More Info on CHSRA Board Conflict and the State Budget
As was reported by Kathy Hamilton, Senator Joe Simitian mentioned that an effort to include a legislative exemption in the state budget deal for California High Speed Rail Authority board members Curt Pringle and Richard Katz, to clear up questions about whether they hold “incompatible offices,” was blocked. Today’s LA Times sheds more light on the topic:
Amid budget talks last week, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders tried to ease restrictions in a state conflict-of-interest law so that two prominent officials from Anaheim and Los Angeles could remain on the board of the California high-speed rail project.
Their attempt to retain Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle and Richard Katz, a member of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority board, would have been tacked onto the state budget bill. However, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) derailed the effort after opposition arose from other Democratic legislators.
The article explains that Senator Gloria Romero and Senator Alan Lowenthal pushed Senator Steinberg to reject the proposal, which he did:
State Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), chairman of the transportation committee that oversees the bullet train project, said he learned from Steinberg’s office last Friday that the panel wanted to exempt Pringle and Katz.
“I went ballistic,” Lowenthal said. “I couldn’t support that. The law is the law. Everyone knows what’s going on and they’re trying to sneak something into the budget.”
At a committee hearing last spring, Lowenthal questioned whether Pringle and Katz had conflicts of interest. He was particularly concerned about a proposal backed by Pringle to use $200 million in high-speed rail money to complete a huge transportation center in Anaheim that would also serve buses and commuter trains.
The proposal to ease the conflict restriction was initially raised by someone in the Schwarzenegger administration, according to a legislative aide who was privy to the discussions but would only speak on condition of anonymity.
My take on this is that it’s the worst possible outcome for Pringle and Katz. Had the effort to get them an exemption – which the Legislature absolutely has the power to grant – succeeded, then it would be seen as a fairly straightforward solution to a possible conflict.
But with the effort failing, it merely draws more attention to the issue and solidifies the argument that Pringle and Katz are holding “incompatible offices” – otherwise why would Governor Schwarzenegger have tried to give them a legislative exemption? The fact that this was raised in a budget meeting will only add further fuel onto the fire.
Pringle is not running for re-election as Anaheim mayor this fall, and is stepping down from OCTA at the end of the year. Still, this issue has already rocked the CHSRA board, and is only growing to be more of a distraction for the project.
My guess is that either Pringle or Katz (or both) will step down from the board by the time a new governor is sworn in at the beginning of 2011. Meg Whitman isn’t likely to want to keep them around as she seeks to blow up the project, and Jerry Brown will want to put his own people there. Still, this issue is only growing more high-profile, which in turn means the CHSRA board is going to have to find a way to resolve this. Short of a legislative dispensation – which is now almost certainly never coming – I don’t know how Pringle and Katz can stay on board.*
(*Note: that’s not my preference, or the preference of Californians For High Speed Rail, neither of us have taken a position. Just an assessment of where things probably stand.)
Gilroy will take a vote of No Confidence:
http://www.morganhilltimes.com/news/269277-gilroy-will-consider-vote-of-no-confidence-against-high-speed-rail
I watched the meeting today. This quote from the paper pretty much summarizes the tenor of the comments from those supporting a vote of No Confidence (which will likely pass 4-3).
Council Member: “They will tell you what you want to hear every single time, but the short facts are that it’s too expensive, it’s too large and the third and last one is that they lied. We should pass a resolution that nobody wants this train and if we have to turn into the state’s biggest SOBs, I’m ready to do it,” he said.
For those voting against – this quote sums up the mood:
“If they have so much power, we have to make sure that we are there. We’re just a little drop in the bucket, but we have to be that drop that keeps pushing and pushing and pushing,” he said. “I was one that voted for this high-speed rail and I still believe in it,” he said. “Is it gonna be smooth and without problems? No, but we need to be at the table.”
The most surprising thing from the meeting (not really covered in the article): It seems that the ad hoc subcommittees from Morgan Hill and Gilroy signed a joint resolution supporting an East of 101 alignment (and rejecting a downtown Gilroy alignment) and at least one council member on the Gilroy council doesn’t recall voting for such a resolution -ever.
Tony D. Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 8:03 am
I’m sure glad the Gilroy City Council contacted me on whether I support or don’t support HSR (sarcasm). OF COURSE I WASN’T CONTACTED! And I bet you a lot of us in South County weren’t contacted either. It’s always the screeming NIMBY’s who pack council meetings who seem to get the attention of the city council; hence this “no confidence” crap. What ever happened to Democracy anyway? Anyhow, why I could care less one way or the other, I also support an east of 101 alignment for HSR (but downtown Gilroy would work as well).
YesonHSR Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 8:44 am
101 would be fine and a nice station with transit connection would be just as nice
Alon Levy Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 10:16 am
Gilroy has transit?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Californians think that having the bus come through three times day weekdays and twice on Saturday “good service” and once an hour dawn to dusk “excellent”
Daniel Krause Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Trains from south of Gilroy would go through downtown Gilroy. East of dowtown it will be strictly auto and bus connections from Monterey County. Therefore, no quality rail connections to the greenfield site. No transit-oriented development.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
What trains south of Gilroy?
Tony D. Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Thank you Alon!
Peter Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Hopefully the Capitol Corridor to Salinas, linking up with light rail to Monterey in Castroville?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
DOZENS of riders a day!
Daniel Krause Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
I meant future rail service. Also there is the coast starlight, though that would not be a major feeder.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
There’s future rail service, and future rail service. There’s the following plan:
- A system with a mainline from Gilroy to Santa Cruz, and lines from both to Salinas and Monterey, running in tram-train mode in downtown Monterey,
- All trains run on an hourly takt, with half-hourly service at peak hour,
- Segments of significant overlap are dealt with timed cross-platform transfers, enabling zero-penalty travel on each pair of the above four cities,
- Arrival in Gilroy is timed with HSR in both directions, and, if the HSR station is east of downtown, either there’s a timed connecting bus or the trains run in tram mode from Gilroy to Shin-Gilroy,
- The rolling stock is DMUs in the 35-45 ton range,
- Trains are staffed with one employee each, with occasional POP checks,
- Travel time is such as fast as necessary to make the roundtrip time, including turnarounds and schedule contingency, a whole number of hours.
And then there’s the plan that’s actually in the pipeline, which involves none of the above elements.
Peter Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
The train would not be near 101. It would be well to the east of 101, cutting through the farmland there.
Clem Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 9:02 am
What ever happened to Democracy anyway? Anyhow, why I could care less one way or the other
Exactly!!
Tony D. Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
“Exactly!!” what Clem?
Tom Reply:
October 7th, 2010 at 9:28 pm
TONY, IF YOU PAID ATTENTION THEN YOU WOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT SAID COUNCIL MEETING.
The CAHSRA completely redid their website. It’s really nice.
YesonHSR Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 9:02 am
seems more of a redo thou I like it better than the old version..
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
They broke EVERY SINGLE LINK from every single web site or piece of mail (or blog) in the entire world.;
Worthless sub-cretinous “web design” microcephalics.
But I’m sure that somebody spent about 10 person-weeks getting HTML5 page transition animations just right and totally nailing the mouse rollovers and sidebar background image transparency levels … so much more important than making information available, after all.
thatbruce Reply:
October 8th, 2010 at 9:29 am
Dear CAHSRA minion(s) who read this blog and disseminates useful nuggets of information to responsible parties within the CAHSRA (that would be your web/admin people in this case):
a) Please read http://www.webconfs.com/how-to-redirect-a-webpage.php and implement redirects for all the pages in the old site pointing to the relevant page in the new site. The lack of redirects which Richard has touched upon is very disappointing for a public information site.
b) IIS? Really?
c) Put up a basic page on ‘www.hsr.ca.gov’ pointing to ‘www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov’. You’ve got this weird ‘our mail is at one domain while our web site is at different domain’ divergence going on, which is irritating.
jimsf Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Just took a look. Looks a lot better, fresher, cleaner, clearer. Very nice. Easier to find segment by segment details and nice calendar of events.
J. Wong Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Nice! The site includes a project stages diagram and for each section shows that except for LA-San Diego, Sac-Merced, Altamont Corridor, and Bakersfield-Palmdale, which are in stage 2, all others are in stage 3, which is Draft EIR.
Still a long way to go, and I’m wondering if stage 7 needs to be reached (for some section) by 2012 to satisfy the ARRA requirements.
Emma Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
I don’t like it. It looks more claustrophobic than the previous one. And it seems to be at beta stage.
John Burrows Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Check out Gilroy on the interactive map that is part of the new website. Gilroy is listed as having 15,000 boardings a day. Very impressive for Gilroy. Diridon is also listed at 15,000 boardings a day and I would guess that the Diridon info was accidentally put down under Gilroy as well. Many of the other figures look different from the old map. I hope that this is the only mistake.
John Burrows Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Possibly this is not a mistake—–It would certainly tie in with the 6000 car parking requirement.
J. Wong Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
I’m wondering how they got the boardings given that they’re not publishing that? I’m assuming that they’re taking current airline passengers between say San Jose and LA, adjusting by some expected population growth factor for 2030, and maybe even assuming some capture of existing airline seats?
Actually, it should be the number of current airline passengers being flown between San Jose and Sacto, Burbank, Ontario, LAX, San Diego, and Santa Ana (Anaheim). Plus extra for the stations that it’s currently difficult to get to by air like Fresno from San Jose because of price and frequency. Also, I’d assume that any additional passengers factored in by population growth would entirely go to HSR assuming no additional gates at the airports (i.e., airlines cannot capture this because they cannot add more flights).
Oh, I found a website that lists the number of airline passengers between U.S. cities of more than 500 per day. From this, I estimate around 10000 passengers a day fly in and out of San Jose to California cities. (Sacto didn’t show up so its less than 500.) So maybe 15000 boardings a day is a little much, but the right order of magnitude.
http://www.publicpurpose.com/ic-air500passr.htm
P.S., Palmdale seems high too, but I bet they’re factoring in transfers to the Desert Xpress to Las Vegas.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 7th, 2010 at 1:07 am
FYI, Public Purpose is a hackhouse run by Wendell Cox. I’ve caught its statistics being wrong once in a while – small things like updated rail ridership and density numbers for a few cities, but I’d still trust Brookings more.
John Burrows Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
CAHSR daily station boardings:
From table D, page 72, 2009 business plan. From CHSRA revised website
San Francisco—————24,100 32,000
San Jose———————-7,600 15,000
Gilroy————————–4,700 15,000
Merced————————5,300 2,000
Los Angeles—————–14,100 22,000
Anaheim——————— 23,500 8,000
The only thing I can think of is that the updated website is using a different set of numbers based on the completed 800 mile system, That might explain why ridership numbers from Anaheim and Merced are so much lower as these two stations would no longer be end points and would now be drawing from a smaller area: But I still have trouble imagining 15,000 daily riders from Gilroy.
To confuse things further, when you click on the project sections (on the same page as the interactive map) you get daily boarding numbers the same as shown in the 2009 business plan.
John Burrows Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 11:30 pm
I guess that you can’t leave blank space between columns of numbers.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 7th, 2010 at 1:08 am
If the overall ridership is much higher, then it’s probably the full buildout figure. But if it isn’t, it could just come from a realization that Anaheim won’t in fact get more ridership than Los Angeles, etc.
Pringle says no conflict. He wants another 4 year term and will ask Schwarzenegger to re-appoint him.
http://voiceofoc.org/article_f7a024c6-d151-11df-87cb-001cc4c002e0.html
Peter Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 8:45 am
What will the NIMBYs do if Pringle’s method of solving the purported conflict of interest is to step down from his position as Mayor of Anaheim and from the OCTA Board? He only has a couple of months left as mayor, anyway.
Another thing to consider is that any court proceeding to forcibly remove him from that office would likely take months to complete, by which time his term as mayor would have ended anyway.
Katz will likely instead have to pick and choose if he wants to avoid a lawsuit.
YesonHSR Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 9:06 am
they will just have to trump up another “terrible” news item ..as this stupid thing. reading the article above even Pringle stated everyone knew what he served on when appt. to the HSR board and was post on the website..so why all the drama news now?
Peter Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 9:08 am
Because screaming about this stuff right now serves the NIMBY’s only real purpose: Delay, Disrupt, Distract.
orulz Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
The opposition’s reason for cheering this development is since their goal is not simply to remove / restructure the board. They want to have all of the board’s actions invalidated since one of its members had conflicts of interest. Anyone care to comment on whether this is grounds for such a sweeping invalidation?
thatbruce Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
I don’t think that invalidating ‘all’ of the board’s actions over the time period(s) in question are possible, mainly because the areas where there is a potential conflict of interest are geographical in scope and thus easy to identify.
Hypothetically, one would need to verify each board meeting under two separate assumptions, being whether an issue of incompatible offices could have been worked around by way of recusal on individual votes (the Kopp proposal), or whether an issue of incompatible offices was handled by the non-appointment of Katz or Pringle to the CAHSRA board. For each meeting, the following needs to be checked:
a) Would quorum have been made if Katz and Pringle were not present?
b) Which items were introduced by (or at the urgings of) Katz or Pringle which directly related to their other positions?
c) Which votes would have failed if Katz and Pringle had recused themselves due to a conflict of interest?
(a) is somewhat of a moot point; if Katz and Pringle had not been appointed to the board, some other people would have been, and thus quorum would have been achieved.
(b) would seem to be the issues of (funding) ARTIC and track sharing with Metrolink.
(c) is somewhat harder to quantify. Certainly, all board items relating to issues in the LA area would need to be checked owing to the geographical conflict (It is fortunate in one respect that both Katz and Pringle hold their ‘incompatible’ offices in the LA area). Other issues would be on a case by case issue, depending on the commentator’s view.
For instance, steps towards certification of a non-LA segment? Easy, no conflict. Issues regarding alleged lower funding of particular stations vs say ARTIC or LA Union? Could be something there, however as they relate to the fittings of the station vs the essential rail & platforms, not a complete show-stopper.
Usual disclaimers apply; IANAL.
Dan S. Reply:
October 7th, 2010 at 3:50 am
Sure, I’ll comment. It’s not.
Good riddance to Pringle. The conflict of interest to his ridiculous train station in Anaheim in astounding. Anaheim’s already got one that’s just fine — especially considering that neither HSR or a Las Vegas Maglev will NEVER get there.
YesonHSR Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 8:43 am
No maglev..HSR in 2019..deal with it
jimsf Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 10:21 am
especially considering that neither HSR or a Las Vegas Maglev will NEVER get there
First, re read and correct your grammar. Second, based on what facts do you make this statement?
James Fujita Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
I would deny Anaheim the right to ARTIC when San Francisco agrees to shove HSR into the Caltrain Depot.
Robert said, “My guess is that either Pringle or Katz (or both) will step down from the board by the time a new governor is sworn in at the beginning of 2011.” Chairman Pringle does not intend to step down from the CAHRA. In fact he wants reappointment.
No mention of Amtrak’s ridiculous High Speed rail plan? $115 billion over 30 years. Yeah. Even I would rather see this money spent on anything (e.g. Mars mission) than on a 125 mph low speed corridor in the NEC. By 2040, most high speed trains will travel at more than 250 mph and they try to sell us that they want to spend $ 270 million per mile? Are those rails made out of gold?? Amtrak is trying to convince Americans that high speed rail does not fit in USA. I can’t believe they are doing that.
I say, give Deutsche Bahn the money and see what they can build for us!
jimsf Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
I assure you Amtrak isn’t trying to do any such convincing. The only motive is that they see hsr as finally being considered by americans, and they see a political window opening, where there is support for them in DC. There is no trickery going on. They have better things to do. I can tell there has been a real shift from the top down, with focus on the future now that ridership is setting records, states are joining forces, the public is asking for more service, and DC is taking rail more seriously. That’s all it is nothing more. Now, you can certainly argue whether 220mph is needed on the NEC for the 3 – 3.5 travel times in the NYPBOS and NYPWAS segments are good enough or should be reduced, but don’t go on some wild goose chase about them trying to convince us that hsr is bad for america. Quite the contrary, they see this a huge “finally” moment.
jimsf Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
I didn’t bring home the memo so I can’t recall exactly what it said but amtrak is already working with FL and CA discussing hsr.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Because power will be too cheap to meter In The Future.
StevieB Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Amtrak NEC high speed rail plan calls for trainsets capable of 220mph. The alignment would require 2 new dedicated tracks with new right of way. Half would parallel existing track but the other half, mostly north of New York city, would be greenfield alignment. Plans call for most of the new track between New York and Washington to open by 2030. Travel times between Boston and Washington would be halved.
The NEC needs improvement. Implimentation of the plan between New York and Washington outside the urban areas of Philidelphia and Washington should be pursued as it would give the most performance for the cost. The two urban areas will be much more expensive per mile and more difficult to fund. Between New York and Boston the greenfield alignments while providing enormous benefits in travel time will be very difficult to situate and fund.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Fortunately, the greenfield alignment is completely unnecessary. Between New Haven and Kingston, I-95 is a perfect alignment. Between Kingston and Boston, the existing alignment is already high-speed track. Between New York and New Haven Amtak would have to bite the bullet and build tunnels and viaducts, cutting from one ROW to another; it would still be an order of magnitude cheaper than tunneling to Danbury and Woonsocket.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 7th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
One thought that occurred to me is that the people generatiing this report read about the Air-Line in Connecticut… then didn’t bother to look at a topographic map. Just eyeballing it on a map it looks like I-95 is curvier between New London and Westerly, might make sense to stay mostly with the existing ROW east of New London – the curves aren’t in suburbia…
Alon Levy Reply:
October 8th, 2010 at 10:12 am
No, I-95 is straighter east of New London. It also has ridiculously wide space in the median and on both sides for tracks. The Shore Line is not that straight there – there’s an annoying curve in Mystic, for one – and has movable bridges and grade crossings.
The topographic problem for I-95 is in RI, not CT. The transition from I-95 to the straight segment of the Shore Line beginning in Kingston requires climbing a couple of hills. It’s doable without tunnels, but the alignment with the fewest takings requires viaducts in the 10-20 meter range to smooth out the climb.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
We’ve had 125 MPH service since the 60s…. It’s extending itself out out onto the Keystone Corridor branch and if NY ever gets it’s act together parts of the Empire Corridor are 125 MPH ready.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Emma, if you want to talk about the NEC, go to The Transport Politic.
Pringle says “roles are compatible”
http://voiceofoc.org/oc_north/article_f7a024c6-d151-11df-87cb-001cc4c002e0.html
from the article:
The Attorney General’s office was straightforward in its most recent letter to Pringle, saying that he very well could be violating the state’s “incompatible office” law.
“We continue to receive information and inquiries raising significant concerns that you may be holding incompatible offices,” said the latest letter to Pringle from the AG’s office.
“[I]t is contrary to public policy and to law for one individual simultaneously to hold two offices where there is any possibility of a significant clash of duties or loyalties between the offices,” said the letter to Pringle. “…in your circumstances, for example, the possibility that you hold positions with two agencies that may be required to negotiate with one another would be one area of particular concern.”
Peter Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Again, CARRD’s approach: Mole-hill –> Mountain
By the time any serious negotiations between any parties are made, Pringle will no longer be mayor of Anaheim or be on the OCTA Board.
peninsula Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Oh, so no “serious” decisions have been made since 2009? Maybe you should review some of the decisions of the board since then… You continue to discount the fact that the damage is done – WAY done. The train has left the station. All decisions of the CHSRA board since 2009 when the conflicts started are tainted (as if they’ weren’t already..). The actions of the board are null (or will be by court order in the near future.) How they solve it going forward is of no consequence whatsoever. How they remedy the damages incurred from 2009 to the September 2010 Board is the real question. Note – there IS NO board meeting in October. If it were no big deal we’d be seeing a board meeting happening with Pringle and Katz selectively recusing themselves from a few “unserious” inconsequential decisions here and there. That’s not how its working – the whole board meeting is shut down. We even saw a few sneaky slimy politicians trying to maneuver an underhanded exemption in to the budget – because its a problem – the board is tainted.
J. Wong Reply:
October 6th, 2010 at 9:13 pm
You can hope :-) that HSR will be dead and your life on the Peninsula can continue like it was 1999…not!
Dan S. Reply:
October 7th, 2010 at 3:55 am
Peninsula, I find your claims to be ridiculous. You want to provide some sources to support your assertion that this incompatible offices situation might result in the revoking of past board decisions? I saw the actual quotes from California law that CAARD posted here earlier and the only remedies discussed involved removing the person from one of his positions.
In other words, stop spreading FUD please.