Sunday, October 31, 2010

Habermas: Stuttgart and the Peninsula

This is a recent excerpt from an op-ed piece by Prof. Jurgen Habermas, one of the leading intellectuals and philosophers of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. For our purposes, I have taken several paragraphs out of context from this recent New York Times op-ed piece, since he is discussing the nature of Germany's economic and political dynamics. I invite you to read this excerpt very carefully. It is packed with meaning.

Here he is referring to something that I read in an article and called attention to some time ago; that is, the possible demolition of the venerated railroad station in Stuttgart, Germany. He highlights the issue of political, public protest. The point, of course, is that public protest can make a huge difference in government behavior and decision-making.

That -- and here's the point -- is what I have been advocating that we must do to stop the high-speed train on the Caltrain corridor and in the State of California.

The similarities with the German and our situation is striking. The people were not sufficiently informed when the project was first proposed and voted on. The subsequent supposition that once voted on, no more discussion or disagreement was permitted. And, does the defeated minority in such an election have no voice whatsoever, as is our case right now here on the Peninsula?

If 53% voted for Proposition 1A in 2008, 48% voted against it. Do they have no say whatsoever in this matter any longer? And what if the 53% of supporters now have a change of heart with all the negative information spilling out about HSR from all the newspapers?

Does this sound familiar? "But it has since emerged that the authorities did not, in fact, provide sufficient information at the time, and thus citizens did not have an opportunity to develop an informed opinion on which they could have based their votes."

What is striking is that the protesting population is deemed conservative, not radical. And I submit that this is a correct reading. We, on the Peninsula, are also conservative; we want to conserve the quality of life, the nature of our communities, and the urban environment we have chosen and occupy it the way it is now. We oppose high-density, high-rise urbanization, the crowding of the population into newly formed mega-cities and the total reliance on and domination of public transit to the exclusion of private vehicles. I consider it government-sponsored social engineering, if not downright Stalinization.

We can, and we must, protest -- and in large numbers.

Martin

===========================================

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/opinion/29Habermas.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&nl&emc=a212

[edit.]

Of even greater concern is the sort of street protests we are now witnessing in Stuttgart, where tens of thousands of people have come out against the federal railway corporation’s plan to demolish the old central train station. The protests that have been continuing for months are reminiscent of the spontaneity of the extra-parliamentary opposition of the 1960s. Unlike then, though, today people from all age groups and sectors of the population are taking to the streets. The immediate aim is a conservative one: preserving a familiar world in which politics intervenes as the executive arm of supposed economic progress.

In the background, however, there is a deeper conflict brewing over our country’s understanding of democracy. The state government of Baden-Württemberg, where Stuttgart is located, sees the protests narrowly, as simply a question of whether government is legally permitted to plan such long-term megaprojects. In the midst of the turmoil the president of the Federal Constitutional Court rushed to the project’s defense by arguing that the public had already voted to approve it 15 years ago, and thus had no more say in its execution.

But it has since emerged that the authorities did not, in fact, provide sufficient information at the time, and thus citizens did not have an opportunity to develop an informed opinion on which they could have based their votes. To insist that they should have no further say in the development is to rely on a formalistic understanding of democracy. The question is this: Does participation in democratic procedures have only the functional meaning of silencing a defeated minority, or does it have the deliberative meaning of including the arguments of citizens in the democratic process of opinion- and will-formation?

[edit.]





Try Email Marketing with VerticalResponse!

Economics Journalist Robert Samuelson's take on HSR

Can't read this now? Save it for when you have time. It's required reading.

This one is so good that I couldn't wait until tomorrow. It's in this week's Newsweek and it's by economist Robert Samuelson.

One tiny quibble with an otherwise excellent summary of the project. Samuelson states that building out all 13 US high-speed rail corridors could cost $200 billion. He's off by about $800 billion; if ever realized, this would become a trillion dollar expenditure.

Remember, the California 800 mile completed HSR project will cost at least $100 billion. And, as Samuelson makes so clear, that's the very wrongest place to put infrastructure earmarked dollars. My greatest fear is that America will learn this harsh reality. . . but only when it's too late.

Your assignment this weekend is to make a list of all the domains where $100 billion could be well-spent in California. Here's a hint; start with education, from pre-kindergarten to grad. school. Don't forget job-retraining. Up there with education should be urban and regional public mass transit. OK, now you do the rest.

Oh, and by the way. I expect you all to turn out for this Burlingame rally November 7th. I'm taking attendance and will turn the list of absences in to Rod Diridon who will personally build an elevated viaduct on your front lawn.

Martin

==================

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/29/why-high-speed-trains-don-t-make-sense.html

High-Speed Pork

Why fast trains are a waste of money.

by Robert J. SamuelsonOctober 29, 2010

Somehow, it has become fashionable to think that high-speed trains connecting major cities will help “save the planet.” They won’t. They’re a perfect example of wasteful spending masquerading as a respectable social cause. They would further burden already-overburdened governments and drain dollars from worthier programs—schools, defense, research.

Let’s suppose that the Obama administration gets its wish to build high-speed rail systems in 13 urban corridors. The administration has already committed $10.5 billion, and that’s just a token down payment. California wants about $19 billion for an 800-mile track from Anaheim to San Francisco. Constructing all 13 corridors could easily approach $200 billion. Most (or all) of that would have to come from government. What would we get for this huge investment?

Not much. Here’s what we wouldn’t get: any meaningful reduction in traffic congestion, greenhouse-gas emissions, air travel, or oil consumption and imports. Nada, zip. If you can do fourth-grade math, you can understand why.

High-speed intercity trains (not commuter lines) travel at up to 250 miles per hour and are most competitive with planes and cars over distances of less than 500 miles. In a report on high-speed rail, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service examined the 12 corridors of 500 miles or less with the most daily air traffic in 2007. Los Angeles to San Francisco led the list with 13,838 passengers; altogether, daily air passengers in these 12 corridors totaled 52,934. If all of them switched to trains, the number of airline passengers, about 2 million a day, would drop only 2.5 percent. Any fuel savings would be less than that; even trains need fuel.

Indeed, intercity trains—at whatever speed—target such a small part of total travel that the effects on reduced oil use, traffic congestion, and greenhouse gases must be microscopic.

Every day, about 140 million Americans go to work, with 85 percent driving an average of 25 minutes (three quarters drive alone, 10 percent carpool). Even with 250,000 high-speed rail passengers, there would be no visible effect on routine commuting, let alone personal driving. In the Northeast Corridor, with about 45 million people, Amtrak’s daily ridership is 28,500. If its trains shut down tomorrow, no one except the affected passengers would notice.

We are prisoners of economic geography. Suburbanization after World War II made most rail travel impractical. From 1950 to 2000, the share of the metropolitan population living in central cities fell from 56 percent to 32 percent, report UCLA economists Leah Platt Boustan and Allison Shertzer. Jobs moved too. Trip origins and destinations are too dispersed to support most rail service. Only in places (Europe, Asia) with greater population densities is high-speed rail potentially attractive.

Obama calls high-speed rail essential “infrastructure” when it’s actually old-fashioned “pork barrel.” The interesting question is why it retains its intellectual respectability. The answer, it seems, is willful ignorance. People prefer fashionable make-believe to distasteful realities. They imagine public benefits that don’t exist and ignore costs that do.

Consider California. Its budget is a shambles; it furloughed state workers to save money. Still, it clings to its high-speed rail project. No one knows the cost. In 2009, the California

High-Speed Rail Authority estimated $42.6 billion, up from $33.6 billion in 2008—a huge one-year increase. The CHSRA wants the federal government to pay about half the cost.

Even if it does and the state issues $9.95 billion in approved bonds, a financing gap of almost $15 billion would remain.

Somehow that is to be extracted from cities, towns, and investors. The CHSRA says the completed system will generate operating profits, $3 billion by 2030. If private investors concurred, they’d be clamoring to commit funds; they aren’t.

All this would further mortgage California’s future with more debt and, conceivably, subsidies to keep the trains running. And for what? In 2030, high-speed rail trains would provide only about 4 percent of California’s inter-regional trips, the CHSRA projects.

The absurdity is apparent. High-speed rail would subsidize a tiny group of travelers and do little else. If states want these projects, they should pay all costs because there are no meaningful national gains. The administration’s championing and subsidies—with money that worsens long-term budget deficits—represent short-sighted, thoughtless government at its worst.

Robert Samuelson is also the author of The Great Inflation and Its Aftermath: The Past and Future of American Affluenceand Untruth: Why the Conventional Wisdom Is (Almost Always) Wrong.




Click to view this email in a browser

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please reply to this message with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line or simply click on the following link: Unsubscribe


Read the VerticalResponse marketing policy.

Try Email Marketing with VerticalResponse!

The November 7th Rally in Burlingame

You learn something every day. If you have trouble reading these emails or if they are distorted by crazy re-formatting, you can click on the read this via your browser button at the bottom of these pages. Today's reality check is a photograph. If it doesn't appear, try the browser button. If you have a moment, give me some feedback about whether you got it or not.

*********************************************************

As many of you already know, there will be a big-time rally in Burlingame on Sunday, November 7, at 11:00 am. Watch these pages for a formal announcement. Turn-out is critical. Bring your relatives as well as your friends. I'm bringing our kids and grandkids. Public statements such as this will be heard in Sacramento and in Washington. We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore. You get the idea.

*********************************************************

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2010/10/22/as-christie-weighs-tunnel-us-revises-price-tag/

Picture this worksite going on for over six years in front (or back) of your house. Oar in your neighborhood. Diesel stink. Truck traffic. Dirt. Lots of dirt. All night construction. Endless freight rail traffic. Tons of dirt going in and out. Tons of concrete going in. Only on a much larger scale than this picture.

How come Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey has the cohones to terminate this train-tunnel project due to anticipated cost overruns that New Jersey cannot afford, while our Governator vetoes any acountability of our distastrous HSR project that we in California can't afford?

Why isn't Schwarzenegger terminating the high-speed ral project for the same reason that Christie is terminating the tunnel project? Is California politics even more corrupt than New Jersey's? Hard to believe.

California has not only a $19 billion budget deficit, but also a $100 billion debt. Like the federal debt, or like your mortgage, there are interest payments to be made when money is borrowed. Bond issues are borrowed money. California is approaching a default, junk bond condition. That's the same as foreclosure. Is the Governor so vain as to incur even greater debt for California, just as he leaves office, in order to build his vanity project, the HSR? Isn't that what Roman Emperors used to do?

How come we didn't re-call Arnie a long time ago?

Martin

======================================================

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/27/christie-kills-train-tunnel-again/?hp

October 27, 2010, 11:25 AM

Christie Kills Train Tunnel, Again

By PATRICK MCGEEHAN

Chris Christie, the Republican governor of New Jersey, put a second and final stop on Wednesday morning to the most expensive public works project under way in the country, a proposed rail tunnel under the Hudson River that could have doubled commuter-train service to Manhattan.

Mr. Christie had canceled the project earlier this month, saying that New Jersey could not afford its rising share of the projected costs. Then, pressed by federal officials to reconsider, he agreed to wait two weeks while alternative financing plans could be drawn up.

But, in the end, Mr. Christie said the taxpayers of New Jersey would still be liable for cost overruns that could run into the billions of dollars.

The decision to stop construction of the project, known as Access to the Region’s Core, could cost the state $3 billion that was pledged by the federal Department of Transportation for new transit projects, and some or all of an additional $3 billion commitment from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The state was responsible for the balance of the project’s total cost, which had been estimated at $8.7 billion.

But Mr. Christie challenged that figure, saying the project would surely cost much more. Last week, the federal transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, who had tried to talk Mr. Christie out of stopping the project, said that his staff estimated that it would cost at least $9.775 billion and possibly more than $12 billion.




Click to view this email in a browser

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please reply to this message with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line or simply click on the following link: Unsubscribe


Read the VerticalResponse marketing policy.

Try Email Marketing with VerticalResponse!

Digging dirt in New Jersey and California

You learn something every day. If you have trouble reading these emails or if they are distorted by crazy re-formatting, you can click on the read this via your browser button at the bottom of these pages. Today's reality check is a photograph. If it doesn't appear, try the browser button.

*********************************************************

As many of you already know, there will be a big-time rally in Burlingame on Sunday, November 7, at 11:00 am. Watch these pages for a formal announcement. Turn-out is critical. Bring your relatives as well as your friends. I'm bringing our kids and grandkids. Public statements such as this will be heard in Sacramento and in Washington. We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore. You get the idea.

*********************************************************

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2010/10/22/as-christie-weighs-tunnel-us-revises-price-tag/

Picture this worksite going on for over six years in front (or back) of your house. Or in your neighborhood. Diesel stink. Truck traffic. Dirt. Lots of dirt. All night construction. Endless freight rail traffic. Tons of dirt going in and out. Tons of concrete going in. Only on a much larger scale than this picture.

How come Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey has the cohones to terminate this train-tunnel project due to anticipated cost overruns that New Jersey cannot afford, while our Governator vetoes any acountability of our distastrous HSR project that we in California can't afford?

Why isn't Schwarzenegger terminating the high-speed rail project for the same reason that Christie is terminating the tunnel project? Is California politics even more corrupt than New Jersey's? Hard to believe.

California has not only a $19 billion budget deficit, but also a $100 billion debt. Like the federal debt, or like your mortgage, there are interest payments to be made when money is borrowed. Bond issues are borrowed money. California is approaching a default, junk bond condition. That's the same as foreclosure. Is the Governor so vain as to incur even greater debt for California, just as he leaves office, in order to build his vanity project, the HSR? Isn't that what Roman Emperors used to do?

How come we didn't re-call Arnie a long time ago?

Martin

======================================================

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/27/christie-kills-train-tunnel-again/?hp

October 27, 2010, 11:25 AM

Christie Kills Train Tunnel, Again

By PATRICK MCGEEHAN

Chris Christie, the Republican governor of New Jersey, put a second and final stop on Wednesday morning to the most expensive public works project under way in the country, a proposed rail tunnel under the Hudson River that could have doubled commuter-train service to Manhattan.

Mr. Christie had canceled the project earlier this month, saying that New Jersey could not afford its rising share of the projected costs. Then, pressed by federal officials to reconsider, he agreed to wait two weeks while alternative financing plans could be drawn up.

But, in the end, Mr. Christie said the taxpayers of New Jersey would still be liable for cost overruns that could run into the billions of dollars.

The decision to stop construction of the project, known as Access to the Region’s Core, could cost the state $3 billion that was pledged by the federal Department of Transportation for new transit projects, and some or all of an additional $3 billion commitment from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The state was responsible for the balance of the project’s total cost, which had been estimated at $8.7 billion.

But Mr. Christie challenged that figure, saying the project would surely cost much more. Last week, the federal transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, who had tried to talk Mr. Christie out of stopping the project, said that his staff estimated that it would cost at least $9.775 billion and possibly more than $12 billion.




Click to view this email in a browser

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please reply to this message with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line or simply click on the following link: Unsubscribe

Martin Engel
1621 Stone Pine Lane
Menlo Park, California 94025

Read the VerticalResponse marketing policy.

Try Email Marketing with VerticalResponse!

"Friends of Caltrain" maybe, maybe not.

People sometimes say that I'm too pessimistic and too discouraging when I say we can't stop this project. I apologize; I haven't made myself clear; it's actually not what I have intended to say. I believe that we can stop this high-speed train project, and at least keep it off the Caltrain corridor, if we are determined enough. However, I am pessimistic that we aren't determined enough. . . . .yet.

Right now, there are too few of us trying to accomplish too much, and we have not yet collectively achieved a unified position about what we do and don't want. There are too many of us making too many accommodations to either HSR, Caltrain or both. We keep trying to design routes and alignments as if the rail authority will, somehow, listen to us and discover that we have a better idea than they have. Silly us. That ship was never launched, much less sailed.

By now, especially with Van Ark's recent remarks, we should be getting the harsh picture. Caltrain and the rail authority are determined to build an elevated four track viaduct and nothing we say has -- or will -- make any difference or deter their purpose. In short, no matter what, we can't talk them out of it.

Therefore, we can and we must raise the level of discourse.

What does that mean? There needs to be a massive groundswell of opposition, of public outcry, of protest. We are hundreds; we must become thousands. Too many people still don't understand what we're in for. We finally have to stop politely pussyfooting around, reacting to each and every new rail authority's endless BS about what they are and aren't planning to do. Remember, their multi-million dollar contracts with PB and HNTB require the least costly rail line design and they must get it done on time. And, that's what they are doing. They won't let us get in the way of that.

Meanwhile, here comes another emerging political distraction waiting to happen. There's a new organization in the works, called "Friends of Caltrain." As if they didn't yet learn their lesson about the failure of Context Sensitive Solutions. What are people thinking!! Perhaps their intentions are good, but their 'mission' has clearly not been thought through. It's impetuous and smells very self-serving and political.

Actually their intention to "save" Caltrain could be counter-productive and work against our highest priority, stopping HSR. Perhaps that's their sub-text intention. Anyhow, any newly formed organization that invites Robert Cruickshank as well as all those other Caltrain employees as participants will only cut the ground out from under us. Save Caltrain? That's code for Build HSR on the Caltrain corridor.

This is the wrong fight right now. This group is being organized at the worst possible time. Caltrain is a distraction from the real war and that's about high-speed rail. Caltrain and high-speed rail are in cahoots with one another, and they are eager for us to see them that way. We must separate them as issues, and deal first and foremost with high-speed rail as the enemy that it is. Caltrain's problems are easier to resolve once we can get the HSR situation under control. But right now, the Caltrain problem can wait; they're not going anywhere, all their bankrupcy talk to the contrary notwithstanding.

Caltrain:

Let's get the picture straight. Caltrain says they are in trouble, having lost much of their supplementary subsidies from sources such as SamTrans. Oh, wait. SamTrans and Caltrain are actually the same organization with Mike Scanlon as the CEO of both. So, Peter won't pay Paul, so to speak. That's Caltrain's dilemma, not ours.

Yes, the loss of supplementary funding is harmful; not only to Caltrain but to most urban and regional transit operators in the US. Caltrain is neither exceptional nor unusual. Which is to say, urban mass transit has a very low priority in our struggling economy today. Tell that to Anna Eshoo! You can't have it both ways; either we pay to salvage our urban/regional transit systems or we pay for a ridiculous luxury train. We certainly can't afford both!

But, Caltrain has self-imposed problems as well. Instead of solving those, they wish to upgrade their rolling stock, rails and propulsion system. And, they say that they are counting on high-speed rail to do that for them with the stimulus and other federal billions that will be made available. That's why Caltrain is so eager for HSR to join them on their (our) rail corridor. Caltrain argues that HSR-paid-for electrification will bail them out of most of their operating debt. That, of course, is nonsense.

The truth is that capital development expenditures, such as for new glitzy EMUs, are very sexy. All these wished for hardware fixes will not, of course, solve Caltrain's structural deficit problem. Capital development fund expenditures make great photo ops, while fixing the boring operating budget can always be put off another fiscal year. That's how most bureaucrats think about it. And that's how Caltrain has been thinking about it for a long, long time. Instead of lusting for that whizzy electric train for Christmas year after year, they should have been working to secure permanent supplementary funding.

Harware upgrades are not solutions to their problems. Among their real problems are a too-expensive headcount; i.e., too many employees with too large salaries. Also a too-expensive contract with the train operator, Amtrak. Caltrain's belt-tightening has been gestural, not substantive. Scanlon and his minions aren't really surprised. They've seen this problem coming for years. It should have been their highest priority. It suggests incompetent management.

Another basic problem is that Caltrain doesn't know who their friends are. They think that high-speed rail on the corridor will secure their future. Boy, are they wrong. Their future rests with us, the residents, citizens and their customers living on the Peninsula. They haven't learned that basic truth yet. And, until they do, they don't need our help.

Then, there's the problem of Caltrain's wrong business model. They think they are in the railroad business and therefore new rolling stock will make them more productive. That's also wrong. They should understand that they are in the urban and regional mass transit business, which is a deficit public utility by definition.

Furthermore, they should acknowledge that moving people around in the most effective way can't be done exclusively by rail; it must be multi-modal. Getting the first and last mile solved -- getting people to and from Caltrain stations -- will go a long way to increasing their ridership/productivity and help them do the job for which they are intended.

Our being a 'friend of Caltrain' should mean, first and foremost, 'tough love.' The make-up of this new Caltrain support group doesn't look like it can deliver on that. It's OK to be a 'friend' of Caltrain, but such friendship has to cut both ways.

The equation is simple. Caltrain needs to become a friend of all of us on the Peninsula. That way, we can be friends of Caltrain. What does that mean? We don't want high-speed rail on the Caltrain corridor, but we do want Caltrain to exist and flourish. If Caltrain is willing to relinquish high-speed rail on their corridor, we on the Peninsula can make Caltrain, like the Army, "be all that it can be." That's the deal.

OK, Caltrain, your call. Friends of Caltrain? Caveat Emptor.

Martin

=============================

Friends of Caltrain

Next meeting:

Wednesday, October 27th

8:30 am

Palo Alto City Hall

250 Hamilton, Palo Alto

HR conference room: access through HR office off left side of first floor lobby

Todd McIntyre of Caltrain has agreed to do a briefing on Caltrain issues (budget, Caltrain 2025 vision, etc.) possibly with other staff. Please come and participate and send us any questions or topics beforehand you want them to address. Friends of Caltrain should be knowledgeable about Caltrain! Other agenda: further work on speakers and panel topics and speakers for January 29th. People who have agreed to work on the panels: please bring your suggestions next time!

* Nov. 9th event is confirmed. Everyone, please share with your lists:

Saving Caltrain - the Bay Area Connection

Caltrain is the mainstay of Peninsula commuter transit. Though ridership has increased dramatically with baby bullet service, and rider-based funding is among the highest in the Bay Area, Caltrain is facing a financial crisis. Unlike other Bay Area transit services with stable, dedicated funding, Caltrain depends on year-by-year funding. The recession has torn a $30 million hole in this year-by-year budget. How can Caltrain be saved and put on stable financial footing? How does Caltrain's situation fit into the overall risks and opportunities for Bay Area transit overall?

On November 9, Friends of Caltrain is hosting an educational event where you can learn more about the situation and what you can do to help. Carolyn Clevenger of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission will present preliminary findings from the MTC Transit Sustainability project. Yoriko Kishimoto, former Mayor of Palo Alto, will discuss funding opportunities for Caltrain, and opportunities to get involved.

Come learn how to save Caltrain. And if you can't come to the event, sign up at Green Caltrain to stay posted on what you can do to help.

Location: Menlo Park Library, 800 Alma Street, near Caltrain

Time: Tuesday, November 9, 7-9 pm

More information: http://www.greencaltrain.com/event-saving-caltrain-the-bay-area-connection/

Other topics:

* Art Lloyd is pursuing keynote speaker. Joseph Szabo, FRA administrator is not available. Art will contact Congress reps Jackie Spear, Anna Eshoo and/or Mike Honda. Other ideas: rep from Stanford University? Andy still pursuing Robert Cervero of UC Berkeley.

* we talked about the relationship between Caltrain and High Speed Rail and how that is addressed in the summit, especially there is so much in flux now and through next January. We the residents, taxpayers and riders must insist that they work together for the most cost-effective, time-efficient, community-compatible solutions for us. (If FRA rules need to be modernized, high speed rail needs a little more high speed decision-making.)

* one theme is if we cant do it here, who can?: how can we design modern rail into built-up communities in a way that addresses community needs but is cost-effective and replicable throughout state? Why cant we get greater coordination on standards to maximize flexibility and minimize costs for us, the taxpayers and riders? (e.g. on platform heights, US evidently has worlds strictest ADA standards that other systems around the world dont need to meet.)

* we will start working with state legislators who can work with us to sponsor legislation for dedicated funding for Caltrain operating funds

* potential difference between what might be the theoretically best tax (e.g. gas, parcel tax or payroll tax?) vs. what voters think they might support (e.g. tried and true sales tax). Can we make an economic case to employers that it might be better to support some payroll tax vs. pay $50,000 for construction plus hundreds of dollars/year in maintenance for each employee's parking space ?

Here's what we had agreed to earlier:

Caltrain is facing a very serious short-term funding gap (operational budget) of $29.5 million for the next fiscal year (FY2012). This would be a friends group to work on:

οlong term, dedicated, funding strategy for Caltrain

οbroaden and deepen support and advocacy base for Caltrain local and regional service

οcreate partnerships - with cities, with employers, elected officials, riders

οadvocate for financing and governance structure that will be constructive for all parties cities, employers, residents and riders, as well as Caltrain

οbuilding a transit culture through children and families

οWe will aim at January 29 2011 for regional summit

οStakeholders to include: Stanford University, leading employers (Google, Genentech, Apple, Ebay, Oracle, Stanford Research Park etc.), cyclist groups, neighborhoods along Caltrain, families and children, environmental groups (Sierra Club, Acterra), SVLG, Bay Area Council, hotels and convention centers (Moscone Center) and other potential bundlers

Draft panel topics for January 29 2011 Caltrain Summit

Phase one: defining it to optimize results for Caltrain and communities (and tightening up scope of Electrification EIR) (Phil/Art)

Financing options: pros and cons (revenue side)( e.g. regional gas tax vs. 3 county sales tax)(Yoriko/Francois) Include review of existing sources like RM2: opportunity to re-direct and use more effectively. May need new legislation.

Transit sustainability (supply side): increasing ridership and farebox recovery through integration with land use and other transit, cost containment, electrification and modernization (Gladwyn)

Integration with partners: cities including station planning, cyclists and other last mile, employers (Meghan/ Pete)

2020/2035 Vision for Bay Area and Peninsula: What will peninsula be like? What do we want it to be?

Governance

* We need strong and compelling narrative. How did we get here? What do we want and what role does Caltrain play in our future? Caltrains story. whats the benefit to homeowners, taxpayers?

* Instead of starting from what Caltrain needs, start with outreach to cities and residents and what they need and envision. i.e. What cities want; more bottom-up approach. what do we want to achieve




Click to view this email in a browser

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please reply to this message with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line or simply click on the following link: Unsubscribe


Read the VerticalResponse marketing policy.

Try Email Marketing with VerticalResponse!

Why the public resists public mega-infrastructure projects

The article, below, doesn't make enough of the reasons that there are so many publicly voiced obstacles to mega-infrastructure projects in the US. One reason is cost-overruns. These are now as predictable as a sunrise. It makes all us taxpayers feel like we are being defrauded by the political promoters and their contractors. I think this is called "moral hazard."

Another reason is corruption. Greed and avarice have come to dominate politics today and public projects are a guaranteed cornucopia of funding that gets invariably ends up in the wrong hands in large amounts.

In short, the larger the project, the greater the cost overruns, the greater the opportunity for corruption and the more questionable the intentions and purposes. The public has every reason to be skeptical about these projects.

The editorial author confuses the virtues of investing in existing infrastructure repair, maintenance and development with the creation of grandiose, imperial, new mega-infrastructure projects of questionable value. Just because they have been so aggressively promoted, like TV infomercials, doesn't make them worth doing. If it's jobs, or the economy that's the purpose, then we should be fixing what's broken first. We should be funding urban transit, infrastructure repair, and upgrading critical utilities like water and power. The best analogy is that if your car breaks down, don't run out and buy a Ferrari which you can't afford and won't do the job you need done. We don't need transportation to go to the country club, we need transportation to go to work and to the grocery store. That's not rocket surgery, that's just common sense.

We are living in a time of rampant anti-intellectualism and know-nothingness. Politics is the prime example. Too many people are too ignorant of this project that is creeping toward us on the Peninsula and in California like a hurricane pictured on the weather news. The difference is that if it does arrive, it will never leave, but cause havoc and destruction irreversably.

California's high-speed rail project is the most egregious example of this syndrome. A luxury train for the well to do that the State and Nation can't afford and that California doesn't need. Meanwhile the existing infrastructure is neglected, underfunded, and left to deteriorate. I need to ask my Democratic friends, why must a federal bailout for California be such an elitist super-project? Instead of this near useless project, why can't we reconstitute our urban and regional mass transit systems, where the demand is so high, as testified by our Bay Area and LA Basin traffic congestion? Why can't we fix what's broken? Why must we persist in our China and Europe envy, and build what will be obsolete by the time it's completed?

And as the Bloomberg article about New Jersey's train tunnel points out (the second article, below), we are suffering from a persistent lack of oversight and accountability. That too is part of the California HSR situation. The CHSRA always has been, and continues to be out of control; anyone's control. If controls are even hinted at by the legislature, the Governor vetoes them. Why would anyone support any public construction in California any longer? It's like throwing endless amounts of our money down the toilet!

Want to know what to do about it? Each of you get five people you know as informed and as angry as you are. And, do it soon. Give me their email addresses so that they too can read all these articles.

We can stop this. But, we need a "critical mass" of concerned people who know how to say no. No to the high-speed rail authority for their intentions to destroy our cities.

Martin

==============================================

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130732528

US Shuns Some Big Public Works Projects

by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

NEWARK, N.J. October 21, 2010, 09:21 pm ET

New Jersey's governor wants to kill a $9 billion-plus train tunnel to New York City because of runaway costs. Six thousand miles away, Hawaii's outgoing governor is having second thoughts about a proposed $5.5 billion rail line in Honolulu.

In many of the 48 states in between, infrastructure projects are languishing on the drawing board, awaiting the right mix of creative financing, political arm-twisting and timing to move forward. And a struggling economy and a surge of political candidates opposed to big spending could make it a long wait.

Has the nation that built the Hoover Dam, brought electricity to the rural South and engineered the interstate highway system lost its appetite for big public works projects? At a time when other countries are pouring money into steel and concrete, is the U.S. unwilling to think long-term?

"My sense is things have changed," said Andrew Goetz, a University of Denver professor and an expert on transportation policy. "People now tend to see any project as a waste of money, and that's just wrong."

"I call it the Bridge to Nowhere syndrome," he added. "High-profile projects get publicized and they become a symbol for any infrastructure project that's out there, and even the ones that are justified get tarnished by the same charge."

The so-called Bridge to Nowhere would have cost hundreds of millions of dollars to connect one Alaskan town to an island of 50 residents. It figured in the 2008 presidential election when then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was criticized for initially backing the plan, which was eventually scrapped.

The other cautionary tale of the past few years is Boston's Big Dig, the highway and tunnel project that was originally envisioned at less than $3 billion and wound up costing nearly $15 billion.

The Big Dig has made it far easier for motorists to get to and from Boston's airport, and it eliminated a noisy and unsightly elevated highway that cast a shadow over some of the city's neighborhoods. But construction was plagued by years of delays, corruption and shoddy workmanship that resulted in the death of a motorist in a ceiling collapse.

A report this month by the Treasury Department and the Council of Economic Advisers paints a picture of a country dissatisfied with the state of America's aging infrastructure and in favor of improvements, but not necessarily eager to commit the dollars to fix it.

Standing in New York's Penn Station on Thursday in front of a sign touting the proposed tunnel, commuter Bill Mischell of Plainsboro, N.J., gave voice to those conclusions.

"You could make the argument that it will make New Jersey a better place to live, but you also have to weigh it impartially against the huge cost," Mischell said. "The state's in pretty significant financial trouble, and the money's got to come from somewhere."

Infrastructure spending in the U.S. stands at 2 percent of the country's gross domestic product— half what it was in 1960 — compared with approximately 9 percent in China and 5 percent for Europe, according to the government report.

"During recessions it is common for state and local governments to cut back on capital projects — such as building schools, roads and parks — in order to meet balanced budget requirements," the report concluded.

"However, the need for improved and expanded infrastructure is just as great during a downturn as it is during a boom."

The American Society of Civil Engineers calculates that the U.S. would need to spend an additional $1.1 trillion over the next five years to restore roads, bridges, dams, levees and other infrastructure to good condition. In its latest report card, the engineering society gave the nation's public works a "D" grade.

"Somehow we believe if we ignore it, it will go away," said Blaine Leonard, the society's president. "And it won't. We have to stop hitting the snooze button on this problem."

He said now is a good time to spend money on infrastructure because construction companies in this weak economy are hungry for work and the costs are relatively low as a result.

Major infrastructure projects of the past benefited from strong leadership, notably the interstate highway system pushed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1950s, he said. Today, though, "there isn't any high-level leadership about infrastructure," so there's no agreement about priorities, Leonard said.

CG/LA Infrastructure LLC, a Washington consulting firm, recently put together a list of the worthiest 100 large infrastructure projects in North America, totaling about $400 billion. Among the suggestions: a next-generation air traffic control system; high-speed rail linking Minneapolis, Milwaukee and Chicago; a pair of highway projects in Texas; and the tunnel that New Jersey's governor has threatened to scuttle.

To be sure, there are large-scale projects under way, notably in California, where a combination of federal dollars and voter-approved bonds and local tax increases are funding improvements, from highway widening to the $6.2 billion renovation of the Bay Bridge between San Francisco and Oakland. And this week, Arizona and Nevada hailed the opening of a $240 million bridge that bypasses Hoover Dam.

However, many projects recently completed or in the pipeline secured funding before the economy went into a slide. Some of them might not be approved today.

In New Jersey, construction on a rail tunnel connecting New Jersey and New York City — the largest transportation project under way in the U.S. — began in 2009 under then-Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat. It is projected to double train capacity at peak times as well as provide 6,000 construction jobs immediately and up to 40,000 jobs after its completion in 2018. About $6 billion of the cost is being covered by the federal government and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Earlier this month, Republican Gov. Chris Christie announced he was pulling the plug because the cost had escalated from $5 billion in 2005 to more than $9 billion by the federal government's estimate, and as much as $14 billion by Christie's reckoning.

"I simply cannot put the taxpayers of the state of New Jersey on what would be a never-ending hook," he said.

Christie later agreed to reconsider. The two-week review period expires Friday.

In Hawaii, Republican Gov. Linda Lingle announced recently that she wouldn't sign off on a federally subsidized rail line until an updated economic study is conducted. And that may not be completed before she leaves office in less than two months. That means the project's fate could be in her successor's hands.

In Seattle, new Mayor Mike McGinn is threatening to hold up construction of a massive highway tunnel to replace the waterfront's dilapidated, earthquake-damaged Alaskan Way Viaduct because he fears city taxpayers will be on the hook if costs spiral beyond the $4.2 billion price tag.

"The issue of the overall cost of the tunnel has been a concern to voters since before the recession, and I think the severity of the state's and the city's fiscal situation is causing people to take a harder look at ... an expensive and risky project," McGinn said.

In Wisconsin, Ohio and California, Republican candidates for governor have vowed they won't endorse high-speed rail projects, despite the promise of billions of dollars from Washington.

Other countries are spending heavily on job-creating infrastructure. Projects include Algeria's $11.2 billion east-west highway; a planned $10 billion bridge linking the Indonesian islands of Java and Sumatra; and China's $60 billion Yangtze River diversion project.

Australia plans to spend $38 billion to relieve traffic congestion in Melbourne, while Britain is preparing for a $45 billion high-speed rail link between London and the West Midlands. Japan is building a $70 billion highway from Tokyo to Osaka, scheduled for completion in 2020.

In the U.S., it often takes a catastrophe to give infrastructure improvements more urgency. The Minneapolis bridge collapse in 2007 that killed 13 people prompted reviews of aging bridges around the country.

"Unfortunately, our attention span is short," Leonard said. "You would think the Minneapolis bridge collapse would have sent repercussions throughout the system that would have resulted in a transportation funding bill, but it didn't. Even bridge funding bills didn't get through Congress."

Consultant Norman Anderson of CG/LA Infrastructure said the federal government's recent emphasis on smaller, "shovel-ready" projects to stimulate the economy is misguided and shows a lack of vision.

"You don't do 'shovel-ready.' That is idiotic and extremely uninformed," he said in an e-mail. "You do projects now because they produce value for an economy 20 to 30 years into the future, as well as producing immediate jobs."

———

Rubinkam reported from Allentown, Pa. AP Business Writer Elaine Kurtenbach in Shanghai contributed to this report.

=================================================

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/new-jersey-s-8-7-billion-rail-tunnel-needs-more-oversight-u-s-memo-says.html

New Jersey Rail Tunnel Needs Tighter Oversight, Federal Document Says

By Terrence Dopp and Angela Greiling Keane - Oct 21, 2010 2:45 PM PT

New Jersey began its stalled $8.7 billion rail tunnel without proper oversight and faces “significant risk” of overruns, according to a document from the U.S. Transportation Department inspector general’s office.

Former Governor Jon Corzine’s administration should have hired a private-sector inspector general to oversee the project when it commenced work in September 2009, the federal officials said in a May 17 report that a state lawmaker released today. Corzine, a Democrat, gave Comptroller Matthew Boxer that responsibility.

Republican Governor Chris Christie on Oct. 7 ordered work halted, saying the project might end up costing $14 billion. Under the original plan, the federal government and Port Authority of New York & New Jersey each were to pay $3 billion for the work, and the state $2.7 billion. Christie said state taxpayers would be “on the hook” for anything more.

New Jersey Transit started the project “despite the benefits and widespread use of integrity monitors in New York and New Jersey,” Joseph W. Come, assistant inspector general for surface and maritime program audits at the Transportation Department, said in the memo. “Based on our years of monitoring major construction projects in the area, we believe NJT should reconsider its decision.”

The Federal Transit Administration’s “decision to award an early systems work agreement may keep the project within budget and on schedule but it is not without significant risk,” Come wrote, without estimating how much the project may go over budget.

Adding it Up

The memo was among more than 150 pages of documents the Christie administration released to Assembly Transportation Chairman John Wisniewski, a Sayreville Democrat who has opposed the governor’s decision, after a public-records request. Wisniewski said the documents don’t support the overruns of as much as $5 billion Christie cited in stopping the project, known as Access to the Region’s Core.

The governor’s spokesman, Michael Drewniak, said the documents were the first of many that will be released on a “rolling basis.”

The report was “among the red flags for the governor,” Drewniak said in an interview.

Calvin Scovel, U.S. Transportation Department inspector general, announced in March that he planned to audit FTA oversight of projects in and around New York. The projects to be scrutinized included the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Fulton Street Transit Center, Second Avenue Subway and East Side Access projects, all of which received money from President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus-package.

‘Thin Air’

Olivia Alair, a Transportation Department spokeswoman, declined to comment on the report. David Wonnenberg, a spokesman for the inspector general’s office, didn’t immediately respond to a telephone call and e-mail seeking comment.

Federal officials never justified Christie’s estimates of as much as $5 billion in overruns, Wisniewski said in a statement.

“That claim seems as though it was simply pulled out of thin air by the governor,” the lawmaker said. “The governor is risking New Jersey’s economic future with numbers that, at least according to these documents, have no basis in reality.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Terrence Dopp in Trenton, New Jersey, at tdopp@bloomberg.net; Angela Greiling Keane in Washington atagreilingkea@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Tannenbaum at mtannen@bloomberg.net.

========================================================================




Click to view this email in a browser

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please reply to this message with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line or simply click on the following link: Unsubscribe


Read the VerticalResponse marketing policy.

Try Email Marketing with VerticalResponse!