Rod Diridon stirring false HSR funding fears

Unfortunately this is looking like a battle between the Palo Alto/San Jose NIMBYs versus Rod Diridon. Rod Diridon is trying to get the state legistlature to remove the language from the budget bill that would require the HSRA to study alternative alignments to the Caltrain corridor in the project-level EIR for the San Jose-San Francisco segment. The NIMBYs in Palo Alto and San Jose are in favor of the language believing that alternative alignments could be chosen that avoid their neighborhoods. Diridon is opposing this claiming the delay caused by further study would force the agency to miss the deadline set by the Stimulus bill and would have to forego funding.

This political tug-of-war ignores reality. First, some of the alternative alignments are very likely to be screened out because of major flaws. Just because a particular alignment bypasses a neighborhood does not mean that it won't cause harm to the environment and stir opposition from others in the community. A proper evaluation would likely show that a Caltrain alignment would produce the least harm.

Second, Diridon's claim of missing the deadline for the Stimulus fund comes from the assumption that the HSRA would submit the entire corridor for Stimulus funding, which timing would either be too tight or impossible to fulfill regardless. This region would not miss most if any of the Stimulus funds if it prioritizes near term improvements that have been studied and received environmental clearance. The near term projects submitted by MTC for the funding costs about 20% of the total $8 billion of the stimulus funds. The projects submitted by MTC are necessary for high speed rail anyway unless HSRA gives up its current preference and repicks an alignment outside the Caltrain right of way, which this language won't do.

Similar to the current events in Iran, the HSRA can only lose trust in the communities by its rush to judgement and its ignorance to their concerns. While the motive of the legislator who placed the language is suspicious, removing this language from the bill will only foster further distrust by those who have the power to cause further delays for the project.

Restoring the trust will likely require some kind of "regime change" at the High Speed Rail Authority currently dominated by Quentin Kopp and Rod Diridon, who both have a history of supporting wasteful transit projects and pick fights against transit advocates to score cheap political points. High speed rail could be way better off with other more competent and less politically divisive boardmembers.

High speed rail brouhaha

A brouhaha is being stirred in Menlo Park between supporters and opposition over the proposed high speed rail and Proposition 1A. On Tuesday, the City of Menlo Park held a study session with board members from the High Speed Rail authority, advocates for the Altamont Pass alignment, and neighbors living near the Caltrain tracks, who were concerned about impacts of the proposed project. The study session was attended by over 150 people. Last month, Menlo Park joined a lawsuit against the High Speed Authority over the EIR, which the HSRA used to justify the selection of Pacheco Pass rather than Altamont Pass.

After the study session, the debate continued online. At the California High Speed Rail Blog, the author, Robert Cruickshank, suggested that Menlo Park and Atherton "believe it is their right to make decisions for the other 36 million people in California," and that the study session was used by HSR opponents to "to push their anti-HSR arguments to the media."

Cruickshank may want to try to make the issue black and white, but the brouhaha is actually a product of Rod Diridon, who has done more to divide people and destroy the natural coalition necessary to make high speed rail a reality.

Realistically, high speed rail is still largely an unknown. A lot of studies need to be done as to the exact infrastructure and mitigations needed. Because high speed rail proposes to use the Caltrain alignment, Caltrain will also have to work out with the High Speed Rail Authority to maintain local train service. Although the city should keep an open mind about the project, there's nothing wrong with the neighbors expressing concerns and asking hard questions.

At the session, Rod Diridon told Menlo Park that several cities in the East Bay voted against the Altamont Pass. In reality, Diridon got their opposition to the Altamont Pass by using the same political tactics HSR opponents used in Menlo Park and Atherton - by telling them that HSR is so scary and would destroy their neighborhoods. Last year, Mehdi Morshed, executive director of the HSRA, told Pleasanton and Livermore that under the Altamont Pass alternative, a 6 track corridor would run through their city. If Rod Diridon believes that HSR shouldn't impact Fremont, Pleasanton, and Livermore because that, why should Menlo Park and Atherton be any different? Should HSR run through Menlo Park and Atherton because the residents there are wealthier than those in Fremont, Pleasanton, and Livermore?

Even with all the right reasons for Cruickshank and others to support high speed rail, Rod Diridon is not their friend. Just because of the selection of Pacheco Pass, HSRA is being sued for its biased EIR. Some environmental and transit groups, who are otherwise natural allies, are withholding their support for Proposition 1A because of it. Besides high speed rail, Rod Diridon is the "father" of the failed VTA light rail system and supports the misguided Measure B on the November ballot in Santa Clara County. How could any serious transit advocate want to associate with and beholden to him?

Despite the brouhaha in Menlo Park, Menlo Park and Atherton won't be able to kill high speed rail. The key swing votes on high speed rail are in the Central Valley and Southern California. High speed rail supporters like Cruickshank should be more concerned of what Proposition 1A won't do for residents in cities like Tracy, Stockton and Modesto.

High speed rail bond and Pacheco Pass opposition

Yesterday the California High Speed Rail Authority certified the final environmental impact report for the selection of the Pacheco Pass alignment between the Bay Area and Central Valley. It was an important news considering that the high speed rail bond (Proposition 1) will appear on the ballot this November.

Many environmental groups are still opposed to the selection of the Pacheco alignment and consider the environmental impact report fatally flawed.

In the meantime, the high speed rail bond is still on the ballot. Would these groups treat the bond measure separately from the environmental impact report, or would they oppose the bond measure as well because of their opposition to the environmental impact report?

There's no easy answer. Simply, for the environmental community, high speed rail is an important element in reducing greenhouses gases and change our transportation and possibly landuse pattern for the long term. For the last few years, these groups have been a champion to maintain funding to the HSRA when Governor Schwarzenegger threatened to cut the authority's budget substantially.

On the other hand, the Pacheco Pass alignment is unacceptable to them. High Speed Rail Authority chose Pacheco over Altamont primarily for political reasons (driven by Rod Diridon). Also, the Pacheco Pass alignment could eventually drive development in the Los Banos area. Some members of the environmental community believe the alignment issue can only be resolved when the HSRA is disbanded, which means the high speed rail bond measure must be defeated at the ballot box and have the process start over.

Considering a possible opposition from the environmental community, as well as key issues related to getting matching funds from the federal government and the private sector, Assemblymember Cathleen Galgiani introduced a bill (AB 3034) that would amend the bond measure. That bill is currently in the state senate. It is in the best interest for all parties that the bond measure be amended to satisfy the environmental group's concerns, which would allow them to support it and ensure successful passage at the ballot box.

High Speed Rail is dead

Rod Diridon, a member of the High Speed Rail board who helped to create the failed VTA light rail system, also helped kill High Speed Rail by selecting the Pacheco Pass route between the Bay Area and the Central Valley.

For now, there's no money or matching funds for High Speed Rail unless the High Speed Rail bond passes next November. Pacheco Pass supporters like Gavin Newsom say the selection of this alignment would allow the project would move forward. However, it would be delusional for people like him to think that they would get a united front to get voters to successfully pass the high speed rail bond.

Environmental groups have already expressed their opposition against the Pacheco Pass due to the environmental harm that would occur along that alignment. Cities along the northern part of Central Valley wanted the Altamont Pass that would serve their growing population. A selection of Pacheco Pass essentially is a slap on their face. Why would they campaign for something that they don't like, if they have not decided to campaign against the HSR bond altogether in light of that decision?

Pacheco Pass supporters argued that it provides the quickest travel time between the Bay Area and Southern California, which is only true between San Jose and Los Angeles, and the difference between the two alignments for San Jose is 10 minutes.

Pacheco Pass supporters also claimed that HSR is only supposed to provide transportation between Northern California and Southern California. This idea is delusional at best and dangerous at worst. Currently, airlines such as Southwest already provide a quick a affordable transportation option between the Bay Area and southern california. Why should billions of tax dollars go build something just to compete with the private sector? On the other hand, a well designed high speed rail can carry regional rail traffic, similar to the freeway carrying intercity passenger and cargo, as well as regional commute traffic. The ability of HSR carrying regional rail traffic would also attract votes because it would provide more benefits to more people who travel across regions everyday. In addition, HSR over the Altamont Pass would provide a new regional rail option between Stockton and San Jose without the BART extension.

Is it because HSR over the Altamont Pass would make the San Jose BART extension redundent the reason why Rod Diridon is so against Altamont Pass? If you look back history, Rod Diridon has a lot of undeserved credit related to the establishment and design of the light rail system. Diridon is one of the main reasons why our transit isn't working now and won't be.

Can Diridon and SVLG pass the HSR bond without the support of the environmental and rail advocacy community, who would otherwise be an natural ally? The well funded opposition is ready to campaign against any form of HSR and has already kill HSR in other states like Texas and Florida. In California, propositions to increase oil and cigarette taxes, despite their initial strong voter support, failed to pass all because of well funded opposition campaign.

It would be a great loss of opportunity to have a well designed HSR system that would transform the state, all because of Rod Diridon's boneheaded opposition to the Altamont Pass and giving up strong support from the environmental community.

The end of New Century DASH and more

Friday was the last day of the New Century operation of the DASH (Downtown Area Shuttle) in Downtown San Jose. On Monday August 5, VTA will take over the operation of the DASH, using the same type of bus already used on the Los Gatos and south county community bus routes. VTA is taking over the DASH per agreements with the unions that has added new job titles to operate and maintain community buses with lower pay.

The Great America and River Oaks shuttles have been converted to in-house operation in July. However, DASH was scheduled to be converted later due to the lack of buses at that time, as well as to provide a new paint job for the new buses.New Century became the DASH operator in 2002 as a new contractor. Before that time, Laidlaw was the contract operator and ran white shuttle buses.

COA tradeoffs

While the revised COA restored service to many outlaying communities, there's some tradeoffs. Some routes were originally planned to have expanded service were no longer so.

1. Line 11 was originally to have hourly service on Sundays, there will be no Sunday service on the revised plan.
2. Line 13 was originally to operate every 30 minutes throughout the day, but will only every 30 minutes during peak hours and hourly midday, along with a shorter operating hours, under the revised plan.
3. A new line 43 was originally planned to provide service between Alum Rock light rail and Eastridge whenever the line 522 is not in service everyday until 10:00pm (9:00pm Sundays). Under the revised plan, this line will only operate on Sundays (the only day when line 522 is not in operation) until 6:30pm. Under the revised plan, the only way to travel from Alum Rock light rail to Eastridge is to take line 23 or 25 to Jackson and transfer to line 70. Another alternative is to transfer to line 70 at Hostetter station or at the Great Mall. (so what is the point of having light rail extended to Alum Rock?)
4. Lines 72 and 73 were originally planned to run every 15 minutes on Saturday, but with the revised plan both lines will remain operating every 30 minutes.
5. Line 82 will end service sooner with the revised plan than with the original plan.
6. Line 180 was originally planned to run every 20 minutes on weekends, thereby meeting every Richmond-Fremont train, but with the revised plan the line will remain operating every 30 minutes.

MegaBus

Next Wednesday, a new competitor will join Greyhound, California Shuttle bus, and two other Chinatown operators to provide intercity bus service to Los Angeles.

MegaBus is a brand originated from Britain as a low fare intercity bus operator. The parent company, Stagecoach, brought the brand into the US a few years ago and began operation in Ohio area.

Unlike other Greyhound and other operators, MegaBus will only stop at major transit centers. In San Francisco, it will stop at the 4th & King Caltrain station. In Oakland, it will stop at West Oakland BART station. In San Jose, it will stop at San Jose Diridon Station. In Los Angeles, it will stop at the Union Station. Although tickets won't be sold there, the major advantage is easy connections to various transit lines, and LA Union Station is a much more preferable stop than the LA Greyhound station located in Skid Row.

Although Rod Diridon, speaking as the executive director of the Mineta Transportation Institute at San Jose State University, questions the profitability of both Megabus and Greyhound, there is a lack of intercity bus competition compared to the East Coast. In the East Coast, travelers between Washington DC and New York City have far more options besides the airlines, the pricey Amtrak Acela, and Greyhound. Chinatown buses (with various operators) are charging $20 one way and $35 roundtrip. They are well used and operate throughout the day.

The Mercury News still doesn't get it

The Mercury News published an editorial today promoting Measure A this June because of the "success" of the 1996 Measure A program, and the fact that the 1996 Measure was passed with 51.8% voter approval.

Essentially, the Mercury News is asserting that the 2/3 voter approval is almost impossible to obtain and therefore the sleazy tactic of selling specific projects as a general tax is justifed.

If we look beyond Santa Clara County, there are good reasons why we should reject this assertion.

• In November 2003, San Francsico voters approved Proposition K, a 1/2 cent sales tax for transportation, by nearly 75%.
• In November 2004, San Mateo County voters approved Measure A, a 1/2 cent sales tax for transportation, by just over 75%.
• Also in November 2004, Marin County voters passed Measure A, a 1/2 cent salex tax for transportation, by 71%

So the 70% voter approval of the 2000 Measure A in Santa Clara County, during the peak of the high-tech bubble, isn't that quite spectacular or is it?

The major difference between these taxes passed by voters in other counties and ours is that other counties tend to have honest and inclusive discussions about the funding needs and spending priorities. San Mateo County, for instance, held weekend transportation planning workshops around the county to solicit community input. Also, all of these proposals did not include any "marquee" BART extensions that are supposedly poll well (according to SVLG) but would bankrupt the counties.

Santa Clara County, once again, chose a path that limits honest discussions and public participation. Ron Gonzales, Carl Guardino, and Rod Diridon cannot accept themselves being challenged in public on questionable policies. If SVLG and other politicians believe that the county voters will support the idea of the San Jose BART extension be funded at the expense of Caltrain and local transit services, and diverting sales tax revenue from the north and south county to downtown San Jose, Santa Clara County should have taken the "high road." Santa Clara County does not have to create a smokescreen by blurring specific projects with a general tax and create confusion among voters, as a way to get around the 2/3 voter approval requirement.

Faux debate on BART - Unfair and unbalanced

The Commonwealth Club, along with the Mineta Transportation Institute at San Jose State, California State Automobile Association, and SVLG, will host a forum on BART on the afternoon of April 21 at the County building. Supposedly Greg Perry of Mountain View was invited to serve as a panelist along with Cindy Chavez of San Jose, Carl Guardino of SVLG and Dennis Kennedy of Morgan Hill.

Guardino is obviously a strong supporter of that project and SVLG is bring Chavez along to prep her to become another Gonzales. Kennedy is opposed to the project but is nowhere close compared to Perry when it comes to the knowledge about VTA and the project.

Rod Diridon Sr., who got a nice job being the director of the Mineta Transportation Institute, recently removed Perry off the panel for some reason. Bay Rail Alliance and VTA Riders Union wrote letters to complain. It is no surprise that Diridon kicked Perry out because Diridon is afraid of Perry telling the truth behind the BART project. Diridon replaced with a token opposition Ron Swegles of Sunnyvale to make themselves look good.

Apparently, as reported in the ba.transportation newsgroup, the executive director of the Commonwealth Club - Gloria Duffy, is the wife of Rod Diridon. So no phone calls need to make that work, just some pillow talk!