A Grand Bargain With UPRR?

by Rafael

the recent Initial Ruling on Atherton v. CHSRA underscored yet again that lines on a map are not at all the same thing as deeds to rights of way. The judge essentially signaled that the level of risk of eminent domain takings needs to be quantified at the program level, i.e. factor into the choice of preferred route. In this particular case, the biggest red flag related to the UPRR Coast Corridor ROW between Santa Clara and Gilroy, especially the section south of way point "Lick". It lies roughly 3 miles south of San Jose Diridon, close to the intersection of Almaden Expressway and hwy 87.

However, that isn't the only stretch of the planned network in which CHSRA will have to contend with UPRR - far from it, in fact. As we discussed on this blog back in March, 50% of the entire HSR network as planned today relies on acquiring part of a UPRR right of way or else land very close to it. Where possible, the expensive grade separations required for HSR should include adjacent legacy tracks to maximize bang per taxpayer buck.


View UPRR sections of CA HSR route in a larger map

In the discussion thread on the Initial Ruling On Atherton v. CHSRA, regular commenter Tony D. in San Jose(?) Gilroy claimed that "Freight service in this corridor and traffic on Monterey Hwy is nil." While that's no doubt an overstatement, it does highlight the fact that the coast corridor isn't actually all that busy north of San Luis Obispo. Its primary value is as as a backup freight route in case UPRR's core route via Cajon Pass and the Tehachapis were to become unavailable for trains heading up the west coast or across to Salt Lake City, e.g. after an earthquake. Since UPRR is a for-profit enterprise, Tony surmised "that [it] will either operate or co-operate [with] high-speed rail in California. They're not blind to the profits HSR systems are making overseas [...]. I don't think this would be a bad arrangement."

To which another regular, SF native and Amtrak employee Jim, replied: "Well they can't just operate it, they have to bid on it first and prove that they can provide the service infrastructure (staff, ticketing systems, the list goes on per the requirements an operator must offer) and UP doesn't have any such thing or people to do the job. [CHSRA] wants someone who can bring experience, personnel and the other infrastructure needed for passenger travel. That means Amtrak, an airline or a foreign railway."

Now, I don't work for UPRR nor do I have any shares in the company or any other affiliation to it. I have no inside knowledge regarding where the company's head is really at relative to California HSR right now. Publicly, the company still maintains that HSR trains running next to its own would be a safety hazard. Simple passing of an aerodynamically contoured high speed train has already been shown not to present a showstopper problem even for extra-tall AAR plate H cars loaded with two empty containers. Lateral sway at the top of the upper container reached a maximum at a relative speed of 110mph and declined beyond that. The amount of sway obviously depends on the track centerline distance as well, which in the California system could be larger than the usual 15' or so (if the ROW is wide enough).

The root cause of the cited safety concerns may therefore be the quality of UPRR's track and rolling stock maintenance program. The income generated by hosting HSR would go a long way toward addressing any deficiencies on that score. Derailment detection and automatic train protection systems would further reduce the risk of a freight train ever fouling an adjacent track and also triggering a follow-on collision.

So, the noises UPRR is making could be either a signal that UPRR isn't really interested in avoiding derailments or, a negotiating ploy to jack up the price.

---

However, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that Tony is correct and that UPRR secretly would be interested in getting back into the intercity passenger rail business, if only it were sufficiently profitable.

The experience in other countries has shown that true bullet trains can and do turn operating profits, i.e. enough to pay for running the trains, maintaining the system, insurance fees and future expansion beyond the starter line. What they cannot do is turn a total profit, i.e. service the debt on the initial capital investment as well. That difference, combined with property tax laws, is why US railroads are not voluntarily building HSR systems on their own nickel. DesertXPress is the exception that proves the rule: it would be a loss leader for getting punters/tourists/convention attendees from (Southern) California to Lost Wages and back again.

HSR opponents often cite this inability of passenger rail to fully fund its own infrastructure as evidence that it is a bad idea per se. As this blog has often pointed out, they conveniently forget the financial, energy security, environmental and social costs shouldered by taxpayers when they agree to invest in new highway lane-miles and airport runways. Fortunately, California voters showed in November 2008 they understand that moving people - as opposed to freight - just isn't a profitable enterprise in its own right. It takes public investment to reap the macroeconomic benefits of high speed rail, which in the California system will include traveling on renewable electricity instead of distilled dino-juice.

Funding is supposed to come from federal, state and local governments plus private investors. The ~$33 billion estimate for the starter line reflects the cost of planning, land purchases, engineering, constructing the line plus yards and maintenance facilities, buying a fleet of trains and developing the human resources needed for safe and cost-effective operations. In its 2008 Business Plan (PDF p23), CHSRA estimated the cost of acquiring the ROW for the starter line at 7% of the the total, i.e. roughly $2.3 billion. This assumed that required land already in public hands (Caltrain, SCRRA, Caltrans etc.) would be made available at no cost.

However, since UPRR is an interstate freight railroad that ostensibly delivers a public service so valuable Congress even delegated limited powers of eminent domain to it, the chances of successfully exercising eminent domain against UPRR itself are slim to none. That means the company has CHSRA over a barrel and can more or less name its price. The initial ruling in Atherton v. CHSRA has now strengthened its hand even further.

The operations of the California HSR are supposed to be put out to tender via long-term contracts, separately for the infrastructure (a local monopoly) and the trains (competition possible). The idea was that these tenders will be entirely divorced from the process of acquiring land and getting the infrastructure built. However, there's more than one way to skin a cat. As we explored in the post on HiSpeed Services And Branding, there is always the option of bartering for ROW rather than paying for it up front.

Any railroad that owns a ROW that CHSRA would like a slice of could negotiate for the initial contract to operate the HSR infrastructure and/or for easements such as deeply discounted slots on the timetable or blocks of seats on trains to be operated by someone else. One-off asset sales generate cash, but railroad operators are in the business of running trains. Participating in the operations of the HSR system could therefore be an attractive proposition for them.

If CHSRA could somehow strike a statewide "Grand Bargain" barter deal with UPRR, that would solve most of its ROW issues at a stroke. It would also allow the Authority to claim UPRR as a private investor-in-kind. After all, a dollar you don't need to spend is almost as good as one you raise from financial institutions. Some lateral thinking could go a long way here.

Whether this would be a genuine bargain for taxpayers or a Faustian one obviously depends on the fine print, of which there would no doubt be copious amounts. Giving up on the opportunity to put the initial operations contracts out to open tender, reducing its scope and/or saddling it with easements would be no small matter. Negotiators would also need to put a dollar figure on the value of grade separations plus fences plus CCTV surveillance of the entire ROW width, including all legacy freight/passenger tracks, to a freight operator. Cameras and software could conceivably even detect a derailed bogie on a freight car before that train's crew does. The wireless signaling and train control infrastructure of the HSR network could be leveraged to implement interoperable PTC functionality on the heavy freight tracks at sharply lower incremental cost. If all traffic on the entire ROW is controlled by a single infrastructure operator, the accident liability issue should become much more tractable.

Add to that the potential for light rail freight, i.e. driverless High Speed Cargo trainsets coupled to passenger trains during the day plus a limited number of much slower cargosprinter or intermodal trains at night. Such trains would need to negotiate the 3.5% gradients in mountain crossings. To avoid excessive track maintenance overheads, the axle load on HSR tracks is strictly limited, typically to 17 metric tonnes, including the power cars/locomotives. That's only possible with non-compliant equipment, so light freight trains would be restricted to the isolated HSR network augmented with spurs to transshipment facilities in selected locations. The business model would be focused on getting high value goods shipped quickly and trucks off the roads. In technical, regulatory and business model respects, light freight would be entirely divorced from conventional heavy freight rail.

In the simplest scenario, UPRR could limit its involvement with HSR to operating and maintaining the infrastructure according to timetables negotiated with the train operator(s).

However, the company could go one step further and negotiate to also operate some or even all of the trains wholesale, by which I mean it would employ the drivers and maintain the rolling stock. Dealing with HSR and light freight equipment would involve a learning curve, but there would be plenty of time to build up a new business unit with a skilled workforce, headed up by managers poached from foreign railways that already have plenty of HSR experience. Keep in mind that UPRR has been in business for 147 years and that during most of that time, its progenitors did operate passenger trains. Companies can and do change their business models all the time, just look at how Apple Computer now makes cell phones and sells music online.

The retail end of high speed passenger trains, i.e. marketing, selling tickets, cabin service and cleaning, could be left to organizations that already have relevant expertise in the state: heavy rail transit operators (Amtrak California, Caltrain, Metrolink et al.), perhaps airlines already plying the California Corridor. Some of these might prefer to own their trainsets, others could charter them from UPRR in whatever livery they want. Similarly, UPRR might be content with just running the trains for established logistics players like FedEx, UPS etc. and not handle individual cargo items. On the other hand, retailing intermodal freight and cargosprinter service might well be something UPRR would want to do itself.

Final notes:

1) Needless to say, the bigger the bite of the HSR cherry UPRR would get without having to bid for it in open tender, the more value that would represent. At some point, it would exceed the total represented by the ROW offered. Conceivably, UPRR might even have to throw in track construction services, even cash, to get the deal it wants. That's fine, every dollar of private investment, in kind or regular, would let CHSRA stretch taxpayer dollars (both state and federal) that much further.

2) As part of any Grand Bargain, UPRR would formally transfer the ROW (land or underground/air rights) for the HSR tracks to a new entity owned by the state of California, possibly others as well. UPRR would not have a stake in this entity. This arrangement would let it avoid a massive hike on its property taxes while ensuring the new entity will be able to put the follow-on operations contracts out to a genuinely open tender some (large) number of years later.

3) Since infrastructure operations and maintenance and possibly train maintenance will be natural monopolies, the rates UPRR would be permitted to charge for these services would have to be spelled out in the Grand Bargain contract and regulated thereafter to prevent gouging. A cap on fee income would give UPRR an incentive to participate in track construction to make sure it's done right. The company does not yet have the specialized expertise required to actually design and build the track and overhead catenary geometry for a safe HSR system, that's where experienced foreign engineering consultants come in. UPRR would contribute its expertise in general track construction plus material logistics and some brawn plus supervisors on site. The idea is to let them learn on the job so they can maintain the high-tech infrastructure after it's built.

4) BNSF might be interested in a similar Grand Bargain in the Central Valley, perhaps even on its Trancon line out of the LA basin. HSR infrastructure operations are a natural local monopoly, with appropriate care it's perfectly possible to hand over control to another operator at well-defined interface locations. Air traffic controllers do it all time.

5) All of the above fun and game are moot if neither UPRR nor BNSF are interested in participating in HSR operations in any way. That is their prerogative, of course.

Why We Call Them NIMBYs

"High-speed rail opponents hope to shed 'NIMBY' image" is the headline of a San Jose Mercury News article examining the attitudes of a handful of people along the Peninsula toward the HSR project, and their lobbying efforts up in Sacramento. I find it interesting that they realize "NIMBY" is something they don't want to be seen as, which suggests to me that we were on the right track after all in leveling that criticism at the folks who are demanding an expensive tunnel or a gutting of the proposed HSR system. Here's what Ben Fuller, a resident of east San Carlos who claims that the above-grade tracks have isolated his neighborhood, and Sara Armstrong of Palo Alto had to say:

Fuller and Armstrong said the consortium should also help dispel the NIMBY, or "not in my backyard", stereotype often tagged on homeowners who oppose high-speed rail. By working together as a regional group, they hope to prove that they represent the interests of many property homeowners in the region and not just their own backyards.

In fact, they said a better name might be YUMBY, or "Yes Under My Backyard," a reference to their preference for tunneling the train.

"We're not NIMBYs," Fuller said. "We care about what happens to communities throughout California."

Really? So do you support the Palo Alto city council's reckless demand that the CHSRA consider terminating HSR trains at San José, which throws the financial viability of the entire system into question? Do you believe that it's a tunnel or nothing? If so I would indeed say you're NIMBYs.

Why? Because in this instance, a NIMBY position is one that says the HSR system must be built according to the specifications of a few neighbors or shouldn't be built at all. THAT is a classically NIMBY position. If they do not reject an above-grade solution, then they're not NIMBYs. If they do reject it, then they are.

The key question underlying everything is this: Do you believe that your aesthetic preferences about how the train should be built in your neighborhood are more important than what is operationally or financially necessary? Then you're putting yourself above the needs of the state as a whole. Perhaps the term "NIMBY" doesn't quite capture what they are exactly saying, but the outcomes are the same: you think that the train should be built your way or not built at all.

I don't see how that is a defensible position. It is arrogant and self-interested, denying the very real need for HSR as part of the solution to the state's dire economic, energy, and environmental crises. Unfortunately these few people seem to have bent the ears of two Democratic legislators who ought to know better:

The groups have bypassed local officials and gone directly to their state representatives, having held meetings recently with state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, and Assemblyman Ira Ruskin, D-Los Altos.

Ruskin said that after meeting with the group recently he called California High Speed Rail Authority officials into his Sacramento office and relayed the residents' concerns, including their preference for tunnels or some other non-bridge option.

"I share their concerns," Ruskin said. "I got the assurance from the high-speed rail people that there would be a below-grade (option studied) as part of the (planning) process.

"I really admire that they have become a part of the process and want their voices heard," he said.

If all Ruskin did was relay concerns, that's fine. But Ruskin has a higher duty - to ALL his constituents, and to the state as a whole - to ensure that HSR gets built on time and on budget. Ruskin has made a name for himself as a leader in environmental legislation. So one would assume that he will be supportive of the HSR project.

Especially when he and Sen. Simitian are facing a major budget crisis. The great unanswered question here is who will pay for the tunnel that pretty much the entire Peninsula wants. Tunnel proponents assume that either the state or the federal government will pay.

I am here to tell them that will not happen. There will be NO support at the state level to pay for a tunnel through these wealthy neighborhoods. None whatsoever. Anyone who thinks there will be is deluding themselves about fiscal and political realities in California.

There might be a possibility of getting federal money, but I believe this to be very, very small. Maybe a 10% chance. Consider that the Democrats who control Congress and President Obama are NOT going to see Peninsula voters as a particularly important constituency ahead of the 2010 and 2012 elections. Obama in particular needs to hold on to states he won that went for Bush in 2004 - Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Indiana, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada. You can bet he will find a way to direct a lot of federal infrastructure money there. If it comes down to paying for the Peninsula's tunnel or paying for a rail project in Virginia, or a bridge in Ohio, he will pick the latter. Peninsula residents have barely any leverage federally.

Ruskin and Simitian must know this. They must also know that the Peninsula's tax base is finite, and that in an era where core city services are imperiled, perhaps it might not be the best use of local tax dollars to buy a tunnel for a few people when libraries, schools, and hospitals are in need.

What's at the heart of the NIMBY and "tunnel or nothing" attitudes? A mistaken but powerful belief that anything that divides cities is inherently negative or destructive to neighborhoods and the city as a whole:

Greater East San Carlos group president Ben Fuller said his neighborhood feels isolated from the city's downtown because of the Holly Street grade separation along El Camino Real, built in the late 1990s. He added that nearby sidewalks have been narrowed, making it difficult to walk through the area, and that noise and vibrations near the tracks have increased since they were elevated.

"What they chose to do is literally just separate us from everybody else," Fuller said. "We just want to be part of 'The City of Good Living,' " he said, referring to the city's motto.

And while city officials say the majority of residents favor the Holly Street rail bridge — which has improved safety and traffic flow — the east neighborhood group says its special interests as direct neighbors of the rail line should be heard. The group has found friends in neighborhoods such as Felton Gables in Menlo Park and Charleston Meadows in Palo Alto, which also lie next to the tracks, and they hope that together their voices will be louder as a regional group.

First, it's pretty amusing that even though the Holly Street rail bridge has improved conditions in the city, a few people are convinced it is somehow a negative. Fuller hasn't explained how literal separation means that East San Carlos is somehow not a part of the rest of the city. Are they being deliberately denied city services? Are they being denied business and jobs? Are they being denied representation? Fuller assumes that we should take his claims at face value, but to be honest, I'm not seeing anything here that makes me feel for his position.

I'm no stranger to this issue. I grew up in a city in Orange County - Tustin - divided in two by Interstate 5.


View Tustin divided in a larger map

The area to the south of the 5, which has no name but is sometimes known as South Tustin, sometimes seems separate from the rest of the city. But in practice the freeway isn't that much of a barrier. We learned to adapt to it. If you have friends south of the freeway, as I did, or if your church was south of the freeway, as ours was, you just drove under the overpass. Sometimes we walked to a friend's house south of the freeway from our high school, just north of the freeway. No big deal. Even when the freeway was widened in 1992 and the structure made wider and taller, you didn't let it change your habits.

I currently live in a city divided into four parts by various natural and man-made features. Monterey has at least four distinct neighborhoods:


View Monterey divided in a larger map

I live in New Monterey, the neighborhood that runs uphill from Cannery Row (signified by the blue pin). We're wedged between Pacific Grove and the Presidio of Monterey, which cuts us off from the rest of Monterey. Ours is a very distinct neighborhood, but it is vibrant and thriving. Sure, it can be inconvenient to get downtown on days where there's lots of tourist traffic, but we manage. Our neighborhood doesn't suffer because of it.

Lake El Estero is another divider in Monterey, separating the older downtown (dating to 1770, signified by the red pin) and the neighborhood immediately to the east. And that in turn is separated by Highway 1, a freeway built through town in the 1960s. North Monterey is the neighborhood beyond Highway 1 (green pin), and that is indeed cut off from the rest of Monterey, and generally neglected by city government.

But is that a causal factor? North Monterey and New Monterey are physically separated from the city center. But whereas New Monterey is vibrant with thriving businesses and a high perception of quality of life, North Monterey has none of these things. I wouldn't ascribe that to the freeway, however. The problems are based in class and bad urban design. North Monterey, located just across Laguna Grande from Seaside, is a diverse low-income community built in the 1950s and 1960s. There's no real community center, and North Fremont Boulevard is full of strip malls and doesn't serve as the thriving commercial center Lighthouse Avenue is here in New Monterey. City government apparently hasn't done much to try and apply better urban design principles to North Monterey and it doesn't have a whole lot in the way of city services.

That was the case prior to the freeway, and persists not because of the freeway, but because the small population of North Monterey is generally disempowered anyway because of size, lack of an economic base (New Monterey has Cannery Row), and lower income. Monterey can and should devote more attention to this neighborhood, but the freeway doesn't make that impossible.

If you look at most cities in California, America, or the world, you'll see they're divided by any number of features, natural and man-made. Every city has neighborhoods, and in every city there is political jockeying among them for resources, tax dollars, services, and jobs.

Especially on the Peninsula, where a rail corridor has divided cities for a century and a half. I'm sure that if those tracks weren't already there, and Caltrain proposed to build them, Menlo Park and Palo Alto and every other city would flip out and raise all kinds of objections. Yet now they defend the existing tracks - because they found a way to keep their cities together in spite of - and perhaps because of - the tracks.

This notion that an above-grade structure that can be built elegantly is some kind of city-killer is totally absurd, especially when there's already a rail corridor there. Cities and neighborhoods can and should work to ensure that these structures, as with a creek or a university or a large park, do not prevent different neighborhoods from getting different treatment. Nor should they prevent the different neighborhoods from being effectively integrated - otherwise there would be four Montereys, two Tustins, a hundred Los Angeleses, and so on.

If "omg you're going to divide our city!!!" is all that these Peninsula residents have...then I see absolutely no reason to let their objections shape HSR implementation policy. They can find ways to manage, as numerous other cities have. If this was a totally new ROW, or if a large number of homes were to be demolished, then they might have a point. But it isn't. They have successfully managed the existing rail corridor. They can do so with an above-grade solution. The only thing holding them back is their own preconceived 20th century automobile-centric notions of what a good city or neighborhood is like. If they want to pay for that preconceived notion, well, it's their money. But if they think the rest of us will pay for it, they are not in touch with reality.

Mythbusting the Caltrain Corridor

Over the last few months the debate on the Peninsula over high speed rail has been dominated by lots of myths, misunderstandings, and in some cases, deliberate obfuscation of the truth.

As far as I can tell it's a simple issue - some residents believe their property values are more important than the state's efforts to solve the environmental, energy, and economic crisis by providing sustainable transportation solutions. It's not a new phenomenon and we should not be surprised that "even" Palo Alto, when confronted between a perceived threat to their property values and a very real threat to their economy and environment, are choosing to cling to obsolete models of prosperity rather than take action to solve the much larger crises facing us all.

This would be much easier if we were dealing with a town that prided itself on political conservatism. They'd just say "high speed rail is a waste of money" and be done with it. (Which is pretty much Morris Brown's position anyway.) Since Palo Alto likes to see itself as more progressive they cannot actually openly admit that they'll try and derail HSR in order to possibly preserve the property values of a small handful of people (I am unconvinced that above-grade HSR would actually hurt property values, but I also don't anticipate many in Palo Alto will agree), HSR critics and opponents have to find other reasons to articulate opposition. Unfortunately, most of those reasons are based on myths.

Will Oremus of the Daily News interviewed Dominic Spaethling, regional manager of the SF-SJ section of the HSR project for CHSRA, to determine which of these myths is true and which isn't. In some cases I disagree with Oremus's conclusions, and it's Spaethling's answers that are the most revealing.

Claim: The default plan for the Peninsula is to run the high-speed tracks on an elevated platform, likely in the form of a "retained fill" design that some have likened to a 15-foot-high "Berlin Wall" dividing local neighborhoods.

Status: Mostly fact, with caveats.

Explanation: In its broad, initial study of the high-speed rail line's feasibility, the rail authority assumed that the tracks would alternate between underground, at-grade and elevated alignments at different points along the line. A diagram available on the authority's Web site shows the tracks going underground at points in northern San Jose and southern San Francisco, but above-ground in between. While some parts of the tracks would stay at ground level, the "retained fill" option was chosen for many intersections because that's what was used in Belmont and San Carlos, the sites of the most recent grade separations on the mid-Peninsula.

In other words, the retained fill option was a possible solution that was being considered based on what has been done elsewhere on the Peninsula. Whether one likes the Belmont and San Carlos grade separations, they are part of the Peninsula's urban geography now, and it made sense to offer them as an option - as Spaethling explains:

The big caveat is that the preliminary study was just that — preliminary. Spaethling described it as a "proof of concept" to show just one way that the marriage of high-speed rail and Caltrain could work. The next step is the project-level environmental study, which by law is required to evaluate all options put forward in the public scoping process that concludes Monday. That means the rail authority will look at underground as well as above-ground options in places such as Menlo Park, Palo Alto, and downtown San Mateo.

This has been true for months. But to the small NIMBY contingent in those cities, options aren't enough. They believe they have the right and the power to dictate solutions to the rest of the state, and that unless their preferred option is chosen, then the project is illegitimate. They don't want an open process at all.

A second caveat is that the "Berlin Wall" analogy is exaggerated. The purpose of the retained fill is to lift the tracks over certain key cross streets, meaning it wouldn't be one continuous wall. Many in Belmont and San Carlos would likely dispute the idea that their cities are divided like East and West Berlin.

Here I think Oremus is hedging unnecessarily. The Berlin Wall analogy is bullshit. The Berlin Wall was meant to be an impenetrable barrier crossed only upon pain of death. An above-grade solution on the Peninsula would be designed to be a passable barrier to be crossed often and safely. We have previously examined elegant above-grade solutions and yet these appear to have not been discussed in any great detail, if at all, on the Peninsula. That leads me to further question just how open a process some HSR critics and NIMBYs actually seek. In particular it is objectionable that the Palo Alto city council does not appear to have given much consideration to these kind of options before voting to file a brief in support of the HSR deniers' suit against the CHSRA.

Claim: El Palo Alto, the historic redwood tree that gave Palo Alto its name, will almost certainly be fatally damaged or removed due to construction of the high-speed tracks just north of the downtown Palo Alto Caltrain station.

Status: Myth, hopefully.

Explanation: It's true that El Palo Alto stands perilously close to the Caltrain tracks, and the city's arborist has determined that any expansion in its direction, even underground, could doom it. But Spaethling said officials know it's there and will aim to avoid it. The authority's initial study showed trains running at-grade at the Palo Alto station and the San Francisquito Creek bridge, meaning construction there would be less intensive. Though nothing has been decided, Spaethling said the natural approach would be to build the tracks to the west of their current location — the opposite direction from the tree.

An interesting thing I learned recently was that El Palo Alto used to have a twin trunk and that by the 1950s the tree was severely damaged by train pollution. The tree is intensively managed today in order to stay alive. One has to imagine that the near-total removal of diesel emissions would help preserve the tree's health. And of course, it has been known for quite a while that any new tracks would go west of the tree, but that hasn't stopped the critics.

Claim: There is a chance that construction will force the authority to acquire private property, perhaps through eminent domain.

Status: Fact.

Explanation: The authority has been reluctant to discuss eminent domain, pointing out that it would be used only as a last resort. Gary Kennerly, regional manager for the San Jose-to-Merced section, said an initial review estimated 85 percent of the Caltrain corridor is wide enough to accommodate four tracks side-by-side. But that leaves portions where engineers may have to get creative.

Spaethling said they'd look at solutions such as stacking the Caltrain and high-speed tracks two-by-two before resorting to acquiring property. If they do have to acquire property, he added, they'd prefer friendly negotiations to the legal process of eminent domain. That said, no one is prepared to rule it out.

The chance is certainly there that eminent domain may have to happen, but I wish Oremus had gone into further detail about what that might actually mean. It's not anticipated that many houses will have to be torn down. The most common impact would be a yard, and I have no sympathy for that whatsoever - if someone has to lose part of their yard so California can get off oil dependence, cut carbon emissions, and grow its economy, then that's what needs to happen. That being said, it's right for a city like Palo Alto to debate the best way to implement HSR for their community. But it's absurd to argue that yards > HSR.

I would be VERY amused to see a stacking solution used, especially in Menlo Park and Atherton. It'd be like the spite fence built on Nob Hill back in the 1800s. Again, if they want a tunnel, they will have to pay for it out of their own pocket. It is highly unlikely federal money will be forthcoming - things have changed dramatically in the 40 years since Berkeley was able to use some redevelopment funds, along with a local tax, to bury BART.

Claim: It's too late to push for the tracks to follow a different route; the decision to use the Caltrain corridor has already been made.

Status: Fact, pending court ruling.

Explanation: In 2008, after years of debate, the California High Speed Rail Authority approved a report that selected the Pacheco Pass alignment over the Altamont Pass option, meaning trains would reach San Francisco via the Peninsula rather than the East Bay. Included in the report were plans to use the Caltrain corridor rather than alternatives such as Highway 101 or Interstate 280. Officials said all the overpasses that cross the freeways presented an almost insurmountable design challenge.

Aside from those active in transit boards, Peninsula officials largely sat out the battle, which raged in San Jose and the East Bay. Several have said recently they weren't even aware of it.

I have less and less confidence in the basic competence of "Peninsula officials" every day. We discussed this decision frequently last year - prior to July it was THE #1 topic on the blog. There is no excuse at all for any public official representing a jurisdiction along the Caltrain corridor for not knowing about the battle.

The decision left several transit groups angry, arguing the East Bay alignment would have served more Bay Area riders. They, along with the cities of Menlo Park and Atherton, filed a lawsuit in August challenging the environmental report. Unless they prevail in Sacramento Superior Court, however, the Caltrain alignment is likely a done deal.

I have yet to see a compelling reason why these groups should expect to win in court. They are merely unhappy with the decision in the final EIR/EIS.

As the article shows, there could be a lot more truth and evidence interjected into the debate over HSR on the Peninsula. I don't think any of that matters to the NIMBYs. But it should matter to everyone else, and especially to the members of the city councils along the route.

Note: we'll shift focus away from Palo Alto tomorrow and on Saturday, so get your Palo Alto-related comments in today, as I'm going to request that comments on the next two posts stay on-topic.

Daniel Goldberg Reaches New Lows in HSR Denial

On Monday the Ventura County Star ran a good article on high speed rail. That prompted on Daniel Goldberg, who writes a blog for the VC Star's website, to write one of the silliest pieces of HSR denial I've ever seen. Even though it's absurd on its face, it's worth deconstructing these arguments which are likely to be with us for some time, especially as contentious debates over HSR implementation continue.

Goldberg starts with:

On Monday's front page there was an article about $8 billion in stimulus funds that might be allocated to high speed rail. My initial response was "why can't we stop wasting money?" The high speed rail debate has been going on for years, I think if it really was worth it, we would have dont it by now.

Obviously Goldberg has no clue about how major infrastructure projects are designed and permitted in this country, nor is he aware that we were supposed to vote on this in 2004 but Arnold Schwarzenegger insisted on delaying the vote for HSR bonds to 2006, and then to 2008.

Yes, building the fancy train set might create some jobs, but what about the long run.

Does he assume the train will vanish after 10 years? That it's got some sort of Mission: Impossible self-destruct system? In fact the HSR system will be a central part of California's long-term economic strategy, providing jobs and savings for decades to come. One estimate was that 450,000 jobs would be created by 2030 by the system - nothing to sneeze at.

Our state is already equipped with airports in every major city. And most minor cities also have small airports.

This is more of the usual "air travel means trains aren't necessary!" nonsense we usually see from HSR deniers, people who have probably never actually used some of these small airports. Many, like San Luis Obispo airport, are seeing declining passenger levels and carriers are abandoning the small airports in droves. Of course, peak oil means that the cost of flying will continue to rise - $49 fares from SF to LA will be a thing of the past in 2018.

Furthermore, let us not forget about our current rail system. Besides the Metrolink accident that occurred late last year, the current system works. Trains run daily all over the state and in an efficient manner. This brings me to the old saying, "If its not broken, don't fix it." Lets hope the wiseguys up in Sacramento subscribe to it.

Obviously Goldberg has never actually used a passenger train in California. They run daily, and are efficient given their enormous constraints. But they are wholly inadequate to the task of meeting California's overall transportation needs in the way they can and should. It shouldn't take 12 hours to get from SF to LA via train. It shouldn't even take an hour to get to LA from Santa Ana on a train. California's passenger trains, especially the intercity trains, have attracted a lot of riders and dedicated supporters, but I doubt any of them would say that the present situation is adequate or acceptable.

Especially given the need to boost non-oil based forms of travel, for environmental, economic, and energy reasons. But then I'm guessing Goldberg doesn't believe in global warming either.

He concludes his ill-informed rant:

Back to the $8 billion at hand. I am plenty sure it can be used for a better purpose. What about all those teachers who were just laid off or buying books for students. I imagine it would be better to invest the stimulus money into education rather than on infastructure, and especially for infastructure we DO NOT NEED.

And in the actual version, the "DO NOT NEED" is in a much bigger font than the rest of the text, as if we're too stupid to understand that's his point without being shouted at.

As to the issue of other needs, like schools - we've actually discussed that very issue before, back in May 2008, and ironically based off another ill-informed bit of HSR denial that ran in the Ventura County Star.

The points are still valid today. HSR isn't taking money from schools. The state contribution comes from general obligation bonds, paid out over 30 years at what's probably going to be an annual cost of around $600 million (and that's the higher end of the estimate). Our K-12 schools, however, face a $9 billion cut this year.

If you want to fix our schools, we need to raise taxes. There's no way around it.

But the issues go deeper. Why is California's budget in a mess? For 30 years now we have had a structural revenue shortfall - in other words, for the last 30 years we have not raised enough tax revenue to pay for our basic needs. The solution to this is NOT to turn to bonds - a structural problem needs a structural solution, and bond debt isn't such a solution.

Bonds are properly used to build long-term infrastructure. To pay for ongoing costs like education, we need more tax revenue.

Further, the economic crisis - what I believe to be a Depression, but what many are now calling the Great Recession - is sending tax revenues into the tank. That economic crisis is largely due to the effects of high oil prices on an economy based on sprawl and automobile commuting. If we want to recover from this crisis, grow the economy, generate new tax revenues, and pay for schools, then we need to get off of oil NOW. High speed rail helps get us there.

Unfortunately, HSR deniers refuse to acknowledge any of this, and that means they and their silly arguments will be with us for many years to come.

The LAO and Sen. Alan Lowenthal Attack the HSR Project

Over the last year it's become quite clear that the California High Speed Rail Authority is not exactly the most beloved of state institutions. Arnold Schwarzenegger has tried to kill its funding streams, notably in the 2007-08 budget. Quentin Kopp and Rod Diridon are distrusted by some on the Peninsula and in the Santa Clara Valley. The CHSRA's ongoing financial problems, a creation of the state budget mess, make it more difficult for the Authority to effectively plan the system, and wind up reinforcing some of the negative perceptions of the agency.

I have consistently rejected most of the more conspiratorial criticisms of the CHSRA. I don't see the point in making bogeymen out of Quentin Kopp and Rod Diridon. Sometimes I agree with the Authority's decisions, sometimes I do not, but as a supporter of the project and someone who believes in evidence and reality, I think they're generally a good agency that tries to make the best of a troubled state government, and an overall lack of political leadership for the high speed rail project in California. Quentin Kopp in particular has a tendency to be rather forceful in his public statements, but given the general unwillingness of California politicians to speak out in defense of the project, can you blame him?

One of the CHSRA's more persistent critics has been Democratic State Senator Alan Lowenthal of Long Beach. Lowenthal, you may remember, was behind the flawed report put out by the Senate Transportation Committee last summer that proposed gutting the high speed rail project in favor of turning it into a glorified commuter rail. One hoped that the passage of Prop 1A - which got 55% in LA County - would have shown Sen. Lowenthal the need to support the vision of fast intercity trains connecting SF to LA. But no dice. Sen. Lowenthal is now targeting the CHSRA, but in ways that suggest he is still out to undermine the project itself.

Sen. Lowenthal recently requested an assessment of the CHSRA from the California Legislative Analyst's Office, which you can find as a PDF here. Under Elizabeth Hill, the former Legislative Analyst, the LAO was seen as one of the most respected, informed, and nonpartisan sources of information in the Capitol. Under the new head of the LAO, Mac Taylor, I have instead noticed a steady rightward drift in the work product of the LAO. Sen. Lowenthal appears to have found a willing partner in his effort to undermine the high speed rail project, by using an attack on problems with the CHSRA to mask an attack on the project itself.

Some of the recommendations make sense, including having Caltrans play a larger role in helping vet some of the CHSRA's funding requests and acquisition of federal HSR money. Some are not that useful or necessary, but aren't objectionable, such as the "more oversight and accountability!" portions. Worth noting for a moment that what HSR needs most isn't oversight and accountability, but political support from California leaders and a commitment to getting this thing built the right way. That is nowhere to be found in this report.

One of the more troubling aspects of the LAO report is their lack of context when criticizing the 2008 Business Plan. The LAO lists some specific things that were missing, and concludes:

The information provided by the revised plan is very general and does not provide specifics that are included in typical business plans. In particular, the plan does not provide any better sense of how the authority would accomplish the objective of developing, constructing, and operating a high-speed rail system.

But this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, for the LAO report does not mention - anywhere, at all - that the 2008 Business Plan was delayed and undermined by the state budget delay, as Quentin Kopp explained last October. I wonder how the LAO would perform if it were asked to deliver their usual in-depth analyses of the state budget but were denied the funding to produce that study. It is quite dishonest of the LAO to criticize the business plan without mentioning the budget delay.

By far the most egregious portion of the LAO report is the reappearance of Sen. Lowenthal's effort to gut the HSR project - this time in the guise of a neutral analysis from the LAO. Here's the offending language:

Project Selection Criteria Should Encourage Immediate Mobility Benefits. The authority plans to commit the majority of the Proposition 1A bond funds early in the project. It is important that the funds be spent on projects that benefit the state's overall transportation system in case the high-speed train program is delayed or suspended. We recommend that the authority be required to adopt project selection criteria that prioritizes the use of bond funds to the delivery of projects with the greatest immediate mobility benefits.

Come on, admit it, until you read that you probably thought I was being overly dramatic. But there's no other way to read that section as anything other than an attack on the HSR project itself. Shouldn't the LAO be in the business of trying to carry out the will of the voters and ensure the project gets built? Sure, there's always a nonzero possibility the project will be delayed or suspended. But isn't the best way to prevent that to ensure that project funds actually go to the HSR project itself?

By prioritizing "projects that benefit the state's overall transportation system" the LAO is doing several things. First, they're saying that HSR is NOT part of the overall transportation system, which is nonsense. Second, they are saying that the long-term mobility needs of the state - which HSR is designed to serve - are irrelevant. Third, they are suggesting that the system planning be compromised in order to serve "immediate mobility benefits" even if doing so will undermine the ability of the project to be completed effectively, on-time, and on-budget.

Besides, virtually every part of the HSR proposal can provide "immediate mobility benefits" - from upgrading the Caltrain corridor to starting work on the Transbay Terminal to building track in the Central Valley or grade crossings along the Metrolink corridor in LA County.

Some readers might say I'm reading too much into this, that it's not necessarily an attack on the HSR project. But read this in the context of Sen. Lowenthal's nonsense HSR report from June 2008, which included this recommendation:

6. Ensure that the Authority stages its construction program so that state funds are used on regional segments of the high-speed rail corridor, before developing the long distance link between the state’s major urban centers, i.e., Los Angeles and San Francisco. It is possible that the rail bond program could be approved by voters before the Authority has an approved financial plan that includes state, federal, and private resources. In that case, it is important that the first expenditures of state money should be used for improving regional travel segments where rights-of-way may be shared with commuter operators, Amtrak, freight railroads, and eventually high-speed rail.

It's almost exactly the same language, and clearly making the same overall point. As I wrote at the time:

the State Senate Transportation Committee led by Alan Lowenthal wants to turn the HSR project into commuter rail, and gut the "killer app" aspect of HSR - providing sustainable, non-oil based travel within the state of California. It flies in the face of the stats listed in the study suggesting that the long-distance link is what will make HSR financially viable.

Unfortunately Sen. Lowenthal has gotten the LAO to join his attack on the HSR project. A shame.

I'm all for improvements to the CHSRA. I'm even open to the "Department of Railroads" concept proposed by Senator Denise Ducheny in SB 409. But not every recommendation is a good one. We must support the good ones, and fight the ones designed to gut the HSR project in the mask of "reform."

The California high speed rail system is still facing determined opposition from the usual suspects, even after the passage of Prop 1A. Passenger rail advocates need to not let up their activism at a time like this if we are to avoid becoming the third state to approve and then kill an HSR project. This project is too important to let die.

UPDATE: State Treasurer Bill Lockyer and the Pooled Money Investment Board are going to try and sell $4 billion in bonds this week - but they have not decided whether to give $29.1 million of that to the CHSRA despite Mehdi Morshed's stated concern that the CHSRA would have to shut down without it. However, things do look promising:

Tom Sheehy, who was sitting in on the investment board for Finance Director Mike Genest, said he came to the meeting prepared to support the high-speed rail loan, but decided to wait until the board meets again in two weeks. By then, he said, board members will know if next week's bond sale was successful.

Morshed said he would ask the project's engineering and environmental-review contractors to keep working, banking on the assumption that the loan will be approved in two weeks and they'll get paid.

"With the Department of Finance's strong support I think we're probably in good shape," he said.

Gavin Newsom Wants To Be the HSR Governor

SF Mayor and gubernatorial hopeful Gavin Newsom held a town hall in Oakland last night, and my friend sean mykael of Bear Flag Blue attended and gave a great report on the event. Becks of Living in the O was there as well, and focused on Newsom's answer to a question from AC Transit Director Joel Young. Newsom pretty much evaded Young's question on transit funding, but did use the opportunity to make a paean to high speed rail:

Joel explained that the state had defunded public transit and asked if Newsom, as governor, would restore public transit funding.

Newsom responded that public transit is so important for the environment and briefly answered, “Yes,” that he would restore the funding. But then instead of explaining why or how, he jumped into a long-winded speech about high speed rail. He started off by saying that he wanted to tell us about a project that he knew not all of us supported because it barely passed. This is a strange thing to say because 63% of Alameda County voters voted in favor of Prop 1A.

He then explained how high speed rail was going to change the state, creating jobs and changing how we thought about and used transportation. He talked about his vision for the “Grand Central Station of the West,” which is what some are calling the Transbay Terminal. Energetically, he explained how this would greatly improve the Bay Area region, making it easy to get from downtown to downtown (Oakland to SF).

And that was it. That was his answer to an AC Transit Director.

I'm sure Newsom and his staff will quickly learn that a large chunk of the SF Bay Area did support Prop 1A (or that they need to have different talking points depending on their audience!), but this is a nice statement of support for the HSR project from one of the Democratic candidates. It would also be worth noting that John Garamendi, another Democratic candidate for governor, has also been a strong backer of high speed rail.

I'm glad to hear that Newsom understands the importance of the Transbay Terminal and HSR more broadly. And I am also pleased to hear that he is not just promoting this at campaign events, but is working with Speaker Nancy Pelosi to lobby the feds for HSR funds:

San Francisco officials are teaming up with their Los Angeles counterparts to jointly push for a huge chunk of the $8 billion the stimulus plan will devote to high-speed rail. California believes the federal funds could accelerate the state's plan for a bullet train that could whisk passengers between the two cities in 2 1/2 hours.

At a closed-door meeting Tuesday, Pelosi told the San Francisco delegation the city was more likely to have success in winning the funding from federal officials if it presented a united front along with other California cities.

Board of Supervisors President David Chiu said the city was facing tough competition for the dollars from other regions, including President Obama's hometown of Chicago, which is seeking high-speed rail links to Milwaukee and St. Louis. But he said California is the only state to have passed bonds for high-speed rail and completed an initial environmental planning process.

"From a readiness perspective, we're ahead of probably any other comparable project in the country," Chiu said.

And as to the dispute over the train box? SF Supervisor Bevan Dufty says that high-level meetings between all the key agencies are happening, but Senator Dianne Feinstein is throwing a monkey wrench into the works:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a supporter of the project, said the city should be able to make a good case for the high-speed rail money, but only if state and local entities come together behind a realistic plan.

"My greatest fear is that it's not going to get done right," she said Tuesday. "Now I hear discussions that it has changed to fit a train every five minutes. Well, I know San Francisco, and there ain't going to be a train that gets in and out of there in five minutes. So I'm worried about how realistic the planning is. It used to be (one train) every 15 minutes, which is much more reasonable."

Someone needs to tell DiFi that if you want to "get it done right" then you need to build the train box to handle the desirable capacity now instead of doing a costly rebuild decades down the line. And I'm not the technical expert here, but I'm not sure the choice is between a train every 5 minutes or every 15 minutes - or that every 5 minutes isn't viable.

The worst thing that could happen is to limit the expansion capacity of the system - to prevent it from being "scalable" to borrow from web development jargon - just because a moderate Democratic Senator felt like being stingy way back in 2009.

Still, it's good to see Newsom taking a strong position publicly and privately for HSR. If he really wanted to help he could talk about the need to secure the $29.1 million (I got it right this time! yay me!) that the CHSRA needs to complete its work. And if he wanted to be bold he would go to the Peninsula and explain why they need to stop obstructing and start collaborating with the Authority and the project.

Let's hope Newsom's lead encourages the other gubernatorial candidates to demonstrate their support for high speed rail and provide some leadership that has been severely lacking these last few years.

Of Lawsuits, Tunnels, and Tall Trees

This Friday night brings our attention back to the Peninsula, where some of the first battles over HSR are being fought. First up is the frivolous lawsuit filed by Stuart Flashman, Menlo Park, Atherton, and others. Now they are claiming that the CHSRA ignored Menlo Park's letter about potential loss of property along the route:

The California High Speed Rail Authority ignored Menlo Park's comment letter that outlined how their proposed bullet trains would force Peninsula homeowners to lose their property, according to opening arguments filed Thursday in the city's lawsuit against the state....

The most significant claim in the brief was that the authority never received Menlo Park's comments that were made before the Pacheco Pass route was approved. State environmental law requires government bodies to review comments from cities and residents before a planning decision of this kind is made.

Now the fate of that specific comment letter is important, but let's not kid ourselves - it was never any secret that some in Menlo Park were worried about this. The "Derail HSR" crowd was based out of Menlo Park and those activists and the Menlo Park city council had been vocal about these worries. It is not credible to claim that the CHSRA was "never aware" of Menlo Park's concerns, as the lawsuit claims.

Further down the tracks, Palo Alto residents are falling in love with the tunnel:

On Tuesday, residents voiced two clear messages: They want a bigger say in the design process and they would much rather have a rail line that zips through tunnels than one that whooshes past over their heads on raised tracks, which some city officials are calling a "Berlin Wall" dividing Palo Alto.

It would be "the difference between blight and Park Avenue," Judith Wasserman, a member of the Palo Alto's Architectural Review Board, said of the tunnel-versus-elevated tracks alternative.

"If somehow the High-Speed Rail Authority decides to put it above ground anyway, is there recourse or do we all just have to lie down on the tracks?" Wasserman asked the crowd gathered in a Palo Alto Unified School District conference room at 25 Churchill Ave.

This is starting to get silly. "Berlin Wall"? Lying down on the tracks? Are they serious? Have they ever been to San Carlos, which doesn't exactly resemble East Berlin circa 1980? Neither is anyone talking about a concrete-sided structure; it can be landscaped to fit better with the surrounding community. I understand that Palo Alto wants to figure out how to best integrate HSR within their town, but statements like that just make them look ridiculous. They also make it more difficult to have a sensible and evidence-based discussion of how to design and build HSR. Those who refer to a "Berlin Wall" are showing that they see HSR as some kind of ruinous imposition designed to not only divide their community but take away their freedom. It's language intended to harden positions, and not come to sensible compromises or smart design solutions. (Besides, the people who risked and in some cases lost their lives crossing the Berlin Wall might object to this cheapening of their experiences.)

Nor does it help when some reporters make sensational claims that lack evidence, such as the Daily Post's argument that El Palo Alto would have to be chopped down to make way for HSR. Clem at the Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog debunked this claim:

Sounds pretty dire, but so far, nobody has suggested excavation near the tree, excepting a few Palo Alto residents who are advocating the entire railroad be buried in a tunnel. The great alarm over HSR impacts to El Palo Alto is out of proportion with the concrete piers poured in recent years near the tree for a bicycle bridge, and certainly overlooks the pressing need to replace the more than 100-year-old rail bridge over the San Francisquito Creek, regardless of HSR.

It's a ridiculous situation when people have to resort to sensationalism to try and get their point across. Unfortunately stories like "omg they're going to kill El Palo Alto!!!" have a nasty way of becoming zombie lies that everyone believes to be true despite the lack of evidence.

If Palo Alto residents want a tunnel so badly, they can pay for it. If they don't want to pay for it, then they should find ways to constructively pose suggestions to make the project a success. Too much of the NIMBY criticism of the HSR plan on the Peninsula is very thinly veiled HSR denial, as Martin Engel's prominent place in the debate shows. Peninsula residents have every right to make suggestions and proactively try to influence the HSR design and implementation. But they have no place trying to destroy a project California voters approved. HSR will be built and it will use the Caltrain corridor down the Peninsula. It's time the debate on the Peninsula became less hyperbolic and more constructive.

HSR Denial Alive And Well In San Diego

Just as passenger rail advocates are celebrating the federal government's down payment on high speed rail, and as we become aware that the retreat from last summer's record gas prices was a temporary respite, we get word from San Diego that the HSR deniers are still plying their trade, passing along the same old lies as if nothing interesting had happened between, say, November 1 and February 15. The San Diego Union-Tribune, which had happily spread some of the worst smears about Prop 1A during the campaign season, yesterday called on the state to "pull the plug" on high speed rail:

Nevertheless, a sober assessment of the project still raises profound questions – both about its viability and its advocates' honesty.

I quote that just to be clear at the outset that the U-T wants to make "honesty" part of the issue. That's worth keeping in mind as you read their lies:

We start with the High Speed Rail Authority's own official business plan. It was supposed to be made public by Sept. 1. Instead, it wasn't released until just after Proposition 1A was approved.

How often do we have to refute this zombie lie? The business plan was delivered 45 days after the state passed a budget. The September 1 deadline - given to the CHSRA five days before the deadline (on August 26) - was impossible to meet because of a budget crisis provoked by Republicans. There literally wasn't the money to hire consultants to produce the plan.

Given the business plan's contents, it's understandable why it was kept from voters (and the media). Throughout 2008, advocates touted the eagerness of the private sector to provide a large chunk of the project's huge tab. The plan, however, paints a far different picture. It warns that private investors could be wary of the project's risks and says private firms expressing interest “made it clear that they would need both financial and political commitments from state officials that government would share the risks to their participation.”

Of course private interests would have some wariness - but "wariness" doesn't mean "omg we're not investing in this" - it just means they're going to take a close and smart look. And they always want risks to be shared. That's commonplace in a large project like this. The U-T does NOT mention that the CHSRA has received over 40 statements of interest from private companies and investors, suggesting that this "wariness" is overstated.

Throughout 2008, advocates depicted the project as a pain-free no-brainer for local governments on the high-speed train's projected routes. The business plan, however, says cash-strapped local governments must come up with $2 billion to $3 billion.

I don't recall anyone saying the project would be a "pain-free no-brainer." Well, it IS a no-brainer that we need to build HSR, but we've always said it's going to cost a lot of money. We've also said that the cost will be worth it. Local government funding is anticipated to play a variety of roles, from a long-planned reshaping of rail corridors in Fresno to the Transbay Terminal to station-area developments in smaller cities. Here again the U-T takes an innocuous, widely-known fact and tries to make controversy out of it. It's essentially the same playbook as John Boehner.

The plan also simply drops claims that annual ridership would be about 117 million in favor of a vague prediction of “more than 90 million” annual trips. Yes, this figure is within the broad range cited by some campaign literature – but it wasn't the number used to persuade voters that the system would be highly profitable and would heavily reduce air pollution because people were using high-speed trains en masse instead of cars.

Note that they do not say the 90 million figure would mean HSR would not generate a profit. Nor do they say 90 million is unlikely. No do they say it would not achieve the air pollution reductions. Nor do they question the notion that people will turn to trains for intercity travel. No, they pull a typical HSR denier move and say "omg you changed the numbers! obviously you LIE!" Even though explaining that a range of numbers is possible isn't even a remotely dishonest thing to do.

Whatever advocates' specific ridership prediction, however, what's crucial to remember is its utter lack of a factual basis. Consider that the entire Amtrak system, with more than 500 destinations in 46 states, only has about 26 million passengers a year. Or consider the fact that the rail authority itself used to predict only 23 million trips a year.

What changed? As far as we can determine from advocates' own presentations, all that changed was their realization that grand claims for profitability and environmental salvation could only be made if forecasts were far higher.

First, comparing Amtrak to HSR is like comparing a Cessna to a 747. They are fundamentally different forms of rail travel. They use the national numbers, which do not explain that most of these destinations and states see one or two trains per day, instead of the Acela, which recently claimed that they now have 62% of the market on the Northeast Corridor. Nor does the U-T look at comparable HSR systems around the world. Nope, they cherrypick a stat and compare it to California HSR, even though the comparison is so logically flawed as to lack credibility.

It's not too late for state leaders to try to find a way to pull the plug on this project. Even in the best of times, it's unacceptable to commit taxpayers to spend nearly $10 billion on a project predicated on the fantasies of true believers and likely to end up costing taxpayers far more. In bad times, it's utter folly.

Sorry. America has spoken. We want high speed rail. And we're going to build it. The San Diego Union-Tribune can make up as many lies as it wants to about HSR - voters have shown they support it, America's political leadership has shown they support it, and the need is clearly there. If the best these HSR deniers can do is collect a bunch of lies and call it an "editorial" then they're in even worse shape than I imagined.

Can't wait to ride the California high speed trains to San Diego...

The Stimulus Bill Saga: Senate Edition

UPDATE: MSNBC reports that the cloture vote on Nelson (D-NE) / Collins (R-ME) amendment just passed 61-36 in the Senate. This development suggests that both Sen. Collins and Sen. Snowe (both R-ME) and Sen. Specter (R-PA) have voted in favor and, makes is very likely that the version discussed below will reach cloture and pass on Tuesday. Note that there are multiple numbers describing the dollar volume of the bill, perhaps because of varying estimates of costs related to tax cuts and assistance for the unemployed.

UPDATE 2: As expected, the Senate has passed its version of the stimulus bill with the help of yes votes from Sen. Collins (R-ME), Sen. Snowe (R-ME) and Sen. Specter (R-PA). CNN previews the compromises both houses will have now have to make in conference.

---

The Huffington Post has published a summary of the compromise on the stimulus bill as hammered out by centrist Republicans and Democrats to secure a filibuster-proof majority in the crucial vote expected on Tuesday, Feb 10. With amendments introduced and voted on in record speed, it has been difficult for Senators - never mind the general public - to ascertain the precise status of the bill over the past few days.

For the purposes of this blog, the most relevant section is the one on transportation. All line items are limited to capital projects, the numbers in parentheses refer to the amount in the amended House version as received by the Senate.

- $27.06b for highways (was $30b)
- $8.4b for transit (was $7.5b)
- $5.5b for general-purpose grants (was $2.5b)
- $1.3b for commercial aviation (was $3b)

- $2.0b for high speed rail (was $2b for fixed guideways)

- $250m to states for intercity rail (was $300m)
- $850m for Amtrak (was $800m)
- $160m for small shipyards + ferry services (was $0)
- $830m for roads on public lands (was $750m, but as part of $30b highway grant)

Total: $47.34b or 6% of the entire $780b Senate version (was $46.1b or 5.6% of the entire $819b House version)

Readers of this blog will be pleased to see that the Senate version targets $2b specifically at high speed rail in the corridors designated by DOT, especially since the California project is currently the only one with a completed program EIR/EIS. However, as currently defined by DOT, "high speed" translates to a minimum top speed of just 90mph. Note that the House version permits applications for arbitrary corridors and lower-speed technologies (e.g. commuter rail, subways, light rail, streetcars, guided buses, unmanned people movers, monorail systems, even urban gondolas).

Unfortunately, it's not entirely clear in either version into which funding category e.g. Amtrak California, a joint venture between Amtrak and Caltrans, would fall. California HSR is arguably also intercity rail, but I don't think that's what Senators had in mind. Similarly unclear is the distance at which local transit ends and intercity rail begins or, how it relates to the size of the state(s) requesting funding. In California, consider e.g. the cases of BART, Caltrain, Metrolink, NCTD and SMART. Comparable systems might well be interstate services in parts of New England! A paragraph clarifying these demarcations, if only by reference to existing DOT definitions, would be helpful.

All told, the Senate version actually increases transportation spending by around 3% relative to the House version, in spite of cutting the total bill volume by almost 5%. In particular, some funding has been shifted away from oil-intensive highways and aviation and toward fuel-efficient transit.

Also greatly increased is the level of general-purpose grants that DOT, i.e. the Obama administration, may award to any mode of transportation in an as-yet ill-defined competitive bidding process. The general policy direction of the administration appears to be in favor of weaning the nation off oil, but that may be superseded by a need to spend money as quickly as possible and/or to reward the Republican Senators that are breaking ranks. Both Maine and Pennsylvania have plenty of existing infrastructure, e.g. road bridges, in urgent need of repair. Once the stimulus bill is out of the way, the President may well seek to secure ongoing support from these centrist Republicans by negotiating a formal European-style coalition agreement with them - plus Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi - through end of year 2010.

If the Senate passes this latest version of the stimulus bill as-is, it will still have to be reconciled with the engrossed House version in conference. IMHO, given the razor-thin majority in the Senate, it is likely that House Democrats - after some huffing and puffing - will swallow their pride and make do with relatively minor last-minute adjustments so the President can sign the bill into law as soon as possible.

As a whole, it is arguably very much imperfect, especially in its emphasis on tax cuts over emergency assistance to states whose tax base has collapsed. Unfortunately, politics is the art of the possible. By including generous tax cuts from the outset, the President denied the GOP the opportunity to be seen exercising what little power it has left. It doesn't matter that those cuts were a key campaign promise, since the President had been careful not to specify when it would be kept. Thus, the GOP could have claimed to have forced him to concede them earlier than he might have wanted to and, pretended that this morsel of fake red meat constituted the basis of true bipartisanship. "No drama Obama" simply forgot that for opposition Senators, grandstanding is the point. They need their 15 minutes of C-SPAN fame.

Meanwhile, most state constitutions - including California's - require balanced budgets. This effectively forces Governors to act as Mini-Hoovers, furloughing or letting go state employees, thus reducing their ability to prop up an economy in desperate need of consumer demand. It would be prudent to restore the $40 billion in aid to states that was cut, but with strings attached - especially for the state of California, whose deficit dwarfs that of the other 49. For example, there could be a requirement that balanced state budgets be passed with simple majorities going forward, subject only to a gubernatorial veto. If compliance requires a change to the state constitution, so be it.

Alternatively, the stimulus bill could be amended to authorize the Federal Reserve to buy a certain dollar volume of long-term state bonds at reasonable rates, e.g. those prevailing prior to the collapse of Lehman Brothers (i.e. based on a credit rating of A+ rather than A for California). At a recipient state's request, the authorization would waive repayments in 2009 and 2010, with interest accruing in the interim. With regard to capital investments, only the difference between the interest offered by the Federal Reserve and that available on the market would represent a federal contribution.

Fortunately, the above comparison suggests the House will probably not seek to reduce spending on transportation projects, which enjoys broad support from the electorate. Indeed, it is theoretically possible that an amendment co-sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to add another $25 billion for highway, water and transit infrastructure could be incorporated into the bill in conference, especially if attempts to reverse cuts in general aid to states should fail. The amendment had received 58 votes in the Senate, just two shy of the number needed to overcome a Senate filibuster on the issue.