UPDATE: In a move that should surprise none of you, the CHSRA board voted to certify the revised Program EIR connecting the Bay Area to the Central Valley via the Pacheco Pass. The Authority also approved a Supplemental Alternatives Analysis for bypassing Hanford to the east instead of sending tracks through town, and made some adjustments to alternatives through the Tehachapi Pass area.

In a tentative ruling issued today, Sacramento Superior Court judge Michael Kenny has indicated his intent to deny an attempt to re-open the Town of Atherton case. The Authority is complying with the November 2009 final judgment in the case. In May, the Town of Atherton and others petitioned the court to reopen the case. The Court’s tentative ruling today denies the petition. The Court will hear oral argument on August 20, 2010.

“We’re happy that the court has tentatively ruled that the petition fails to meet the standard for reopening a final judgment. The Authority has been committed to transparency in carrying out its environmental analysis and we will continue to work with and gather feedback from residents of the Peninsula and other interested groups,” said Authority CEO Roelof van Ark.

As we may recall, about a year ago Judge Kenny ruled against nearly every claim made by Atherton in their anti-HSR lawsuit, and the three points he did use to temporarily invalidate the EIR were addressed by the CHSRA, which is compliance with that ruling. Atherton and Menlo Park had hoped to reopen the suit based on claims that the ridership numbers for the Pacheco Pass alignment were flawed and therefore the EIR that they had filed suit against two years ago was invalid and therefore the case should be reopened. As indicated by the above report, Judge Kenny isn’t buying that argument.

Nor should he. There’s been no evidence whatsoever that the ridership numbers for the Pacheco alignment are flawed – all that have been leveled are accusations by HSR critics. The flawed Berkeley ITS study took issue with some of the methodological choices of the HSR ridership study, but did not prove any specific numbers were incorrect. Further, as we know, ridership was not the only basis for the Pacheco choice (nor should it have been).

As we know, a recent poll found that a clear majority of residents of the 21st Assembly District, including Menlo Park, support HSR. Menlo Park officials have not yet explained why they are spending taxpayer money to sue a project their constituents support.

Photo from Congressman George Miller
(From L to R: Willie Brown, John Burton, Maria Ayerdi-Kaplan (TJPA), George Miller, Gavin Newsom, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Ray LaHood, Barbara Boxer, Curt Pringle, Nathaniel Ford (Muni) and David Crane (CHSRA board))

The California High Speed Rail Authority collected some of the remarks via their Twitter account, @CaHSRA:

“We’re finally going to have high speed rail here in California” -SF Mayor Gavin Newsom

“The Transbay Transit Center is a bullet train for job creation” -Senator Barbara Boxer

“CA got the most HSR funding because you all have your act together” -USDOT Secretary Ray LaHood

“We need to get into the HSR business in America and there’s one way to do it: make the investment.” -LaHood

“Transbay will boost the dream of HSR in CA and across America.” -Speaker Nancy Pelosi

The CHSRA put out a press release with this quote from Chairman Curt Pringle (who probably can’t wait to have a groundbreaking in his own city of Anaheim for the ARTIC project):

“We are all committed to building a world-class high-speed rail system and this groundbreaking signals another step in the process of making that system a reality. We’re pleased that the Transbay Joint Powers Authority has made the future development of a high-speed rail system a centerpiece of its planning for this multi-model transit center. Projects like these if done right have the potential to truly transform a city and reinvent the way Californians travel – making it faster, cheaper, more convenient and better for the environment,” said Authority Chairman Curt Pringle.

There were times in the last year or two that this day didn’t look like it’d ever come. Sure, there was always going to be a new Transbay Terminal, but the CHSRA and the Transbay Joint Powers Authority were squabbling over the details of where the station should be located. However, Attorney General Jerry Brown, Speaker Pelosi and Senators Boxer and Dianne Feinstein intervened to ensure that the existing TJPA project went ahead as the SF terminus for the HSR project and that the all-important “train box” was funded with $400 million in federal high speed rail stimulus money.

It’s good to see the HSR project breaking ground. We’ve got a long way to go, obviously, but we’ve gotta start somewhere. And here on August 11, 2010, we did.

Needless to say, this should be seen as another blow to the HSR critics and opponents on the Peninsula. As SF Supervisor David Chiu (likely SF’s next mayor, after Gavin Newsom is elected Lt. Governor this November) said at last week’s CHSRA board meeting, anyone who thinks that SF is going to let the Peninsula cut off the HSR project in San José is crazy. With HSR playing a key role in the multibillion-dollar Transbay Terminal project that is now officially under way, it seems even less likely than ever that the Peninsula can avoid HSR. Since clear majorities of Peninsula residents support HSR, despite what some city councils claim, that’s an outcome that will make most Peninsula residents very pleased indeed.

Progress in Relation to Caltrain

First, it appears that our concerns regarding the compatibility of the Caltrain electrification project with high speed rail, reflected in our recent letter to Caltrain staff, seems to be coming to a positive resolution. Caltrain staff and the California High Speed Rail Authority (Authority) are now working together with a new plan to obtain funds (which total more than $4.7 billion from a combination of Federal stimulus/ARRA funds, Federal 2010 HSR appropriations money, and matching funds from Proposition 1A and other sources) for the San Francisco to San Jose Section of the HSR system. That plan includes the following basic elements:

Phase 1A (which would amount to $3.312 billion – $1.656 billion from ARRA funds and a $1.656 billion Proposition 1A match):

• Modification of 4^th and King Station to accommodate HSR service on two platforms.
• Electrification of existing Caltrain tunnels in San Francisco.
• Extension of the existing four-track section in Brisbane to the existing four-track section that runs through Redwood Junction. 
• Completion of the remaining 39 grade separations projects between 4^th and King and Redwood Junction. The plan assumes elevated track except for a one-track tunnel at Millbrae Station. If a trench is ultimately selected in portions of the corridor, a shorter distance of improvements would likely be pursued unless additional funds can be found.
• Positive Train Control system for the entire corridor (either CBOSS or ERTMS). 

Phase 1B (which would amount to $1.43 billion – approximately $700M to $1.0 billion of this would come from a Federal grant base on the FY 2010 appropriations and the rest would come from Proposition 1A and other sources):

• Completion of the remaining 6 grade separation projects between in Adobe Creek in Mountain View and Fair Oaks Avenue in Sunnyvale.
• Expansion of existing two tracks to four tracks between Adobe Creek and Fair Oaks Avenue. Immediately south of Fair Oaks Avenue, the new four track section would tie in with the existing four track section, which runs to the Sunnyvale/Santa Clara border.
• Reconstruction of San Antonio, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale stations to accommodate four tracks.
• Expansion of the Millbrae Caltrain/BART station to include HSR.
• Partial construction of electrification along the entire San Francisco to San Jose section (i.e. two of the four tracks along the corridor will be electrified in this phase, while the other two would be done at a future time).

 Addition work left for an unfunded Phase 2:

• Extension of track to the Transbay Transit Center.
• Construction of the HSR station at Diridon Station in San Jose.
• Completion of necessary track expansions and grade separations in Atherton, Menlo Park, and Palo Alto.
• Also likely required but not explicitly mentioned would be the completion of electrification of the other two tracks and the elevated viaduct between Santa Clara and Diridon Station.

The significance of this new plan is that electrification is now planned to take place after the expansion of the corridor to four tracks and all grade separations are completed except for one section between Redwood Junction and Mountain View (which would complete grades separations and track work as part of a Phase 2 build out of HSR when funds become available). Previously, Caltrain was attempting to obtain approximately one billion dollars for the CBOSS signaling system and two-track electrification system to be built before grade-separations and track work was completed. Elements of the new plan for electrification would still need to be relocated from Redwood Junction to Mountain View, but this is much better than having to rebuild the electrification system along the entire corridor. A caveat of the new plan is what the Authority means by only electrifying two tracks, rather than all the tracks in the new four-track sections. CA4HSR asks, would the two outside tracks be electrified for Caltrain or would it be for the center tracks for HSR (see below for a discussion of the track configuration)? Also, would the overhead contact system (OCS) just be added to, or would brand new OCS structures replace the two-track structures previously installed? CA4HSR will continue to request clarification on these issues.

CA4HSR is also encouraged by the consideration of implementing either CBOSS or ERTMS. However, more clarification is needed to confirm the intent of Caltrain and the Authority regarding the PTC system. For instance, Caltrain has been claiming that CBOSS is what they need to run their trains during construction. However, CA4HSR wonders the following: if the Authority chooses EMRTS as the ultimate PTC system, could that be employed on Caltrain trains during the construction period? This may require more coordination regarding the issue of freight, something not addressed in the new FRA application or the Supplemental Alternative Analysis Report. This new development could save up to a ¼ of a billion dollars, nothing to sneeze at. We strongly encourage Caltrain and the Authority to continue to increase coordination by resolving the issues related to freight that may create inefficiencies in the PTC signaling system and train operations due to differing platform heights.

Other positive news in relation to Caltrain is that, according to Caltrain, the San Bruno grade separation project, which is currently moving forward, will not require any Federal ARRA or Proposition 1A funds as was previously applied for by the Authority. All funds will come from non-high-speed rail funding sources. Further, the design will still accommodate two more tracks for HSR. CA4HSR understands that the design is not ideal due to the curve radius. However, given the project is moving forward, we are taking the position to identify other segments of the HSR system that will help make up for the lost speed in this section.   

Overall, CA4HSR commends all parties in planning the corridor more holistically.

Progress in Relation to Interoperability and Grade Requirements

The Supplemental Alternatives Analysis (AA) Report, released on August 5, contains some significant changes in approach that address key concerns expressed by CA4HSR in our comment letter for the Preliminary AA Report regarding interoperability and grade requirements.

The Supplement AA Report now recommends focusing on a track configuration that is oriented to allow access to both local and express tracks more easily. The Preliminary AA Report contains alternative track arrangements that placed the two Caltrain tracks to east or west side of the two HSR tracks, making overtakes very difficult if not possible. It appears the Supplemental AA Report has eliminated these alternatives, thought it is not absolutely clear. The report also revises text that allows for both HSR and Caltrain trains to perform overtakes, something not planned for in the Preliminary AA Report. This is a significant development that CA4HSR strongly endorses. All in all, it appears that interoperability has been greatly improved.

The Supplemental AA Report indicates that the 1% maximum grade design criteria for HSR tracks has as been relaxed so as to allow for 2% grades in some sections. This should allow for shorter elevated and trench sections. CA4HSR sees this is an improvement. We encourage the Authority to consider expanding application of 2% grades or more where costs and impacts can be reduced.

Discussion of Track Configuration Changes in the Supplemental AA Report

In addition to the new focus on interoperability, the Supplemental AA Report does recommend a specific track configuration for the four-track corridor, with Caltrain utilizing the outside tracks and HSR trains utilizing the inside tracks (Caltrain—HSR—HSR—Caltrain  or  Slow—Fast—Fast—Slow as commonly referred to in the blogosphere). The rationale for this, according to the report, is to significantly reduce ROW requirements. By keeping Caltrain on the outside, the platforms at the Caltrain-only stations can be placed on the outside, allowing for a much narrower ROW between stations. Some rail advocates prefer having HSR tracks on the outside and Caltrain tracks in middle with center platforms at Caltrain stations, which provides some operational advantages, such as allowing Caltrain to cross over to use the opposite platform at their numerous stations. However, this configuration necessitates a wider ROW, which is very challenging when considering impacts on the Peninsula. CA4HSR currently does not have an official position on the configuration regarding the whether HSR tracks should be on the inside or outside. We will continue to study this issue for the time being. For more information on these track configuration issues and the surrounding debate, please refer to the Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog post titled “Peninsula (Northeast) Corridor.”

Changes Still Needed in the Supplemental AA Document

CA4HSR still wants to see a commitment to the following items in the Draft EIR/EIS:

• A strategy to resolve freight issues so consistent platform heights are achieved between Caltrain and HSR.
• Designing HSR/Caltrain stations on the Peninsula to allow for cross-platform transfers (like is done at MacArthur BART station).
• Consideration of an adaptive re-use/redesign of the Millbrae Station to save money over the proposed tunneled station.

Discussion of Vertical Alignment

Currently, CA4HSR has not taken a position on the vertical alignment profiles along the Peninsula. To date, we have been allowing the design process to unfold before jumping into the fray over what makes sense along the Peninsula. Building an improved and effective Peninsula Rail Corridor is an extremely complex undertaking, and we feel it needs a lot of study before a final determination should be made.

For sections of the corridor where at-grade is not feasible, we are open to both remaining options – elevated and uncovered trench – and believe both bring benefits to the communities while also enabling effective HSR service along a shared corridor with Caltrain that enables improvements to that service as well. Obviously, the details matter, and we will continue monitoring this issue and work to participate in facilitating a healthy and constructive dialogue between all stakeholders, as this process will remain contentious. However, with the significant narrowing of the ROW requirements for four tracks, we are encouraged that the impacts of either one of these alternatives will be significantly reduced.

It is too bad the Palo Alto Daily Post has come out strongly against both options, including a trench, which is something many people along the Peninsula have been willing to pursue. We continue to believe that the voice of high speed rail supporters in these communities has not been given full and equal weight by cities along the southern Peninsula, and strongly encourage elected officials to work to include views that represent the full range of opinions in their communities. We urge all stakeholders to view the new designs has progress towards coming to a common solution for all involved.

Update: The Authority Staff memo regarding the FRA application for the SF – SJ Section mentioned the following (page 12):

“Electrification of the alignment, dimensioned for Caltrain and HST whereby 2 tracks only will be electrified in this phase.”

This point has now been clarified by the Authority’s Dominic Spaethling in an e-mail to Elizabeth Alexis of CARRD. Apparently, electrification will cover all tracks between San Francisco to San Jose, including the four-track sections.

This is additional good news. It essentially means  electrification will be totally completed except for the two-track segment that will remain in Atherton, Menlo Park, and Palo Alto.

One thing that these communities aren’t aware of, but should be, is that for the LA-Inland Empire route, the California High Speed Rail Authority hasn’t settled on where the tracks will go. Right now, they are proposing possibilities so the public can react to them.

However, that’s not how the public has been trained to react to government action. Sadly, the public has been trained, especially by the media, to see government as opaque, and producing a completely worked-out plan for the public to simply react to and fight if they don’t like it. The more collaborative process now being employed by the CHSRA in places like the San Gabriel Valley is unfamiliar to many Californians, and appears to be causing some confusion, as a Pasadena Star News article indicates:

Some cities in the path of a proposed high speed rail line through the San Gabriel Valley are lining up against the project’s potential to displace homes and businesses.

Rosemead earlier this year passed a resolution opposing any route that would displace property owners, while Alhambra city officials are scheduled to meet Monday to discuss the project. Officials will consider a resolution opposing a route along surface streets.

Covina City Manager Daryl Parrish said he also has concerns about the proposed routes.

The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, meanwhile, is set to vote next Wednesday on a motion to oppose a surface route for the project.

So if surface streets aren’t going to be used, and if Union Pacific isn’t willing to share its rail corridor, another viable option is to follow the freeways:

Several routes are being considered, including one along the 10 Freeway and another along the 60 Freeway.

Two potential routes on either side of the 10 Freeway could displace local residents, prompting officials and residents to charge the CHSRA hasn’t done enough to explain the proposal to the public.

Arellano said her agency will do more public outreach after a board meeting in September. She said the CHSRA is now doing environmental work and considering various routes; the agency has not yet fully studied any potential impacts on neighborhoods.

A map on the CHSRA’s website does not show the various alternatives the authority is considering. It shows the rail line running along the 60 Freeway, nowhere near the route proposed along the 10.

Arellano said rail authority officials will likely update the website after September, with new proposed routes.

The original project proposal called for the line to run along the 60 Freeway, she said. But after outreach meetings last fall, the agency decided to consider the possibility of a route along the 10, she said.

In other words, the alignment along the 60 generated some concerns, so the Authority decided to look at a alignment along the 10. But the Authority doesn’t yet appear to have that alignment worked out in any great detail. Obviously that can be frustrating to residents, legitimately so, but that’s what happens in a process where the government agency is responsive to the public – proposals change.

Frequent communication is important, and the Authority should certainly do as much of that as possible. At the same time, the public needs to also keep in mind that these routes are still in the formative stages, and that their feedback is desired. If the route proposal and details aren’t coming immediately, it’s not because the Authority is intending to mislead the public, it’s more likely because the Authority is short-staffed and therefore has to take its time to nail down the important details of a new route proposal so that they can fully inform the public once the route is ready to be unveiled.

Neither myself nor Californians For High Speed Rail have any position yet on these new alignments. As of last fall, the alignments being proposed were along the rail corridors, which is what we based our scoping comments upon last November.

My suggestion is that residents and cities in the San Gabriel Valley continue to be engaged in the process of selecting a route – but that they also be patient as the Authority nails down the details of proposed routes so that the public can provide informed feedback. It’s unfortunate that there tends to be an adversarial relationship between citizens and government, and there’s no need for it, especially with the HSR project – as we saw in the Peninsula, the Authority is very receptive to public feedback and input.

Three options will be the focus of further study. All leave the Transbay Terminal in a covered trench to the Fourth and King streets Caltrain station, then travel at ground level to South San Francisco.

– One option relies almost entirely on ground-level and elevated structures – either earthen berms or concrete or steel viaducts – to travel from San Francisco to San Jose.

– Another option uses ground-level and elevated rails until Atherton, then mixes ground level, elevated, trench and tunnel designs on the southern part of the Peninsula with tracks placed in open trenches in stretches through parts of Atherton, Menlo Park, Palo Alto and Mountain View.

– A variation of the second option would place tracks in a long trench stretching from Atherton to Sunnyvale.

(UPDATE: Mike Rosenberg’s Mercury News article has a very good graphic showing the different options.)

The Supplemental AA report noted that the long tunnel would not only be extremely costly to build, but has two other problems that contradict the expressed desires of those in the community that spoke out:

• It would be difficult to build the tunnel while maintaining existing Caltrain operations

• It would be difficult to build the tunnel without an expanded right of way at the transitions into and out of the tunnel, requiring more property takes than the public would likely support.

As the article indicated, a tunnel could still happen in the southern Peninsula area, including Palo Alto – and if the public expresses a desire for a tunnel and is willing to accept Caltrain disruption and more property takes, a longer tunnel could be back on the table.

That would still require it to be funded. Here, the Peninsula Cities Coalition would do well to help their own case and stop attacking the HSR project and instead work collaboratively and constructively to ensure HSR is funded by Congress. When PCC member cities such as Atherton or Menlo Park sue the Authority and play up claims that the ridership numbers are flawed, it does not help the cause of getting more HSR funding from Congress, which the Peninsula cities will need to construct their desired designs.

The fact that aerial structures are still on the table will likely revive discredited claims that it would be a “Berlin Wall” that would “divide” communities, a claim that does not acknowledge the fact that Peninsula cities are already “divided” by the existing tracks, whether they’re at grade or above grade, and that an aerial solution would actually help reunite these communities by making the rail corridor more permeable and safer.

Of course, some of these cities already have built their own aerial structures and haven’t suffered as a result, with San Carlos being a high-profile example. Clem reminds us of another example from San Mateo:

The elevated structure spans across several blocks of San Mateo, like a gash through the heart of downtown. Its 67-foot width casts vast shadows onto downtown shoppers, like a freeway overpass, although women and children seem to pass underneath without being attacked. The concrete structure, strangely free of graffiti, provides a full 16 feet of free clearance underneath it for trucks. Three stories up above, the side walls of the elevated bridges loom a full 25 feet over the street. To add insult to this injury, metallic poles tower another 18 feet above the structure, bringing its overall height to an incredible 43 feet!

If you know San Mateo, you might have guessed this describes the Central Parking Garage, a structure with presence, visual impact, and context-sensitivity resembling the elevated, four-track high-speed rail corridor that residents fear.

There are examples of aerial passenger rail structures that are integrated well into their communities and have spurred growth and activity. We highlighted several in March 2009. Unfortunately, there still remains a bias in the US against aerial structures, equating them with blight.

One of these biased sources is, once again, the folks from KALW News, who for some reason that I cannot quite understand, have been given a platform at the SF Chronicle’s website on their Bay Area Transit blog. This is despite the fact that these reporters appear to not have much familiarity with the HSR project, or with the years of accumulated knowledge built up by the transit blogging community, and despite the fact that other writers for the Chronicle’s Bay Area Transit blog, such as Greg Dewar and Matthew Roth, have far more experience, knowledge and insight on Bay Area transit issues.

Today’s post by Casey Miner is a great example. Miner, who apparently had little understanding or familiarity with the HSR project until very recently, had this reaction to the Peninsula Supplemental AA report:

As anyone who’s lived near an elevated BART station knows, the noise, vibration and general aesthetics of those kinds of tracks aren’t always the greatest. And they can indeed wreck a neighborhood—just look at what happened to West Oakland’s 7th Street.

This is quite ridiculous, to claim that West Oakland’s 7th Street was “wrecked” by BART. As Miner may not know, the true damage was done by the Cypress Street viaduct, which collapsed in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. It also didn’t help that West Oakland suffered 40 straight years of economic dislocation, brought on not by freeways or BART (in fact, BART was welcomed by local residents as a bringer of jobs and access to other employment centers around the region) but by state and federal economic policies that starved the community of jobs and other economic resources. I’ve studied Oakland history, and am very familiar with the work of others that have done the same, and no historian has yet claimed that BART was what “wrecked” West Oakland.

In fact, one can see places where BART aerial structures haven’t “wrecked” a community – Albany is a pretty good example – and places where it may even have helped, with Fruitvale being another example.

But that error is minor compared to Miner’s next statement:

But what seemed more salient to me was a comparison to this country’s last big infrastructure project: the interstate highway system.

The dream of futuristic highways soaring over the land led many cities to build freeways right through the middle of neighborhoods. By the time people started to rethink those ideas the damage had been done. It’s only now that some groups are gaining traction in their efforts to take down sections of freeway and re-unify the areas they divided. The push to tear down part of Interstate 280 is the latest local example.

It’s been a long time since we built BART and the freeways, and it may be that engineers are able to solve some of the problems with aerial tracks. I’ll be looking into those issues in the coming weeks and will let you know what I find.

This is a totally inappropriate comparison for several reasons, all of which indicate Miner’s basic lack of understanding of transportation issues and therefore call into question her fitness to write the Bay Area Transit blog for SFGate.com:

1. The Peninsula HSR project is entirely unlike the Interstate projects because, unlike those projects, the HSR project will not be built on a new alignment. The tracks already act as a barrier. An aerial structure would, in practice, not be all that different, except things would be safer and more permeable to vehicles and pedestrians. This is totally unlike a freeway project, however, because the HSR project isn’t being blasted through a neighborhood on a totally new alignment.

2. Rail corridors behave very differently for communities than freeways. This is especially true for the Peninsula corridor, which was built up around the tracks. Downtowns and urban development patterns emerged around rail stations, which is totally and completely different from most freeways, which ignored existing development patterns and blasted through them, causing disruption. Whether the Peninsula rail corridor is aerial, at-grade, or in a trench/tunnel, it would still act to bring the community together through its stations, whereas a freeway does not bring community development activities toward it by its very nature.

Miner then compounds her already-flawed post by not showing any understanding of the backstory between the CHSRA and Peninsula HSR opponents:

People’s reactions to the plans weren’t only about the engineering. They also revealed a deeper mistrust of the Authority board’s motives. Several objected to the fact that the plans had not appeared on the Authority’s website until some time after the meeting started, when they had been promised to the public earlier. And when the time came to vote on the staff recommendations, Authority board member Rod Diridon sparked yells of disbelief when he declared that “the board doesn’t have an entrenched position.” It seems clear that some trust issues will need to be ironed out if this project is going to move forward effectively. The board seemed to acknowledge this fact, even making a point of asking that all information be posted online in a timely manner. But there’s still a long way to go.

Miner basically assumes that the critics and “yells of disbelief” are authentic displays of community anger, when in fact they are calculated statements by known project opponents designed to discredit the Authority and its work by giving the inaccurate appearance of a lack of community support.

In other words, it’s exactly the same thing as the teabaggers who disrupted town halls across the country a year ago.

I really do not understand why KALW News has such a prominent perch at SFGate.com when their reporting is so consistently flawed on the HSR project, including Nathanael Johnson’s notoriously biased HSR report that failed to interview a single HSR project supporter.

Miner, Johnson and the KALW News folks appear to suffer from what I would call the “Tracy Wood problem” after the notoriously anti-HSR biased reporter for the Voice of OC. Like Wood, the KALW News folks don’t appear to have very much knowledge of transit issues at all, especially HSR. But they are attuned to the idea that government sometimes screws up and sometimes doesn’t listen to the public. So they walk into the HSR issue, see a bunch of HSR critics complaining about this and that, and suddenly believe they’ve found some huge story about a flawed government agency.

In reality, they’ve found no such thing. But like Donny from The Big Lebowski, they’re like someone who walks into the room in the middle of a movie: they have no frame of reference. Lacking an understanding of transit issues or the HSR project and its critics, they misinterpret what they see without even doing the basic due diligence that once was taught as standard practice in journalism school.

The HSR project remains popular around the state, and thank god for reporters like the SF Chronicle’s Michael Cabanatuan who understand the HSR project and the debate around it, and who can provide fact-based, neutral reporting that is useful. The KALW News folks could learn a thing or two from that model.

This meeting is likely to be more eventful than most. Alongside further discussion of the Merced-Fresno and San Francisco-San José alignments, the board is also expected to decide which of the four eligible segments (SF-SJ, Merced-Fresno, Fresno-Bakersfield, LA-Anaheim) it will submit to the FRA for funding. (See update below for more on this.)

There are good arguments for each of the four segments. Californians For High Speed Rail is neutral on which of these should be selected – we’ll be happy with any of them, as it would represent a big step forward in getting the high speed rail project underway. I’m sure there will be discussion of this in the comments, and I look forward to reading those.

UPDATE: The SF-SJ Supplemental Alternatives Analysis is now posted on the CHSRA website. Looking at the documents, they’ve ruled out a stacked tunnel and deep-bore tunnel due to the community’s desire to have a narrow ROW footprint. What will be carried forward are elevated, at-grade, or a trench.

In other words, the Peninsula had to decide what’s more important to them: keeping the project within the current ROW so as to avoid eminent domain uses on houses, or tunnelling the tracks and consequently needing a wider ROW at the transitions, thus requiring more eminent domain takes. Based on the feedback the CHSRA has received, the narrow ROW seemed the greater priority. That strikes me as being very sensible.

UPDATE 2: It doesn’t appear that the CHSRA will actually be choosing one of the segments today, but will be developing plans for each, as Elizabeth accurately explained in the comments.

As Caltrain seems increasingly likely to end its Gilroy service, you’d think that the city council there would recognize that its future prosperity depends upon getting a train station that can enable their residents to reach jobs in Silicon Valley and San Francisco – and can enable people from across California to come to Gilroy for events like the Garlic Festival.

Unfortunately, as a recent article makes clear, there’s still some work to do to show Gilroy why HSR is a godsend the likes of which they haven’t seen since the 101 freeway was built 50 years ago:

Though the severity of their distaste for the state’s high speed rail project ranges from mild irritation to unreserved outrage, Gilroy city council members aren’t ready to collectively speak out against the undertaking.

Unlike Orange, a city in Southern California whose city council recently voted unanimously to oppose California’s proposed bullet train, Gilroy council members aren’t ready to formally cast their vote against the project, but their frustration with a lack of answers from the organizing agency is rising.

This is how a city should respond to the high speed rail project when they have concerns: be open about those concerns, but don’t try to destroy the whole project over it.

As we’ll see, it’s not exactly clear that the problem is the California High Speed Rail Authority not providing answers, but Gilroy not getting the answers they want. But given some of the anti-HSR attitudes among some Gilroy council members, it’s good that they’re not trying to stop HSR from happening, and recognize their duty to implement the will of the voters. Especially when you read Councilman Bob Dillon’s comments:

“I wish they would go away,” Councilman Bob Dillon said. “I’ve been against it since the get-go. It stands no chance.”

According to his calculations, the $45-billion, 800-mile system will cost more than $56 million per mile of track, and nearly $1,000 per inch, Dillon said.

“I would rather have my teeth pulled with no anesthesia” than support the project, he said.

As we know, HSR is going to happen – it doesn’t “stand no chance,” especially after voters approved the project and Congress funded part of it. Another Gilroy city councilmember, Dion Bracco, indicated he would “definitely” support an anti-HSR resolution along the lines of what Orange recently passed, but other councilmembers aren’t ready to go there.

For Gilroy city councilmembers who aren’t HSR deniers, the issue they have is with the Authority’s presentations to the city, and what they consider to be a lack of detail:

“Initially, there was a lot of optimism but I think that has changed a little bit as we learned more about the project,” Gartman said. “In listening to (the High Speed Rail Authority’s) presentations, it doesn’t seem like they’re very well organized. I can’t believe that they aren’t better prepared. They don’t know the answers that they should.”

However, the council appears to be frustrated that the plans at this point are conceptual and that the specific route hasn’t been finalized. Instead of just doing whatever the Authority tells them, Gilroy actually has the ability to help shape the route. They’re not passive actors, but active collaborators. I’m not sure the council recognizes that.

Here’s what the CHSRA project manager for the segment had to say:

According to Gary Kennerley, a regional project manager with the California High Speed Rail Authority, part of the challenge is relaying to residents that what the authority proposing isn’t set in stone.

Last month, the rail authority released a draft document outlining the possibility of aligning a rail line with the Monterey Street corridor, with U.S. Route 101 east of Gilroy or a combination of those two routes.

“It has been hard to convey to people that this is just an identification of alternatives,” Kennerley said. “No final decisions have been made.”

Gilroy needs to decide where it wants the trains to go. On the east edge of town, where it will fuel sprawl? Or along the existing rail corridor, where growth can be channeled into the city center and help grade-separate the tracks, improving safety and traffic flow while promoting economic growth?

The deeper problem seems to be that Gilroy officials just haven’t recognized that HSR will be a major benefit to their community, enabling it and its residents to enjoy prosperity for the rest of the 21st century:

Councilwoman Cat Tucker, who has expressed concern about the lack of hands-on meetings thus far, said she would prefer if the rail authority would run the bullet train over the Altamont Pass instead of the Pacheco Pass and bypass Gilroy altogether. Even though she considers herself an advocate for public transportation, she found both alternatives – either running the tracks through farmland or through downtown – unfavorable.

“It’s going to be one big, ugly monster coming through Gilroy,” she said.

You’re not an “advocate for public transportation” if you place aesthetics over usefulness, and especially not if you are willing to close your city off from the workhorse method of travel in 21st century California.

Mayor Al Pinheiro said he originally thought a downtown alignment might be beneficial for the local economy, attracting business from commuters who catch the bullet train in Gilroy.

But after further consideration, “I’m not thinking people are going to do much collateral spending in the downtown,” he said.

I don’t think Pinheiro has thought this through completely. It’s not just commuters from Hollister, Los Banos and Monterey who would use the station. With an HSR station, Gilroy itself would become a destination for commuters to live in – and instead of wanting to live in a sprawl-based community on the edge of town, they’d likely prefer to live downtown, in close proximity to the train station.

More than any other city in California, Gilroy has the potential to be the Ciudad Real of the California HSR system – a reference to the Spanish city that is 50 minutes away from central Madrid via the AVE high speed rail line that opened in 1992. As the Wall Street Journal described it last year:

Perhaps the most striking example is Ciudad Real, a scrappy town 120 miles south of Madrid in Castilla-La Mancha which, Mr. Ureña says, “had completely vanished from the map.” In medieval times, the town was a key stopover point on the route between the two of most important cities of the time, Córdoba and Toledo. But the railway and the highway south later bypassed the town, and Ciudad Real began to wither.

Now it has an AVE station that puts it just 50 minutes away from Madrid, and Ciudad Real has come alive. The city has attracted a breed of daily commuters that call themselves “Avelinos.” The AVE helped attract a host of industries to Ciudad Real, and the train is full in both directions.

Indra, an information technology company, moved a “software factory” to Ciudad Real a decade ago. “Along with the University, the AVE was one of the key reasons we moved here,” says Ángel Villodre, the director of the center.

The University of Castilla-La Mancha’s campus here has grown sharply in size and importance. “The school is here because of the AVE,” says Mr. Menéndez, the department head. “Without it, it would be impossible to attract the high-level staff we need.”

Gilroy leaders need to pay very close attention to what is being said here. Ciudad Real went from being a small town outside the Madrid urban core to a major center of residential and high-tech activity. Gilroy doesn’t have a major university, but it could very easily be a hub for high-tech industries that would love the lower costs of the South County region and the connectedness to Silicon Valley, San Francisco, and the rest of the state.

Mayor Pinheiro seems to be looking at HSR from a 20th century mindset. And true, from that mindset, an HSR commuter station in the middle of downtown might not seem all that valuable. But from a 21st century perspective, when access to high speed trains will be a very desirable thing, the station will be what gives Gilroy a huge competitive advantage over competing cities like Morgan Hill, Hollister, Los Banos, and even places like Salinas.

The HSR station makes a compelling reason for people to want to live in Gilroy as opposed to an automobile suburb, and a compelling reason for employers to want to locate there as opposed to some other place that has to be reached by automobile.

There’s no doubt that the process of designing and building HSR isn’t easy. It requires cities to make tough choices, including in Gilroy. But they can and should take a more constructive approach to this. Decide whether they want the station in town or on the edge of it – the CHSRA is more interested in hearing what Gilroy wants rather than forcing something on them.

I’m cheering for Gilroy here. As I said before, I taught at Gavilan College for a time when I returned to California in 2007, and got to know the city and its residents well. I like Gilroy a lot and think it has amazing potential, especially with a downtown that can easily accommodate transit-oriented development and the businesses that will sprout up to serve those residents. It would be a place many companies would seriously consider locating, especially high-tech businesses – and that growth can happen without fueling sprawl, which Gilroy has fought to prevent.

All this requires Gilroy to recognize that the 20th century is over, and that they need to position themselves for a 21st century economy and 21st century methods of travel. The people of California have delivered a gift to Gilroy that may be quite literally priceless – after HSR opens, cities across the state will be clamoring to get a station of their own. Gilroy will already have one, and be well on the way to prosperity. Let’s hope their current leadership recognizes the opportunity they have, and is willing to make the most of it.

To those not as familiar with the HSR project, Bill Lockyer’s comments last month that Wall Street wasn’t sold on the HSR project might have seemed like another in the onslaught of attacks on the project. So E.J. Schultz, one of the best reporters in California politics, decided to look further. Some of it he gets right, and some of it he doesn’t:

But the government’s gamble won’t pay off unless private investors jump on board the $40-plus billion project — and so far no one has pledged a dime.

If the money doesn’t come, the state and federal governments risk sinking billions of dollars into a rail line that never gets finished.

This isn’t correct. The government isn’t gambling on anything. If private funding never shows up, then the whole system isn’t finished. But because of the “independent utility” rules attached to HSR funding, which have been the subject of extensive discussion in the comments to Saturday’s post as a result of this memo, there’s no danger at all of the “government” building a half-finished project.

Schultz is incorrect to call this a “gamble.” There’s no risk at all. If funding doesn’t materialize to build the whole plan, the whole plan doesn’t get built. If another dime never materialized for HSR in California, the San Joaquins might get a new track between Fresno and Bakersfield, or the Surfliners would get sped up between LA and Anaheim, and that’s it. Those would be useful projects, and that’d be that.

Too often, people approach HSR as if it’s some kind of start-up business, when in fact it’s no different than a freeway widening proposal or a bridge plan. The plan may be great, but if you can never get full funding, the plan sits on a shelf.

Of course, Alan Lowenthal’s always there to remind Californians of the doom and gloom:

“This could be the greatest thing that ever happens to the state, or a real disaster,” said state Sen. Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, who has taken a lead oversight role.

He doesn’t actually explain how it would be a real disaster. Given the safeguards listed above, it’s not really possible for it to be a disaster. It would be nice of Lowenthal would adopt a more constructive approach.

Schultz goes on to cite Bill Lockyer’s comments to the San Diego Union-Tribune that set off the questions about private financing. Significantly, Schultz reports that Lockyer is backing off those comments to an extent:

In an interview with The Bee, he softened those comments some, saying investors are “skeptical,” but that “these are just preliminary comments” made before anyone has spent time “making a disciplined investment decision.”

Schultz also quotes California High Speed Rail Authority Deputy Director Jeff Barker, who explains how the timeline for private funding would work:

The authority expects it might even have to start construction on some of the segments before investors step up. The estimated phase-one completion date is in the 2019-20 fiscal year.

“We’ve said all along that the private investment in the project is going to come toward the end,” said Jeff Barker, a rail authority spokesman. “Before the private sector is going to put private money into this, they’re going to want to see that it’s real.”

In one potential scenario, construction companies, rail-car makers, train operators and financial institutions could form a consortium. In return for an investment, they would get a cut on profits during a 30-year lease, plus control of the system — including the power to set fares, Barker said.

To longtime readers of this blog, that’s something you’ve known for a while. At the June 2008 CHSRA Board Meeting, a presentation was given explaining what it would take to get private funding:

There was a fascinating presentation from the Infrastructure Management Group and Lehman Bros. They were hired as consultants by the Authority for the issue of bringing private equity investment into HSR. Their presentation to the board was based on the responses they received to their Request for Expression of Interest (RFEI), sort of like a pre-RFQ (request for qualifications). Diverse operators and contractors, including SNCF (the French National Railway), Britain’s Angel Trains, and giants like Alstom, Parsons, and Goldman Sachs responded.

Long story short, there’s lots of interest in it but it would require at least 60% public financing. Probably at least 75%. The good news is that if we get both the bond money and a matching federal amount under veto proof legislation (S.294 and HR 6003) pending in the Congress we are there. $20 billion S.F. to L.A. and beyond to Sacto and San Diego.

In other words, as reported to the board, the private sector isn’t going to step up until they see a considerable federal contribution. It’s not that they have no faith in the California project. It’s that they’re not yet sure Congress is going to properly fund its share. Assuming that the federal government does authorize the $15 to $17 billion that we need from them, then there is every reason to believe the private sector will step up.

For example, as I posted just a few days after reporting on Bill Lockyer’s comments, one of the world’s leading investment banks, UBS, actually sees HSR as a sensible investment. Once they see the federal government stepping up, private funders will too – but not until Congress has made its move.

To his credit, Schultz reported on the expressions of interest from private funders that were listed at the June 2008 board meeting. Since then, we’ve seen interest from others as well, including China. Schultz then goes on to mention the litany of critical reports put out about the HSR project – the flawed LAO study, the flawed State Auditor’s report, the deeply flawed Berkeley ITS ridership report. Unfortunately, Schultz presents these reports as objective criticisms, and not as the flawed documents they really are, but the overall effect is to make it appear like there are warning signs that are causing Wall Street to hold back.

That’s not what’s really happening. In reality, HSR critics are using these flawed studies to try and convince Congress to not fund California HSR, so as to strangle in the crib a project they hate. Without Congressional funding, there is no private funding. That’s the key point here, and I’m very glad Schultz let Barker make it – that elevates his article well above the much more flawed items we have a depressing tendency to see when it comes to HSR reporting.

In short, the ball is still in Congress’s court. When they finally do fully fund HSR (and I do believe it is a matter of “when” and not “if”), then we’ll see the private funders step up and make their contributions.

This whole situation reveals the deeper flaws in treating infrastructure like a business proposition. Nobody demanded to see a business plan before the Interstate Highway System was built – Americans declared it was necessary, and funded its construction through tax revenues, with private funding not playing any role at all. Here in the 2010s, we have a strong need for a new kind of transportation infrastructure. It would be nice if Congress had the guts to simply find a new revenue source and fund the construction of that infrastructure, to create jobs and economic growth now and for decades to come.

But they don’t, and with a California governor who has always been in love with public-private partnerships, we play the hand we’re dealt. Private funding will indeed come for HSR – as long as we get Congress to step up and do its part.

For this round of funding, the U.S. Department of Transportation has made $2.3 billion in additional funds available for high-speed and intercity rail projects nationwide. The funds would help complete engineering and other work on the project not covered by the ARRA grants. The Authority’s proposed application includes:

• Track and signaling work in the Merced to Fresno section, including work to connect the Burlington Northern Santa Fe line to the Amtrak station in Fresno.

• Track and signaling work in the Bakersfield to Fresno section, both near Fresno and between Bakersfield and Wasco.

• Track and other infrastructure on the Los Angeles to Anaheim section on the west side of the Los Angeles River.

• Electrification of the alignment along the San Francisco to San Jose section and construction of a station in Millbrae.

These may seem like smaller pieces, but it all adds up. If we get between $1 and $1.5 billion over the next 10 years, we’d have enough to meet the expected federal commitment. Obviously we’d rather have that money all at once, and we’ll continue to press for exactly that. But every little bit helps.