|
|
|
Uploaded: Friday, March 16, 2012, 7:44 AM
Updated: Wednesday, March 21, 2012, 8:51 PM
High-speed rail boosters promise 'blended' transportation system
New emphasis represents a 'rethinking of the whole high-speed-rail approach,' rail authority now says
|
|
by Gennady Sheyner
Pleasanton Weekly Staff
Photos
 
View all photos (6)
| A lower price tag, fewer tracks and a fresh commitment to fund rail improvements in north and south California are among the features that the California High-Speed Rail Authority plans to unveil in its revised business plan.
That's what representatives of the rail authority told a state Senate committee Tuesday night at a public hearing in Mountain View.
The revised plan, which the rail authority's board of directors plans to release later this month, will also emphasize what has become known as the "blended" approach for the rail system -- a design that would have the new rail system share two tracks with Caltrain along the Peninsula corridor.
This design, which was proposed by State Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Palo Alto) and Assemblyman Rich Gordon (D-Menlo Park) a year ago, has been the subject of much debate in recent months, with many city officials along the Peninsula urging the rail authority to commit to the two-track alternative.
At Tuesday's packed hearing in the Mountain View Center for the Performing Arts, rail officials indicated that with the new business plan, they are preparing to do just that.
Dan Richard, chair of the rail authority's board of directors, and Jim Hartnett, a board member, both said that the "blended" approach is central to the agency's new vision for the project. The members made these comments at a meeting hosted by Simitian, who chairs a Senate budget committee on resources, environmental protection and transportation.
Last year, rail officials resisted the "blended approach," suggesting that it would run counter to Proposition 1A, a $9.95 billion bond for the rail system that voters approved in 2008.
The agency's latest environmental analysis for the major project sill refers to a four-track system, much to the consternation of officials in Palo Alto and elsewhere.
But Hartnett said Tuesday that the agency, in its revised plan, now embraces the idea of a "blended system" for both the northern and the southern sections of the San Francisco-to-Los Angeles system. Hartnett called the new emphasis on the "blended system" a "rethinking of the whole high-speed-rail approach."
"The new direction for high-speed rail is a high-speed-rail system that is dependent on its success on a blended approach both in the north and in the south," Hartnett said.
This new vision could have dramatic implications for Caltrain, which has also been adamant about scrapping the four-track design in favor of the less disruptive blended system. The new business plan, Hartnett said, would place greater emphasis on relying on existing infrastructure in what the rail authority is calling the "bookends" of the line (its northern and southern segments). Specifically, he said, it will lay out a plan for "early investment in the north and in the south that will have direct positive impact on the regional transit systems" and lay the foundation for high-speed rail.
For Caltrain, this early investment could mean getting the funding it needs for electrification -- a project that the cash-strapped agency has been planning for more than a decade. The project, which the agency sees as key to raising its ridership numbers and achieving long-term financial stability, also includes positive train controls and a new stock of electric trains. It would cost more than $1 billion, money that the agency currently does not have.
The rail authority's new vision for the rail system could change that. The authority is preparing a "memorandum of understanding" with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTC) that would identify "early investment opportunities" that the authority can make in the Bay Area. Though the document is still in the works, Caltrain electrification is widely expected to top the list of the Bay Area's transit priorities.
"This is an opportunity for Caltrain as much as it is an opportunity for high-speed rail," Hartnett said, referring to the early investment. "We believe the plan will set out a reasonable way of doing that."
But even as they talked about making early investment in the "bookends," rail officials on Tuesday defended the authority's decision to begin the line's construction in the Central Valley.
This decision had prompted many critics of the $98.5 billion project to refer to the system as a "train from nowhere to nowhere." Some, including the agency's own peer review group, have challenged its earlier business plan for inadequate discussion of funding sources and for its vagueness in discussing plans to build the system beyond the initial segment.
Aside from the voter-approved bond and about $3 billion in federal money, the project has no other committed funding sources. The agency's business plan anticipates private investment in the later stages of the project.
The challenge, Richard said, is to demonstrate that the first segment of the line would provide significant improvements even if the agency doesn't get the funding it needs to build the entire system.
The revised business plan, he said, "will have a more rational basis for showing how the system develops over time so that each station that we'll have in front us will have something that is useful -- like Caltrain electrification, for example."
Richard, who was recently appointed to the board of directors by Gov. Jerry Brown, defended the decision to start in the Central Valley. Starting the rail system in this region will allow the agency to test the new 225 mph trains, he said. On the Peninsula, the trains would reach speeds of up to 125 mph.
Richard also said the agency believes that the new system's ridership will be sufficient to cover its operating costs.
The rail authority's ridership and revenue numbers have been a subject of major criticism on the Peninsula and elsewhere. Uncertainties over these projections, along with the project's escalating costs, were among the major factors that prompted the Palo Alto City Council to officially adopt a position last year calling for the project's termination.
But Richard said that the numbers show that even in the line's "initial operating segment" (the first constructed segment that would be capable of accommodating high-speed trains), ridership would be sufficient to pay for operations.
"We believe that the ultimate ridership projections will mean that there will be sufficient riders on the high-speed rail so that we will not be needing a public subsidy in order to operate," Richard said.
Though Richard did not specify how much the rail system would cost under the "blended" approach, he said the number will come down from the prior estimate of $98.5 billion. He called the price tag (which was a major jump from the agency's prior estimate of about $40 billion), a "sticker shock" for many people. It will be incumbent for the agency to show, in its new business plan, the ways in which the capital costs can be reduced.
"The key to it is the blend approach," Richard said. "This is one of the things that will lock us into the course that I think will save us a lot of money."
Though the rail authority's new vision is more consistent with the views of many Peninsula officials, some said Tuesday that they remain skeptical about the latest plans.
Palo Alto Councilman Pat Burt, who chairs the Peninsula Cities Consortium (a coalition that also includes Atherton, Menlo Park, Belmont, Burlingame and Brisbane) said that when it comes to early investment opportunities on the Peninsula, the "devil will be in the details" of the agreement between the rail authority and the MTC. He noted that the MTC signaled that cities along the Peninsula would not have any direct participation in the process.
Burlingame Councilwoman Terry Nagel also said she is concerned about the MTC's ability to adequately represent the Peninsula cities in the "eleventh hour."
"I don't think the majority of the cities are opposed to high-speed rail if it's done right -- and that's a big if," Nagel said. "It would require money that is well spent on the Peninsula."Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Andrew M., a resident of the Kottinger Ranch neighborhood, on Mar 16, 2012 at 8:49 am A perfect example of a government project run amok. The people of California (foolishly) gave the project approval at the ballot box and almost immediately both the initial costs as well as construction and projected costs have ballooned to over 147% over initial budget predictions.
"Oops!"
Now the entrenched politicians are scrambling to find some way to salvage what small degree of credibility they still have and are looking to take their "high speed rail" fantasy and turn it into an overpriced "medium speed" Caltrain? Pardon the French but "wet the fork" are they thinking?! You've got to know your in trouble when your own Pravda-esque birdcage rag bags on your leadership, business plan and viability of ever coming to fruition.
Web Link
Oh yeah, just remember people. If the official government estimates are already saying we're "just" 147% over budget use your common sense and realize that figure is more likely to be somewhere in the 180-200+% over budget range.
More interesting comments from the peanut gallery...
Web Link
The state is broke, we cannot afford this, it's a bad idea, please stop the madness Gov. Brown! Oh wait, Gov. Brown...? We are soooooo screwed.
|
|
Posted by Bill, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 16, 2012 at 9:08 am What the high speed rail authority promises to do is re-arrange the deck chairs of the Titanic.
Dan Richard is a former VP of PG&E. How much trust do you put in anyone associated with this utility?
|
|
Posted by Poor Stupid Tax Payer, a resident of another community, on Mar 17, 2012 at 5:50 am high speed rail to Bakersfield? What a joke!
|
|
Posted by Tennessee Jed, a resident of the Jensen Tract neighborhood, on Mar 17, 2012 at 7:15 am Oh this is perfect! Let's build the first small segment in an area where the land is easy to procure, it's flat and doesn't cause a real problem engineering wise. Also this would become the "camel's nose under the tent". and as these small segments in rulal areas are completed, it would bolster their stupid argument that well "we have the first segments and so we need to complete the whole damn thing."
And top of all this the money involved, really makes me wonder about how good this really is. It seems the only ones who are talking it up and think it's the best thing since rolled toilet paper is all of our state bureaucrats and legislatures. And we know how good a job they do.
This state is in the toilet, and as I said on another post, the influence in this state is driven not by the people, but by "commie-liberal-union-occupy whatever" interests outside of the people of California.
There is an ill wind blowing in California and I don't think the outcome will be very good.
|
|
Posted by ThomasD, a resident of the Pleasanton Valley neighborhood, on Mar 17, 2012 at 9:06 pm Assuming critics are not Tea Party folks, they must not realize that $98 billion is a bargain compared to $120-170 billion in Highway and Airport expansion otherwise to be required connecting NorCal to SoCal by 2030.
We're spending $13 billion to rebuild a 8 mile Bay Bridge the right way. Yes, it costs $98 billion to build a world-class 800-mile, 4 track in urban areas, HSR system having 220 mph speed in the open segments, 10 minute train frequency, 98% on-time performance that generates operating profits the first year it opens.
Every other leading nation in the world can do it, except "can't build any great anymore" America. BUt let some nut in Washington start another useless war and we'll shell out $850 billion in Iraq, (direct costs), plus $1 Trillion in war veteran/family costs later.
Put on your thinking caps. The problem is getting Congress to invest more money in California HSR, not to lower our vision with a two track system the will have the same ins sues as the Northeast Corridor sharing track with freight trains and slow commuter trains. Until the SF Peninsula accepts that fact, its better for California HSR built 4 tracks and stop in Mountain View
|
|
Posted by charlie Brown, a resident of the Pleasanton Valley neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2012 at 8:23 am Blended? I believe the only thing that's blended is the liquid the "Boosters" are imbibing at their planning meetings!
|
|
Posted by Harve, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2012 at 8:46 am Anything the state does is bad, really bad. We don't need a train system. We can fly goods via American Express, and we can bring back the borax 20-mule teams for treks through the desert areas. Give me back my tax money!
|
|
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Laguna Oaks neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2012 at 9:34 am Have any of you ever left the US? Never ridden on Europe's or China's excellent high speed rail systems? Apparently you want to keep letting the country fall behind the world in infrastructure and innovation. We are already seeing how well that is working for us. But don't worry, soon you won't have to worry about paying taxes because you will be right in there in line with the others that are unemployed do to our country falling behind in the world and there being no jobs here. Then your tune will change and you will be screaming for the government to support you with all the programs you are now so against! It is just like the ultra conservatives who think gay/lesbian rights are horrible unless a member of THEIR family is gay/lesbian (think Cheney for one) or Limbaugh ranting against drug use, oops.
|
|
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2012 at 9:48 am
Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com I'm a fan of high speed rail. I just don't see much value in building a system that won't first service the major metropolitan regions. It will be the *worst way* to build HSR. All it will do is sell Californians and the rest of America on the idea that HSR doesn't work. It's like trying to build the Transcontinental Railway by starting at the golden spike.
|
|
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2012 at 9:56 am
Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com Resident,
It's hopeless to bring political stripe into this mix. The supposedly liberal peninsula cities are being conservative in their resistance to a 4-track configuration.
|
|
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Laguna Oaks neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2012 at 10:35 am No they are being NIMBY in their resistance. It shouldn't be a liberal/conservative thing. I am a fiscal conservative that knows we cannot continue to fall behind the rest world in all things. The question is, "Do we want to be a world power in anything but our military?" If that is the only thing we are competing with we are doomed. We need a strong military, yes, we cannot lead the world by that alone. We need to start spending some of our resources here. Our forefathers built this country for the future. We are not even keeping up with the present.
|
|
Posted by Just Say No, a resident of the Parkside neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2012 at 10:52 am This is a terrible project.
Have any of you looked at the route these rails will take across the central valley? They will destroy CRITICAL habitat...unbelievable. And, I am not a tree hugger by any stretch...but this state needs those Grasslands!
And anyone that thing the 'new' price tag will stay constant...come on now. It never happens in government - and especially not in this state.
The legal fees over law suits will grow. The over runs on this project will be off the charts.
I can drive to socal in less than 5 hours via I-5. I will then have my car and not have to rent one. I am not going to take a 'fast' train ride, just to be dumped in LA and then need ot spend more money to rent a car. Talked to my friends and they say the same thing.
Europe is a different story. This is wrong.
Just say NO
|
|
Posted by Harve, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2012 at 12:11 pm I can drive my Hummer to SoCal in less than 4 hours. They put most tractor trailers on planes now anyway. Flying is the way to go. Save the Central Valley.
|
|
Posted by Bill, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2012 at 1:05 pm I second Just Say No comments -
The proposition that approved selling of bonds for this high speed rail passed by a slim margin. Obviously the people who voted YES didn't read the fine print. The only way to kill this thing is for the state legistrature to pass legislation to dissolve the HSR authority.
So the only group that can do away with idiotic project hasn't balanced a budget in the last nine years, are beholding to the construction unions, and owe big time to the power brokers who want to colonize the central valley.
|
|
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2012 at 10:08 pm
Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com Resident,
I mean "conservative" in the sense of them wanting to conserve the way things are, preserve the status quo, use a 2-track "blended" railway rather than 4-track (inner tracks for HS, outer tracks for slower traffic). Basically the same thing as NIMBY.
|
|
|
| |
|
Send this story
Print this story
