Here's a parable for Friday. It's a let's-pretend story. No, it's not a "dark and stormy night." It's not "once upon a time." It's right now, in broad daylight.
My friend and I are walking down a street and we pass a Rolls-Royce dealer. My friend, on impulse, says, let's stop in. We approach a salesman about the spectacular tricked-out car on the showroom floor. He says, it will cost a million dollars, plus taxes, preparation, delivery charges and some other charges he said he would identify later.
I'm horrified at the price. My friend says to him, "Do you have one less expensive, without all the fancy 'bells and whistles' that doesn't go as fast as this one? The dealer says yes, and it will cost only $680,000., much, much less.
My friend looks glassy-eyed and is about to sign a deal with the dealer. I say, "Are you totally crazy? You're unemployed, your house has been foreclosed, you already have transportation (but not a fancy Rolls), you are in deep debt and have no way to pay for this car. Even if you could make the first payment, you don't know where your next payments -- any of them -- will come from. And, most important of all, this so-called reduced price is absurdly out of reach."
And, that, dear friends is exactly what's going on in California right now. Those high-speed fancy car dealers are desperate to sell us their vehicles, although these can only be afforded by rich people. And they cost tons of money to buy. So, now the dealer says to us, we can get you a cheaper one.
Since this parable is an analogy, we can return to our point about high-speed rail. The rail authority says we can get you a HSR that runs on two tracks instead of four and will use existing infrastructure wherever possible. It will cost $30 billion less. But, that discount is just to get us hooked. As soon as we agree, you can be sure that the costs will jump way up and keep on climbing, out of control.
The point here is, we can't afford either, not even the cheaper version. We can't afford this train not only because it's far too expensive to build and operate, but because we do not need such a train.
The awful truth is we don't know what we need because we haven't really studied it. Nobody gave transit much thought until the back-room politicians came up with their high-speed train idea. Suddenly, like people looking into a Rolls Royce dealer's showroom, they get starry eyed and say, oh yes, we need this. Look at all the tricks it can do. And think of all those jobs at the Rolls-Royce factory.
We have not had a serious cost-benefit analysis done by an independent group. We don't have an over-arching review of all of California's transit needs, we don't have a clear and available study of what we have presently, what its limitations are, and what would be the most cost-effective up-grades for all those modalities, not only rail.
Shouldn't such strategic thinking and question-asking come first, before we rush to support the rail authority and Caltrain shenanigans and let them take us for all we're worth, when we certainly can't afford this useless train? Must we build the most expensive project in US history on impulse and intuition? Or on empty platitudes about winning races and becoming leaders in the future?
Although discussed in this article, I'm not going to comment at length on the remarks made by the Train Riders and Transportation Solutions Defense Fund representatives and their Altamont route advocacy. That has been their consistent position for years. They object to the Pacheco Pass route and prefer -- indeed insist upon -- the Altamont Route across the Bay.
Our position is that neither route for high-speed rail is acceptable, because high-speed rail in California isn't acceptable. However high-speed rail is to be built, whatever route, whatever alignment, regardless of how many tracks, is immaterial. Any choice will let the high-speed rail monsters out of Pandora's Box, never to be closed again.
Uploaded: Friday, April 20, 2012, 11:15 AM
High-speed-rail analysis sets stage for more lawsuits
Peninsula cities remain concerned about ridership numbers, description of system in revised environmental study
by Gennady Sheyner
Palo Alto Weekly Staff
The state agency charged with building California's high-speed rail system approved on Thursday a long-debated environmental analysis for the San Francisco-to-Los Angeles line -- a voluminous document that the project's opponents immediately characterized as an invitation to more lawsuits.
The California High-Speed Rail Authority voted to "recertify" the [www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR)], a high-level document that describes the voter-approved project and that designates the Pacheco Pass as the rail authority's preferred route to the Peninsula. The authority had previously approved the document on two occasions, but it was forced both times to revise the document after legal challenges from Peninsula cities and nonprofit groups.
Now, Palo Alto, Atherton and Menlo Park are preparing for round three. Stuart Flashman, the attorney representing the Peninsula cities in two lawsuits against the rail authority, submitted on April 13 a notice that the cities will appeal the November 2011 ruling, which required the rail authority to make several technical revisions in the program analysis but which did not force the agency to re-examine Pacheco or ridership numbers. The basic argument from the cities is that the newly revised EIR still fails to comply with state law because of questionable ridership data and a failure to examine a two-track design on the Peninsula.
Much of the legal dispute centered on the rail authority's choice of the Pacheco Pass over the Altamont Pass. Board members acknowledged Thursday that both routes have merit, but they declined to reconsider the preferred alternative for the $68 billion line.
Board Chair Dan Richard called the dispute over routes the "biggest struggle" for him. His board colleague, Jim Hartnett, agreed.
"Frankly, with a lot to commend each, in my heart of hearts I still think the Pacheco is the preferable alternative," Hartnett said.
Several speakers vehemently disagreed. David Schonbrunn, president of the Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund (TRANSDEF) and Richard Tolmach, president of California Rail Foundation, both urged the rail authority to reconsider the route. Both groups took part in the litigation against the rail authority.
"If you insist on certifying this document, you will be back in court and lose," Schonbrunn said.
"Have you learned anything from this organization's two previous expensive and time-consuming losses?" he later added.
Tolmach raised questions about the new document's ridership numbers, which have been contested by the Palo Alto-based watchdog group Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD) and by the independent experts from UC Berkeley's Institute for Transportation Studies.
"What you're basing this bad EIR on is a set of already discredited ridership figures," Tolmach said. "You need to get a fresh look."
City leaders in Palo Alto and Menlo Park have also insisted that the rail authority evaluate the "blended" alternative for high-speed rail -- a design under which the rail system would share two tracks with Caltrain on the Peninsula. Though the rail authority had agreed to pursue the blended option, the program EIR devotes most of its analysis to a four-track design that has been widely panned on the Peninsula.
The newly approved environmental study specifies that the "blended approach would involve electrification of the rail corridor, advanced signaling systems, and would include some grade separations, but was assumed to be not fully grade separated." It defers a fuller analysis of this option to a future study.
In approving the analysis Thursday, board members tried to assuage Peninsula critics by adding a provision that specifies that future analyses will focus "solely" on the blended system. That blended approach, which was introduced by Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, and state Assemblyman Rich Gordon, D-Menlo Park, is now expected to be the focus on a segment-specific environmental review that includes more technical and design details than the document approved Thursday.
"I know the issue of the blended approach is a hot topic, obviously," Hartnett said. "That's probably a closer call than some of the other issues, but I think that it's been dealt with the best it can at the programmatic level, based upon the stage of where it is.
"There is substantially more work that will have to be done with that as the second-tier level," he added, referring to the segment-specific study.
The board's recent decision to pursue the blended system is in many ways an overture to the Peninsula communities where opposition to high-speed rail has been most heated. But while the blended system is far more popular than the four-track alternative, the project continues to attract heavy scrutiny from both opponents and independent analysts. Earlier this week, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office recommended that state officials withhold construction funding from the project, which now has an estimated price tag of $68.4 billion. The office also recommended "some minimum funding" to continue planning efforts for high-speed rail.
Though California voters approved a $9.95 billion bond for the project in 2008, funding remains a major concern. Gov. Jerry Brown has requested in his 2012-13 budget $5.9 billion for high-speed rail, which would be launched in Central Valley. This includes $2.6 billion in state bond funds and $3.3 billion in federal funding. The Legislative Analyst's Office argued in the report that the current plan leaves most questions about funding the project unanswered.
"We find that the (High-Speed Rail Authority) has not provided sufficient detail and justification to the Legislature regarding its plan to build a high-speed train system," the Legislative Analyst's Office report states. "Specifically, funding for the project remains highly speculative and important details have not been sorted out. We recommend the Legislature not approve the Governor's various budget proposals to provide additional funding for the project."
Find this article at: