As a great introduction to Mark's terrific comments, here is a web-site for a PowerPoint presentation by California Assemblywoman Diane Harkey who is pretty much, singlehandedly, the leader of high-speed rail opposition in the Assembly:
##################
Let me state Mark's position bluntly. What's going on with the planning for the Central Valley just smells illegal. There will be lawsuits. The CHSRA has never had any intention to follow the law, although they claim they are when they find it convenient. All their recent new jargon (Initial Construction Segment; Phased Implementation) for what they propose to do is marketing verbiage for avoiding having to obey the requirements of AB3034 and Proposition 1A.
It is one of the ironies of mis-justice that the Attorney General of the State of California should be charged with reviewing the CHSRA for its intentions to violate the law. As it is, that office is the legal protection for the rail authority, permitting to get away with "murder."
Thanks, Mark, for this careful review of a wretched situation.
========================
http://againstcaliforniahsr.com/
http://againstcaliforniahsr.com/
HIGH SPEED DECEPTION
POSTED ON JULY 24, 2011 BY MARK
California High speed Rail Authority’s term, “Initial Construction Segment”, consists of well-chosen words.
Members of California’s High-Speed Rail Authority are all aware that no high-speed train can possibly operate profitably on their proposed $6.5 Billion, 115 mile Initial Construction Segment slated to run from slightly north of Fresno to slightly north of Bakersfield. In fact, even if additional funds were to suddenly materialize so that the initial 115 miles of track could be extended north to Merced and south to Bakersfield (what the Authority now refers to as the “extended Initial Construction Segment’) , they know that even this 170 miles of track with 4 stations (Merced, Fresno, Tulare-Hanford, and Bakersfield) could not possibly operate high-speed trains at a profit.
If the Authority Board members didn’t know this prior to their July 14, 2011 Board Meeting, they became aware of these facts when former Chairperson and now Board Member Curt Pringle uttered these words:
“We understand we cannot operate independent high speed service within the Initial Construction Segment and make enough money to pay for the operation. So our next determination is to try to figure out where that initial operating segment will be where we can operate using that (initial) construction segment and beyond to be able to pay for the cost of the operation.” [Note 1]
The Authority Board members and staff are now playing a word game to circumvent a provision of Proposition 1A which states:
“the planned passenger service by the authority in the corridor or usable segment thereof will not require a local, state, or federal operating subsidy.” [Note 2]
Members of the Authority evidently feel that by naming the first 115 miles (or even the first 170 miles) an “Initial Construction Segment” as opposed to an “Initial Operating Segment” and by NOT planning to run any high-speed passenger service until larger population centers can be reached by their trains, they can legally access Proposition 1A funds. Moreover, votes were led to believe that “usable segment” meant, in the intent of the Proposition, usable for high-speed rail passenger service upon completion of the segment. Let’s hope that someone successfully challenges the Authority in a court of law regarding use of Proposition 1A Bonds to build an “unusable segment” before construction commences and billions of dollars are squandered.
So what does the Authority hope to give Californians for their nearly $3 Billion in Proposition 1A Bonds Funds and more than $3 Billion in federal grants if construction begins in 2012? Nothing! According to Project Manager Major General Hans Van Winkle (Ret.) the initial “Initial Constructions Segment” of 115 miles WILL NOT even be sufficient to test high-speed trains. According to the Van Winkle, only the extended Initial Construction Segment of 170 miles “becomes, in essence, a future test track” [Note 3]
However, Californians will get plenty of heartache for their money. The first 115 miles of track will require land takings involving 1100 parcels of land [Note 4] as the Authority deviates from existing transportation corridors and builds its 220 mile per hour path of destruction over homes, businesses, and across prime farmland. All this without the promise of a single passenger riding a high-speed train.
Project Manager Van Winkle briefed the Authority at their July Board Meeting about what he considered possible configurations for the Initial Operating Section [Note 5]. All require additions to the 170 mile extended Initial Construction Segment. He first mentioned building north to reach San Jose and thereby access the Bay Area population (via a Caltrain connection) to the Central Valley. He then mentioned the alternative of building south to reach Palmdale and thereby access the LA Basin population (via a Metrolink connection) to the Central Valley. Neither has a chance of passing the profitability test required by Proposition 1A. The General lastly mentioned what he called the “Bay to Basin” Initial Operating Segment which involves building both north and south from the extended Initial Construction Segment.
One can easily see where the Authority is heading with their plans. They need to start spending money and then go back to the state and federal governments for more money so they can avoid having completely wasted the first $6.5 Billion which would have otherwise needlessly ruined farms, businesses, homes, and families. Once one starts down this road there is no end in sight. Even a Bay to Basin Initial Operating Segment transiting from Palmdale to San Jose would not be profitable and so the Authority would seek additional funds for direct lines into Los Angeles and San Francisco as originally envisioned in Proposition 1A. And if built, this segment would still not be able to operate without a subsidy based on the experience of every high-speed train system in the world.
What then? My guess is that Californians would be asked to vote for Proposition 1A’, the Safe, Reliable, High-Speed Passenger Train Subsidy Act and this Californian like millions of others would vote Hell-no! Not even the trade unions would be in favor of Proposition 1A’ for they would already have been paid for their fruitless efforts. Californians would be stuck with $9 Billion in bonds to be repaid at a cost of $700 Million/year for 30 years and the world’s most expensive white elephant.
It’s time to put a stop to this project before the Authority starts wasting $Billions rather than the hundreds of $Millions they have already wasted. Write to your legislators in Sacramento [Note 6] and Washington [Note 7] and tell them the results are in. California HSR is a bad idea. It needs to be de-funded and all work stopped. Don’t forget to include Paul Ryan (R-WI) [Note 8], Chairman of the House Budget Committee in your correspondence.
Lastly, join the Facebook group, Californians Against High Speed Rail – Kings County, and make your voice heard.
Factual statements made in this article are supported by footnotes shown below. Direct links to the source documents are imbedded into this document wherever possible.
Footnotes
Note 1 July 14, 2011 Board Video
Board Member Curt Pringle statement at 4 hours 30 minutes 0 seconds into video
http://stateofcalifornia.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=39
Note 2 Text from Proposition 1A the “Safe, Reliable, High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act
Section 9,paragraph 2704.8(c)(2)(J)
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/pdf-guide/suppl-complete-guide.pdf#prop1a
Note 3 July 14, 2011 Board Video
Project Manager Van Winkle statement at 4 hours 24 minutes 53 seconds into board Video
http://stateofcalifornia.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=39
Note 4 Right of Way Consultants presentation to Executive Committee July 14, 2011, page 2
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/assets/0/152/232/278/9c360625-85bc-4ed8-9037-d27ca21bbd02.pdf
Note 5 July 14, 2011 Board Video
Project Manager Van Winkle statement at 4 hours 16 minutes 8 seconds into board Video
http://stateofcalifornia.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=39
Note 6 Website to contact California Legislative Representatives
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html
Note 7 Website to contact Congressional Representatives
http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/index.htm
Note 8 Website to contact Representative Paul Ryan, Chairman of House Budget Committee
http://paulryan.house.gov/
1 comment:
When we attend a high speed rail an year ago experts were saying that a building a route along an existing freeway usually the best way to move.
Sample Statements
Post a Comment