Richard Katz Resigns from CHSRA Board
(See below for an update.)
I can’t say I’m totally surprised at this news:
Los Angeles transportation official Richard Katz is stepping down from the state panel overseeing development of California’s $43-billion high-speed rail system.
Katz, who also serves on the boards of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the Metrolink commuter rail system, said Tuesday that he submitted his resignation to the governor and will leave his state post Dec. 1.
This stems from the controversy about Katz and Curt Pringle holding “incompatible offices” – it has been argued that under current state law, their positions on the MTA board and the OCTA boards (respectively) are not compatible with membership on the California High Speed Rail Authority board. Katz has decided to resign rather than be potentially forced off the MTA board:
Katz has argued to the attorney general that his public offices are compatible. But he said he did not want to risk being able to continue work on local transportation projects, including a plan to leverage county sales tax receipts to build 30 years of transit projects in the next decade.
The so-called 30/10 proposal “is one of the most exciting things I’ve ever been involved in,” Katz said. He said he also wants to see through a major collision-avoidance system and other safety improvements at the five-county Metrolink system.
“I’m not willing to risk all that for high-speed rail,” Katz said.
It would be a shame if his tenure on the board were remembered only for this controversy. Katz’s dual membership actually served the HSR project and the MTA quite well. When MTA head Art Leahy and OCTA head Will Kempton called on the Authority to study track-sharing, Katz and Pringle were able to help provide such a study, easing concerns among MTA and OCTA members while keeping the HSR project moving forward.
Katz told the LA Times that he thought it was important for local officials to be involved in the HSR project:
But Katz said that barring officials from urban areas that would be traversed by the bullet trains, and who are likely to have more knowledge of complex transit planning, from the statewide rail panel makes little sense.
I strongly agree with Katz on this. The legislature can and should pass a law exempting the CHSRA board from the “incompatible offices” law. Many transit authorities have such an exemption, and it makes a ton of sense to have an exemption here – for the HSR project to have the most success, it needs to be fully integrated with regional transportation plans. While HSR critics have had their fun undermining the project with this “incompatible officies” issue, the departure of Katz offers an opportunity to correct the law and enable the project to move on.
Particularly since Pringle’s own tenure on the CHSRA board may be ending as well. He did not run for re-election as Anaheim mayor, and will also be losing his spot on the OCTA board as a result. Pringle’s term on the CHSRA board itself expires at the end of this year, and while Pringle has indicated he wants another term, incoming governor Jerry Brown may choose to use the opportunity to appoint his own people to the board.
Katz and Pringle (whatever his future on the board) both deserve a lot of credit for helping the project not only survive, but thrive. The criticism they have drawn is primarily intended to undermine the project itself, and while I haven’t agreed with everything they’ve done, I know that without them we would not be on the verge of building the first HSR segment in California.
UPDATE: CHSRA CEO Roelof van Ark has a statement on the question of board members and local expertise:
“The Authority – and the people of California – clearly benefit from having leaders on its Board who are well versed in local government and regional transportation issues and who understand the needs of complex transportation infrastructure projects. The law requires that we develop a modern high-speed rail system that integrates with existing rail, bus and transit networks. We need Board members who understand both worlds to guide the Authority in its decision-making.
“While the incompatible offices issue is being resolved, the Authority will continue its focus on the most important infrastructure project in our state, because high-speed rail will create jobs in the near term and strengthen our economy and environment in the long term.”
Sounds like another voice in support of legislative action to enable members of local transit agencies to serve on the CHSRA board. Is there any argument against such an exemption (leaving aside for the moment the questions about Katz and Pringle)?
I am a proud former appointee of Richard Katz to Metro’s Citizen Advisory Council. Sorry that he is leaving the Board but thrilled to hear he is protecting his Metro Board status. Richard’s contribution to transit in Los Angeles County has been extraordinary. When HSR arrives at Union Station, passengers will be able to transfer to rail lines fanning out across the County. Richard Katz is one of the leaders to thank for that.
It should be possible for CHSRA to have non-voting members of the board who any members of organisations like MTA. That way you get their expertise, without the worry that their votes might be biased.
(In general, this should true for all state-wide bodies).
The alternative is to establish some sort of unoffical “liason comittee”, consisting of all board members and office-holders like Katz. Same effect.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 7:37 am
Those ideas are both worth exploring.
Eric Fredericks Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
That’s an awful lot of commitment for someone to put in to be a non-voting member. With that said, I’m sure the list of potential people wanting to do it would be quite lengthy.
Victor Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
If they need a liaison officer position, Put the person in planning where It will do the most good, I think police departments like the LAPD have them with the Federal Government, If I’m wrong It’s still a good idea and should be allowed under state law.
If he gets a southernc california replacement, then let’s hope its someone who is experienced and who can make sure that hsr is integrated into the regional trainsit system effectively. OR, maybe we can get someone from up here. Whats willie brown doing. He knows how to get things done. Get him.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 7:36 am
Katz should definitely be replaced by someone from LA with expertise on passenger rail. The legislature should also give the CHSRA board an exemption from the “incompatible offices” law so that the replacement could be someone from MTA or some similar body.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 9:14 am
The entire Board should be replaced by persons with passenger rail expertise.
thatbruce Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 11:03 am
With passenger rail expertise in Planning or Traveling?
One of the frequent comments is that the current generation of rail planners and transit board members in the US have little experience of frequently traveling on a successful rail service, HSR or otherwise, and hence are not necessarily aware that there may be a Better Way To Do Things ™.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
I can only hope that having some travel experience is a prerequisite for being a planner.
Of course you should have local representation in the process. That is one of our core tenets.
There are two major problems with this doing so by putting someone on the board in a case like this.
1) If the dais is not big enough for all local groups to be represented, not everyone’s interests are represented. The cities on the board get listened to, the cities not on the board really lose out. This is true on the local transportation boards and even more so on the high speed rail board where the project affects 100s of local communities.
The ex-officio thing works okay when it is an institution that has something to offer but shouldn’t be a voting member.
2) The project has a serious issue with its approach to planning, an approach that does not properly take into account local needs. The fact that LA had to put Richard Katz on the board to gets reasonable requests listened to should have been a giant red flag. Instead, LA’s issues got dealt with but the problems continue around the state unabated. Chowchilla just passed a no confidence measure because their phone calls were not being returned. If the Chowchilla mayor was on the board, I am willing to bet their calls would be returned.
LA was in a unique position. They were supporters of the project, but not the primary cheerleaders. There was no question about routing, unlike Merced and San Jose. They have the clout to force big changes in the way things are done that would have benefitted all the communities in the state, but the only changes we saw were with LA specific planning.
The board has a short window, while attention focuses on the central valley and wanes elsewhere, to make some major changes in the structure of their consultant org chart. The longer they wait, the more entrenched the existing bureacracy of consultants and design standards become.
We hope they will take it.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 7:40 am
This is why having people who sit on both the HSR board AND local transportation agency boards makes a ton of sense – the local transportation agency represents the needs of many communities, and those can be communicated to the HSR board directly through that shared representative.
But no, you saw an opportunity to bash the Authority and took it. Now Katz is gone, even though he understood the very need for close cooperation with localities.
I really do not understand your approach to this project.
jimsf Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 7:41 am
But what do you when too much local interference causes delays and expense. At some point the project has to stopped being bogged down by every detail.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 11:33 am
That is their goal. Death by a thousand cuts.
jimsf Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
I know it is. And its that oh so obvious fact that is so irritating about what I will from now on refer to as “the other side” so no one gets offended. Its a rampant practice on the other side because not only is it that the only way they can get what they want, is by deception, but the fact that they have no shame about doing it and they think people can’t see it, that is so irritating.
Elizabeth Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
In Europe, every inch of the routes has been decided hand in hand with the local communities. This has not stopped projects from being built. There is no excuse for the poor planning that has been done to date on this project. Communities angry responses as they are told they are on one side of a fait accompli are not surprising. There is a reason why you are supposed to put in a lot of work upfront working through the details before charging full steam ahead. That work was never done and the price is being paid.
We have been BEGGING the authority to change its 4 tier layer of contractors that inevitably leads to these problems. If you want this project to work and at a price that is not humiliating, all of you should be lobbying for the same changes.
jimsf Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
I don’t see what poor planning you are talking about. The route was shown prior to the vote. EVeryone knew it would follow existing rows for the most part. The cities that would be on the route were known and its too be expected that the inch by inch details would be worked out as they go. Studies have been done, impact reports have been done, everything that every other project is subject too has been done or is being done. The real objection here has to do with people not getting their way and thats all there is too it. And isn’t it funny that the only place where “procedure” seems to be a big issue is in the areas where small groups of people happen to oppose the project.
Eric Fredericks Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 8:37 am
And no one cared about the project because they didn’t think it was ever going to happen. Suddenly Prop 1A passes and this baby becomes real.
Elizabeth Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
There is some truth to what you say but it is far from the whole story.
CHSRA did not hold even the most basic meetings you would expect with city planning departments on the Peninsula. Somehow, they managed to meet multiple times with cities along the Altamont corridor (where the cities didn’t like the plans they were shown).
At the back of the program EIR, there is a list of ALL meetings held with anyone and everyone, including small informal meetings with city staffs. We mapped all of those with cities – this one leaves out SF, SJ and OAK. Do you see a pattern?
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=107002368932492058600.000468bf0f38fe737f384&t=h&z=8
Spokker Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Did they not have the most basic public outreach meetings? I’ve been to many. Down here, I saw many representatives at these meetings. Could Peninsula reps not be bothered to attend, or do they need private meetings?
Elizabeth Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
After the route choices were made, they started having meetings in 2009. But before that – no public meetings on the peninsula whatsoever.
Spokker Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
They can’t send someone’s to Sacramento to one of the board meetings? How retarded are your elected officials?
Peter Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
But Spokker, that would require them to actually care about the issue at the time.
Nathanael Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 12:32 am
I was paying attention to the route choice process and providing public input…. and I don’t even live in California. What excuse do your public officials have, Elizabeth?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
There’s an important piece of the story that is being left out here: prior to 2009 the Authority had only a tiny staff, and faced an annual fight for survival. Those were not the kind of conditions that would produce effective outreach.
That’s not to let the Authority off the hook; they could have done better. But it’s not like they had unlimited resources. Instead their resources were deeply constrained.
Michael Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
The Regional Rail Plan was the forum for looking at the routes. It wrapped up in 2007.
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/rail/
Elizabeth Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Robert,
If you are going to have 18 meetings with cities, shouldn’t most of them be with the cities where the tracks are going to go?
Peter Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Elizabeth,
If you think until mid-2008 that the tracks are going to go over Altamont, shouldn’t most of the meetings be with the cities that would be the most affected by a new alignment? Versus with the cities that already have frequent passenger rail running through them?
Come up with a better conspiracy theory.
synonymouse Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
The CHSRA outreach plan is very easy to understand:
If you support PB’s scheme you are a valid stakeholder.
If you question it you are NIMBY.
Hsr foamers from anywhere and everywhere are honorary stakeholders.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
The problem isn’t PB, it’s government oversight. Abroad, PB-run projects have come within a reasonable budget. Marmaray, for which PB is lead consultant, has had some real cost overruns coming from archeological and geologic complications, but that’s a major engineering challenge.
Arthur Dent Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 2:13 am
Peter,
If you thought until mid-2008 that the tracks were going to go over Altamont, you were seriously misinformed. The decision was made years earlier; they were simply going through the inconvenience of appearing to study all options through that annoying state process called CEQA. But don’t worry about being misinformed, you had plenty of company.
flowmotion Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Arthur Dent –
You are correct about “plenty of company” because the majority of pro-Prop1A advocates were convinced Altamont was a done deal.
Mumble about “outreach” or “CEQA”, but the truth is the authority kept the decision quiet for as long as possible to get out in front of any opposition.
Elizabeth Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Peter,
As of 1999, the tracks were going via Pacheco. There was an environmental process that studied both so while I would not expect all the meetings to be on Pacheco route, I would expect 50%.
thatbruce Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
In Europe, every inch of the routes has been decided hand in hand with the local communities.
Yup, just like ‘In North America, every police department is either in the pay of or in fear of the drug cartels’. Generalizations are tricksy things.
On nearly every major infrastructure program that I’ve paid attention to and participated in, I’ve seen that there are, inevitably, people unhappy with the process, irrespective of how good the outreach has been, how good the various alternatives are, how many members of the community were consulted and listened to and so forth. You just can’t please everyone all of the time after all.
Andre Peretti Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 6:45 am
“This has not stopped projects from being built”
In the Paris region, it has. In the past, the state used to help finance transit projects, which obliged local agencies and politicians to harmonize their planning. With Sarkozy’s “less government” policy, each agency has to rely on its own resources and tends to go it alone. The suburban sprawl has not been accompanied by transit linking suburbs to one another, leaving them totally car-dependent.
The French reluctance to use eminent domain has caused Nice, the 2nd tourist attraction after Paris, to be deprived of a fast rail link. The development of the city is severely constrained by its dependence on its saturated airport. This because of a few hundred intractable NIMBYs.
This French (demagogic rather than democratic) quest for unanimous consent is certainly not an example to be imitated.
Eric Fredericks Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 8:41 am
Death by a thousand cuts is exactly right. Maybe Chowchilla would get their phone calls returned if there were actually people there to answer the phones. The Legislature will not let the Authority ramp up staff, and this is what happens. That’s not to say that the staff isn’t doing a fantastic job with the constraints. Just you can only do so much. The voters approved Prop1A, and to build it correctly, you need (state) staff to oversee it.
Peter Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 9:08 am
Or you get contractors who are acting at least partly in their self-interest.
Victor Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 9:44 am
That’s cause some members of the legislature want to kill the CHSRA, But then their a loony minority what do they know? Eventually being loony will bite them in the ass and they’ll be gone like they should be now.
Nathanael Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 12:34 am
Trouble is how long it can take for “eventually” to come for loonies who get into government. Decades, sometimes.
Alan Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 11:01 am
How in the world do you ensure that *everyone* has a seat at the table? If every community along the route has someone on the Board, you don’t have a functional board, you have the Legislature. Not to mention that everyone else in the state, whose interests are also affected, are entitled to a voice.
The best anyone can do is to ensure, as much as humanly possible, that the persons appointed to the board are a fair and equitable representation of the entire state.
Elizabeth Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 11:19 am
Our point is exactly that. What is the best way to make sure that everyone has a seat at the table?
The board has nine members, some of which represent other interests such as the governors office or labor. Which of the 26 communities with a station get someone there to fight for them? Which of the countless other communities that the rail passes through?
You cannot put all the communities on the board, yet you want their interests represented. This has to come through reform of the process, not through sledgehammer tactics like putting a couple of favored communities on the board.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 11:32 am
We want the interests of the people of California represented on the board – not the interests of the members of the Palo Alto City Council.
The current board was chosen by the elected representatives of the people of California – the governor, the Senate, and the Assembly – by region. That ensures the members are representative of the state itself as well as selected by the people’s representatives. It also ensures the communities have a voice – they can always lobby the governor or their elected officials.
Reform of the CHSRA board must not become a vehicle by which city officials who are opposed to the project get to put their people on the board to sit there and obstruct the project. Californians have twice given a mandate at the polls for HSR. The board’s job, along with that of the state legislature, is to ensure the will of the people is enacted.
Finally, it’s a bit much for some of these cities to speak of “representation” when they systematically refuse to acknowledge or represent the majority of their constituents who support HSR and do not want it slowed, blocked, or stopped.
thatbruce Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Perhaps a leading question, but does CAARD have a blueprint for a better process under which the CAHSRA or similar large infrastructure project ought to be using?
thatbruce Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
CARRD even. My apologies.
Nadia Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Here’s what I see – local reps (say consultants or agency reps) listen to the concerns of the cities. They take the info and go back to the “Authority” and when they come back the message is often something that ignores the concerns. After some explanation, usually said consultant or agency rep admits that the answer doesn’t address the concern but that is what the “people in Sacramento” have come up with. This has happened pretty consistently over the last 2 years.
What I’m unclear on is whether the problem is the people working directly for the Authority or whether the problem is the board members themselves.
So what do you do? Ignoring the issues and concerns brought forth from the local level doesn’t help engender trust and collaboration. But who is doing the ignoring? What if the board isn’t really getting the full story? Are the consultants making the decision to ignore the issues? It is important to figure that out.
CARRD does feel that CSS would have avoided these issues. If CSS were being used – we would be in much better shape.
CSS sounds like this abstract thing – but let me put it into something tangible. When CSS is working and there is true collaboration – you don’t have City reps frantically running to the back of the room to see the document that just came off the copier (because it wasn’t available on-line as promised) and flipping through furiously to figure out what just happened to their city. This is what happened at the PAA and SAA meetings.
If CSS was working, you’d have UP, short-haul line operators, freight customers and Peninsula city reps in a room discussing the opportunities and challenges with freight. If we were doing these things – the local concerns would be part of a 2-way conversation where when decisions get made and the people involved in the conversation would understand how we arrived at that solution.
The Peninsula is certainly not getting heard, and the folks in Gilroy and Chowchilla aren’t either. And LA – who was ahead, wasn’t getting heard either and they had to get Katz in to fix it.
BTW, the Authority knew about “incompatible offices” since April – this is not CARRD’s doing – this is the Authority’s doing.
Spokker Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
“If CSS was working, you’d have UP, short-haul line operators, freight customers and Peninsula city reps in a room discussing the opportunities and challenges with freight. ”
There should be no conversation with freight. Freight should not be on the peninsula at all, if we are talking about the best interests of our transportation network.
CSS does not result in the best outcome all the time. Too many compromises and the plan falls apart. Perhaps that’s the strategy of opponents.
Nadia Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 6:45 am
Your point on freight is well taken – but in order for any decision on freight to be taken, we need all the right people in a room.
CSS is used for all Federal Highway projects and all State road projects in California. What’s your evidence that CSS doesn’t result in the best outcome? All of the empirical evidence I’ve seen points ot the opposite. It actually saves money and builds support. Two things we need for HSR.
Eric Fredericks Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 8:57 am
Except that you can’t have a true CSS process in this case because a) the voters approved AB 3034, b) you also have the CEQA/NEPA process which by itself is a hindrance to CSS when you’re dealing with a project the size of HSR, and c) there was a lot of work done at the program EIR/S level when not as many people cared about the project. To go against that would pretty much kill the project.
With that said, there can always be more done to be inclusive and to try to get to the best solution. I think given the limitations I’ve mentioned above (with short staffing included), everyone is really trying the best they can to do this right.
Nadia, you know (that I know) when I say this that the staff really does want to do the best thing and follow a CSS process. PB just hired the best CSS guru we have in the state of California (Gregg Albright). I think what CARRD can do is help the legislature see they need more staff (in addition to the oversight concerns that you’ve already done a good job raising).
Elizabeth Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 9:01 am
Interesting news on Albright http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/bios/albright.htm
Elizabeth Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 9:13 am
We do think they need more staff, but we also think that it is futile to hire a bunch more people until you dismantle the 4 tiered contractor structure and have a plan for internalizing the program manager role. Until you do that, you can add all the people you want but it still does not become more manageable.
Peter Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 9:18 am
Sounds like a chicken and the egg problem.
thatbruce Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 10:10 am
Sounds like there are two issues which can be broadly summarised as ‘The CAHSRA and employees are spread too thin to properly address all points raised during the proper process’ and ‘Other interests outside the established procedure are seen as being listened to more than those participating in the proper process’.
For the first point, perhaps the needed staffing up should be done in terms of region, eg CAHSRA-Bay, CAHSRA-CV and CAHSRA-LA, which would allow them to properly address each region’s concerns.
For the second point, we’re talking about a 30-something billion dollar (in today’s money) project, in a field where there are relatively few actual experts (and I do agree with you in that the chosen contractors are necessarily those with the required expertise). Certain fundamental aspects should be left to those experts (eg, guidelines regarding track geometry/formation, overhead, station platforms, all the interoperability magic), while other aspects should be handed off to the specific region (alignment, station location and station design) with the required expertise relegated to ‘This is what you need to bring your suggested design into conformance with the system standards within the budget for your region’, not ‘This is the design that you must build’.
Eric Fredericks Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 11:53 am
I don’t think you need to necessarily hire a bunch more people. Just people in key positions that can actually speak on behalf of the State.
Also, agree with the above point that regional staffing is necessary and they’ve been trying to get this for months.
There are a lot more experts in HSR here in the US than you might think. Many have worked on HSR projects all around the world. The main difference here is CEQA.
Nadia Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 7:47 pm
@ Eric
Great news about Albright – but will he be working on this project for PB or just for PB in general?!
Nadia Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
@ Eric – A vote by the people is all the more reason to do CSS! To respond to your points a)When the DOT decides a road needs to get built, under CSS we balance the transportation goals and the community goals. That is exactly what we need to do on this project – just on a much larger scale. b) CEQA and NEPA are NOT an issue – we deal with those on road projects as well – and CSS still works. and c) Program vs. Project level work is absolutely NOT an issue per PBQD’s very own CSS expert Hal Kassof!
Staffing issues are no excuse either – it isn’t the folks in Sacramento who would carry out CSS. It is the actual consultants – which on the Peninsula is PB – who (as you already know Eric) co-authored one of the main CSS documents used today. (for those curious: http://www.trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_w69.pdf)
And regarding staff – as Elizabeth said – the Authority absolutely needs its own staff – but only once they have agreed to shave off levels of consultants – otherwise – we continue to have the same issues.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
That is truly excellent news about Albright being hired. It shows that the powers that be are serious about improving public outreach.
Your other points about the EIR documents and CSS are very, very good ones.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 11:06 am
When I read this, Nadia, it sounds to me like the problem is the Authority won’t do what certain city councils want.
Nor should they. The cities along the route do not, and should not, have the power to dictate how the system is designed, built, or operated.
We both agree that the Authority’s outreach process can be improved. And there are specific ways that this can be accomplished, and CA4HSR has laid these out in our Peninsula Reset plan. We continue to support exploration of ways to improve the Authority and its work in the spirit of true collaboration.
But not everyone gets what they want. You cannot have unanimous consent and build any kind of project (any more than you could run a country based on unanimous consent – go ask 18th century Poland). If there is recognition that some people will always be unhappy no matter the outcome – given the fact that there are incompatible ideas and desires – then I think a positive outcome can be reached. If people prefer to use the fact that they didn’t get their way to blow up the process or the project, that’s just not right.
Nadia Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Robert – I’m not saying that anyone should have the ability to override the decisions on this project. I do, However, I think that in order for their to be constructive discussions with the cities, there has to be a certain level of education of the locals by the Authority on the issues (with all the info available) and then an inclusive discussion with all the parties involved.
Let me see if I can give you a non-HSR reason why. I’m a mom of small kids (8 and 5). As a mom, I have the right to say “no” – just because. That works pretty well when they were about 3 – but my 8 yr old wants to know the “why” at this point. So, I try to explain the reasons “why” so that when I say “no” it makes more sense and she doesn’t walk away as frustrated as when I answer “because I said so and I’m the mom.” And when she’s closer to 16 – I fully expect the “negotiations” to begin – because sometimes even 16 year olds may have some ideas. And I’ll be the first to admit that as the parent – I certainly don’t have all the answers.
At a bare minimum, if those who are frustrated by the process could sit down with the “parents” and have a “why” conversation – it might be a bit easier to swallow. In the best case scenario, the parents and the teens in this story would sit down and have the “why” conversation. And maybe – just maybe, the teens may have some ideas that might be worth listening to – and maybe the parents, decide there may be another alternative they hadn’t considered. And hopefully, this discussion would lead to a compromise that involves both parties figuring out how to find the money to now pay for this mutually agreed upon compromise.
I’ve oversimplified, but really – to steal a line from a farmer that testified – people are talking but they are not actually having a conversation. Please, let’s figure out how to fix that! Somewhere between the discussions happening at the local level and those happening at the very top, there is a serious disconnect. We should figure out how to fix that short circuit.
Peter Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
The problem is that the “children”, to use to your analogy, are only coming out with ideas that are not feasible. The whole “tunnel-or-nothing” approach is just about as unreasonable as it could possibly be. If the “children” actually had some workable ideas that would be affordable, then their ideas could be accommodated. Until then, the Authority’s gotta do what it’s gotta do to push the project through.
Nadia Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
@Peter – as with the media – don’t believe everything you read. Attend a meeting or watch them testify and you can hear that that is NOT what they are saying. Even Eshoo and Speier are asking that alternatives be kept open – if the approach was tunnel-or-nothing – you would not be hearing that message.
There is a danger here that I’m not sure is clear. If we get to the DEIR phase, and the only seemingly palatable alternatives are removed from the mix, there may very well be a complete loss of support. If instead, you leave into the mix the palatable alternatives and then work on how to pay for them together – you may have a shot at this.
The money is going to take a while to get here and with the CV as a starting point – there is some breathing room to find a workable solution. Shutting down the conversation will only escalate the problem to the point of all out battle – to what end?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 8:20 pm
The core issue along the Peninsula is opposition to aerial structures. That’s *all* this is about. I agree with you, Peter, that “no aerials” is not a reasonable position to hold – unless those who hold it are willing to step forward to support some means of funding the more expensive alternatives.
To be very clear, I really do not care what the vertical alignment is on the Peninsula. The question is whether it can be funded. Anyone looking at the current situation in Sacramento and Washington DC would know that it is not likely that either the state or the federal government can afford a below-grade alternative. So that leaves the private sector, or the localities. Again, if there’s some method on the table to get funding from one or both of those sources, I’m fine with it.
But since that looks unlikely, it may be aerials that have to be built on that corridor. And that brings us back to the root of this problem. Unless those who dislike aerials are able to answer the question of how to fund them, then an anti-aerial position is simply untenable.
Peter Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
@ Nadia
I’m a firm believer in public participation in the CEQA process. That process requires that all reasonable options and alternatives remain on the table until it comes time to decide which final alternative to choose. Why do you think they included an open trench alternative in the Supplemental AA?
The case law is quite clear that they don’t have to include every possible reasonable alternative in their analysis. Given that they have identified a number of excellent reasons why they did NOT include a deep tunnel down the Peninsula, or even a covered trench/cut-and-cover tunnel, those were eliminated from the range of “reasonable” alternatives because they were not reasonable.
The PAMPA city councils keep complaining that the Authority isn’t listening to their concerns/demands. Not acceding to their demands is not the same as not listening to their concerns. But it scores political points in the public opinion for the cities, if they can argue that they’re not being listened to, when in fact they are making unreasonable demands that the Authority can’t agree to.
Does anyone participating on this blog seriously think, though, that that final alternative will be a below-grade option? Does anyone participating on this blog seriously think that there won’t be a lawsuit filed by the PAMPA when the Final Project EIR is certified with an aerial alternative chosen through PAMPA?
Nathanael Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 12:39 am
I will say that if the complaints had been about the *nature* of the aerials rather than *whether* there will be aerials, I would be a lot more sympathetic to the complaining locals.
But they haven’t been, so far, not the ones I’ve heard.
There are so many different ways of designing aerials that I am actually more than a little surprised that locals have not come up with better designs. It’s been done elsewhere.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
I totally get that. As you know, I’m wide open to hearing suggestions on how to reform the Authority to improve their outreach. CA4HSR has already stepped up with our own proposals for remedying the matter on the Peninsula.
But all we hear is that the Authority alone has to modify its stance, tone, and tactics. What of the others involved in the debate? Some people (not you, of course) spent 2009 spreading lies about HSR being a “Berlin Wall.” Currently there are people distributing signs on the Peninsula claiming that HSR will destroy neighborhoods. These same people have misled the public into believing there will be huge numbers of property takings via eminent domain. Where’s the outrage at that behavior? Where’s the outrage at the misleading, pro-oil industry, pro-sprawl, anti-environment stance of people like Gary Patton and the PCL?
I’m all for a true conversation. Always have been. Scroll back to the beginnings of this blog and that’s abundantly clear. Critics have been welcome here, even people like Richard Mlynarik and synonymouse who have nothing useful to add to the discussion. It is the HSR critics, however, who have been unwilling to have a conversation. People who are seriously interested in a collaborative process do not pass resolutions opposing or declaring no confidence in a project just because they’re unhappy about the quality of public feedback from the responsible agency. Such tactics are scorched earth tactics, and you cannot fault us for calling them out as such.
Arthur Dent Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Whoa, Robert, can you get any more offensive? “even people like Richard Mlynarik and synonymouse who have nothing useful to add to the discussion.” Seriously?
Richard’s ascerbic rants are entertaining and informative, but I suppose you’d have to be willing to hear what he has to say with an open mind in order to consider him ‘useful’.
And about those people who are seriously interested in a collaborative process – could it be that they reached their frustration point, or do you discount them as ignorant and useless, too.
Peter Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 9:31 pm
I don’t think Richard’s REPEATED vitriolic calls for the violent deaths of all the members of the Caltrain planning staff are “useful”, EVER.
Clem Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
I’m wide open to hearing suggestions on how to reform the Authority to improve their outreach
How about for a start publishing their technical materials, without having Nadia move heaven and earth to pry them out of their clenched fists? There is no transparency. What we have here is a concerted stonewalling effort, with the peninsula communities systematically kept in the dark about the technical whys, whats and hows of this project. That puts them in the uncomfortable position of being unable to offer alternative solutions that might actually work, rather than being shot down on some technicality that nobody knew about until it was sprung on us.
Peninsula communities don’t have the time or inclination to play “bring me a rock”.
Nadia Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Amen Clem!
Robert – Gilroy couldn’t even get them to answer their letters. Neither could Chowchilla! Those who are literally just asking for data get totally stonewalled. The blame for that goes squarely on them.
How can this possibly be a two way discussion when the info is only on one side?!
Nathanael Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 12:40 am
Arthur, syn used to contribute useful things to the discussion.
Then he got obsessed with Tejon, Altamont, and conspiracy theories….
Nathanael Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 12:41 am
Clem, precisely what technical materials are you complaining about?
Every time *I* have looked for technical detail on the CHSRA’s website, I’ve found it. *What* do you think is missing?
Nadia Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 6:51 am
@Nathanael – see Clem’s latest blog post. It was VERY difficult to get copies of the Technical Memos back in Dec ’09 (which are now available both on the PCC site and on Clem’s b/c CARRD didn’t have a website back then). Clem was copied on my requests – so he can tell you about the behind the scenes wrangling that went on.
In a board presentation, it was made clear that updated TMs (as they’re called) would be available in June. So in July, I made a Public Records Request. It has been a battle ever since. I was able to get them to send me the System Requirements (which are technical in nature – but not the same at all).
In a different Public Records Request -I’ve been asking for the data and correspondence related to foreign Peer Review of Ops and Maintenance (which I posted on the CARRD site). That, too, has gone round and round for the last month and among the stuff they sent (which wasn’t really what I asked for) was all the old TMs and a single updated Technical Memo (which Clem just posted) from which we can see that they aren’t actually going to integrate systems.
Nathanael – by all means, try requesting the updated TMs yourself and see if you get anywhere. And if you get them, I’m sure Clem would be happy to post them so that we can all share – b/c alas – the Authority refuses to do it. (Even though we have send multiple emails to all levels of the Authority urging them to do it (since we were going to post them anyway) because it would go a long way towards transparency, etc.
I know for a fact that folks in So.Cal – at agencies dealing with the Authority, we unable to get this information – and when CARRD put them up back in January – they were very happy to finally see behind the curtain.
Clem Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 10:33 am
@Nathaniel: let me single out one example. It has been known since July 2009 that PB is working on technical memorandum 1.1.7, Shared Use Corridor HST Criteria – Caltrain Corridor. This memo was to have been completed in June 2010, and describes the range of allowable designs for the peninsula. This memo is very closely held, and Nadia has been working for literally several months to get a copy. The CHSRA’s response has been a constant stream of stonewalling and run-arounds, including a flat out statement that this document was not a public record. Meanwhile cities up and down the peninsula want to know what’s going on, and the master plan / techical rationale is for all practical purposes a state secret.
You will notice that the CHSRA’s website has only one or two of the TM’s available, of the dozens obtained by CARRD. None of these memos are being published, let alone updated, on the official website. This got to be so ridiculous that the Peninsula Rail Program (the joint Caltrain / CHSRA program on the peninsula) is linking technical documents from my personal web server!
Something ain’t right here, and CARRD deserves a lot of respect for obtaining just about EVERY piece of technical information known about California’s high-speed rail system. By any objective standard, this is an outrageous situation.
Peter Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 10:52 am
Is it about time for a FOIA suit to force them to publish this information?
Nadia Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 11:08 am
We have considered it – but CARRD usually tries to just nudge them to doing the right thing.
Robert is convinced that the cities are just whining and unwilling to play ball and therefore suing. The truth is that Menlo Park and Atherton have been fighting this fight for much longer. PA stepped in late and once their requests got stonewalled for 9 months – it became clear to the City how they felt they needed to proceed. Without knowing the behind the scenes – I can see why he comes to that conclusion (it is exactly the stuff the media likes to portray) – but the truth is – the problem is ongoing.
I go back to the fact that I’m not sure who, exactly, is saying no. The board? The employees in Sacramento? PB? I am not sure – but the fact that public money is paying for this project and that cities can’t get basic technical documents to be able to adequately respond is a key problem. Clem is spot on – PRP has actually had to link to Clem’s site to give the Technical Working Group and Policy maker working group access to information that the Authority refuses to publish. There is just no excuse.
Peter Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 11:17 am
I’m a big fan of using all non-litigation tools prior to suing. But the time for lawsuits comes at some point. This might be the time for it on the issue of releasing documents.
One of my issues with the lawsuits that PAMPA et al have filed is that they don’t address this issue. Instead, they attack the CEQA process, which, as far as I can tell, was done according to the law. That is the wrong approach to take if you want transparency.
Peter Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 11:28 am
If nothing else, the answer would probably tell you the relationships between the parties, and the basis for why the Authority or PB thinks they don’t have to provide you with all the documents you request.
synonymouse Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 11:35 am
Perhaps the reason why my ideas are quickly consigned to the dustbin of conspiracy
theories is generational. My formative years was the McCarthyite era, when every decision was highly political and back room. I think like a Corleone.
I suggest you are discounting the role of egos and hubris in these proceedings. The behavior of institutions parallels that of individuals and directly follows Lord Acton’s principle. Ergo the more powerful they become the more dictatorial, the more secretive, the more arbitrary they become.
Political machines, no matter how well intentioned, cannot help from going astray, because their power and position is beyond challenge.
Clem Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 11:36 am
The transportation-industrial complex can reliably count on the little people not having the stomach to make them follow the law. All you need to know is who calls the shots here: it’s not the cities, it’s not the public, it’s not even the skeleton staff of the CHSRA, and it’s not the board (gasp!). The real power in this project lies with PBQD, and that firm is accountable to its shareholders to maximize profit in the form of the largest possible transfer of public wealth. If that makes me a conspiracy theorist, so be it!
CARRD is right, the state agency staff needs to be massively beefed up and the layers of consultants put on a very short leash. Design authority currently lies with the wrong people, people whose vocabulary includes “outrigger bent,” “vertical circulation,” and “dedicated infrastructure” but unfortunately not “value engineering” or “system optimization”.
synonymouse Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 11:53 am
And for all their dominance PB they can’t even leave a proper monumental legacy. No grandeur whatsoever mixed in with inevitable brutalism. With ear-popping Tejon base tunnels there would at least be an engineering marvel to help in forgiving all the rest of the mediocrity.
Peter Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
See, you discuss how you despise PB’s profit-maximizing, rent-seeking behavior, but then you clamor for INCREDIBLY and infeasibly expensive, seismologically dangerous, and technically HIGHLY difficult base tunnels?
You’re not in ANY way consistent in your logic.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Coming to this somewhat late, but, I fully agree there have been problems in the Authority’s outreach. It is very frustrating as a project supporter to hear these things are happening. And I have been supportive of efforts to improve outreach and information sharing.
At the same time, I do not believe those problems are any justification for a city council opposing the project, trying to obstruct the project, suing the project, and so on. If the problem is the Authority, then take action on that, and not attack the project itself.
I keep saying this: if people want to improve the Authority, attacking the project will only make it impossible to build a reform coalition with people who support the project.
synonymouse Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
PB will still spend a fortune on its scheme with the detour- the whole idea is to spend money. I gave up on fretting about Bechtel’s behavior – I will leave trying to restrain them to others.
I conceive of the hsr as a shock and awe project not an incremental Amtrak. The state is on the brink in any event – let’s go for broke with Tejon – we’ll be happy we did later.
Spokker Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 9:55 pm
You can make sure everybody has a seat at the table at the expense of getting anything done. Nearly everybody has a seat at the table in building the Expo light rail line in Los Angeles. It’s a year behind schedule and over-budget, and will end up slower than originally planned.
I heard an interesting presentation tonight on ethnic diversity and the ability of nations to meet economic and environmental goals. Homogeneous and extremely diverse places alike have problems, and there is a sweet spot in the middle, apparently.
California is doomed.
synonymouse Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
On the other hand the UP is doing better than ever:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/11/18/sp-hikes-union-pacifics-credit-rating-bbb/
Maybe they should take a page out of the old SP playbook and plant some moles at PB to protect their interests.
Elizabeth Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
There are productive and non-productive ways have stakeholders involved. This is why we are such big fans of CSS, which has figured out the a lot of the tricks to shakeholder driven planning.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Who are the stakeholders? This is a persistent problem in the HSR planning process – the future riders of the system, the people who voted for the project, and the taxpayers as a whole are usually not defined as “stakeholders.” Instead people who happen to live near the project or own property near the project receive that definition and a seat at the table, but others don’t.
Nadia Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
@Robert – I’m replying here b/c I don’t see anymore replies to our other thread.
You wrote that this is *all* about aerials – that’s not accurate -it is also about freight, it is also about the frequency of trains, it is also about 4 tracks the entire way.
And in terms of stakeholders – the stakeholders are everyone -including, as you rightly pointed out, the future riders. No one said the only people at the table should be those that live near the tracks.
Do you remember the conversation we had almost a year ago at the Simitian event when I asked you to please get involved in CSS because it would help bring a balance of people to the discussion?
CARRD has always made the point that we encourage EVERYONE to get involved. Your concerns about future riders is well taken – and if you lived on the Peninsula – you could thank PRP for not having a place for riders and future users to come forth. It is for this very reason that we pushed for the Technical Working Group and Policymaker Working Group meetings to be public – so we could at least overhear what it actually being said by elected officials and cities when they meet with Doty and the consultants. There’s a PWG meeting tonight in fact. You can find the meetings on the CAHSRA calendar on their website. Interesting that they always tweet about their other community meetings, but have never once publicized that the public is welcome to observe these meetings.
Peter Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
Just hit the last reply link above the post you want to reply to. The threaded comments only go so many deep.
Nadia Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
yeah, I got cut off – plus not sure if it is just me but when I write in the reply box, the right margin is out of sight so words go off the screen a bit and you can’t really see them – so I have to keep going back and checking for missing words or typos
Peter Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
That happens to me as well on three different computers and two different operating systems, OS X and XP.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
That happens to me as well (the right margin being cut off). I don’t think there is any way around it if the comments are to stay threaded, since the two-column layout is hardwired.
If anyone knows how to have the comments text box auto-resize to stay within the columns so the right margins aren’t being cut off, I’m all ears.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
As far as I can tell – based on what I’ve seen and heard – freight, train frequency, and 4-tracks are only issues because they impact the question of vertical alignment. Those are indeed issues in their own right, but that does not appear to be what’s driving the discussion.
I’ve personally had a difficult time being involved in much of anything HSR-related over the last 10 months, if it involves me leaving the Monterey area, given work obligations. There have been other HSR supporters who have tried to make CSS work, although Eric Fredericks’ points about the inherent limitations to CSS in this context are worth keeping in mind.
The PRP has its issues and we are working on proposals to address them. I would agree it has not worked out as intended.
However, as I keep pointing out (as have others, such as Peter), it is not just the CHSRA and the PRP that have had their issues. City leaders in Menlo Park and Palo Alto have persistently chosen confrontation over collaboration. Nobody forced them to file a lawsuit we all said they would lose (and which they did lose).
If they were interested in collaboration, they wouldn’t have undertaken confrontational actions such as filing lawsuits and passing anti-HSR resolutions. There is much common ground regarding the need for improvements to the HSR planning process, but it is impossible to actually come together over it because HSR critics and opponents have not been willing to hold themselves back from pursuing opportunities to undermine the project and collaborative efforts around the project when those have been presented. And that in turn makes it very difficult for project supporters to be willing to have trust and faith in those who have been undermining this project, such as the city councils of Menlo Park and Palo Alto.
If they stepped back from anti-HSR actions, and stepped back from attacks on the project itself, they would find allies in addressing their other concerns.
synonymouse Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 11:36 am
Elevate Richard Tolmach.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 11:46 am
Thankfully the chances of that happening are less than zero.
synonymouse Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 11:57 am
Why not? Palmdale has obviously got their representative. BART has two hardcore in Kopp and Diridon.
Where’s Sacramento’s rep?
Victor Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Jerry Brown is who.
synonymouse Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Jerry Brown represents the Pelosi political patronage machine who represents PB-Palmdale. All very incestuous.
The CHSRA is its own worst enemy. All that Tolmach is doing is pointing out the obvious to thee oblivious.
The CHSRA reminds me of the NdeM which spent a bundle on electrification as far as Queretaro, if I remember right, only to rip it out after a few years. The locomotives, I believe, ended up in of all places, Arizona. The dumbed-down CHSRA scheme is a third world joke.
Peter Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Snore.
Victor Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 9:52 am
Snore two…
Nathanael Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 12:43 am
eye-roll.
Castle Expert Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
Elizabeth I agree with your comments. If the authority takes the time and hires the right people for their outreach we can make high speed rail work for everyone. I know for a fact that the Chowchilla resolution was based on misinformation from Carrie Bowen who the authority hired for the Merced to Fresno, Fresno to Bakersfield sections. The council in Chowchilla thinks that their own citizens have to pay for High Speed Rails mitigation money out of their own general fund.
Plus the Council of Chowchilla does not beleive they will benefit from any of the construction jobs generarted by rail or by having a station 17 miles away. If you cannot convince a community which is truly mired in poverty over 20% unemployment that this will benefit their community immensly then the person in charge of your outreach needs to be replaced. I have met many of these people in this community and when you talk to them one on one and explain to them the money their community will recieve in grade seperations and that the rail line coming into their city will be elevated not a concrete wall 30 feet hide which divides their city they begin to understand the project better and our not as hostile to the project. But when staff does not listen to there valid concerns such as worrying about the city being seperated by a concrete wall. (Which we know is not ture) or they have to come up with $ 30 million in mitigation (Also false) then the message is not getting through.
I know that when Kirk Lindsey was alive the central valley had someone on the authority Board who many people could relate to and trust. I think the next person that should be on the authority board should have an Ag backround because let’s face it Ag is what drives the valley economy and who better to talk with Ag then someone in the same occupation.
Look the authority has Pringle whose days are probably numbered Shank, Umberg and Florez all to the South. Up north you have Kopp, Dirdon, Burns and Crane. I do not beleive any of them are from the Central Valley or have an Ag background. The project has better chance of longterm success if more prespective our heard.
Spokker Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 10:06 pm
“If the authority takes the time and hires the right people for their outreach we can make high speed rail work for everyone.”
High speed rail cannot both exist and not exist at the same time.
Risenmessiah Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
You probably know this, but the Central Valley was responsible for the passage of the Wright Act, which greatly enhanced the role of “local control” in California governance. There’s a bit of irony in this as the Southern Pacific was highly supportive of something that encourage agriculture along its route. “Local control” was supposed to be about the “freedom to”, not the “freedom from” which it is often used for now.
The Authority’s Board isn’t supposed to be geographically diverse. It should include the nine individuals who have the greatest depth of understanding the issues. Say what you want about Kopp, Diridon, Katz, Crane, Umberg, and Schenk but they all fit that bill. Would you expect this same standard for the UC Regents, another independent body that manages a huge state-run empire?
Regardless, I’m sure that Jerry Brown will try and use any vacancies on the Board to balance competing interests. But would I tell him to put an Ag guy there for the sake of being there….not really.
Peter Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 11:12 am
I doubt that adding an Ag guy to the Board would do much to improve the transportation planning aspect…
Risenmessiah Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
Funny you should say that.
Although it is not the first you think of, agriculture, especially the industrial variety has a transportation component that rivals urban and suburban systems. Don’t forget that the design of the Valley itself is largely the product of the Southern Pacific’s land use decisions 135 years ago. An Ag person might have the understanding of freight and relationship with UP that could be very beneficial. Don’t rule it out. Of course, finding someone who fits this description who is willing to sit on the Board is another matter entirely….
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 11:08 am
That’s a compelling case for the need to improve the Authority’s outreach and its operations. No doubt about it.
datacruncher Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Fran Florez is from Shafter (north of Bakersfield) so she would be considered as being from the Central Valley.
Wow, CAARD won this one. So the next thing on the agenda is to get all votes declared illegal. Incoming lawsuit from usual suspect in 5…4…3…2…..
Peter Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 10:31 am
I’m pretty certain that THAT is not a legal remedy for this situation. No matter what the hell CARRD thinks.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 10:57 am
Someone will attempt it. CARRD’s usual method isn’t to file lawsuits. They’ve found an effective niche as watchdogs.
Peter Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
And feed ideas to opponents.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Yep. And they are quite effective at that.
Victor Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Yeah I wouldn’t doubt they’ll try, But then again Jerry Brown and hopefully Kamala Harris will squash that flat.
Wasn’t Pringle the one who was responsible for pushing the gold plated approach into Anaheim and the over-priced HSR component of the ARTIC station? The LA-ANA leg is extremely bloated in cost. Anyone know what the status of this is? Is the shared-track alternative a serious proposal that is moving forward that will cut the cost, or are we still going with the gold plated option?
Nadia Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 6:46 am
Yes, and that also involved PB – who holds both the Anaheim ARCTIC contract and the HSR oversight contract. Conflict of Interest?
Spokker Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Gold plated plan is not happening. Leahy and Kempton came out strong against it.
Thank you CAARD for setting the project back instead of making it better all because of your eye for detail. Details that will not allow ANY project to ever get done.
Guys, it’s not CAARD’s fault that Katz resigned any more than it’s Jon Stewart’s fault that many Americans think politicians are sleazebags.
The San Bruno Grae-Separation project has begun:
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=146365&title=San%20Bruno%20grade%20separation%20project%20under%20way
YesonHSR Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 8:26 am
of course dear menlo/paloalto would think that is horrible
Clem Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
All thoughtful individuals with the least penchant for critical thought should think that is horrible.
I think the Metropolitan Planning Organizations should have more of a say in who they would like on the board.
The M.P.O.’s have the greatest knowledge of the needs of each region, which is the appropriate scale for planning high-speed rail.
A legislative exemption would create serious issues and give critics even more fire power to oppose plans by CHSRA.
The doctrine of incompatible offices (and Govt Code 1099) is intended to clarify where a public official owes his/her loyalty and avoid court disputes about a public official favoring one governmental entity over another.
If the legislature were to exempt CHSRA from 1099 then the loyalty of board members who also sit on local agencies would be constantly challenged. An exemption would leave us all asking “Which agency does [X director] owe his/her greatest loyalty?”
First, folks in other areas of the state likely would claim that board member is favoring that member’s local region over statewide interests. For example, consider State Senator Lowenthal’s original complaint that Pringle attempted to funnel millions of CHSRA money to ARTIC. Second, folks in the local region would claim the board member is favoring statewide interests over local interests in violation of their obligation to the local agency. In which case, residents within that local agency’s boundaries would attempt to oust that member from the local agency’s board. It would also provide critics with valuable evidence in the court of public opinion.
I have been very critical of Katz sitting on both boards. I have no problem with him sitting on one board or the other. His experience is an asset to whichever board he sits on. But holding seats on both boards creates too many direct conflicts between the state and L.A. County, where I live.
There are ways for local agencies like Metro and OCTA to work with and have a voice in the project without the legislature providing an exemption from 1099 (incompatible offices) to CHSRA. After all, they are regional sponsors of the project. CHSRA outreach representatives continually tell audience members that the project requires the support of the local agency. That’s at least what they say during L.A. to Anaheim and L.A. to San Diego segment presentations. Metro and OCTA also play major roles in Caltrans projects in their counties and in setting transportation priorities. I do not see why the high speed rail project should be any different. This is especially true when some of the proposed rights of way are owned by the local transit agencies.
The only exemptions to 1099 I’ve seen of with regard to local transit agencies has to do with joint powers authorities. Primarily these entities were created by agreement between several regional transit agencies. Examples include Metrolink and Caltrain. It makes sense for the legislature to give exemptions from 1099 to board seats for those joint powers authorities because those entities are created by the local transit agencies themselves which should have a direct say in their operation. In contrast, CHSRA is very different and is a creature of the legislature with statewide powers and it makes little sense for the local transit agencies to have direct control over such a state agency.
In the end, Katz’s resignation from CHSRA is more positive than negative in the long-run. CHSRA now has a conflict-free advocate on Metro’s board that it can count on in pushing support for the high speed rail project. Metro also wins because it can count on Katz’s fully loyalty to L.A. County and know that he will look out for L.A. County’s interests in his votes and discussions/negotiations.
Nadia Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 6:40 am
Well put!
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
This comment is based in an absurd and flawed premise – that there is some inherent conflict between local agencies and HSR. In fact, they need to be working closely together if HSR is to be a success.
If you want to argue there is a conflict, you need to show specific examples that illustrate the problem. In this post I gave an example that shows the benefit of Katz being on the MTA and the CHSRA board. You need to show evidence if you wish to be taken seriously.
Arthur Dent Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
You mean like this? Pay attention to February 2007 and May-June 2009.
dfb Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 1:07 am
Robert,
Asking for examples is sufficient. Trashing my comment as absurd is … absurd. There are ways for local agencies like Metro to work closely with CHSRA and have a voice in the project without an exemption to 1099 or delivering greater control of the project to a select few local transit agencies.
If you would like to be taken seriously, you need to stop trashing people/comments just because they are critical of some aspect(s) of the high speed rail project, behaviors of board members, actions taken by the board, or decisions of CHSRA. Not everyone is trying to kill off the project nor are we all evil slimey creatures that lurk in the depths. Also, you clearly have no idea when to accept you might be wrong or there is a good chance you come out ahead despite being wrong.
I had originally included some examples of conflicts but decided to remove them before submitting my comment because it was too long and I expected you and the regulars on this forum could see the conflicts between the local agencies and CHSRA. I clearly overestimated your abilities.
Here are some specific examples.
1. The Legislative Counsel’s Office said that there are conflicts with regard to funding and questions about who bears the burden. It stated: “Transactions and dealings between the HSRA and Metro will likely be required to bring the high-speed rail project into Los Angeles County, and those activities will be subject to approval by both members of the HSRA and the board of Metro. As an example, the HSRA might prefer Metro to fund certain costs associated with the high-speed rail project along Metro-owned rights-of-way, while Metro might view the high-speed rail project as a potential source of funding for costs Metro would otherwise incur for its own rail or transit operations. This creates the possibility of a significant clash of duties or loyalties for a board member of Metro simultaneously serving as a member of the HSRA.”
http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Incompatible-offices-LEG-COUNSEL-2010-04-23-Reduced-File-Size2.pdf
2. Artic.
* As Senator Lowenthal correctly pointed out, using state money from prop 1a to help build ARTIC created a conflict for Pringle. Sure, Prop 1a considered stations a proper use of the funds; however, that does not mean ARTIC would be a wise use of state money or that OCTA/Anaheim would not get a sweeter deal than would have been offered to cities in similar situations.
3. Metrolink right of way
* Metro owns some of the Metrolink right of way through L.A. County that CHSRA has proposed using for the high speed rail project.
* CHSRA needs to negotiate many different items with Metro regarding the right of way, including the value of the right of way, how Metro will be compensated, how the Rail Authority may use the right of way, how the Rail Authority will accommodate Metrolink, acceptable impacts to the community, and what mitigation is required.
* Metrolink also is involved in the negotiations. Mr. Katz also sits on the Metrolink board.
4. 60 Freeway
* CHSRA and Metro have both proposed using the same route along the 60 freeway. CHSRA for the high speed rail project and Metro for its Gold Line Extension from East L.A.
* Metro is expected to complete the Gold Line Extension by 2017 under the 30/10 initiative, several years before the CHSRA would begin construction of Phase 2 of the high speed rail project.
* The agencies will need to negotiate how the CHSRA will use the right of way and acceptable impacts on the Gold Line.
5. Impacts to local communities
* Any impacts to the freeways, highways, or major city streets will create conflicts between CHSRA and Metro. Metro is responsible for regional transportation planning for L.A. County. It sets transportation priorities, funding many of the transportation projects in the county, and operates a large bus fleet and light rail system that would be impacted by some of the proposed alignments of the high speed rail project.
* No matter the route chosen through the county, Metro has a duty to look out for the interests of the local communities and the county as a whole. Meanwhile, CHSRA must look out for the interest of the State of California as a whole. The two interests are currently in conflict because building the system will bring positive economic and environmental quality impacts to the state as a whole while negatively burdening local communities with [fill in the blank] (and yes, and perhaps some benefit, too).
* In addition, cities would not be so mad or fighting CHSRA if a conflict did not exist between local and statewide interests.
* The analyses between costs/burdens of a project to the county versus the benefits should be up to the local agencies to independently determine without a board member owing opposing duties or loyalties to the state agency that sponsors the project.