559-286-7795
facebook twitter you tube
 

Newsletter

 

High-Speed Rail and the Twilight Zone

The only conclusion we can draw is that those pushing this project be be living in a different reality

Mar 17, 2013

As reported below, the United State Senate Democrats released their 10 year transportation budget. Guess what? The California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA'S) receives ZERO funds. This is the same as the House Republican budget for CHSRA. Hallelujah! We have a bipartisanship compromise in D.C.

 
Also reported below is the story about the previous Chairman of the CHSRA (Quentin Kopp) stating that the current business plan is NOT High Speed Rail and does NOT qualify for the HSR bonds passed by the voters.
 
Nonetheless, the CHSRA is having a special meeting on Monday, 3/18/2013, (agenda below) to approve issuance of 8 + BILLION dollars in California bonds to fund this project that has no private funds in sight, and no ferdal spending on the horizon.
 
The only conclusion we can draw is that those pushing this project be be living in a different reality. Even Rod Serling would not have written a script this bizarre.
 
Senate budget should be death knell for bullet train

By U-T San Diego Editorial Board

In a just world, the California High-Speed Rail Authority would have shut down long ago, undone by the grossly deceptive campaign used in 2008 to convince voters to hand over $9.95 billion in bond seed money for a statewide system of bullet trains.

Indeed, it’s increasingly questionable that the project will even reach Los Angeles or San Francisco – even with the construction of the $6 billion initial phase of the system in the Central Valley just a few months off. After that segment is finished, the rail authority will have at most about $6 billion left of its original state bond funds and $3.5 billion in federal funding. That’s less than 10 percent of the $62 billion it would cost to build the remaining segments linking the state’s two biggest metropolitan areas.

And guess what? There is no identified source for that funding – none. As has become abundantly clear over the past four years, private investors will never offer a dime without revenue or ridership guarantees that are illegal under the terms of the 2008 initiative.

But project supporters, with the encouragement of the Obama administration, have said the federal government would come to the rescue. The events of this week have moved that claim from the category of very unlikely to utterly preposterous.

It’s already well-established that the Republicans who control the U.S. House will block major future funding for California’s bullet-train boondoggle.

Now it looks like that’s also the case for the Democrats who control the U.S. Senate. Last week, Senate Budget Chairwoman Patty Murray, D-Wash., released a proposed 10-year budget, the first her party has put forward in more than three years. The 114-page document proposes a total of $100 billion in infrastructure spending over a decade for all 50 states – and for many causes: upgrading roads and bridges, transit and rail systems, ports and waterways, airports, water infrastructure and energy transmission systems and expanding broadband technology.

The budget never mentions the California bullet train, which needs many billions more in federal money just to build the second segment, much less the L.A.-San Francisco route.

So why is California about to waste $6 billion to start a project that has no feasible path to completion? This is a debate that we need to have, now more than ever.  Who should lead the debate? Gov. Jerry Brown, of course, the man who used to call bullet-train skeptics “declinists.” If Brown still thinks he has the facts on his side, we would like to hear why.


Former Chairman declares train project violates the law


March 15th the brief for John Tos, Aaron Fukuda and the County of Kings vs. California High-Speed Rail Authority was filed, representing the only non environmental lawsuit concerning violations of the requirements of Prop 1A for the high-speed rail project. This is not about whether the concept of high-speed rail is good or bad, it’s not about whether this project is good for the state or the people in the state, it is a suit simply about the rule of law. Basically it will attempt to prove, that State Bond Funds cannot be spent for the high-speed rail project if it violates Proposition 1A and the governing legislation, AB 3034.

Lawyers Mike Brady and Stuart Flashman are working together on the case. Mike Brady explains a little further and says he wants to accomplish requiring High-Speed Rail to comply with the law, the voter initiative (Prop 1A). He wants to give voice to the will of the people because the California constitution states you cannot change provisions of a voter initiative. Brady explains, “This is very different than when the legislature makes laws.

Attorney Mike Brady gives an example of one of 10 violations of Prop1A. “You can’t start building until you have the money for the entire usable segment. The money must be in the bank for the usable segment which is from Merced to the San Fernando Valley. Conservatively, that segment is about $25 billion short and therefore you can’t build a subset of that Usable segment which the Authority calls the Initial Construction Segment. The danger is that after the money runs out, it will be abandoned." 

There are 14 declarations by experts all over the country who know about railroads and mega-projects but there was one big surprise, Judge Quentin Kopp offers his declaration. He chaired the High-Speed Rail Authority, was a State Senator, was instrumental in creating the governing legislation and knows the intentions behind the ballot measure and the law. As former Chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee for 12 years Kopp stated for the record. “It is my opinion the project is not lawfully eligible to receive Proposition 1A bond funds.” Quentin Kopp, not known for his warm and fuzzy demeanor, has always been a proponent of high-speed rail. Love him or hate him, he does have the reputation of being all about the rule of law. This article will concentrate just on his declaration and the reasons behind the statement and we will examine others at a later date.

Quentin Kopp states, ” The plan has been distorted in a way directly contrary to the high-speed rail plan the Authority attempted to implement while I was Chairman, namely, a true HSR system containing all the features, terms and protections desired by the Legislature and honoring restrictions placed upon use of Proposition 1A bond proceeds by the Legislature."

He offers several examples of violations, we will examine three.

The usable segment debate

He brings us back to Dec 2, 2010 at the HSR Board meeting when then Deputy Attorney General George Spanos advised that “proposed construction of a section of track between north of Fresno to north of Bakersfield was not a usable segment but a subset of a usable segment.” Kopp further stated, “That legal advice conformed to my understanding of “usable segment,” both then and at all times since.”

Judge Kopp says that “funding must be sufficient to ensure completion of that particular usable segment. He goes on to say that the purpose of such provision is protection of the State from risks that a portion of the system would be abandoned or uncompleted because of lack of money to finish construction. Such rigid funding protections are an integral part of the statutory scheme and ballot measure.”
http://stateofcalifornia.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?clip_id=66 MM 2 hr:34min.  Kopp denies the term usable segment would ever refer to conventional rail, which has been an argument of the Authority in the past. He says the construction segment cannot itself qualify as a usable segment because it is not electrified. “ Prop 1A and its statutory predicate (AB3034) require each usable segment must be suitable and ready for genuine high-speed rail operation, electrified and containing all components of a genuine HSR system.”

Blended System: using existing infrastructure in Northern and Southern California

He does not believe the blended system meets the test of IA because it cannot meet the demand of the number of trains required, that is, make the achievable operating headway time of five minutes or less between trains. According to Kopp, prior to the Authority’s plan released on April 2, 2012, the business plans were based upon 10-12 trains per commuter hour.

Note: Now the plan says 3 to 4 trains per commute hour. The end result will be fewer riders, less revenue and a high-likelihood that a forbidden state subsidy will be required to run the service.

Kopp believes in the creation of the “blended system,” that the Legislature approved seizure of approximately $1 million dollars from Proposition IA bond proceeds for use for regional and commuter rail transit purposed on the San Francisco Peninsula and in Southern California. Kopp believes no part of the $9 billion dollars reserved for high-speed rail was designated for urban or commuter rail. Such diversion of funds from the Central Valley undermines funding prospects, for that area, rendering risk of non-completion much higher.” He says in 2008 the intention was clear and that “was to build qualified (under statutory definition) usable segments, one at a time, and do not begin a new usable segment until funds are committed and sufficient for completion of the next usable segment, with electrification of every segment from the outset.”

He believes that for HSR will not succeed financially if it must share tracks with conventional or commuter rail. As noted, without its own dedicated tracks, not nearly as many HSR trains can operate per day. Judge Kopp believes the track-sharing arrangement with Caltrain represents an example (Los Angeles to Anaheim represents another) of the “Authority’s current alteration of the project from genuine HSR system to a distortion of such, using terms such as “blended system” to describe the present plan.”

He goes on to say “those concepts contravene the Authority’s representations to the public that a true HSR system would be built with all $9 billion in bond money from Proposition 1A spent for exactly that. To me, the Authority Chairman during all the planning and pre-November 4, 2008 efforts regarding the bond measure, this constitutes the greatest betrayal of all in the context of the original intent and promises to voters. The project, as now planned rather than what was promised, constitutes a distortion and mangling of California’s HSR project and promises to the voters.”

Connectivity Funds Usage:

Regarding connectivity funds, which $950 million was reserved, he believes that is where it is permissible to improve or modify conventional rail system. He believes” the separation of the connectivity funds from the HSR funds implies that the $9 billion portion was not to be used for that purpose.”

Kopp does not believe the Central Subway system in San Francisco is eligible for connectivity funds since it does not connect to HSR and in fact even worse, the project changes the route of an existing San Francisco Municipal Railway light rail line (called the T third line) and by doing so eliminates the segment of that line which would connect to the HSR system at the San Francisco Transbay Terminal. So bottom line it spends $61,300,000 of connectivity funds and” it destroys connectivity” which he believes constitutes an illegal expenditure under Proposition 1A.”

Summary:

There are many other excellent declarations, 14 in total which will be written about in later articles. See the Kings County website; at the bottom of page has a link to all the declarations and legal briefs. http://www.countyofkings.com/

The Attorney General’s office will have 30 days to reply and the plaintiff, the County of Kings, John Tos, And Aaron Fukuda) will have until April 29th to file a closing brief and the court date is May 31, 2013.

 

Meeting Agenda

March 18, 2013

11:00 a.m

California State Treasurer’s Office

915 Capitol Mall, Room 587

Sacramento, CA 95814

 

 

Additional Teleconference Locations:

 

Hartnett, Smith & Paetkau

777 Marshall Street

Redwood City, CA 94063

 

Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP

695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor

Costa Mesa, CA 92626

 

ML Street Properties

855 M St, Suite 1110

Fresno, CA 93721


 

 

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

An opportunity for public comment will be provided at the outset of the meeting. Those persons, who wish to comment on agenda and non-agenda items, are required to submit their requests to Board Secretary before the start of the meeting by filling in the green cards. Typically public comment will be limited to 90 seconds per person, however the Chair may decide to shorten or lengthen the public comment periods, at his or her discretion.

 

Responsible Party

Status

Duration

1. Approval of Minutes from March 6, 2013 Meeting

 

2. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between the Authority and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Authority (Caltrain)

Staffwill propose that the Board enter into a revised MOU with Caltrain for the purposes of developing the blended system featured in the Revised 2012 Business Plan.

 

3. Closed Session Pertaining to Litigation

The Authority will meet in closed session pursuant to Government Code section 11126(e)(2)(C), regarding the possibility of initiating litigation.

Following closed session, the Authority will reconvene in open session.

 

4. Consideration of request to the High-Speed Passenger Train Finance Committee to approve resolutions under the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century, authorizing the issuance of bonds and commercial paper notes as follows:

Resolution IX, authorizing the issuance of State of California High-Speed Passenger Train Bonds or Commercial Paper Notes in the principal amount not to exceed $8,599,715,000.*

Resolution X, authorizing the issuance of State of California High-Speed Passenger Train Refunding Bonds to refund bonds and notes issued under Resolution IX and bonds issued under Resolution X.

T. Fellenz

B. Tripousis

 

 

 

 

T. Fellenz

 

 

T. Fellenz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A

A

 

 

 

 

--

 

 

A

 

3 min.

15 min.

 

 

 

 

--

 

 

20 min.

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Adjournment

* Note: The amount of each resolution is an estimate and the actual amount of the resolution as of the date of the meeting may decrease from the posted amount, or may be increased by no more than 10% over the posted amount.

 

 

 

Reasonable Accommodation for Any Individual with a Disability

Any Individual with a disability who requires reasonable accommodation to attend or participate may request assistance by contacting the Authority at (916) 324-1541. Requests for additional accommodations for the disabled, signers, assistive listening devices, or translators should be made no later than one week prior to the meeting.

Valid RSS FeedGet the 10 most recent items from our RSS feed.

helpdonate
helpdonate