High-Cost Rail - Part 119 4 out of 5 Are Better Than Rich Gordon

Shall we have one more high-cost rail post for the year?  Why not.  The Daily Post has done the legwork on the five candidates seeking to replace termed-out Assemblyman Rich Gordon for the seat located just south of our own Kevin Mullin.  The Post talked to all five and unfortunately none of them had the huevos to just say no to high-cost rail, but four of the five are less supportive than Gordon was in his day.  Here's a taste of each:

Palo Alto councilman Marc Berman:  "he said he would like to see the money go towards regional projects to alleviate traffic in the Bay Area before working on HSR."  That's nice, except there is no "money".  Even the initial bucks from Prop 1A couldn't be reallocated and there ain't any more after that, especially if you read the Cap and Trade limits like a normal person would read English.

Menlo Park councilman Peter Ohtaki:  "he certainly accepts the blended system, which has HSR sharing the train tracks with Caltrain along the mid-Peninsula.  Before the blended system was proposed, HSR was proposing building its own set of tracks down the Peninsula, which Ohtaki said would have split the cities in two."  Except even the blended system will require crossing closures and the increased frequency, noise and grade separations will still split cities in two.

Cupertino Mayor Barry Chang:  "California needs HSR, but not the project that is being proposed.  'I'm worried that it's not going to work' he said.  The Central Valley needs HSR, but he'd like to see the tracks run along I-5 then the system could branch off to other areas of the Central Valley."   He might want to revisit the pitiful ridership numbers for the current SF-LA proposal before espousing a worse business plan.

Vicki Veenker, a Palo Alto patent attorney, "said she questions why HSR needs to go up the mid-Peninsula to San Francisco, as opposed to stopping in San Jose. 'If you look at other metro areas in other parts of the world, the HS of HSR doesn't happen until you get out of the metro area".  Veenker makes the most sense of the bunch.  I noted much the same here for regular speed Amtrak service.

The last guy, Mountain View councilman Mike Kasperzak told the Post he still supports HSR, so he is a definite "no".  While B'gamers don't get to vote in this one, we all have friends "down there" and once we figure out the best choice it will be time to make some phone calls.  We need someone from the Peninsula in Sacto talking sense and protecting the town.

Comments

[dtn]

Maybe Nagel will move into Gordon's district and give it a shot since she can't beat Pine. That line up looks pretty weak. She would fit right in.

[Christopher Bush]

I think that you are probably being a little bit too harsh on Marc Berman. Parsing his words I think that he is saying that HSR has is paying for needed improvements (I.e. Electrification and quad gates) and acting as a forcing function for additional improvements to the regional rail system (I.e grade separation- and Palo Alto is pushing for trenching). Berman seems to be saying that we need to focus on consuming those benefits regionally rather than allowing them to be consumed by running HSR cars through the system. Having better Caltrain service will do a lot to alieviate traffic on the 101. I think that is a very sensible position.

While the money may be explicitly allocated for HSR, it might be politically feasible to pass a new prop to reallocate the bond raising authority for improving regions rail accessibility infrastructure. Since the public has already committed itself to the bond raise it will not be an incremental new commitment. This could also flip the allegences of some of the contractors and engineering firms who can refocus on a new infrastructure project. This could also provide a political face saving project for Jerry Brown.

Better than saying no to HSR, we should be propsing more viable alternatives for reducing carbon emissions and creating jobs. It seems like regional rail infrastructure improvements(trenching the train and increasing service ) would be much more cost effective at achieving the objectives of the HSR.

(full disclosure, he and I used to work at the same law firm and I met up with him to talk about his Palo Alto City Council run)

[Christopher Bush]

Tangentially, Palo Alto seems to be doing a lot more to directly engage HSR and ensure that their concerns are addressed and the process is not ramrodded.

http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2015/12/27/palo-alto-calls-for-collaboration-in-high-speed-rail-design

[Joe]

I'm willing to believe that a short Daily Post quote might not capture his full position, but the idea of another Proposition to replace the existing one seems out of reach to me. It's a nice thought and one I would support, but there isn't enough leadership to deliver it without a new governor and some sizeable financial interests behind it. I've been on the lookout for said for 5+ years and have not found them.

CHSRA will "talk" to anyone, but listening is a different matter (ref: recent Town Hall meeting in B'game). They have the Peninsula nicely divided and hence conquered.

[Joe]

Here is some further good news on the back of Willie Brown's commentary in the Comicle about Brown backing off HSR:

•State Politicians Have Started To Bail - Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, running hard for Governor, and a good bet to replace Governor Brown, has been a high-profile critic of the state's current project. Furthermore, Democratic Party members of the Legislature are also starting to break ranks. Assembly Member Patty Lopez, for instance, has made a big deal out of her recently-announced opposition. In a recent LA Times article she said, "the matter should go back to the voters, who approved $9 billion in funding for the project in 2008. Lopez said the state has higher priorities, including water, jobs, homelessness, that outweigh the high-speed rail system."

•Initiative Measures Are Taking Aim At HSR - Three different initiative measures, heading for the statewide ballot in November, would either terminate or very significantly truncate the state's current High-Speed Rail effort. You can read up on the initiatives by clicking this link!

U.S. Government Reports Point Out The Problems - The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has done a project review, presented to Congress, showing that the Authority is far behind its schedule in acquiring properties and has extremely limited funds.

[Peter Garrison]

Please, please, please...