More on why high speed rail on the Peninsula is misguided.

This is something from a guy named Martin Engel. I have read his letters to the editor several times, usually about transportation issues. He makes some good points. I believe, as he does, that Caltrain has made a "deal with the devil."  How can they be objective about high speed rail when they are riding ontheir coatails inorder to get their own projects paid for? Read on.

 There is an MOU between the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB) that operates Caltrain, and the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA).  In that agreement, there is -- in effect -- a business deal.  The deal states that the Rail Authority will provide the funding and construction of all grade separations, electrification, signaling hardware and some other stuff.  We know that the Authority projects costs for the rail corridor to be $4.2 billion.  The PCJPB, in turn, will provide the rail corridor itself as their part of the bargain.  Although the Joint Powers Board claims in this MOU that they are the 'sole owner' of the corridor, elsewhere they agree that they are 'stewards'.  And that, as you will see, is a far more appropriate term.

 Malcolm Dudley of Atherton, a major figure in rail related developments on the Peninsula, points out that the rail corridor was purchased from Southern Pacific, precursor to Union Pacific, by SamTrans.  At that time, SamTrans was the only functioning organization in San Mateo County with authority to sign such a purchase.  That is, the rail corridor transferred from private to public hands.

 The funding for this deal came from the three Peninsula Counties. Our tax dollars at work.  Therefore, Dudley claims, the Caltrain Corridor actually belongs to the citizens and taxpayers of the three counties.  I agree with him.   As a consequence of the sale of the corridor, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board was created to administer the rail corridor and what came to be called Caltrain, the rail commuter service.  That's not the same as ownership.   All of which is to say, the JPB represents all of us in administering this public rail corridor.  JPB is no more the owner of the rail corridor than the National Park Service owns our National Parks.  Both have decision-making powers but cannot claim 'ownership.'

A Bad Business Deal

Put these two situations together, and we discover that Peninsula taxpayers are about to get the short end of a very long stick. Let me explain.  The Caltrain Strategic Plan 2025, with their expectations of high-speed rail development investments on the corridor, might lead one to believe that Caltrain would be receiving rent or lease fees from the CHSRA in payment for sharing the use of the corridor. 

 After all, if I rent the first floor of my building to someone who wants to open a restaurant, wouldn't I expect him to make the capital development investment to fix the place up as a restaurant since it would be his profitable business?  And I would, of course, also charge him rent. That would be a fair and equitable deal.  Don't we charge grazing fees to ranchers who feed their cattle on federal public lands? 
But, that's not what is happening here.  An inter-city rail operator is going to use our rail corridor after making extensive improvements in order to operate this high-speed rail system at a profit.  CHSRA will pay for those improvements, but then, when that investment has amortized, use of the rail corridor will be free in perpetuity.

 Caltrain people have told me that they are the hosts of this partnership and high-speed rail will be the guest.  Rather than 'guest,' I would prefer the word 'tenant.'  We, the people, are the owners of the corridor and the Rail Authority will be the tenant.  However, with the current arrangement, they will pay no rent.

 It should be pointed out that we have them over a barrel.  Kopp and Diridon insist, absolutely, that they must use the Caltrain corridor.  They refuse to go anywhere else.  They also insist that they will generate $1 billion in annual profits.  Why must we let them do this for free, forever?
Indeed, unless I have misread the MOU, there are no time limits to the agreement.  This is not, for example, a 99-year arrangement, to be re-negotiated in the year 2108.  That's also not a good deal.

 If such an arrangement is acceptable to the Joint Powers Board, as it appears to be, and they represent us, they are doing a lousy job and should be called to task.  They have not negotiated in good faith on our behalf.

What's in it for Caltrain and for us?

How about using those fees from the High-Speed Rail Authority to finally resolve Caltrain's perennial structural operating deficits? How about reducing ticket fares and thereby increasing Caltrain ridership?  How about borrowing against that income revenue as the 'local' contribution to tunnel HSR beneath those cities that want HSR out of sight?
Dear Colleagues, if I have my facts wrong or if I am not understanding something in this argument, please correct me.  If I do have a compelling case, I would like to see it brought to the attention of attorneys and those among us who are taking action to protect our interests on the Peninsula.  If this bad deal slips past us and we do nothing about it, we have only ourselves to blame.

Comments

[Joe Baylock]

This letter is a good addition to the discussion. I happened to catch Caltrain to San Jose last week and picked up a quarterly newsheet called California Rail News published by TRAC out of Sacramento. There were two interesting additions to the HSR discussion:

1. As Mr. Engle notes in his letter, the Peninsula right-of-way was purchased from Southern Pacific which has since been acquired by Union Pacific. UP has something to say about all of this. The article notes:

"Union Pacific informed the HSRA that although it sold the Peninsula line to the Joint Powers Board that beyond freight operating rights it 'retains all right and obligations relating to intercity passenger service provided by Amtrack or any other operator, at Union Pacific's sole election.' The line is not currently used for inter-city passenger service."

What I believe UP is saying is that SF-SJ service isn't really inter-city service, but SF-LA service clearly is. Their main concern stated in the rest of the article is for their freight trains. They need 23 feet 6 inches of clearance and the electrification plans don't currently call for that much room. They also don't want 220 mph HSR trains sharing track with freight trains and demand "grade-separated crossovers for freight trains at necessary locations".

2. The second article reprints Quentin Kopp's letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein on CHSRA letter head enumerating his views on which California projects should get funding (read stimulus money) and, by omission, which projects shouldn't get stimulus money. The letterhead shows there are nine members of the CSHRA, but Kopp apparently didn't consult them before sending DiFi his views.

All of this caused Palo Alto Vice Mayor Jack Morton to suggest to his colleagues on May 4 that the CHSRA be dissolved. After seeing the some of the CHSRA staff members in action at a subcommittee meeting is Sacramento, he apparently was unimpressed. Hence the recommendation to dump the whole Authority and let another authority with real project experience run things. Certainly Quentin Kopp has done a lot of things in his career, but I don't recall running a railroad to be one of them.

The San Mateo County Times was on target in its May 13 editorial when it said "Potentially affected municipalities involved in the latest electrified rail effort need to band together. If they don't, their individual recommendations and complaints will be watered down and muted to the point of irrelevance."

The Times goes on to note "The Peninsula's elected state representatives, so far, have been reluctant to come out loud and clear for preserving the historic ambience of the region's relatively small cities". Much as I believe in protecting the historic ambience on the Peninsula (and regular Voice readers know that my zeal is substantial), let's not forget the Peninsula's "small cities" economic hearts are also at stake. Widening the train tracks by up to 200 feet takes a lot of property and business locations. Ouch!

[Lorne]

http://www.newyorker.com/video?videoID=23549793001

[commuter]

The Times is talking about the fare increases that Caltrain is thinking about. They haven't talked about the money the train is losing for some reason but here are the choices for increases

One proposal calls for a 25-cent base fare increase and a second lays out a 25-cent per-zone hike. A third includes both increases. Caltrain passes through six zones, so if both options were implemented, the maximum one-way fare would jump to $13, an increase of $1.75.

The price of a monthly pass would rise, as well. If both increases are approved, a three-zone monthly pass — for trips like San Francisco's Fourth and King Station to Menlo Park — would cost $179, up from $159.

Caltrain is also considering raising the price for a monthly parking pass from $20 to $30, and upping daily parking fees from $2 to $3.

Since July 2005, fares have risen 43 percent, from $1.75 to $2.50, for the shortest one-way trips. Parking fees were last raised in October 2006.

[commuter]

Caltrain is conducting a community meeting tonight in San Carlos to get the public’s input on proposed fare increases and service suspensions. Caltrain is proposing to increase zone fares by 25 cents, suspend all weekend service and stop service to Gilroy. The meeting is at 6 p.m., Caltrain Headquarters, auditorium, 1250 San Carlos Ave., San Carlos.

[commuter]

Caltrain will not suspend weekend service or raise fares this year as it grapples to balance its $100 million budget, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board announced yesterday.

Instead, Caltrain will reduce midday service to one-hour headways, increase GO Pass pricing to the equivalent of the full fare three-zone monthly pass and increase parking fees to help trim its $10.1 million deficit for the 2009-10 fiscal budget