Working on High-cost Rail

Tonight's Study Session on high-cost rail with the City Council and staff yielded a few new insights into how the City will proceed with protecting its residents' interests in the face of possible emminent domain takings, traffic disruptions, towering eyesores and the division of the city into two parts.

Due to Brown Act restraints, the Council members are not often given freedom to discuss what they each want to do and tonight's public Study Session provided that opportunity.  I won't attempt to recap the whole two hours that I heard, but here are a few observations.  Feel free to add your own.

Unlike the last meeting in Palo Alto, Big Labor was only here in small numbers, but when they realized they wouldn't just get to get up and talk about "jobs, jobs, jobs" they got bored and started leaving after about 45 minutes. 

The discussion about the overall goal of the City's efforts on HCR was interesting.  It wavered between stating that we want to "minimize the impact" on the city to stating unequivocally that some underground design is the only acceptable design.  The more vague choice appeared to be the final statement because some councilmembers don't think they have the facts and the data to make that more stringent call now. 

There appeared to be an appetite for hiring either one or two advisors.  In the two-advisor scenario, one would take care of the technical information like watching legislation, design alternatives and estimating costs.  The second one would be a Public Information Officer (PIO) charged with routing inbound inquiries and non-technical information and designing a local communication plan to inform residents and enlist support when the time comes.  The goal is to counter claims of NIMBYism from people like Robert Crankshaft--a Monterey-based blogger who appears to support High-cost Rail because it doesn't go near his pristine shoreline but might be green enough for the rest of us.

There was a lot of discussion about what the PCC can do, what they say they can do but never get around to, and what they cannot do.  The councilmembers appeared to have the most interest in using resources separate from the PCC to estimate the economic impact on property owners near the tracks and businesses in the downtown areas.  A Blue-ribbon Citizens group was discussed that would bring local flavor to that effort by assisting the advisor and many potential nominees were in attendance tonight.

All in all, an informative night that indicates this Council isn't sitting around wondering what to do.  The tough decisions will be on what not to do.

Comments

[resident]

Here is the SM Daily Journal article on the meeting

City wants voice on high-speed rail
February 09, 2010, 12:22 AM By Bill Silverfarb

Diana Clock/Daily Journal
Burlingame Mayor Cathy Baylock at a city study session on high-speed rail. Baylock made it clear she wants the train to be underground and not placed on an elevated platform that has the potential to divide her city.

The Burlingame City Council is forming an action plan to help give it a stronger voice when it comes to determining how high-speed rail trains will go through the city.

Mayor Cathy Baylock’s preference is to have the system run completely underground or as Vice Mayor Terry Nagel would say, “invisible.”

A consultant may be hired to wage a public relations campaign to sell the city’s point-of-view on the project to the California High Speed Rail Authority, state lawmakers and the public that Baylock wants to be paid for out of federal stimulus money.

The council held a special study session on the topic last night with about 40 people in attendance where it tackled the issues of eminent domain, declining property values, eucalyptus trees that would be threatened by rail construction and the impression that Burlingame councilmembers are being called NIMBYs.

One of the council’s guiding principles on the topic is that high-speed trains should not create a physical divide through the community. The council has also made it clear that an underground tunnel option is its preferred solution.

Going into last night’s study session, the council had 27 suggested draft action plan items on its list. It added many more to the list that caused Councilman Jerry Deal to say, “we can’t do all of this.”

Deal and Nagel represent Burlingame on the Peninsula Cities Consortium, a five-city body consisting of elected leaders from Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton, Belmont and Burlingame.

Menlo Park, Atherton and Palo Alto sued the rail authority to have it look again at running the high-speed line over the Altamont Pass and Dumbarton Bridge, an idea some councilmembers at last night’s study session supported.

The council decided last night to do an analysis on the negative economic impact on the city if the rail authority built the line on an elevated platform.

The rail authority intends to release its alternatives analysis for the section of track between San Jose and San Francisco March 4.

Some councilmembers want to see the line end in San Jose and have Caltrain shuttle riders to San Francisco.

Burlingame resident Charles Voltz told the council the project has the risk of not being completed.

“There are three options,” Voltz said. “Build fast while the money lasts. No build, have it end in San Jose. Or, do it right.”

Voltz said the section between San Jose and San Francisco should be the last section the rail authority builds on the complete system.

While the council tried to set its own priorities on how to communicate its desires about the rail system, some of its members took shots at neighboring cities for not communicating enough.

“I’m not convinced San Mateo’s city manager cares about this,” Deal said.

Councilman Michael Brownrigg wants to reach out more to San Mateo councilmembers to build solidarity.

“We should be bearhugging San Mateo,” Brownrigg said.

One of the council’s stated objectives is to work with state officials to appoint a Peninsula representative to the high-speed rail board.

Brownrigg called a recent KQED television interview with Quentin Kopp, a member of the rail authority board, on the subject of the Peninsula section of the tracks as “pathetic.”

Brownrigg also questioned whether Millbrae shared the same interest in the project that Burlingame does. Millbrae is slated to be a stop on the high-speed rail line.

One of Baylock’s goals is to bring other cities together that share Burlingame’s interests so that a united voice can be presented to the rail authority and state lawmakers.

“This individual meeting is wasting our times,” Councilwoman Ann Keighran said last night. Keighran suggested that similar study sessions like the one Burlingame held last night should be conducted with several other cities at once to accomplish more.

The council will spend some more time finalizing its action plan before it decides whether to hire a consultant or form a citizen’s advisory group comprised of a couple councilmembers and a few Burlingame residents.

[Bobby]

HSR just needs to be killed now. The article below says it all.

Railing Against This Costly Track
By Charles Crumpley
Editor of the Los Angeles Business Journal
Tue, February 9th, 2010

When the federal government announced less than two weeks ago that California would get $2.25 billion to help develop a high-speed rail system, it made me wonder if the time has finally come for this good idea.

If built, California’s high-speed train, or HST, would be of great interest to the state’s business and political leaders. After all, you could board a train in Los Angeles, speed along at up to 220 miles an hour, and arrive in San Francisco a little more than two hours later. Spurs would go to other cities, such as Anaheim, San Diego and Sacramento.

Alas, the more I read up on it, the more I felt like I had boarded the blue train that Johnny Cash crooned about. There’s a real funding question and a seriously optimistic view of the ridership.

But let’s start with this basic question: If the HST existed and you were planning a trip from Los Angeles to San Francisco, why would you consider boarding it?

Well, the cost of an HST ticket is projected to be 83 percent that of an airline ticket, so the train gets the nod on price.

However, if you were taking a family trip, you would likely take a car. It’s a much better deal, particularly if you have multiple kids.

If you were taking a business trip, you’d probably care less about the cost and more about the convenience of the train schedule vs. that of the airlines. We don’t know the train schedules yet, but since planes fly from LAX to San Francisco all times of the day and night (Southwest Airlines alone flies 11 times a day there), airlines would seem to have the advantage. A trip by air would be about an hour shorter than one by the HST, too.

Surface transportation to and from a train station is a wild card; it may be more convenient than the airport, but that depends on where your house or office is located. And let’s assume security procedures at an HST station would be about as rigorous as at the airport. (If not, I wouldn’t want to board the train.) So there may be no time saved there.

In short, the HST is no category killer. It would complement, not replace, your other transportation choices.

Yet the official projections assume it would dominate all forms of transportation and then some. The California High-Speed Rail Authority projects 13.5 million riders in the first year of operation, 2020, and 41 million by 2035.

Think about that smaller number, 13.5 million. In all, there are now only 8 million trips – by air and by car – each year between San Francisco and Los Angeles, estimated one expert at a panel last fall at the University of California at Berkeley.

Maybe the 8 million number is low, and let’s assume the HST would draw passengers from more that those two cities. But consider the Acela line that runs from Washington to New York to Boston – and the country’s busiest and fastest passenger rail line. It carries only 3.4 million a year. Suddenly, that 13.5 million figure seems like it came out of dreamland.

And 41 million? As one letter in the Wall Street Journal pointed out, that’s 112,000 riders each day, or 4,680 an hour – every hour of every day.

Trouble is, they need all those riders to make the numbers work. Ahh, the numbers. Let’s take a quick look.

Voters more than a year ago approved more than $9 billion for the project. That sounds like a car load, but the HST needs $45 billion to get going. To help fill the gap, officials are hoping to get $10 billion-$12 billion of private investment or financing. But private money tends not to show up until the end, when the deal is about done.

That means we’re now depending on federal money. That $2.25 billion we just got from the feds? That was about half of what California sought this year. And it looks like there’ll only be a few dribs and drabs for high-speed rail coming from the feds in the next few years. HST officials say they need a total of $17 billion-$19 billion in federal money.

In short, the HST is shaping up as a good idea whose time has not yet come. With apologies to the Man in Black, I don’t hear the train a-comin’.

Please note, statements and opinions expressed on the Fox&Hounds Blog are solely those of their respective authors and may not represent the views of Fox&Hounds Daily or its employees thereof. Fox&Hounds Daily is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by the site's bloggers.

[Clifford]

Way to go Cathy. This is the kind of leadership this city needs.

HSR authority has no intention of working with our city or any of the other cities (PA,MP,AT,SM,MIL). Every question asked is answered with "we don't know" or "we need to study it".

The much touted Context Sensitive Solutions is a waste of time. Unlike Safeway, the HSR Authority does not have to answer to the our planning commission or city council. It's not clear who they answer to.

I agree with Cathy it is time for action.

[Bobby]

Let's hope this is true....

High-speed rail could skip San Francisco-to-San Jose route

1590 KLIV Silicon Valley News, February 12, 2010

SILICON VALLEY -- The California High Speed Rail Authority is thinking about potentially abandoning the San Francisco-to-San Jose section of its proposed high speed rail line -- saying running 200-mile-per-hour bullet trains through the Peninsula might be politically impossible.

The authority is instead floating a new idea, which would have the train line begin in San Jose, instead of San Francisco.

The authority is still trying to figure out how to run high-speed trains down the Peninsula.

They're looking at either elevated tracks, underground tracks or so-called "stacked trains" -- where the high-speed rail line would run either above or below the local Caltrain line.

The authority says starting the line in San Jose would be easier legally and financially.

They stress that the idea is still in its infancy, and has not yet been fully examined.

[Clifford]

Unfortunately, untrue. Checked with knowledgeable sources who call it "just plain bad reporting."