News

Editorial: Medicine doesn't offset poison of HSR bill

While Caltrain and the Peninsula come out as winners from high-speed-rail vote, state still can't afford this 'plan'

In a political drama that has potentially massive financial ramifications for California, last week's razor-close vote to move forward with high-speed rail will keep the uncertain project alive but give the Peninsula the benefit of Caltrain electrification.

The two different visions were dramatically on display last week when the Peninsula's three Democratic legislators split their votes, with Assemblymen Rich Gordon and Jerry Hill supporting Governor Brown's proposal based on the good they saw in it for their constituents and Senator Joe Simitian opposing it because of the state's financial predicament.

Simitian, who has often said he is a supporter of high-speed rail done right, shocked his colleagues when he announced on the floor of the Senate that he could not bring himself to vote "aye" on the bill.

As one of the three senators on the high-speed-rail committee, Simitian had worked hard with local, state and federal officials to negotiate improvements to the plan and find a way to move forward that addressed both local objections and the flaws and uncertainties of the business plan. But in the end, Simitian (and his two colleagues on the HSR committee) decided the risks and uncertainties of the overall project were just too great.

Gordon and Hill enthusiastically supported the bill, saying the Peninsula got virtually everything it wanted and had been fighting for, including no high-speed rail between San Francisco and San Jose. Gordon said the vote does not constitute a commitment to build the entire project, only the Madera to Bakersfield segment in the Central Valley, which he said would bring valuable improvements to the current Amtrak line even if high-speed rail doesn't materialize.

Perhaps the biggest prize for Hill and Gordon was the Caltrain electrification, a long overdue project that will increase the number of stops possible in a one-hour trip from San Jose to San Francisco, and could push ridership to 70,000 a day. And the bill protects the blended, two-track system on the Peninsula, meaning that there will no eminent domain taking of property or encroachment onto Alma Street to make way for trains.

Simitian said he is convinced that without the promise of more federal or private funding down the road, the state could be left to foot the bill for nearly the entire project.

By passing the legislation before a deadline imposed by the federal government, the project will receive $3.3 billion in federal funds and $2.3 billion in state funds to build the 130 miles of conventional (not electric) passenger train tracks in the Central Valley. The bill also provides or frees up some $1 billion for local projects in Northern and Southern California.

Unlike Simitian, three key reasons convinced Gordon and Hill to support the bill:

• A guarantee from the rail authority that it would build only a two-track, rather than four-track, system on the Peninsula. Hill said the stipulation means that there will be no land taken beyond the Caltrain right of way, including earlier projections that tracks might infringe on some homes and portions of Alma Street.

• $600 million for Caltrain electrification, a goal the commuter train service has had for years. Electric trains, in addition to eliminating the noise and pollution of diesel engines, can travel faster and stop more often for passengers and still make the San Jose to San Francisco run in one hour or less.

• Rail improvements on the Peninsula that could stand on their own even if the full project is never completed.

Simitian's concerns are both immediate and long-term. He fears that Governor Brown's ballot initiative to raise income taxes on wealthy Californians and impose a small sales tax might not pass in November due to a backlash from voters angry that the Legislature passed the high-speed-rail project. And he still sees trouble in the project's business plans and has doubts about the rail authority's leadership, which has several major vacancies and a CEO who has been on the job less than a month.

While some are quick to attribute the votes of all three local legislators to politics, we think all three voted for reasons they found sound, compelling, and practical. Gordon and Hill see a unique opportunity to obtain a lot of money that will benefit the Peninsula, and argue if the rest of high-speed rail doesn't pan out, our region is still a winner. They may be right. Simitian says he hopes he is wrong, but can't support setting in motion a plan that has so many financial risks and uncertainties, even if his district will benefit.

Simitian's reasoning is the more principled in the broader context of how taxpayer money should be prioritized and spent, and we share his worry that in a state with a continuing budget crisis, high-speed rail should not take precedent over other needs.

And now that the bill has passed, like Simitian, we hope to be proven wrong.

Comments

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Robert
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 13, 2012 at 12:54 pm

Editor:

Your editorial was mildly almost diffidently written. It's most interesting that the headline and sub-head ("Medicine doesn't offset poison of HSR bill...While Caltrain and the Peninsula come out as winners from high-speed-rail vote, state still can't afford this 'plan'") expressed more of a clear, forthright position than anything in the body of the editorial itself. What's up with that?

I am upset that you let the following claim go unchallenged: "Gordon and Hill enthusiastically supported the bill, saying the Peninsula got virtually everything it wanted and had been fighting for, including no high-speed rail between San Francisco and San Jose." Who said or where is it written that there will be no high-speed rail between SF and SJ? That's not my understanding of what CHSRA has in mind. They are apparently reluctantly willing to run their HSR trains on the CalTrain tracks on the Peninsula. While those trains would be limited to 125 on the Peninsula -- thus, in my mind, making it rational to terminate HSR in SJ, but no, that would be an affront to SF! -- there would still be more trains (CalTrain's + HSR's) under the so-called "blended system," if we must use that pathetic phrase that many politicians have treated as if it were the Holy Grail. So, there would be HSR trains on the Peninsula, they just wouldn't be going at more than 125 mph.

Re Hill and Gordon's three "reasons" for supporting Moonbeam's last minute pork-laden proposal (which the editorial completely ignored), let's look at them:

1. Where exactly is that "guarantee" that CHSRA will stick with a two track system and won't take any property along the CalTrain ROW? Is it on paper, in the legislation, or based on a "gentlemen's agreement"?

2. Re the $600 million for CalTrain, if I read this correctly, it seems unlikely to shorten the trip to SF from PA or MP. Rather the electrified train will be able to travel faster THUS ENABLING IT TO MAKE MORE STOPS TO PICK UP AND LET OFF MORE PASSENGERS, STILL LEAVING THE SF/SJ TRIP AT ABOUT ONE HOUR. While I like and support CalTrain, the only thing good here is that CalTrain will be electrified and probably be put on berms and eliminating crossings. I don't expect that the ride experience will be enhanced.

3. "Rail improvements on the Peninsula that could stand on their own even if the full project is never completed." We're going to pay a hell of a price tag for that "improvement" to CalTrain. I believe that people along the way would have been willing to support a bond issue for electrifying CalTrain; without such a bond issue, electrifying CalTrain was tied to supporting CHSRA's fiasco plan. So CalTrain will get $600 million while the state goes another $6-7 billion in debt -- at a minimum and $200-250 billion for the whole line.

Thanks for the editorial, but next time please don't pussyfoot around in expressing your position.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Douglas Moran
a resident of Barron Park
on Jul 13, 2012 at 2:04 pm

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

I have been at multiple events where the HSR issue was raised either with Rich Gordon or with members of his staff sent to represent him. In each case, the justification for support was that Central Valley construction workers "deserved jobs". The consistent use of "deserved" indicates that this was not mis-speaking, but an intentional representation of Gordon's position.

It is a shame that the editorial ignores this long history in judging his motivation.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by m2
a resident of Barron Park
on Jul 13, 2012 at 2:19 pm

If the rail authority is "guaranteeing" it won't go to a four-track alternative, then why is the four-track alternative still in the statewide EIR? Answer: Their guarantee means nothing. It was only thrown into the bill so that people like Gordon could say they got something in return for their pro-union vote.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ODB
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jul 14, 2012 at 2:33 pm

<< Assemblymen Rich Gordon and Jerry Hill supporting Governor Brown's proposal based on the good they saw in it for their constituents >>

With the state already deeply mired in debt, how is $68 billion in additional debt, plus bond interest, plus "cost overruns", good for anyone in California?

This project is way out of control. Through what perversion of the political process does California wind up paying for improvements to federally-owned Amtrak? That's like California taxpayers paying for improvements to federally-owned Yosemite. In 2008 Californians voted for high-speed rail bonds. They did not vote for electrification of CalTrain, they did not vote for improvements to Metrolink, and they most certainly did not vote for improvements to Amtrak. Even Quentin Kopp of all people questions the legality of the shenanigans going on with CA HSR:

Web Link

I personally do not believe CalTrain electrification is as desperately needed as people think. I have seen no data to indicate how an electrified CalTrain would be powered, either in dollar terms or the natural resources used to generate the electricity.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Local picks on 2015 Michelin Bib Gourmand list
By Elena Kadvany | 5 comments | 3,109 views

WUE makes out-of-state tuition more affordable
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 2 comments | 2,823 views

Ode to Brussels Sprout
By Laura Stec | 18 comments | 2,420 views

Go Giants! Next Stop: World Series!
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,823 views

A Surprise!
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 1,021 views