At the Senate Transportation Meeting held on December 5th, Dan Richard, recent governor appointee to the High-Speed Authority board, relayed hope for the future for federal funding after the federal elections are over. He says that there is “strong bi-partisan in the congress for high-speed rail,” just not for President Obama’s vision. See the 23.19 marker for his comments. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA8BIi69xds&feature=related
However the House Transportation Committee in Washington DC met Tuesday and while it was supportive of the concept of high-speed rail, it appeared primarily supportive of the Northeast corridor. They suggested the Northeast corridor could serve as a model for high-speed rail since they own the right of way and have the population density and proven ridership to make it a success. The discussion was less than favorable for California’s project and in fact it appeared to put Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood on the defensive as he was questioned for spending scarce transportation dollars in the Central Valley.
Congresswoman Laura Richardson (D) Ca. asked LaHood if there is any flexibility in routing. Does it have to be the central valley?, she asked. LaHood said, “It’s the Central Valley, this is not stuff we make up, we go to our stakeholders who have been involved for 15 years, we take our cues from them.” He goes on to discuss the investment made in the Transbay Terminal in San Francisco and then says, “It will be the central valley until someone tells us differently, that’s where we’re going to be,” said LaHood. The you-tube link includes comments from Ray LaHood, Congresswoman Laura Richardson (D) Ca. ,Congressman Bill Schuster (R) Pennsylvania and Congressman Jeff Denham.(R) Central Valley. http://www.youtube.com/user/derailhsr#p/a/u/0/z2VqxWOyOIg
Mr. LaHood repeated several times during the meeting that this was what the people in California want and they won’t be "dissuaded by nay-sayers." It makes one pause to ask what his definition of “people” is.
Coincidentally a third critical poll came out this week that shows the people in California are not overwhelmingly in support of the project and there appears to be a growing tide of negativity.
The new Field poll released this week, suggests that the public isn’t so sure about high-speed Rail. This is the only poll that has been conducted after the Authority released its newest business plan in November which raised the construction estimates from $33 billion at the time of the vote to between $98.5 to $117.6 billion. The Field Poll is considered the gold standard of polls. It says 64% of the public want a revote. http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19484490 One of the key questions was if the project went up for a re-vote would you reject the bond package? 59% said yes and 31% said no. The rest presumably are undecided. An interesting fact is only 53% of those who voted yes previously would vote yes again, proof of dwindling support.
Other polls include the Authority’s own poll which came out in September 2010 and was favorable to the project, the Probolsky Poll which was conducted last summer, was not favorable and a district only poll conducted by California State Senator Simitian in the peninsula area showed a drop in support for the project. There are tremendous similarities in all four if you look at them carefully, though the questions are different. http://www.examiner.com/transportation-policy-in-san-francisco/newest-high-speed-rail-poll-vs-the-authority-s-poll
The Authority’s Poll done in May 2010 asked these questions, “ I support the project and would like it to move forward as quickly as possible (34%) or I would like to see the train built, but have some concerns about the timing and the costs (42%) or I opposed the project and prefer the project not be built. (13%) or I don’t know (10%).
Rita Wespi, co-founder of Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD), said in the Palo Alto Patch on September 27, 2010 that such a statement about 76% supporting the project was a stretch, "They say this survey concludes there is overwhelming support for high-speed rail in the state," she said. "But it does not do that. It has a small amount of unconditional support, and on top of that it has a small amount of conditional support, and if you add those up sure you get a nice big number."
In the Authority’s survey, the question was asked if building HSR was a high, medium or low priority and the responses were: 21% as high, 37% rated it a medium and 40% consider it a low priority. Of those who supported HSR with conditional support, only 8% said it was a high priority.
The Probolsky Poll conducted in the summer of 2011, asked the public about their priorities for the state. Education, public safety and social services were the top three concerns, followed by water and environmental concerns. High Speed Rail came in last. 62.4 % would most likely vote for stopping the project. And a very interesting bit of information, the more they knew about the project, the less they were inclined to vote for it.
Senator Simitian’s own district poll was conducted sometime earlier this summer. Originally this district voted 60 to 40% in favor of the project in November 2008. All of the peninsula cities voted yes except the city of Atherton. Statewide the measure won with a yes vote of 52.7%. But this summer, the new poll shows support dropped to 45% in the Senator’s district, a whopping 15% drop. And 61% stated they would vote to end the project if construction costs and funding were uncertain. Here are the two actual questions in the Senator's poll.
Would you favor or oppose, if it was on the ballot again, a nine billion dollar statewide bond measure to build a high-speed train between northern and southern California?
RESULTS: Favor – 45% Oppose – 47% No opinion – 7%
Would you favor or oppose continuing construction of the high-speed train system if construction costs and funding to complete the project are uncertain?
RESULTS: Favor – 29% Oppose – 61% No opinion – 9%
During the town hall meeting in Palo Alto on October 15th where Senator Simitian released his polling information, he was asked several times by the audience about the prospects of ending the HSR project. He reminded his constituents about the seriousness of that action. He said, “There was an election and the bond measure passed. It may have passed narrowly but it passed. Elections have consequences…. In this case the bond measure got approved. Is it possible for us to unwind that, yeah, but I want you to stop and think about what a dramatic thing it is for elected officials to essentially take actions contrary to the expressed will of the public, absent of some other bond measure and that’s a possibility.”
In defense of the voters, 1A passed with a 52.7% vote but the public was given a set of facts which resembles nothing like the project that is on the table today. Bait and switch has been quoted many times in the recent months, only to be heard louder and more often since the release of the draft business plan. What were we dealing with back in 2008?
This interview with the San Diego Union,http://www.sandiegounion.com/news/2011/aug/21/the-case-for-high-speed-rail/ gives us a hint as Lynn Schenk board member of the HSRA speaks of the quality of the former business plans. She said, "That first plan, much to the regret of many of us, was pulled together with Scotch tape and hairpins because we had to get something to the Legislature, but we didn’t have the money, the resources, the people to pull together, so there were a lot of errors.” Chair Tom Umberg also speaks of their journey in the December 5th Senate Transportation Committee meeting and explained they went from planning fantasy football back in 2008 then to being in the NFL today." These comments leads one to believe that the ballot measure was perhaps premature in being offered to the public. The very wording of 1A was declared illegal by California Court of Appeals as being promotional and not approved by the Attorney General's office. There is solid basis for a revote.
The hope is the legislators will do the right thing and either send 1A back to the voters or take a legal way out, which is simply to defund the project. The draft business plan may not be legally compliant with the law. Senator Simitian told the Senate transportation committee on December 5th that he would seek legislative counsel opinion on the legality of the funding plan since it has been under-fire by the public, a newly filed lawsuit and the Legislative Analyst’s office.
Comments