With 53 percent of precincts reporting early Wednesday, Newsom held a 58 percent to 42 percent lead over Republican candidate John Cox, who had promised to kill the project.
In his victory speech, Newsom — whose support for the project has waffled at times — said he’s “committed” to building the initial operating segment described in the 2018 business plan from San Francisco to the Central Valley.
Last Thursday, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Richard Sueyoshi tentatively ruled against a lawsuit filed by a group of Central Valley farmers and Kings County, Calif., that could have halted construction. He said allowing high-speed rail bond funds to be spent on projects like Caltrain electrification does not change the project approved by voters 10 years ago because the new trains will also use that infrastructure. A final decision is expected within three months.
While a Cox governorship could have been fatal to high-speed rail, the new passenger railroad never became a huge issue in the campaign. Nevertheless, Republicans counted on the chance Cox presented to kill the expensive project and a measure on the ballot to repeal California’s year-old gas tax increase as ways to drive their voters to the polls to save as many GOP seats in the state’s congressional delegation as possible.
The gas tax repeal failed 55 to 45-percent.
However, though Democrats managed to retake the U.S. House of Representatives in Tuesday’s voting, three Republican congressmen from the Central Valley who oppose the railroad survived: Kevin McCarthy, the leading candidate to succeed outgoing U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan as the Republican leader in the House; Jeff Denham, who chaired the U.S. House railroads subcommittee while Republicans held the majority; and Devin Nunes.
Rail construction is underway in each of their districts but all three signed a letter in January 2017, shortly after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, asking new Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao to deny a $647 million grant for Caltrain’s electrification project because they wanted to block high-speed rail.
They managed to delay the electrification work for three months before the grant was awarded, but it cost Caltrain $20 million to keep contractors on standby.
State Sen. Jim Beall, a Democrat and high-speed rail supporter who chairs the California Senate’s transportation committee, said he’s been encouraged by Newsom’s willingness to continue Brown’s legacy as a more conservative spender than the Legislature’s Democratic majority. He says that will help the rail project.
Financing is now the railroad’s key challenge, Beall said.
“Once you have the financing you’ll get the private sector engaged on the project. If we do a financing — if people can clearly see what kind of financing we have available — I think that will attract a private sector investor and the project actually can be completed.”
Gee with much of that state under the judgement of fire & people being burned out of their homes that is certainly more important
RE: the comment about building the HSR along I-5, most of the way the median is not quite wide enough for the train without barriers next to the traffic lanes. In addition, building down the median would require the demo and rebuilding of each and every overpass along the way (probably more than a hundred, very expensive and would likely take years to do. In some places both northbound and southbound lanes would have to be moved farther from the center divider to accomodate the tracks, also very expensive. So many people seem to think the I-5 routing would be so easy when in actuality it is likely just as complicated if not more so than where it is being built now. Additionally and most importantly, it bypasses all of the population centers between LA and SF, which does not make any sense. You don’t bypass almost 3 million people. Oh and also, routing up through the Tejon Pass and the Altamont Pass are just as complicated geologically as the current routes.
Charles Landey As a retired un-civil engineer, i.e. locomotive engineer and railroader over 37 years I have watched politicians mainly of the Republican extraction fueled with monies from the likes of the Koch brothers try to tear down many transit projects and rail passenger networks. I have watched the same politicians fund my freight railway competition with new highways and water way projects. The passenger rail in this country has been starved to an unsafe level by constant demands to make a profit by Congressional overlords while they pour money into facilities (air traffic control) to make the competition become a defacto monopoly.
Republican leadership have gone in a direction not seen on this scale since the 1930s and have left moderates like yourself to defend their name.
I do not believe money is the root of animosity of Republicans towards Amtrak and public transit. I truly believe there are people in power who do not like public travel that allows people to mix with each other and listen to each other in the comfort of a rolling lounge or dining car.
The private bus lines have pulled out of many small towns in the pursuit of profit while politicians talk about small town values while simultaneously enacting laws the destroy the very small towns they talk about. Amtrak is a slender lifeline to many small towns that is being eroded away by modern policies.
I remember the days when no airlines flew and people rented cars to drive thousands of miles cross country or jammed on to Amtrak trains that could no longer react to expanding business by adding non-existent cars. The world is changing and public transit should be an important part of that change. Politician and leaders that should have conversations on how to adapt to changing times instead gone after the pursuit of power at the expense of long term thinking.
As I write this the entire town of Paradise California is gone.
I had to deal with some “interesting” professors in my work in academia. Some thought the sun rose and set when they told it to. Many of the far left ones never could understand why other people wouldn’t discuss politics with them, especially since they were always right all the time.
Jan Zweerts. Bus companies faced the same problem with declining passengers that the railroads had faced before them. Once they were deregulated and could drop the money loosing local routes they did so. Since the Feds didn’t want to get involved, the only way to save most local bus service would have been for the states to come up with a way to fund them similar to local commuter operations. They didn’t as far as I know. But dropping the locals still didn’t solve all the long-distance financial problems so today’s long distant bus service is a shadow of what it was. A few new bus LD operators now exist but none are into what I would consider to be similar to the old long distance “all stops” local service. Just like with Amtrak, the existence of the discount airlines have played a major role in the large reduction of bus service.
As for improved roads and waterways, that is popular with both political parties. Its not just the Republicans backing them. All sorts of companies and unions back road construction since its money in their pockets and road upgrades are normally popular with most voters, including those in rural areas.
I doubt that your opinion about Republicans not wanting to mix with common folks in buses or trains is accurate. Rural areas are usually represented by Republicans who keep their seats by staying in touch with their rural residents and their desires. I’m from a rural area but I ended up having to work with many, many university professors. About 95% of them are Democrats and about 75% very left–probably average for most major universities today. I suspect that because many of them had an elitist view of their value to society they might qualify as persons who didn’t want to mix with the common man. I definitely can say that many of them didn’t like having to mix with students, particular undergraduates.
Its very sad to read about Paradise. However, I’m interested to know if CA’s very strict rules about disturbing nature on private property played any role in its massive destruction. They had in some past CA wildfires.
Welcome to California’s Bankruptcy Express. The train that will go as of right now from Nowhere to Who ever heard of this Place. But hey money grows on trees, just plant a few more.
The US now has “2” reference projects at play that will demonstrate how diversity in project origination will be an asset.
Florida’s Brightline and California’s HSR.
Each one vying for service using very different means. I think it will be interesting to see how the pros and cons for each work once they reach fruition and how each entity chooses to respond to the challenges they face.
The next 10 years are going to be very interesting in transportation terms.
EDWARD _ You have posted an extremely insulting straw man argument. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. By definition since I post here I argue my points and defend them.
Since I’m generally pro transit by definition I’m open to subsidy. And as a retired civil engineer I’m certainly for infrastructure investment. So yes I can think for myself. I disagree with my own Republican Party on a number of issues, particularly the Second Amendment which 99.9999% of Republicans “support” but apparently have never read.
Like any other executive Chris Christie with multiple responsibilities did some good things while also making some bonehead mistakes. Christie not supporting Gateway was bonehead and then some. I could say the same for my own governor Republican Scott Walker who was defeated for a third term earlier this week. He started off good but became a cement head which is why he won’t be governor come next January.
You post that by definition a “liberal” is someone with an open mind. Yes, I’ve known a few liberals who meet your definition. A few.
And still it goes on and on and on.
Charles. By definition a liberal is “one with an open mind”. So since a conservative is the opposite, they must be “one with a closed mind”. As an example, ALL of my conservative friends will not participate in any political discussions because they just don’t want to hear any other sides of a discussion. Your posts are disturbing. And as far as rail funding goes, look at what happens to rail funding when the republicans have control over the budget. Now you might be the exception to the rule but the norm as it presents itself is that republicans do not want anything to do with rail projects. Ask former governor Chris Christie.
I once heard the largest difference between a Liberal and A Consevative is while a Liberal might push for a solution to a problem that might not work, he will be bold enough to fight for it, and if not successful , be fleet enough to run away. A Consrvative will push to keep using a solution that keeps failing , and will then find himself in an unenviable position of being to cowardly to fight and too fat to run away.
JAN Z. I find your post disturbing. You assume that Republicans have a narrow view and that we dislike people of other races or thoughts. Maybe you ought to meet some Republicans and talk to them.
I’m a Republican and I lay a bet I’ve been on more trains, buses, trams, subways, people movers, you name it, in America and elsewhere, than you ever will by a factor of twice or three times over. As far as racial/ gender etc. diversity of friends/ family/ neighborhood etc., I’d match the diversity of my sphere of life to yours any day and come out a winner.
When you have something new, original or valid to offer, I’d like to hear it.
To get back to your point, Republican opposition to transit (valid or otherwise) is based on economics. Not based on people of other races or genders.
By the way, if you ever met some Republicans you’d find they come in all shades of all colors, religions, gender identities, etc., just as do Democrats.
Supporters of this project should read the article closely. It says that “he’s “committed” to building the initial operating segment”. Again, that is a commitment to the initial operating segment only. After that he’s not committing so there is hope for the opponents. They need to keep the pressure on him.
My theory on why Republicans dislike public modes of transport is they are inherently dangerous to Republican methods of government as they are too democratic.
Public modes allow people to rub shoulders and compare thoughts about anything. Allowing different social/economic/gender people to see each other allows dissonant thoughts to roam about. That is inherently dangerous to tyrants of all stripes.
Ride the Empire Builder and talk to Mennonites, oil workers, agricultural business men, tourists from all over the world all with interesting stories to listen to.
A liberal is the last person to have an open mind. Say something that is non-liberal and you have a domestic terrorist group like Antifa or BLM demonstrating in front of your house and destroying your property and/or attacking you physically. And the police will do nothing about it. But if someone breaks into your house and you pull your weapon to defend yourself and your family you’re arrested on the spot.
My dislike of public transit has to do with the fact that I have to pay for it whether I use it or not. I have no problem with the California high speed project if it is paid for in its entirety by Californians but that isn’t the plan. Federal dollars have been used for it and will undoubtedly continue to be used for it. I pay for buses in Denver, trolleys in Minneapolis and subways in Los Angeles etc. None of these will I ever ride. But if they are going to build a new highway to make my commute easier then every liberal in existence complains that the world is going to end in the next couple of months. And, all the stupid Democrat politicians listen to them and their silly ideas and block the project. The only good thing I can say about public transit is that it got me out of a dead-end downtown job and into college so I could afford a car and a good suburban job to enable me to be free of those “stainless steel” boxes forever.
GEORGE BROWN _ Okay, you asked a question in a respectful manner. You respect the free speech and freedom of thought of members of the Republican Party, unlike some other people. Like any other party there is a variety of thought (or the absence of thought) across the membership. I have already given (below) my opinion as one member among tens of millions.
Let me give one more example, outgoing Wisconsin governor (defeated for re-election yesterday) Scott K. Walker, Republican. He is often accused of being anti-transit, and there’s something to that. I told him so, the one time I met him, when he was Milwaukee County Executive. He is also accused of “hating” trains. He’s accused of “hating” everything. One man I know, a Democrat, accused Governor Walker of “hating” the game of chess. This is like listening to Joseph Goebbels talking (lying) about Jews.
Here’s Walker’s transit record as governor:
CANCELLED: His predecessor’s proposal for a Milwaukee – Madison train.
DID NOT SUPPORT: The Milwaukee downtown trolley. Walker and nearly everyone else.
SUPPORTED: (1) Hiawatha annual subsidy. (2) Completion of new or rebuilt stations on the Hiawatha line. (3) State subsidies for local bus transit – Milwaukee, Racine, etc. (4) State subsidies for suburban and intercity bus service, such as the bus I take from my home in Town of Brookfield (home of TRAINS-MAG) to the Milwaukee Amtrak Station. (5) Park-ride lots on state highways for bus boarding, and bike paths on urban/ local roads paid for by state highway funding.
This part of America has had a number of Republican governors, though two were defeated yesterday and one was term-limited and will be replaced by a Democrat. Yet the buses still run in Detroit and Milwaukee, subsidized by the state governments. The Chicago El still runs, though Illinois has had a number of Republican governors. State-supported Amtrak trains connect Chicago to the various states which have had Republican governors and Republican – dominated state legislatures on and off.
Transit makes sense, for the most part. Some projects do not which is why Republicans withdraw support.
And truth be known, some Republicans oppose any government support of any public transportation, until, of course they need a ride.
There will be no private investment without hope of high return on invested capital or guaranteed return of a lower rate of return. Since there will be no positive return on capital for the entire project, the state will have to be very creative to attract private capital. I do not believe that they will attract any private capital except perhaps an equipment lease to the state or an operating contract where the operator would put up the equipment. In the later case, the operator will insist on freedom to set rates, which public and politicos will not like.
Ca’s financial plan is smoke and mirrors and has been from the beginning. The only question is how long it is going to take for the legislature to wake up. Given their history on a wide front, my prediction is a long time but not long enough to complete a LA-SF system.
Charles. Relax. Edward asked a legitimate question, and you didn’t answer it. Instead you told Edward to go sit in the corner and put on his dunce hat. Methinks your comments are in the same vein as you took his comment.
I’ll re-ask the question.
What are the reasons some members of the Republican party are not in favor of mass transit?
Friendly discussion…?
@EDWARD BUTNER III
Most of our fellow Americans have antiquated, and a extinct thought process. The past is frequently brought up due to ignorance that the status quo remain. This high speed rail will be beneficial to the state…
Just a general question for everyone- why does a small country like Switzerland thing so big about rail projects, like the Gotthard Tunnels, and the big country of the United States think so small? Do we doubt we can do it? We used to think we could do anything.Tehachapis can be tunneled. We went to the moon, after all
Current financing scenario is from our states very successful Cap and Trade program(the most successful in the US by the way), though state Republicans can try and end that after 7 years(not going to happen). The only problem with that is it doesn’t provide enough to complete the line in a timely manner. As for the other two items, equipment and operations, those have actually already been taken care of(to a degree), though no signed contracts are on file(at least that I remember, not going to check). The fact the farmers still voted for McCarthy, Denham and Nunes tells me they haven’t learned anything, but now those that raise farm animals will be forced to change how they house them, so maybe some will leave the state and more Democratically minded people can move into the Central Valley.
As one who has both driven and Coast Starlighted between LA and SF, along with a bunch of other, tho’ similar markets, I look at this like Paris-Lyon. What happened there about 2 decades ago?
I think HSR in California makes sense. I think the project as conceived and executed does not and costs way more than necessary.
I think an I-5 corridor routing could have been achieved sooner and at lower cost. Savings in land acquisition and required grade separation/isolation infrastructure mainly. But also savings in capex (and opex) in not needing to run as fast to make the (probably unachievable) 4 hour LA-SF trip time. But still admittedly expensive tunneling under Pacheco Pass and the Tehachapis around Grapevine.
Probably with plenty enough $$$ left over for implementing a new connection from the southern Amtrak California terminus at Bakersfield to a Tejon Ranch HSR station to allow better service to/from Central Valley points.
Opps, which is in response to: Can someone tell me why republicans hate mass transit so bad?
(Disclaimer: I’m a mean person.)
Mean people locked in stainless steel boxes with strangers can be quite scary to think about. Best not to even let things like that be built.