Just Say No

From September 16, 2008 San Mateo County Times RIDING BLIND ON RAIL PLAN by John Horgan When the Nov. 4 election rolls around, San Mateo County's voters will be asked to take a giant leap of faith. Proposition 1A, which will be front-and-center on that statewide ballot, will ask for the approval of nearly $10 billion in bond funds to get an electrified, high-speed rail system started. If this initial financing plan is approved by the voters, the innovative rail line will wind up being constructed, in part, right through the Peninsula. It would be fair to state that no suburban county will feel the effects of the new transportation setup more than this one. But there's a problem: No one connected with the project, whose eventual total cost is only conjecture at this point, can say what the impact will actually be. If fact, if you listen to proponents of the system carefully, it seems the order of the day -- just seven weeks before the critical election -- is utter vagueness and a disturbingly bland lack of specifics. It's unfortunate, because if you believe those backers and their vision of California, their concept could be a godsend for the state. Maybe. There are lots of very big ifs involved, not the least of which is the price tag. They optimistically foresee up to 117 million annual riders (more than 320,000 per day) on a hookup that would link Sacramento and the Bay Area with key points in Southern California, all the way down to San Diego. Trains would take about 2.5 hours to get from San Francisco to Los Angeles, for example. At least that's the ambitious plan. But those touting the merits of the proposal have no answers whatsoever for concerned individuals along the high-speed route through Silicon Valley to San Francisco. Their message for Peninsulas is simple: Trust us, everything is going to be fine. That became glaringly apparent last week when some of those boosters, including Rod Diridon, a chief spokesman for the state's High-Speed Rail Authority, visited the packed Menlo Park City Council Chambers to make their case before what appeared to be a largely skeptical audience. Here are some of the questions they couldn't answer with any clarity or finality: Given that Caltrain is scheduled to electrify its commuter line as well (along the same right-of-way to be utilized by high-speed rail), where will diesel-powered freight trains operate? Will there be four, five, six or more set of tracks when all is said and done? What about grade separations? Will be they constructed so that parts of local towns, such as Belmont and San Carlos, are divided by walled berms? Will eminent domain be employed as the Caltrain route is necessarily widened and upgraded? Interestingly, a spokesman for high-speed rail, Dan McNamara of San Carlos, as he aruged for an alternative route, warned residents of Menlo Park and Atherton that the current proposal would be "a disaster for you." He didn't mention anything about the communities to the north -- in other words, most of the county. In the end, it became starkly obvious that, when it comes to Proposition 1A, Peninsula voters are flying (or riding) blind.

- Written by Joanne

Comments

[Joanne]

Three words to November voters: Just Say No.

Or perhaps the Peninsula slogan should be "Just Say Slow." We need the slow trains on the Peninsula -- the ones that actually stop in our towns (at both stations!) to pick up people where they live and deliver them to their jobs. We do not need 200 MPH high-speed, no-stop, 100 billion dollar trains racing through our towns to deposit LA commuters to SF. Take a plane, Los Angelenos! Or better yet, move closer to your work!
This is the Train to Nowhere!

[Elizabeth]

Wow, totally agree with you Joanne. I didn't realize what this Prop 1A was about and now that I do, I am definitely voting NO!!!! Cant imagine trains at 110 miles an hour racing through our town on a daily basis. Think there could be a better spot for it.

[Elle]

Agree with you both! Why would the High Speed Train even need to come through the Peninsula? With future BART expansion or even using the current Cal Train, there could be an inter-modal station in the south bay that could link riders to a High Speed Train. How many people are projected to ride this train to LA anyway? Is it planned to barrel through the communities in LA?

[Joanne]

The promotional website for this project (for which millions of taxpayer dollars have already been spent) is www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov

In addition to ruining every town on the Peninsula other drawbacks seem to me to be: 1) cost, and 2) location of stops. Theoretically it sounds great to be able to go to LA in 2.5 hours by train. But one can't be both high-speed and have lots of convenient stops (have you ever taken the Amtrak route to San Diego? It's beautiful, but one could almost walk there faster). So the train will apparently only benefit those people who happen to live right next to a station (say in San Francisco or Sacramento) and who happen to want to end up exactly where the train stops in L.A. or San Diego. All others would, I believe, find an air flight much more convenient (and perhaps cheaper). This is a pie-in-the-sky project.

[Michael]

If this High Speed Rail (HSR) measure does not pass, say goodbye to modern rail systems on the Peninsula or in California. We need to build this infrastructure to support the extra 20-30 million people projected in the State. If not, are we willing to build more roads and runways?

Broadway station certainly has no chance of ever opening again without more upgrades. Electrification of the CalTrain line will only happen if we get HSR funding. Without electrification of the line, we will be stuck with the 1950's diesel dinosaurs (Bullet Train? These were called "Limited" trains in the 1950's). There will be at least one HSR stop on the Peninsula (Millbrae or Redwood City). And train speeds will be limited in urban areas like the Peninsula (well below 110mph). Unfortunately, I think there are enough naysayers to keep us stuck with the dinosaurs. Oh well.

Thank you, Michael, for clarifying the speed limitations through urban areas.

[David]

@Michael: The HSR plan definitely doesn't include limiting train speeds on the peninsula to "well below 110 mph". Just look at their projected travel times to SF---there's no way you can achieve their claims with 100 mph on the peninsula.

[Joanne]

And the projection of 20 to 30 million new folks to our state?

No water.

Don't bother coming. Stay home. Don't come west. Repeat- no water.

Stay near your rivers, creeks, lakes and ponds.

California is mostly a desert we water to make green.

NimB(urlingame)by-ism will soar to newer and higher and larger and mountain-size heights with any plans for any CHANGE in this town including high speed rail.

[Joanne]

The website I referenced above is the promotional website for Proposition 1A. For those interested in exploring what the "cons" of this Proposition go to www.derailhsr.com
I agree with the California Chamber of Commerce. It opposes Prop 1A because it feels that there are higher priorities for our tax dollars. Specifically, I think it would make better sense to improve the regional transit within our high population areas (i.e. San Francisco, LA, etc.) before we build a $40-100 billion rail to connect them.
If it is true, as Michael suggests above, that money will not be spent to upgrade the local systems without first approving "the railway through nowhere to nowhere" then this is just another example of our broken earmark-and pork-barrel political system. Enough is enough. How much longer will the voting public put up with this waste?

[Elizabeth]

Michael, I also heard Terry Nagel at the council meeting say that they would "slow to a speed of 110 miles per hour through the Peninsula".

[Michelle]

I am shocked to say that as I write this, that boondoggle prop 1a is actually PASSING. I will have to move due to this. I can't believe it. Not only will it ruin my home but literally every quaint downtown on the peninsula.

[Michelle]

It doesn't matter if these slow to 110 MPH (although you have to question WHY build a HSR which for half its journey must go 110 mph just because somebody chose to build it in a heavily populated RESIDENTIAL area. the problem is these are electric tracks, there are serious environmental hazards to living next to high speed rail and Caltrain is just some slow moving antiquated tech that doesn't have the same limitations. HSR literally shakes the ground for a 3 mile radius around the train, there is a mass of dust and noise like you can't believe. if they wanted to build this on the peninsula it has to go underground. I will look into that lawsuit filed by Atherton and see if I can join. Wow.

[Joanne]

JROC: Several folks on this blog have not been in support of high speed rail down the Peninsula (see above). I wish our council would take a more active role in opposing it.
Will Oremus wrote a very good article in tonight's San Mateo County Times summarizing what has happened thus far. I can't find it online, or I would post the link. Atherton and Menlo Park have joined a lawsuit that essentially argues that the decision to route the HSR down the Peninsula (rather than through Altamont Pass) was not based on an adequate environmental analysis. Palo Alto has now said it is going to file a friend of the court brief in that case. Other cities are joining a coalition to present a united front.