Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Our latest headlines

As Another Special Session on Budget Looms, Senator Asks if California Can “Bail Out Ourselves” By Retirement System Purchase of State’s Short-Term Debt
Schwarzenegger Thinks Jerry Brown Has Best Shot at Being Next California Governor if Obama Wins Presidency
Governor Schwarzenegger Should Call Special Session on California’s Mortgage and Foreclosure Crisis Linked to Our Budget Problems
If It Were up To Them We’d Still Be in the Depression
Schrag: The Problems with Prop 4 on Parental Notification
With Friends Like New York Times Columnists Thomas Friedman, Maureen Dowd And Frank Rich – Does Barack Obama Need Enemies?
California Budget Crisis – Again-- Possible Special Session on State Budget

About Us

The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.

About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.

Books

California State Senate Starts Clearing a Path for High Speed Rail in November

By Robert Cruickshank
California High Speed Rail Blog

The Senate Transportation Committee yesterday approved AB 3034 by an 8-4 vote. But as Erik Nelson at the Contra Costa Times reports it included some great amendments, including Sen. Leland Yee's plan to restore the primacy of LA-SF:

“The committee, at the urging of Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, restored language that restricted use of the $9.95 billion in bond proceeds to the "spine" of the 800-mile system, which is now slated to run from Anaheim to Los Angeles to San Jose and San Francisco through the Antelope and San Joaquin valleys.”

Cathleen Galgiani was not aware of that change before entering the hearing room, which may cause some problems in reconciling the bills between the Senate and the Assembly. But the Senate's version is superior. LA-SF is necessary to be the spine of the project and the notion of building it in pieces was always a poor approach to the project's politics and efficiency. The original plan was sound: LA-SF first, then the extensions to San Diego and Sacramento as a guaranteed Phase II. Rome wasn't built in a day, neither will HSR.

Nelson also reports that a rule change giving project design work to Caltrans is causing controversy:

“One change that caused Republicans to bristle along with representatives of private contractors was one that says the High-Speed Rail Authority "shall utilize" the engineering and project design services of Caltrans, the state's transportation department.”

Republicans, of course, are bent on privatizing all aspects of state government, even the good ones, regardless of whether it's actually cost-effective to do so - see my article last year on this matter. Caltrans' record is excellent (the issues with the east span of the Bay Bridge were due to external political meddling), but there are apparently Constitutional questions surrounding this aspect of the amended bill, and the committee has not committed itself to that language.

Other aspects of the Senate Transportation Committee's amended AB 3034:

“Among the bill's 33 provisions are limiting bond money from paying more than half of any track or station construction cost so that federal, private or local funds would have to pay for the remainder, and allowing only 10 percent of that money for planning and engineering costs.

“The bill also would establish an eight-member independent review committee appointed by state financial and legislative leaders.”

Both changes should help address the concerns with financial risk of the system, although the HSR deniers will surely not be appeased. The committee also directed the CHSRA to come up with a revised business plan by October.

Republicans opposed the proposal, unsurprisingly. Although some Republicans like Curt Pringle strongly support HSR others remain opposed to any action that will help the state address its energy and environmental crisis. Senate Republicans want to shackle the state to oil and cars and eliminate alternative transportation. Thankfully Senate Democrats have come around and understood the value of high speed rail and provided some necessary fixes to AB 3034.

We will now work to ensure the bill passes the Senate and that these changes are accepted by the Assembly, so that we can move forward with the Yes on Prop 1 campaign for November. High speed rail's time has come, and the California legislature is showing some welcome if overdue leadership on this.

Robert Cruickshank is a historian, activist, and teacher living in Monterey. He is a contributing editor at Calitics.com and works for the Courage Campaign, in addition to teaching political science at Monterey Peninsula College. Currently he is completing his Ph.D. dissertation in US history, on progressive politics in San Francisco in the 1960s and 1970s. A native Californian, he was raised in Orange County and educated at UC Berkeley. This article originally appeared on the California High Speed Rail Blog http://cahsr.blogspot.com/ which he publishes.

Posted on July 02, 2008

Comments

Here's an interesting item.

Ground was broken Tuesday on a 300 km (approx. 186-mile) high-speed rail line between Nanjing and Shanghai in China. The line will take four years to build according to the China Daily article "China starts work on Shanghai-Nanjing high-speed rail"
(http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2008-07/02/content_6811923.htm) and will cost $5.7 billion (39.45 billion yuan). According to information in the article, it will be a 24-hour-a-day operation and trains will leave stations every three minutes during peak times. End-to-end travel time will take 72 minutes.

Also according to information in the article, "The route will have 21 stations and is forecast to carry up to 26.35 million people by 2020 and 38.44 million by 2030."

Compare this with the estimated cost, construction timeframe and ridership figures of the proposed 800-mile California High Speed Rail system. Interesting comparison.

Posted by: Alan Kandel at July 2, 2008 10:38 AM

Comrade Cruickshank,

Alan brings up a good point in the respective costs of a Chinese HSR verses that envisioned for California...

I'm still a little perturbed that the State's HSR authority has an email link on it's HSR website for questions...that doesn't work!

I asked just WHERE are the DETAILED maps for the HSR right of way over/through Soledad Canyon, Tehachapi and Altamont passes? (Where there are steep grades and sharp curves). I assume with no answer that THERE ARE NONE or that after 10 years and $60 million in tax dollars that the state HSR authority is incompetent, or both.

So now we want to give them another $9 plus BILLION in a bond with this level of performance on record? And all so the urban sprawl of SF and LA can exclusively go back and forth?

Also, where is the "done deal" with the Union Pacific Railroad in HSR "sharing" their existing right of way? How can you propose a new system without that critical element DONE?

Posted by: Jay Gould at July 2, 2008 03:32 PM

Jay,

Seriously, use a little brain power. The reason there is a straight line on the map through those canyons at the CAHSR website is because there are NO sharp turns. If you bothered to zoom in on the map and looked at the color coded right-of-way, it shows it will be achieved with tunneling and areal tramways.

Also, they don't need UP right of way. They can use the land adjacent to it, which is what they were planning all along.

P.S. Here are the color coded alignment maps you need because you obviously cant find them. http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/library/Default.aspx?ItemID=7673 Look at the alignment options towards the bottom of the page. So no, they are not incompetent, but you might be.

Posted by: Eric at July 2, 2008 07:58 PM

Eric,

Thank you so much for your provided link/location. No, I didn't see these before through my own search of the website.

However, I was looking for something even MORE detailed than this as I am quite familiar with the terrain in question. How can they accurately estimate the cost to the taxpayers if more construction info is absent? How long are the tunnels? How many elevation pylons? How will they be "earthquake proof" as the line straddles/crosses the San Andreas Fault?

WHICH lines will be built? The two routes into the Bay Area are still in doubt as well as the I-5 or Palmdale/Lancaster/HWY 58 route.

And if the UP's use of their land aka right of way "isn't needed", then why all the fuss when they said for the 3rd time to the state that they don't want HSR to co-exist with their existing traffic? Does HSR needs their cooperation/assistance or not?

Cooperation not locked up and the real routing not solidified. Plus, it looks more and more as a link between two urban areas (Bay and LA) and not a service to those in between...

How is this not all solidified after 10 years and $60 million in effort? Yet in this incomplete state they want a nearly $10 billion ballot initiative in November? (Will even THAT be ENOUGH?)

Plus please note, the mighty state HSR authority still hasn't answered my question via their own websites infrastructure. A private citizen, yourself, attempted to for them. Still a cause for pause perhaps?

Posted by: Jay Gould at July 2, 2008 10:01 PM

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker