CA Senate Democrats Include HSR In Jobs Package: Will US Senate Dems Do It Too?
California State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (head of the majority Democrats) proposed a jobs package yesterday, and high speed rail is a key element:
A day before the first legislative vote on efforts to close California’s $19.9 billion deficit, Senate Democrats on Tuesday mapped out a package of bills they claim will rev the state’s economy by creating at least 140,000 jobs.
The proposals — unveiled by Senate leader Darrell Steinberg — rely primarily on high-speed rail, mass-transit and school construction projects made possible by federal funding.
Green energy initiatives also play a prominent role in the set of 27 bills. Leaders say none of the bills requires support from Republicans or a tax increase.
The full list of bills shows how HSR fits:
Put Federal Funds to Use to Get Californians back to work: Senate Democrats have introduced legislation to ensure the state can invest federal funds efficiently and quickly to create jobs in California. The bills identify the state agencies responsible for administering federal funds and include accountability and reporting provisions to ensure the funds are spent efficiently.
* SB 965 (DeSaulnier): Authorizes the High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) to receive and expend federal money it receives to further the development of High Speed Rail in California. Creates 50,625 jobs….
Appropriate Approved State Bond Funds for Innovative Programs: The package targets unspent state bond funds to innovative new programs that create jobs, improve infrastructure or make California more sustainable.
* SB 964 (Alquist): Appropriate $25 million in High-Speed Rail bond funds (Proposition 1A) to finance a the first phase of a workforce training program jointly managed by the rail authority and the state’s community colleges to construct maintain and operate a high-speed rail system in California. The program will train 5,000 Californians for jobs.
Let’s take a closer look at these bills. Elaine Alquist’s SB 964 would spend $25 million out of the Prop 1A bond to develop a jobs program tied to HSR for community college students. This seems like a very smart and sensible program, especially as it would help build the skilled workforce that’s needed to get HSR up and running. The sooner that training starts, the better.
Mark DeSaulnier’s SB 965 would authorize the Authority to spend the federal stimulus funds, and mandates they report regularly on that spending.
While the bills themselves seem a bit small-bore, they signal a deeper commitment on the part of the state legislature – the State Senate in particular – to high speed rail. The dreams of some HSR critics that they could leverage the Senate to block HSR seem a bit far-fetched. Alan Lowenthal may be on their side, but that’s about it. The leadership clearly supports HSR, and with very strong support from our Congressional delegation, Lowenthal will not be allowed to act as a roadblock on HSR. It’s just that simple.
There are some other HSR bills floating around in the legislature, but most won’t do much to expedite the system. Cathleen Galgiani had been using AB 289 to propose exempting the HSR project from CEQA, but has since taken that out of the bill, which would now merely allow the governor to appoint several more HSR staff. Galgiani is also sponsoring AB 1375, which would reconstitute the CHSRA under the Department of Business, Transportation and Housing. Senator Denise Moreno Ducheny’s SB 409 would similarly move the CHSRA under the DBTH, but would also mandate the development of a “5-year Strategic Rail Connectivity Plan for the state” that would:
the focus of which would be to identify, with a statewide emphasis, opportunities for passenger rail system improvements and linkages. The plan would be required to include desirable linkages and feeder opportunities between high-speed and conventional intercity rail, commuter rail, and rail transit, and to identify the coordination in planning and the capital investments necessary in that regard. The plan would also be required to identify future right-of-way needs of passenger rail lines in connection with state and local highway system improvements in order to accommodate future rail system improvements. The plan would be developed in consultation with transportation planning agencies and the agencies and entities responsible for the various rail and highway systems. The plan would initially be submitted to the California Transportation Commission for approval on September 1, 2011, and every 5 years thereafter.
Which seems pretty sensible to me. The CHSRA as we know it may look very different in 2011, and that might be best for everyone involved. The CHSRA needs to evolve to implement the HSR project, and putting it under the DBTH would help give it some institutional support and enable it to carry out its work effectively.
Unfortunately, while the State Senate is moving forward on including HSR as part of its jobs package, the US Senate isn’t. Instead they offered a pathetic “jobs bill” that focuses on tax credits for new hires, a plan even Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn’t think will succeed. It would be helpful if US Senate Democrats, including Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, would step up and follow the model of their CA counterparts and push to make HSR a central part of the nation’s job creation strategy for 2010.
Concerning:
“* SB 964 (Alquist): Appropriate $25 million in High-Speed Rail bond funds (Proposition 1A) to finance a the first phase of a workforce training program jointly managed by the rail authority and the state’s community colleges to construct maintain and operate a high-speed rail system in California. The program will train 5,000 Californians for jobs.”
Although it is not stated that bond funding would be used for paying instructor salaries, I don’t think bond funding should be used for operating programs. Capital programs, yes. Operating, no.
HSRforCali Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
It seems like Prop. 1A money should only be used for construction of the HSR system itself.
Donk Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
I agree. This is a terrible idea, and will start the flood gates for tapping the Prop 1A money for other projects that are only tangential to HSR. They can always allocate new state money (if and when the financial picture turns around) without voter approval to train new workers, or even potentially get this out of community college money or a non-HSR federal program. They should save every last dime from Prop 1A and the HSR ARRA, and only use HSR money for HSR construction.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Clearly, training the workforce who will be building the corridor is part of the capital expenses of the program, and is one of the program costs that up to 10% of AB3034(2008) funds are allowed to be used for.
Is it being suggested that “paying instructor salaries” magically turns it into ongoing training for operations that won’t begin for nearly a decade?
Now, while there is no real world risk in the next few years that it will be used by winning franchise operator to cover their training costs, if the concern is that the legislation is too loosely worded, then it may make sense to argue for tightening up the language.
But an argument that it is an “operating expense” simply on the basis of paying the salaries of instructors would not stand up to scrutiny.
Well since training to build this HSR is needed, Then It’s a small price to pay, Call It seed money and since 1A doesn’t say that the money can’t be used for this purpose, Then I don’t see anything wrong with spending $25 Million for Training 5,000 people for this.
Francis Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 12:09 am
I heard somewhere that 90% of the Prop 1A money was mandated to be spent on construction costs. This was to keep administration costs at a minimum. It might have been for a different project though, I’m just not sure…
But I think this $25 Million is a great idea for right now, no matter if the money comes from prop 1A funds or not. The project isnt close to turning dirt yet so might as well start the training ASAP so these crews are top notch when construction starts.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 11:27 am
From the Legislative Counsel’s Digest:
Off topic, but here’s what’s going on in Downtown Fresno in regard to train noise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJy7e4ztvnY
Love the wheel squeak a minute and a half in.
Observer Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 8:32 am
That’s what Fresno was hoping the high speed rail would help fix – but not to be. HSR will come in 60 feet overhead all this and bring its own version of hell to add to this. BUT, to be completely fair, a few hundred workers WILL get a few months worth of ditch digging work out fo the deal.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 9:33 am
And how high is that freeway overpass around the 3:00 mark of the video? If not 60 feet, it’s fairly close to it.
Downtown Fresno isn’t like downtown Palo Alto, there aren’t houses right up against the tracks. The tracks are adjacent to Highway 99, and there are some high-rises and other buildings near the tracks. Few will mind the visual impact. The deeper question about the elevated section is how cost-effective it will be.
Roger Christensen Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 10:26 am
The video is totally incorrect and shows the eastern BNSF allignment as opposed to the UP/99 adjacent HSR route.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 10:39 am
I’m aware of that. Still, if that freeway overpass is Highway 41 (and I suspect it is) then that gives some indication of what is already running next to downtown Fresno. I just don’t see there being much hue and cry about the 60-feet elevated tracks. Again, the deeper issue is whether such an elevated structure is the best way to manage traffic in the corridor.
Roger Christensen Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
I attended the last public info meeting in Fresno and you are right – a couple of eyebrows were raised but there was no hue and cry about the elevated structure. The main decision pending seems to be whether the allignment will be east or west of the UP. The City prefers West because they believe that is best for redevelopment of downtown. The station could
incorporate the historic Southern Pacific station. Downtown Fresno is ripe for development and already 1920′s office buildings are looking to convert to living spaces.
Tony D. Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Observer,
Are you for real?! Do you really think HSR will sound like that? That reminded me a lot of UPRR down the Monterey Corridor in South SJ; probably sounds like Caltrain on the Peninsula as well. If I had to chose between HSR and horns blaring, wheels screaching, tornado sounding…well, that’s a no-brainer.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 10:08 am
The nimbys down in PA/Melno should be made to watch this and be thankful that the shipping container
business moved to the EastBay for this is what the would have 24/7. They must be have not been there when this was a busier freight line with steam engines . HSR will be a dream compared to that operation
AndyDuncan Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 10:51 am
I refuse to believe that exists because it’s not in france or germany.
Do you guys whant to join me in a laugh. This will do the trick.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/columnists/rider/article_f1be33a0-da4e-5162-800a-1b9f3da58c64.html
Peter Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 9:55 am
“RICHARD RIDER is chairman of San Diego Tax Fighters, a grassroots, pro-taxpayer group.”
Gee, I wonder what his angle is on government spending.
elfling Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 10:00 am
I suspect he’s part of the group who thinks that having a paid San Diego County Fire Department, let alone a department with its own firefighting aircraft, is a waste of taxpayer money.
elfling Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 9:58 am
Has this man not heard of shopping malls? Is he so unaware of his surroundings that he has not noticed that any number of settings are vulnerable to someone with serious intent to cause mayhem?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 10:40 am
I’m going to guess he’s never been to Spain.
Peter Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 10:48 am
Or out of the country.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
He is always attacking CAHSR
Seems to me that UP BN and HSR should team up and find a way to trench, not around, but in, the UP row. That creates the jobs, and solves the problems.. Put the hsr station over the trench. Just a short trench for downtownabout 1.5 miles
FYI there’s a bunch of new docs up on the authority’s website from January:
http://cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/library.asp
All sorts of stuff in the Merced/Fresno/Bakersfield/Palmdale/LA/Anaheim sections
jimsf Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
love this picmakes we want to move there.
AndyDuncan Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
The foothills there between Bako and Tehachapi are indeed gorgeous, especially in the spring when it’s all green.
Dan S. Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Man, this state is definitely beautiful, and if you grew up here, I think you get an automatic affinity for those striking arid landscapes. I tell you, if this thing gets built, I’m going to be glued to my window the first 5 or so round-trips I take SF to LA!
Meanwhile in spite of claims of doom and gloom, apparently the peninsula is moving forward with solutions including tunnel/hybrids so I guess all is well after all.
AndyDuncan Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 11:57 am
Oh god, we get to have that discussion again.
Joey Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
It’s plain stupid. Anything like that will eventually lead to four tracks anyway.
Peter Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Exactly, it’s a band-aid that will become useless once the demand outgrows the capacity on Caltrain. It would stifle ridership out of San Francisco.
Joey Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Those options are illegal if it is deemed that they increases the journey time too much anyway.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
What’s plain stupid – the option being studied, or studying the option?
I think studying the option is plenty smart. It will put a dollar figure on the magnitude of the stupidity of the idea, which will be very handy.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Having HSR come up to the TBT at slower speeds is one thing..but getting off and boarding another train is insane and unworkable for the large amount of people that will be going all the way to SF..
Lame nimby idea..No HSR stops 45 miles from its endpoint city and has paasengers change to local train system! It will NEVER happen with DIFI.Boxer the San Francisco voters ect that expect and demand HSR stop in the city
Joey Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Aren’t transfers between LA and SF explicitly illegal anyway?
jimsf Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
it would add 30 minutes minutes or more, plus transfer time, seat changing, etc, that would kill any advantage from sf over flying. Also, it adds more than an hour if you’re talking about a caltrain local, and if you plan to add enough caltrain express trains to meet with all the hsr’s at san jose, then you wind up with the same amount of traffic, the same need for berms and grade separations, the same amount of noise or other impacts, its just ridiculous. Further, the idea of using exisint tracks at lower speeds -79 mph, isnt legal because it wont meet the 2:40 mandate.
AndyDuncan Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
I suspect that they’re putting it in the study because they have to. And that’s fair, they should have to explain why it’s a bad idea. I just don’t relish the usual suspects turning up and rehashing the whole thing just when it seems we haven’t heard about it recently.
Although I am a HSR supporter, I fail to see why $25 million should be used to “educate” workers. Are these meant to be the construction workers? or the workers that will operate and maintain the system several years down the line when we get this built?
Seems to be the legislature just wanting to create their own “jobs bill” to look like they’re doing something, and using funds already approved by voters but not necessarily the way they intended.
BTW, at $25 million for 5,000 jobs, that $5 million per job. Great jobs bill.
If we can get construction underway its a great jobs program without anything the legislature would do.
Francis Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
25,000,000/5000=5,000,000
SWEET!!
jimsf Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 11:40 pm
Do not let the worthless, pea brained politicians start siphoning off money for this kind of bs. Training for who? The hundred thousand or so construction workers, heavy equipment operators, ditch diggers, electricians, engineers etc who are already trained and waiting for a job? or training for railroad employees, you know, because we don’t have already have a whole nation-load of well trained railroad employees?
This is where the stimulus watch dog must come in and start barking. ( I assume there is an official stimulus watchdog chained to a tree somewhere n’est ce pas?) I don’t understand how we end up with such gross incompetence at every level. I just don’t understand it.
Our state lawmakers are just so lame. honestly, its like they wake up everyday, look in the mirror, and say, “how badly can I screw up today.” i think its time to throw them all out. every single one of em.
When will they actually break ground? Have they set any firm dates? I can’t wait any longer for high speed rail!
Love this blog!