WhiteRiverProductions RAILROAD NEWS AND COMMENTARY FROM WASHINGTON BY WES VERNON High Speed Rail in America


IN A FEW WEEKS — or months — we may know whether California’s already beleaguered High Speed Rail project is still rolling along on “legal wheels” or is about to be consigned to a “legal death row.” A Bay Area group is suing the state Air Resources Board for in- cluding the “bullet train” as a part of the Golden State’s effort to cut down on green- house gases. The suit, filed in Fresno Coun- ty Court, alleges that, instead of reducing greenhouse gases, the planned super-fast train would actually result in “significant in- creases in emissions.” Increases in emissions? That raises ques-


tions, such as: If electric-powered trains re- place much of the internal combustion high- way transportation, how, pray tell, does that lead to an increase in emissions? That’s an ideal argument from the “high-


way lobby,” but from so-called environmen- talists? Really? I mean, they’re really serious about more cars on the highway saving the planet, right? Maybe they’ve got it nailed that we’ll all be driving electric cars before long. I don’t know — maybe they’re figuring con- struction of more paved roads will be less in- jurious to this world of ours than the building of more railroad infrastructure. Since fast trains have proven themselves in


other parts of the world, could it be that some- one is simply running interference to give the auto companies time to catch up with the rail- road potential? Who knows? Real Reason? As is often the case in politi-


cally charged court cases, the issues for which the lawsuit is filed are less significant in the public square than are the feared (or hoped for) consequences little known outside the precincts of certain special interests. Other than in the activist environmental groups and supporters of their causes, the major issue at hand among the larger electorate may be: Is the uproar about alleged negatives on the en- visioned fast train on the West Coast a means of killing (for good or bad, depending on one’s view) the HSR project in order to meet the goals of an agenda about which most people could care less (or at least does not grab their rapt attention)? Sue For Something — Anything: The


project, whose main initial line would run from San Francisco to Los Angeles, has been the object of legal action filed on behalf of the Transportation Solutions Defense and Educa- tion Fund (TRANSDEF). The lawsuit argues against Governor Jerry Brown’s and the state legislature’s agreement to allocate $250 mil- lion for high-speed rail’s budget, and further earmark millions each year for the train, which could add another $3 to $5 billion a year. The attorneys for TRANSDEF want the HSR program to be rescinded, and also want the judge to declare invalid the Legislature’s follow-up budget allocation. TRANSDEF President David Schonbrunn claims that cat- egorizing HSR as an emissions reducer is “a very expensive fantasy.” Examples: The California HSR faces legal challenges from one end of the Golden State to the other. Lawsuits question its compliance with state laws in its approval (the money


spent goes far beyond the original bond issue approved by the voters in 2008), while others question provisions of plans for different seg- ments of the envisioned line, incursions into farm property, adequacy of analysis, the rout- ing of the trains, and on and on. A spokesman for the pro-rail Air Resources


Board pushes back on such negativity, “Not only will [high-speed rail] be constructed with net-zero emissions, but it will dramat- ically reduce [automobile] miles traveled in the state.” And ARB’s Stanley Young adds the railroad’s “contribution to California’s overall effort [to combat environmental dam- age] was affirmed by the Legislature when it passed [the budget] with funding from cap and trade proceeds.” Cap and trade (as claimed by its supporters)


is a method balancing out environmental dam- age/benefit by awarding points among various public works projects in such a way that the bottom line results in less harm to the planet. Critics have called it a tax-grabbing scheme. All the more puzzling that environmentalists object to a train system that, by its very nature, can’t help but be beneficial to the environment. Paradoxically, in this instance, environmental groups seem aligned with tax-cutters. Focal Point? Whether or not there is such


a location as a de facto “anti-HSR Headquar- ters” (even beyond TRANSDEF) is quite be- side the point. The elements of California’s anti-HSR machinery, by separate actions or in unison, are well financed, overflowing with a determination that borders on the sacred, and have a formidable section of the public behind them. You can raise issues of afford- ability (the project is very expensive), proper- ty incursions, or whatever. But whoa! Emis- sions-producing, on balance? One constant human factor in the efforts


to call into question the viability of the train is Stuart Flashman. Reporter Timothy Shee- han says the Oakland attorney is “no strang- er to high-speed rail debate.” Not only does he represent TRANSDEF, but other entities throughout the state that are taking on the HSR for different legal reasons — a crop of lawsuits here, another crop there, and so on. We should add the pro-HSR side also has


strong support, which makes this West Coast uproar all the more interesting, both in terms of a threat to the Golden State’s pro-automo- bile reputation, and to a vision of America’s largest state leading the way (for good or ill) into a “smart-growth” society in general. Show Me the Money! The Fresno Bee,


a major source of journalistic research on a massive statewide effort in this battle, has made a list of 36 potential sources of “private sector” backing for the massive California un- dertaking. Sheehan says HSR officials “are tempering expectations for imminent invest- ment by the private sector” in the rail project after receiving “expressions of interest” from listed countries around the world. This reporter’s particular inquiry on ideas regarding structured “public-private part- nership” apparently focused on the initial segment from Merced to Burbank. As we have reported previously in this space, the


Travel the full sweep of the railroad: from the desolate


majesty of Utah and Nevada to the scenic heart of the Feather River Canyon; along the


rugged outback of the Inside


Gateway; through city streets and rich farmland surrounding one-time interurban


subsidiaries Sacramento Northern and Tidewater


Southern; racing past the state capital to bustling Stockton


yard; and surmounting subtly stunning Altamont Pass to finally rest on the shore of


San Francisco Bay. Conceived as a four-way collaboration between photographers


Ted Benson, Dick Dorn, Dale Sanders and Dave Stanley,


72-82, Western Pacific’s Final Decade is an uncommon look at the last independent years of an uncommon carrier.


$79.95


S/H per book: $5 US, $9 Canada, all others, call or email for rates. Order item WPFD


877-787-2467 TOLL-FREE 660-695-4433 NON-US


WhiteRiverProductions.com 23


Western Pacific’s Final Decade


72-82


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74