The Burlingame Voice

Hwy 101 Carpool-Toll Lanes?

The DJ is the latest paper to report on the possible study of adding carpool or toll lanes to 101 through B'game:

With commute times on Highway 101 getting worse, the City/County Association of Governments is moving forward with studying whether carpool and toll lanes can solve the problem.

The C/CAG board is seeking $9.4 million from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to conduct the preliminary environmental and design work needed before any potential construction can actually take place on the corridor.

C/CAG has also requested another $8.5 million from the San Mateo County Transportation Authority for the environmental phase of the project.

The plan now is to bring the lanes south from the Santa Clara County border north to Interstate 380 in San Bruno.

The average peak commute speed on Highway 101 is now about 25 mph, said San Mateo County Supervisor Don Horsley.

The piece goes on to note that a carpool lane would only increase the average speed by 3 mph, but "we have to do something".  Who would care to speculate on the Unintended Consequences of such a move?  I know a bit about commuting down 101.  Not as much as I did 10 years ago, thank God, but a bit and it is ridiculous to describe either the problem or the solution in terms of averages.  If C/CAG and the MTC come back with a recommendation of a toll lane will we also get a movement for "affordable commuting"?  The whole phenomenon is driven by the Silicon Valley economy which is cyclical, but one thing is for sure--high-speed rail on the Caltrain corridor will not help things!

High Cost Rail - Part 117 Water Instead!

Hot on the heels of Gov. Moonbeam declaring that the water restrictions may go to next Halloween

Despite forecasts of a wet winter, Californians can expect another year of water conservation in 2016 under an executive order issued Friday by Gov. Jerry Brown.

Californian are currently under orders to reduce consumption by an average of 25 percent, as compared with 2013. Brown’s order would extend the cutbacks through next Oct. 31 “if drought conditions persist through January 2016.”

Many experts and state officials said it’s almost a certainty the conservation order will continue through next fall. While El Niño is expected to drench the state this winter, many forecasters believe it won’t create enough precipitation to repair water supply problems created by four years of drought.

Two politicians have proposed the most sensible thing we have heard out of Sacramento in a decade or more

Two Republican elected officials have submitted a 2016 ballot measure that would shift $8 billion in unspent high-speed rail bond funds to water storage projects.

The initiative by Sen. Bob Huff (R-San Dimas) and Board of Equalization member George Runner is a direct challenge to the high-speed rail project championed by Governor Jerry Brown.

The Capital Radio piece reporting on this notes that Brown has $20 mil in his campaign chest that he could use to fight it.  I say let's drain his chest before he drains ours with his High Cost Drain! 

High-Cost Rail - Part 116 Show Me the Money

The Daily Journal and the Daily Post had near identical articles about a the lack of private investors for high-cost rail and those investors' concerns as sleuthed out by the AP

Businesses that might bid to build a high-speed rail network across California are questioning whether there will be enough government funding to complete the complex and ambitious project.

That picture emerged from documents the companies submitted to the state rail authority overseeing the project, which solicited ideas for how it should approach building a first segment of 300 miles of track by 2022.

In response it received 36 submissions from firms including global construction and engineering giants AECOM, Siemens and Parsons. The rail authority released the documents to the Associated Press under a Public Records Act request.

This will not come as news to anyone reading the Voice, but this wrinkle is new

In the documents, many firms suggested breaking the project up into smaller contracts, typically in the $3 billion to $5 billion range. Anything much larger could scare off even the world’s largest construction and financing firms, the respondents said.

“The market cannot absorb a single $20 billion contract,” a group led by ACS Infrastructure Development, Inc. wrote, arguing that the risk to a construction firm would be too high and that “financial institutions would not invest into a project of such unprecedented scale and cost.”

This smacks of desperation all around.  And yet the SacBee is reporting

State high speed rail officials confirmed last week they plan to call for bids from high-speed rail companies in mid-2016 to build the sleek aluminum trains that will run at 200-plus miles per hour between San Francisco and Los Angeles. The state is expected to need about $3.2 billion worth of train “rolling stock” to serve the new system.

The cart would appear to way in front of the horse here.

 

the train keeps a rollin'.

Last night, there was a standing room only crowd in attendance to hear from the California High Speed Rail Authority.

If you weren’t there, you should have been. I was there, but unfortunately could not stay for the entire meeting. Many in the crowd asked the Authority tough questions.

Thanks goes out to Sen. Jerry Hill, Burlingame Council member Micheal Brownrigg and resident Charles Voltz for reaching out to CHSRA and convincing them to change the format of the meeting to allow a public Q & A session.

I have asked several attendees to give me their impressions. Here they are:

The audience did not seem persuaded by all the assurances that this would benefit Burlingame and other communities on the Peninsula, nor that train volume, traffic, safety, emergency vehicle access and other issues could all be adequately addressed by lots of community engagement.

They almost made it sound as if the blended system was their idea. Folks should not forget it resulted from political pressure by elected officials after a lot of public outcry about an elevated four-track approach destroying the quality of life in Peninsula communities.

Volume of trains seemed to be the biggest single concern, followed by noise and then traffic.

Hopefully this open house served as a quick learning curve for City Council candidates about HSR and what they will be up against if they are elected.

Lots of vague promises, most of which we know will never come to fruition. For example, they reiterated the point that the trains will be quieter. How? There will be quad gates and quad gates mean that the city can apply to be a quiet zone (no horns blasting) but the city is the one who has to work through this process and in the last go around we found that if a city wants a quiet zone, the liability for any accidents falls to the city rather than the rail partners. What city wants to take that on? So one again it was really about hollow assurances of how they are going to build this thing with our community’s best interest at heart.

Questions and concerns ranged from general safety issues of the gates, to emergency vehicle response and traffic, to degradation of aesthetics (tree loss and widespread fencing) and decreases in eastside property values. With a few well-chosen phrases, like: “we want to work with the communities” and “this is just the beginning of the communication process”, those accustomed to "HSR-speak" were once again reminded that in fact, funding does not exist for grade crossings, or anything related to these, or any improved aesthetics, will likely fall to the local municipals to fund. The issue of trenching came up, again ("too expensive"), as well as alternative routes of highways 101, 5 or 280, all being promptly addressed as having been eliminated by engineers years ago for various (valid?) reasons. The accuracy of the trip timing between LA to SFO was challenged by at least one speaker, but this, too, was deflected for others to deal with. So, it was clear that not much has really changed, except the suits. There was talk of widespread and necessary fencing for safety, and the fact that only 6 commuter trains will be running each hour (as opposed to 5) currently. The long and the short of it is, that the cities on the SF Peninsula between S.F and S.J. will have NO benefit from HSR splicing our cities. Instead, we will experience significant detriment.

One of my observations is that only a handful of our local leaders were in attendance—three from Burlingame and none from the Peninsula cities that have been the historically the most vocal opponents of HSR, this despite some serious outreach. Three out of the four Burlingame council candidates were in attendance.

Bottom line, HSR is back on the Peninsula and its not going away anytime soon, despite the many obstacles in its way. Pay attention folks.

 

High-Cost Rail - Part 115 Central Valley Update

I haven't had an update in awhile from one of the most diligent opponents to High-cost Rail, but his latest update had some encouraging news about the Central Valley

Status of the HSR Project in the San Joaquin Valley – Despite the bluster and bullying from Sacramento, in less than two years the State must turn back most of unspent Federal funds to the US Congress.  Construction has not begun on the first 29 mile section southwards from Madera towards Fresno.  With 50 other states’ (Federal) money, the High-Speed Rail Authority has purchased about half the land needed to build that section and destroy homes, businesses and farms.  At a meeting in Chowchilla in April we learned of the sly and threatening tactics the Authority (and its friend the Public Utilities Commission) have used when trying to get farmers to sell; but by and large the farmers along that section have forced the eminent domain process to be put in place, and in the last quarter we’ve seen a dramatic slowdown in the pace of property purchases. 

Thinks at the Federal level are a bit more fuzzy given all of the stakeholders 

          Status at the Federal level – The Denham Amendment (Rep. Jeff Denham – R, CA) was inserted into the Transportation Spending Bill in mid-year and passed the House of Representatives.  It requires the State to return to the original terms of the Federal-State contract to use federal funds, which required a matching contribution of 50% for each tranche.  In late December 2012, the Federal Railroad Administration and the State changed the terms of that contract, allowing only federal money to be spent before any matching took place.  If the Transportation Spending Bill gets passed by the end of this September, it will force Governor Brown to dip into state reserves to match the roughly $1Billion the feds have contributed so far.  And it would begin to ‘bleed’ the almost non-existent state funds for planning and engineering – which are ‘off-limits’ to any legal challenge.  If Congress goes for a Continuing Resolution at the close of FY15 (September 30th) the Denham Amendment will be put back into next year’s spending bill.

And there was some modest good news on the legal front too as the anti-HSR legal team got some documents allowed into the record that should help the suit.

High-Cost Rail - Part 114 Predictable Fires

I had two immediate thoughts while watching the news last night and reading that Jerry Brown had finally declared a state of emergency over the Valley fire.  This was the scene that sparked the thoughts.

That is three very large ones including one that doubled in size in less than a day and my first thought was to the air pollution.  Shortsightedness on where to put state resources seems to be the problem.  Plenty of talk about cap and trade, fuel mixtures, fracking, etc and then for lack of reserve firefighting and aircraft capacity at CalFire we get this!

Whenever I start thinking about wasted resources, our high-cost rail boondoggle comes right to mind.  Brown will never have any credibility on anything else until he kills that--which ain't gonna happen.  So it was inspiring to read this from the L.A. Times:

"The depth of opposition became more apparent Thursday evening when protesters in the city of San Fernando took over an open house meeting held by the California High-Speed Rail Authority. They demanded that state officials answer questions about the project's impact on their community.

"But unlike typical protests, this one was led by elected officials. Seventy people, headed by the city's mayor pro tem and other current and former city officials, marched into a city auditorium and set up their own public address system.  "With their Police Department on hand, they confronted state officials with anger that has not been seen even in the virulent opposition to the project in Northern California or the Central Valley.

"The bottom line is you are not really welcome," Mayor Pro Tem Sylvia Ballin told state officials, whose plans call for bisecting the small working-class city with high sound walls that the city fears will become an eyesore and magnet for graffiti.

"Protesters said they would not accept the state's way of conducting meetings on the project, which includes refusing to allow residents to ask questions during an open forum."

Wow!  That feels like responsive leadership from elected officials.  We will be getting one of these Authority informational meetings at the Rec Center on Oct. 7th from 4-7pm.  They scheduled it without coordinating with the city staff beyond just have the announcement go out in email. 

 

My Council Endorsements: Colson and Beach

We have an important City Council election in November.  The overall tenure of the council has been dropping in the last few years and will drop to the lowest in memory come November.  In a "throw the bastards out" environment that might not be a worry, but I know from watching the council for 20-plus years that knowing where we have been helps one decide where we should go.  The recent affordable housing-rent control fiasco orchestrated by outgoing councilwoman Terry Nagel is a perfect example.  We have an ordinance on the books that precludes rent control, so why did the council waste so much of their time and staff time on the issue?  Lack of knowledge and poor judgement on Nagel's part.  Result: a 4-1 vote to say "go away".  So here is who I think should replace Nagel and Jerry Deal placeholder John Root:

Donna Colson, for sure, and Emily Beach with my fingers-crossed.

I've known Donna Colson for some time and have seen her in action getting things done.  We've talked about many of the issues in town and I know she has a grip on a variety of issues along with the professional experience to handle some of the more detailed financial issues and questions as they arise.  She is a no-brainer vote.

Russ Cohen and I sat down with Emily Beach for an introductory conversation about a week ago.  I think we heard and reacted similarly, but here I am speaking for myself.  He can weigh in at his leisure.  Emily Beach comes across as having a good range of life experiences and some local experience mostly with school issues.  She and her family have lived in B'game for eight years, so it is impossible to have that "institutional memory" I spoke of above if you were not here.  So she has a lot of learn about the various issues, but I liked the clarifying questions she asked and her awareness that there are consequences to be considered that are not always obvious.  That is especially true if someone brings them to her attention!

Lastly, I like that she lives on Cambridge Rd. just south of Village Park and just in from California Ave.  She is not in one of the sheltered corners of west-side B'game.  She has a front row seat for high-speed rail and congestion from over-development and sees the ill effects on the local schools from it. 

One could say the same for Nirmala who is on a nearby street, but I have seen Nirmala in action the last few years and have been singularly unimpressed.  One has to do more than show up for meetings and events.  Everything I heard, wrote and agreed with in the press is still true and I do not believe she is prepared for hard decisions.

In a short field of four candidates for two open seats Donna Colson and Emily Beach get my vote.  I believe they should get yours, too.  If, like me, you had not heard of Emily Beach before she threw her hat in the ring, this is her.

 

Caltrain Tax?

Yesterday's Daily Post had an article about CEO Jim Hartnett's "sweeping reorganization" of SamTrans and Caltrain including the news that former "chief executive officer of public affairs" Mark Simon will become the "senior advisor for strategic initiatives.  Simon will focus on identifying 'a dedicated funding source for Caltrain and working towards a regional consensus to support it' according to an agency press release."

The agency is considering a tax which could potentially hit the ballot in 2016.

In related news -- because the monies are all related -- the city newsletter announced

CA High-Speed Rail Open House

Wednesday, October 7 from 4:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.

Burlingame Auditorium at 850 Burlingame Ave

The California High-Speed Rail Authority will present information on the statewide program and provide information about the next phase of planning and environmental review. For more information go to www.hsr.ca.gov or call (408) 277-1086 or email [email protected]

We'll get more information on whatever the CHSRA wants to alert us to, but it can't be good.  One local wag noted elsewhere that

What good is a pyramid scheme, without going back to the well periodically to squeeze out a few more drops? HSR is coming back to Burlingame for an Open House. 3 full hours of goodness knows what. I guess that means 3 hours, billable to the taxpayers for maybe 8-10 people on the “HSR payroll”. Maybe they’ll take their cue from Caltrans by making it easy on themselves: Posters to hide behind, and no program.

Bottom line:  If Caltrain wants "regional consensus" to support a new tax it should cut its high-cost rail apron strings. 

High-Cost Rail - Part 113 Oxford on "Megaprojects"

I enjoyed a little squib in the Wall Street Journal this past week about large public or public-private projects.  They wrote

One of the most enlightening recent guides to modern politics is a study of such politicial "megaprojects."  Think California's "bullet train".  According to Bent Flyvbjerg of Oxford University, the world is increasingly addicted to such boondoggles, which annually consume between 6% and 9% of global GDP. ...These projects operate on the principle of of bombastic exaggeration.  Mr. Flyvbjerg calls it "survival of the unfittest"--a politicized selection process that rewards those promoters who are most shameless in overstating benefits and understating costs.

Bingo.  And he even used my favorite term for these - Boondoggle.  We have known this for at least four years as people dug into the numbers.  In the meantime the bulldozers continue to generate CO2 that will never be recouped and burn tax dollars that are both spent illegally and wastefully.

 

High-Cost Rail - Part Part 112 Denham Goes After the Cash

Turlock's U.S. House representative Jeff Denham is a tenacious politician especially when it comes to choking off high-cost rail at the wallet.  His office released this news this week

In a vote Tuesday evening, the House of Representatives unanimously passed U.S. Representative Jeff Denham’s (R-Turlock) amendment to the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill nullifying the current grant agreement between the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the California High Speed Rail Authority (Authority).

The back story is also in the release

When FRA initially awarded the Authority with nearly $3 billion in federal grant dollars under the federal stimulus package, it entered in to a standard grant agreement with the Authority requiring a dollar for dollar match. This agreement stipulated that for every federal tax dollar spent, the Authority must spend a dollar from a non-federal source. California never came up with the money and subsequently missed payment deadline after payment deadline. In order to avoid violating the Federal Deficiency Act, the FRA quietly amended their grant agreement in December of 2012 to allow for a tapered match – allowing federal dollars to be spent in advance of any matching dollars, despite having no assurances from the Authority that the matching dollars would ever exist. The FRA’s Inspector General has subsequently criticized FRA for jeopardizing federal taxpayer dollars with this scheme. This amendment guarantees that the FRA must enter in to an agreement that requires the Authority to match, dollar for dollar, federal tax dollars in current fiscal years. 

So there is to be no "tapered match" which is code for insufficient funds and no slipping from fiscal year to fiscal year which is also code for insufficient funds.  Let's hope this keeps weaving it's way through the halls of D.C. otherwise it is "merely guidance".