas prices parked above $4 per gallon for the foreseeable future, cities like Pleasanton need passenger rail if they’re going to thrive. Pleasanton doesn’t have much going for it – it’s too far from population and job centers and the cost of traveling to and from Pleasanton is going to keep rising. The Dublin/Pleasanton BART station is on the edge of town in the middle of a freeway – if the Livermore BART extension gets built to downtown Livermore as is planned, Pleasanton will lose land value, jobs, and tax income to their neighbor to the east.

The Altamont corridor project won’t destroy Pleasanton. Instead it will be a key piece of 21st century prosperity for Pleasanton, ensuring its residents and businesses have an advantage over others in the region by having a fast connection to the rest of the Bay Area and Northern California. Pleasanton has had a rail corridor for nearly 150 years; much of the city grew up around the train station.

Unfortunately, Pleasanton’s current leaders appear to be suffering from the same delusion as electeds on the Peninsula – believing that the late 20th century model of automobile dependence is the Greatest Thing Ever for a community; that any deviance from that is Certain Doom; that no town can be a pleasant place to live if there’s a fast, reliable train serving it. This is total nonsense, as residents and electeds from who lived in Pleasanton before World War II would surely explain. They seem to have had a quite enjoyable life before sprawl, when the train was their primary connection to the rest of the region.

So in an era of high gas prices, where a train station and a fast connection to job centers is one of the most important things for a city to prosper, the Pleasanton City Council’s NIMBY attitude is indefensible. As with all NIMBYism, it is an elitist attitude that embraces wealth and privilege and denies it to anyone else who doesn’t have it.

It’s also a sign that an Altamont alignment for the SF-LA high speed rail trip won’t be any easier than Pacheco. Sadly, there are vocal NIMBYs across California, people who refuse to accept that the 20th century is over, who refuse to let anyone else have a chance at prosperity. They are vastly outnumbered, thankfully, and they won’t be able to stop high speed rail. Whether the NIMBYs are on councils in Pleasanton or Palo Alto, they need to be pushed aside so we can move ahead building for the future. It’s not any easier on the Altamont alignment. We might as well proceed on the Peninsula – and in the Tri-Valley – for the sake of the 37 million Californians whose prosperity depends on us getting this right.

Yesterday, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood was on a panel with Duncan Black (aka Atrios) and the founder of the Greater Greater Washington blog, to talk about transportation issues. In response to a question about high speed rail, he indicated that he has been in meetings with the Class I freight railroads – including Union Pacific – about hashing out the issues with high speed rail. He said these meetings, which have already produced an agreement between the Illinois Department of Transportation and UP, have included discussion about California. He wouldn’t go into detail about the meetings, but they are happening, with the intent of resolving disputes and addressing concerns so that HSR can move forward.

LaHood also indicated that the holdup on the Transportation Bill reauthorization is indeed the issue of how to fund it. This morning I had a chance to talk to Congressman John Garamendi, who represents CA-10 (including much of Contra Costa and Solano Counties), who shed more light on this. Garamendi indicated that there is little appetite in Congress to increase the gas tax – he said the surest way to clear a hallway on Capitol Hill was to whisper the words “increase the gas tax.”

So how then do you fund the Transportation Bill? Garamendi said that the House is investigating an interesting proposal to levy a fee on each barrel of oil, which he said would “fully fund” the Transportation Bill’s $500 billion price tag. Congress would then eliminate – in its entirety – the federal gas tax.

The thinking is this: it’s time to start reclaiming the subsidies given to oil companies by taxing them more directly. Of course, there would probably be some passthrough of that cost to the consumer, so you offset that by eliminating the gas tax. The difference is that with the fee, you ensure that some of that revenue comes from Saudi Arabia and the pockets of Big Oil, whereas under the gas tax it doesn’t at all.

This proposal exists in conceptual form, and the House is currently studying it more closely to nail down all the details. But Garamendi thinks this is likely to be one of the options on the table for funding the Transportation Bill.

In terms of timeline, he mentioned that the Republicans were trying to get Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to insist that they would not take up major legislation in the “lame duck” session between the November 2 election and the January 3 swearing in of the 112th Congress. Pelosi and Reid refused to agree, so the Transportation Bill is still on the table for the end of 2010. Whether or not it actually happens is still unclear, but they are working toward it.

We talked about a range of other issues related to HSR in California, but that was generally off the record. (Sorry to be a tease.) He did indicate that he supports the idea of sending some of the HSR stimulus to the Caltrain electrification project, but that the project needs to be coordinated with the HSR project. He also wants to make sure the Altamont corridor element of the Prop 1A/HSR project gets the attention it deserves (not just because it’s in his district). He was very pleased with BART’s decision to select the alignment that it did for the Livermore extension, going downtown and then out to the Livermore Lab, as it would be a boon to Livermore but also provide for intermodal stations with ACE and the other train services that might use the Altamont corridor.

Tomorrow I’ll have a chance to talk with Senator Harry Reid, and maybe Speaker Pelosi (that’s up in the air right now though). If you all have any HSR-related questions you want me to ask Senator Reid, let me know in the comments. One question I am definitely planning to ask is about the DesertXpress project, and whether its funding is actually going to come together, and what he plans to do (if anything) to help get that project built.

The Pacheco Pass alignment, rather than one through the Altamont Pass further to the north, was the fastest and “most environmentally responsible option” for the high-speed train system, minimizing impacts on wetlands as well as the San Francisco Bay and eliminating the need for another San Francisco Bay crossing, bridge or tunnel,” the authority says.

Other arguments included Pacheco being more direct and allowing for faster service, as well as enabling more service to San José, the state’s third-largest city and one of its most important economic hubs, and more and faster service on the popular San Francisco – San José corridor.

The debate over Altamont and Pacheco went on for a LONG time but it was ended in July 2008. I remained neutral – each option had its pros and cons which evened out in the end. Once the choice was made, however, it seemed sensible to accept it and move on for the sake of the project. Voters approved the choice in November, and for nearly two years the entire project has been built on the assumption that Pacheco would be the route.

However, certain groups never accepted this. One of them is David Schonbrunn’s TRANSDEF, who claimed to support HSR but opposed Prop 1A, partly because of the choice of Pacheco over Altamont. Another is Richard Tolmach, who has also become a critic of HSR and has long been pushing for a revival of Altamont. And Gary Patton’s Planning and Conservation League have similarly been fighting high speed rail, apparently in pursuit of Gary Patton’s agenda of opposition to passenger rail that has led to environmental damage and lost money across Northern California.

At the same time, Peninsula HSR critics and opponents, primarily motivated by NIMBYism, began to call for a revival of the Altamont alignment. Their logic was that it would enable a bypass of Palo Alto and part of Menlo Park (though not the neighborhood along the Dumbarton rail route). That would leave much of the Caltrain corridor unimproved, and San José in limbo, but those were acceptable outcomes for these opponents.

Unsurprisingly, the Peninsula HSR critics and Schonbrunn/Tolmach have now realized they have common interests. Tomorrow morning at Burlingame High School, Schonbrunn, Tolmach and PCL will be joined by Palo Alto Mayor Pat Burt and Burlingame Mayor Cathy Baylock (and potentially others) to announce they have partnered with a French design team to propose a new Altamont alignment. Their press release is below:

Altamont Revival Press Release

Detail can be found on the TRANSDEF site. A look at Exhibit C shows the route they plan to use from SFO to Tracy.

The route is notable for several reasons:

1. Proposes routing the trains onto Highway 101, despite the fact that this would likely significantly depress ridership by bypassing the dense urban centers of the Peninsula (and yes, the Peninsula rail corridor is dense), could drive up costs significantly by requiring reconfiguration of interchanges or very tall HSR viaduct structures

2. Proposes then routing the trains over the Dumbarton rail corridor, despite known concerns about environmental impact

3. Proposes then routing the trains through Fremont, perhaps through a costly cut-and-cover tunnel under the power lines, or perhaps with aerial structures in Fremont neighborhoods (which apparently is OK to Peninsula proponents of this plan, since it seems Fremont doesn’t count as much as Palo Alto)

4. Proposes then routing the trains through open land southeast of Pleasanton and Livermore without a station there, despite claims going back years by TRANSDEF and others about the Altamont corridor supposedly having so many more riders

5. Is vague about how to connect the route to San José, despite the city being the third-largest city in the state and one of North America’s most important hubs of economic activity, as if San José was just an afterthought.

Their proposed Altamont route appears to be a recipe for sprawl at the expense of ridership. This is very ironic, given the fact that one of TRANSDEF’s chief criticisms of Pacheco is that it fuels sprawl. The route would run to the south of Pleasanton and Livermore through what are currently vineyards and open land, instead of following the existing Altamont rail corridor. That would avoid running it through those two cities, but it means any possible Pleasanton/Livermore station would be a “greenfield” station – which is much more likely to fuel sprawl. That’s significant in the Tri-Valley area, especially Livermore, which has been battling for years to limit sprawl and preserve open space.

The plan relies heavily on the French model of HSR, which sometimes bypasses city centers (though not Paris) in favor of greenfield stations, although that model has produced questionable results. They seem to ignore the Spanish and Japanese model of running through city centers, choosing to cherry-pick for unclear reasons.

When the proposal is unveiled tomorrow, it’s going to be cast as an answer to all the project’s problems. But it comes with many unknowns and huge downsides. Depressed ridership, potentially higher cost, inefficient service to San José, inability to help upgrade the Peninsula rail corridor, and unknown but likely significant environmental and community impacts – it all seems like quite a lot just to appease a few Altamont diehards and a few Peninsula NIMBYs.

Which is all this really is. Instead of sitting down and figuring out a sensible solution to implement the plan voters approved, including a San Francisco to San José segment eligible for $2 billion in federal funding over the next two years, these critics and city leaders want to waste more time and toss away that money in favor of a study that is inherently designed to suit their own desires. Rather than working with us to ensure we have the federal funding to get the system built properly, or to help advocate for the best design on the Caltrain corridor, this group still thinks they can make one last go of it, massively changing the project at the last minute for their own reasons.

Ironically enough, late design changes are usually the number one of cause of cost-overruns on megaprojects.

Yet another risk to the project the State Auditor strangely left unmentioned.

The plaintiffs hope their motion, to be filed in Sacramento Superior Court within the next two weeks, will lead to a full trial that would include evidence discovery and witness testimony. Ultimately, they hope the suit will reverse the rail authority’s December 2007 decision to run its bullet train through the Peninsula instead of the East Bay….

The plaintiffs’ attorney, Oakland-based Stuart Flashman, said a “writ of error coram nobis,” while uncommon, can be used to reopen a case even after a judgment has been made, as long as previously unknown evidence comes to light after the case closes.

The plaintiffs claim a group of concerned Peninsula residents last week obtained documents from 2007 that show the Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission may have hid parts of an independent study that showed less favorable ridership models. The residents, called Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design, circulated the data to city officials, who Flashman said were “furious” at the discovery.

That’s CARRD’s spin, though Rosenberg takes pains to try and present it neutrally – and correctly notes it is MTC and not the California High Speed Rail Authority that is at issue here. However, it’s unclear that anything was “hidden” – MTC and CHSRA divulged the data upon request, and these coefficients aren’t always included in the published reports. Further, the ridership models weren’t “less favorable” overall – the numbers merely flipped between the Altamont and Pacheco alignments. There is as of yet no evidence to suggest this was inaccurate or illegitimate, although HSR critics have been busy claiming that it was.

Rosenberg’s article continues:

Flashman, who has already begun drafting the motion, said the new data makes the ridership study the authority used to justify its route “fatally flawed, but none of us knew it.”

Flashman is just plain wrong here and is using the “magic bullet” to concoct a theory that the entire study is “fatally flawed.” Again, there is no such evidence this is the case. If the coefficient change was in error, then you simply recalculate the ridership and the fares accordingly. One error, whether deliberate or not, does not at all indicate that any of the rest of the study is flawed. It certainly creates a PR and political problem, but that’s not the same as an evidentiary problem.

Even if the specific element of the ridership numbers in question was flawed, it might not really matter for the EIR and therefore render the effort to reopen the lawsuit invalid:

But the claim, even if true, may not be enough. The ridership numbers may not have any impact on the rail line’s environmental impact, which is the only basis on which the judge could reopen the case.

In addition, this legal maneuver may not be something that the cities and TRANSDEF can actually pull off, as Rosenberg quoted Kopp, himself a retired Superior Court judge, saying the “writ of error coram nobis” was something he’d only seen used in criminal cases.

Rosenberg’s article is also noteworthy for his accurate portrayal of the outcome of the Menlo Park/Atherton lawsuit:

The plaintiffs last summer lost the majority of their suit, which they filed in Sacramento Superior Court in August 2008. They cited environmental laws in challenging the authority board’s certification of an early planning document that picked the Pacheco Pass as the Bay Area route instead of the Altamont Pass.

But Judge Michael Kenny did rule that two areas of the authority’s report needed more study: Vibration and track use from San Jose to Gilroy. The authority is redoing that work while it chugs along with more advanced planning.

Flashman went as far as to suggest a possible criminal fraud investigation against those at the MTC responsible for concealing ridership data, if in fact they did. But such an investigation would come from the attorney general’s office, which is also representing the rail authority in the lawsuit.

It’s not inconceivable that the Attorney General’s office would launch such an investigation, but it is also unlikely, since there is nothing to yet indicate any wrongdoing was done. Indeed, while the coefficient change does indeed “raise eyebrows,” as Brian Stanke put it, the change itself hasn’t been shown to have been an errant calculation.

Still, it’s clear that the cities of Menlo Park and Atherton aren’t done fighting the HSR project as it currently exists. Ironically enough, even if Altamont somehow rises from the dead and is again chosen as the primary HSR route, it will still cut through parts of Menlo Park. As it turns out, it’s the poorer neighborhoods that would have the trains in their backyards. Which raises questions of environmental justice, as wealthier residents seem happy to dump the problem in someone else’s lap. While I don’t think the trains would cause environmental harm to those neighborhoods, it would be a pretty obvious example of class-based NIMBYism.

Further, the Altamont alignment raises many of the same questions and controversies as the Pacheco alignment. Palo Alto might be relieved to not have the project in their community, but Fremont, Pleasanton and Livermore might not be so pleased to themselves become a dumping ground. There will be NIMBYs there who fight aspects of the project as well. And of course, without HSR funds, Caltrain’s electrification project will face a significant setback.

The Altamont alignment also creates environmental permitting issues through the Don Edwards wildlife refuge in and near the San Francisco Bay. It also potentially complicates the operations of the HSR system, with San Jose being served by a spur instead of being a prominent station on the mainline.

In any case, I am sure these questions will continue to be debated in the comments, and it’s a worthy discussion to have, even if there aren’t yet any conclusions that can be reached, especially since there’s a lot we still don’t know about the ridership questions CARRD has raised. Menlo Park and Atherton are awfully quick to use those questions as a basis for trying to reopen a lawsuit they already mostly lost. It’s a shame that instead of working to improve the project, they continue to prefer to try and undermine it with lawsuits that cost their governments and the state government more money at a time when neither can really afford it.

Note to readers: Apologies for the delayed approval of pending comments the last few days. Been in all-day meetings here in LA. Things will be back to normal starting tomorrow.

In 2009 the opposition shifted. Recognizing that trying to argue against the concept of HSR in California was a non-starter, opponents instead tried to undermine the project by arguing that the route choices were flawed, or that communities would be destroyed by the project. After a burst of NIMBY energy in early 2009, this began to fade as it became clear that state and federal lawmakers were not going to let a group of prosperous Peninsula residents block a project that had widespread public support and was a necessary part of the state’s economic recovery. Indeed, by early 2010 NIMBYism had faded significantly as a threat to the overall project, though it continued to play a big role in debates over routing and implementation.

By 2010 the folks who didn’t want HSR to happen had focused on trying to destroy the project and the CHSRA’s credibility by combing through every document available to find ANY flaw they could – a search for a magic bullet, like decades of JFK assassination conspiracy theorists. It didn’t matter whether the flaw actually meant the whole HSR project was fatally flawed. All that mattered was that some discrepancy be found. Because if that were possible, then they could use that discrepancy to argue that the project is flawed without ever having to show precisely how the flaw means the project isn’t viable.

Let’s be very clear about that. The goal wasn’t to explain why HSR won’t generate operating surpluses, or suggest that California doesn’t need the trains. The goal of HSR critics was to instead find a flaw and assume that finding a flaw automatically meant HSR has to stop, that everything the Authority says is false, that all numbers don’t pan out, etc, etc.

It is a fundamentally dishonest approach to public oversight of a project. But that is precisely what has happened here.

First it was the business plan. We were told that the plan was “illegal” because it suggested a public guarantee for investors. It wasn’t clear whether that actually was illegal, and in any case it didn’t get much media traction. We were then told that the fact that the overall cost estimate changed was proof that it was a boondoggle and CHSRA can’t be trusted. Of course, the shift was due to federal rules regarding year-of-expenditure costing. We were then told that a model that proposed setting fares at 83% of airfare instead of 50% was somehow a sellout and a bait-and-switch and meant the project was dishonest and we should revote.

But none of those criticisms stuck. Sure, some parts of the business plan still need work, but that’s natural in an evolving project like this. And the HSR critics seem to have instinctively understood this line of attack was going nowhere, because they quickly shifted toward a focus on ridership.

This was partly due to signals sent by HSR opponent Senator Alan Lowenthal, who has repeatedly tried to destroy the project. He even lied to the public when, on KQED a week ago, he claimed that everyone who spoke at the Palo Alto hearing raised “concerns” about the project – Lowenthal did not once mention the outpouring of public support for the project he had heard.

HSR critics picked up on Lowenthal’s extremely dishonest and irresponsible claim that “the ridership numbers don’t pass the smell test” as a green light to zero in on the ridership estimates to try and find their single flaw that would somehow bring down the project they disliked, since every other line of attack over the last two years had failed them. Lowenthal’s original “smell test” claim was totally baseless, since he had NO explanation for why they didn’t seem right. No evidence, no logical argument. All he said was it didn’t feel right to him. That’s not a serious statement, certainly not one that should be made by a state legislator with oversight powers over an important project.

The initial efforts of HSR critics to attack the ridership numbers here in 2010 was the laughable attempt by the PCC to suggest that HSR and Amtrak were legitimate comparisons – that any idea that HSR would draw more riders at its stations than Amtrak at its NEC stations was somehow ridiculous. In fact, that is precisely what will happen and is a totally justifiable claim.

So they quickly abandoned that, but did not abandon the search for their magic bullet. This week, they claimed they found it. Here’s what we know:

1. Cambridge Systematics wrote in a letter dated January 29, 2010 that the MTC chose not to include the final coefficients in the final project report. This was stated neutrally, as the letter clearly indicates. Cambridge Systematics did not claim MTC or CHSRA was being dishonest, fraudulent, or anything else. All they said was, in effect, “we weren’t the ones who chose not to include that information. Go ask MTC.” Yet HSR critics claim this was “deliberately withheld,” for reasons unstated yet apparently sinister. How do we know the reasons were sinister? Well, actually, we don’t. We’re supposed to just believe people who have a vested interest in making HSR look bad.

2. The coefficients in question were modified, as is claimed to be regular and legitimate practice. It is important to keep in mind that it remains unknown why the coefficients were changed. One report indicates it was done to assess the impact of travel time on ridership, but that does not exactly explain why the coefficients changed by the amounts they did. In the absence of that info, it would be wrong to assume that means CHSRA did something bad. Yet that is precisely the assumption being made by HSR critics. We’re supposed to jump to conclusions because critics ask us to do so.

3. Nobody has explained what the impact of the coefficient change actually was. Did it totally change the ridership numbers for Altamont and Pacheco, which were still very close even after the change? Was it alone responsible for the choice of Pacheco? Realize that Peninsula HSR critics have a vested interest in undermining the Pacheco alignment, because it might theoretically revive the Altamont alignment, which would direct the trains away from the communities that have been most vocally opposed to HSR (Menlo Park, Atherton, and Palo Alto). [UPDATE: Brian Stanke shows in the comments the shift took Altamont from 69 million to 65 million riders, and Pacheco from 65 million to 70 million riders.]

4. More importantly, nobody – not one single person – has explained how this invalidates ANYTHING regarding the overall ridership numbers, the revenue estimates, or the fiscal plans. We are supposed to just believe that because one controversial change was discovered, that suddenly the whole HSR project is in dire peril.

Nonsense.

What we have here is a question about how one element of one part of one ridership estimate was made. The question can be answered fairly straightfowardly, without a rush to judgement, and I hope that is precisely what we will get. I have communicated to the Authority my belief that complete openness is in their best interest, and I have every reason to believe they feel exactly the same way. After all, the ridership info in question WAS made public when HSR critics asked for it, wasn’t it?!

So why is this “magic bullet theory” getting so much attention? Let me explain some reasons why.

Americans are trained to think nobody rides trains and they all lose money, so anything that reinforces that frame helps kill HSR projects. As we know, this assumption is complete nonsense. Many passenger rail systems of various kinds in the country have significant ridership and meet their goals. HSR in particular consistently posts high ridership numbers across the globe. Further, all HSR systems, including Amtrak’s Acela, generate profits “above the rail” – meaning operating costs are covered, no ongoing subsidy is required. That is not true of California freeways, for example, which require a costly state subsidy to maintain operations, since gas taxes are insufficient to pay for necessary upkeep, certainly not for adding capacity (eve Orange County has used sales taxes to subsidize capital construction on new freeway lanes). But because HSR is a train, well, it’s easy to assume that it’s going to fail anyway, so anything that reinforces that preexisting assumption of failure is useful.

The media in particular are trained to believe that any discrepancy on the part of government is a sign of scandal. Plenty of reporters and media outlets make a living exposing government problems in breathless tones. Sometimes these are significant. But they usually don’t suggest the public service in question should be abolished or ended. When the University of California has a scandal over executive pay, nobody proposes the solution is to close down UC. When the East Span of the Bay Bridge cost estimates came in way above estimates, we didn’t decide to not replace the span. When hospitals commit billing errors, we don’t shut down the hospital. Instead in those cases we solve the underlying problems, ensure anyone who screwed up or intentionally erred is held accountable, and we move on to ensure we don’t lose sight of the big picture. Yet we’re supposed to now throw out all HSR plans and the project itself because a controversial coefficient change was found? Really?

Stephen Colbert was right – “truthiness” has replaced the truth. This entire controversy over ridership is a classic example of truthiness – “a “truth” that a person claims to know intuitively “from the gut” without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.” When Alan Lowenthal said the ridership numbers “don’t pass the smell test,” he was engaging in truthiness. When HSR critics say the coefficient change means the entire ridership estimate is flawed and HSR is doomed, they too are engaging in truthiness. They found a magic bullet that they believe validates their preexisting worldview and now we’re all supposed to fall in line behind them and agree HSR sucks and we should just quit. No, I don’t think so.

A severe recession has created a public mood less accepting of any change or new idea at all, mobilizing public fear of spending new money on something that might not work. Across the political world, we see regressive forces beginning to prevail in their quest to stop us from solving deeper problems merely by suggesting the solutions might cost money or that the solutions might be imperfect. In a week where we learn one of California’s largest insurance companies will raise rates by over 30% on individual policy holders this year, we’re supposed to believe that health care reform is a bad idea that should be abandoned. After a decade of accepting that global warming is real and we should do something about it, we’re now supposed to believe that a few stupid emails sent by some British scientists somehow invalidate the entire effort to address the climate crisis, that we should instead do nothing while our planet heats up, our sea levels rise, and our state becomes drier (don’t let recent El Niño rains fool you).

There is a widespread effort in this country to use fear, uncertainty, and doubt – and especially concern about spending money – to keep the 20th century alive at all costs and to destroy any effort to do anything new. What we are seeing with this silly “magic bullet theory” being peddled by HSR critics is not at all different from the people trying to repeal AB 32 or trying to stop federal health care reform from happening. It all involves critics and defenders of the status quo taking false or misleading claims about one piece of the overall reform or need to act and using them to insinuate the whole reform or underlying issue is nonsense and should be ignored – even though their claims have not actually shown what they claim has been shown.

It’s like assuming a kid who flunked a math test is mentally challenged and doesn’t deserve to continue their education. It’s like assuming that because Apollo 1 burned up on the launch pad that we shouldn’t go to the moon.

In short, it’s absurd to use one controversy to attack an entire project. But that is what the HSR critics want to do, because all they feel they have to do is sow doubt, whether or not it’s backed by reasonable analysis, and they’ll win.

I hope for the sake of this state and its future that we will reject that, and demand solid analysis backed by strong evidence from all sides in the HSR discussion. If someone at MTC or the CHSRA did something they shouldn’t have, I will lead the call for them to be held accountable and face the proper consequences. But I’m not going to fall into the trap of assuming that just because a magic bullet theory is claimed, that I’ll abandon the HSR project. I hope others will refuse to fall into that trap as well.

On December 4th, Californians For High Speed Rail (CA4HSR) submitted the comment letter to the California High Speed Rail Authority (Authority) for the Altamont Rail Corridor Project. Our letter focused on three key topics: expanding the scope to cover the Altamont destinations described in Prop 1A, station location criteria, and alignments/station locations to be studied..

CA4HSR Scoping Comments – Altamont Rail Corridor Project

To understand the Altamont Rail Corridor Project, it is important to know the background on how it has came about. From 2004 to 2008, the Bay Area was caught in a big fight over whether the Altamont or Pacheco Pass would be used to connect the Bay Area to the Central Valley. CA4HSR remained neutral in this fight. As a regional compromise, the nine-county Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Authority picked the Pacheco Pass alignment but agreed to support a separate “Altamont Commuter Overlay” project separate from the High Speed Rail project. At the time the overlay project was more imaginary then real, as it had no funding for construction.

Up until early 2009, the Altamont Rail Corridor Project was more paper than real. However, two things changed the status of the project. First, President Obama had $8 billion inserted into the stimulus for high-speed rail and committed to ongoing funding of high speed rail (HSR) through the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). Secondly, the Authority and the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (the Altamont Commuter Express-ACE manager) were able to convince the FRA that the Altamont overlay would be “intercity” rather than “commuter” rail, thus qualifying it for national HSR funds. This means the former “paper project” from 2008 is now eligible to compete for up to $50 billion in HSR funding that may be included in the transportation bill re-authorization next year. Therefore, CA4HSR believes that the Altamont Corridor Rail Project is now a real project that has a fair chance of being constructed.

Californians For High Speed Rail is delighted by this progress and views the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission’s pro-active stance as a model for California transit agencies. ACE commuter service currently runs three one-way round trips a day, between Stockton and San Jose. The service is slow, and its capacity is limited due to its secondary position to Union Pacific. The Commission’s leadership wants to transform the existing ACE service into the leading passenger rail service in Northern California. The Commission envisions eventually running modern, electric multiple unit rail cars on passenger-only tracks from Sacramento and Merced to/from the Bay Area. The Altamont Rail Corridor Project, at full build out, will have the necessary infrastructure to allow California High Speed Rail trains to access the corridor. The current planning process will lay out how to incrementally construct new high-speed rail compatible tracks, as funding comes available, until the ultimate vision is achieved. This is exactly how transit agencies should think and plan ahead long-term. CA4HSR’s objections to the current scope are not that it is too ambitious, but that it is too limited.

Proposition 1A, which is funding the Altamont Rail Corridor Project EIS/EIS, defines the Altamont corridor as a “high speed train corridor” in Article 2 Section (B)(3). Specifically it reads, “Merced to Stockton to Oakland and San Francisco via the Altamont Corridor.” CA4HSR enthusiastically approves of adding San Jose to the scope of the Altamont Rail Corridor Project, but believes San Francisco and Oakland must be studied as well to meet the intent of Proposition 1A. We also reject the concept that future high speed service from Altamont can be provided to San Francisco and Oakland by utilizing BART service for large potions of the routes to the two cities by forcing patrons of the Altamont service to transfer to BART trains in either Livermore or Warm Springs.  Rather, San Francisco should be reached via a new high bridge to replace the old Dumbarton rail bridge and the Peninsula. Oakland should be accessed by either a new Transbay tube from the San Francisco Transbay Terminal or by upgrading the current Capitol Corridor line from Union City/Fremont to downtown Oakland. CA4HSR’s letter includes five new alternatives through southern Alameda County that could accommodate efficient access to San Francisco and Oakland from the Altamont.

At this point Californians For High Speed Rail is not endorsing any one alternative but wants to insure that Northern California ends up with the best interregional rail plan possible. The region and the State have to opportunity to now plan for such interregional rail service. If you wish to join us in the effort contact us at: brian.stanke@ca4hsr.org The planning for Altamont Corridor Rail Project service has just begun and the more that people get involved, the more of an impact we can have.

About Californians For High Speed Rail

Californians For High Speed Rail is a grassroots, statewide coalition of high speed rail supporters advocating for the high speed rail project approved by California voters in November 2008. Founded in 2005 and re-launched in 2009, we exist to educate, inform, and organize Californians about ways they can help make high speed rail a reality in this state. Additionally, Californians For High Speed Rail also encourages sustainable development of the high speed rail system, promoting the building of stations in city centers and surrounding transit-oriented development, as well as developing and improving feeder transit systems.

The project corridor is defined as San José to Stockton, with a possible spur to Modesto:

As you can tell, this is basically an upgrade and electrification of the Altamont Commuter Express – the full newsletter includes drawings of electric ACE trains traveling along a high speed rail corridor with overhead wires. The projection is that Stockton will be anywhere from 55 to 75 minutes from downtown San José once the corridor is completed, with trains operating at 150 mph or greater.

And the explanation given on the newsletter of the project’s scope and goals:

The Altamont Corridor Rail Project will provide a vital link in the regional transit network, connecting our communities like never before. The project will create a dedicated passenger train corridor between Stockton and San Jose, with stops in key cities in between. A spur link to Modesto is also a possibility. The project study area is shown to the right, along with opportunities for strategic intercity rail connectivity. Specific route alignments and station locations will be identified through a community-based planning process. Once developed, alternative scenarios will be evaluated through the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report.

The project could allow operation of trains between the Bay Area and points north including Stockton and Sacramento, as well as points south including Modesto and beyond, within the California High-Speed Train system. The project will provide intermodal connections to Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to serve the Oakland Airport, cities of Oakland and San Francisco, as well as other Bay Area communities. Intermodal connections to BART could be located in the Livermore vicinity, should the Dublin/Pleasanton BART line be extended, as well as in the Fremont/Union City area, meeting either the Fremont line or planned Warm Springs/San Jose extension.

The Altamont Corridor Rail Project could also accommodate a future connection to the Dumbarton rail service in the Fremont/Union City area, as well as connect to the Valley Transportation Authority light rail in Santa Clara County. The project will coordinate with local bus services, providing access to proximate market areas and interfacing with regional bus links where appropriate. Whether for intercity trips, daily commutes, or access to the statewide High-Speed Train system, the Altamont Corridor Rail Project will serve our communities like never before!

My own view is that while faster ACE trains would be nice, this really isn’t as high a priority for the state as upgrading the Capitol Corridor, restoring the Coast Daylight service along the Central Coast, and upgrading and speeding up the Pacific Surfliners, to name but a few projects more deserving. The inclusion of the Altamont Corridor in Prop 1A was a sop to Assemblywoman Cathleen Galgiani and interests in San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties to compensate for the choice of the Pacheco Pass route for the main HSR trains.

I don’t have much of a preference about the implementation on the route, though we will predictably hear from residents in Fremont and Pleasanton concerned about the impact on their neighborhoods. And while it’ll be nice to throw that in the faces of the people suing because the Altamont alignment was rejected for the main HSR trains, I’m not entirely sure what the Altamont high speed corridor project gets us. It doesn’t deserve to be funded ahead of other higher priority corridors. I’m all for improved passenger rail and I wish the CHSRA and its corridor partners well in the development of a sensible plan, but if this never got funded, well, that’s an outcome I could live with.

The scoping meeting schedule is below. All meetings are from 3PM to 8PM.

Livermore – Tuesday, Nov. 10
Robert Livermore Community Center
4444 East Avenue

Stockton – Thursday, Nov. 12
San Joaquin Council of Governments
555 E. Weber Avenue

Fremont – Tuesday, Nov. 17
Fremont Teen Center
39770 Paseo Padre Parkway

San José – Wednesday, Nov. 18
Le Petit Trianon Theatre
72 North Fifth Street