FPPC Clears CHSRA Board Members in Overseas Trip Investigation
Another pseudo-scandal bites the dust. The LA Times has the story about the Fair Political Practices Commission’s exoneration of four members of the California High Speed Rail Authority:
The Times reported in October that the rail agency was unable to document officials’ trips to various countries, including France, Spain and Germany. The trips, which typically included visits with manufacturers, government officials and rail operators, as well as rides on high-speed systems, were paid for by foreign governments trying to help their homeland firms win large contracts.
In November, the state’s ethics watchdog agency notified board members Curt Pringle, Lynn Schenk, Quentin Kopp and Tom Umberg, as well the agency’s former executive director, Mehdi Morshed, that it was investigating.
The five received letters this week saying the inquiry “determined there is no evidence that you committed a violation” of state law and that the cases were being closed.
CHSRA’s Rachel Wall explained that the Authority is reviewing its policies anyway, and Lynn Schenk explained that future travels would be fully disclosed even though the FPPC ruled the trips in question were legitimate.
True, this “scandal” wasn’t all that big in scope and didn’t really threaten the project. But we have heard this used by some HSR critics to attack high speed rail anyway. Hopefully now we can get back to the real issues…like pushing Congress to follow through on President Obama’s call to build HSR to connect 80% of Americans in 25 years.
Unfortunately, just because they were cleared doesn’t mean that Morris Brown et al won’t try to continue to propagate the original story. Just like how all of the negative reports or studies continually get debunked or disproven and the press never picks up on the debunking. And what ever happened to that study that found that HSR wasn’t significantly much more energy efficient than cars, and then someone here found that there was a rounding error or something in the data? I don’t think that had any traction either. #@#$$!#!!!
If we’re already talking about “scandals-that-weren’t”, then here’s one about the ballot title of Prop 1A.
synonymouse Reply:
January 28th, 2011 at 11:14 am
A significant and well-deserved poltical campaigning slap in the face for Kopp, Diridon, et al.
Peter Reply:
January 28th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
More like a slap on the wrist for the Legislature. Given that they were the ones who put the title on the ballot and were defending their own practice of naming propositions, AND the only change is that in the future the AG will prepare the title of the propositions. It’s more of a “shrug” issue.
It is also my understanding that the study in question originally had results much more favorable to rail, based on electric traction. However it was ordered rewritten by the Bush Administration. The final Oak Ridge National Lab report assumed that all electric power used for train propulsion derived from burning coal and it went into great depth analyzing all green house emissions generated in the process of coal extraction, processing, stocking, transporting, and finally burning to produce electricity; while at the same time, it appeared to assume that gasoline somehow originates in your car’s fuel tank; because it didn’t even mention anything about the production of motor fuels and how they get it from the ground, (or from under the sea floor…), to and through the refining process, and ultimately is delivered to your local gas station…
Rep. Mica chaired a hearing on high speed rail yesterday, “Developing True High-Speed Rail to the Northeast Corridor: Stop Sitting on Our Federal Assets.” The House Transportation & Infrastructure Website has links to all of the written testimony: http://transportation.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=1035
Developing True High-Speed Rail to the Northeast Corridor: Stop Sitting on Our Federal Assets
Grand Central Terminal, Northeast Balcony — New York, New York
January 27, 2011
Field hearing of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
Grand Central Terminal
Northeast Balcony
87 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10017
Background Information
Developing High-Speed Rail for Northeast Corridor Focus of Congressional Hearing
Statements of Chairman Mica & Chairman Shuster from Hearing on Northeast Corridor High-Speed Rail
Witness Testimonies
The Honorable Michael Bloomberg
The Honorable Ed Rendell
Mr. Thomas Hart
Ms. Petra Todorovich
Mr. Perry Offutt
Mr. Robert Scardelletti
YesonHSR Reply:
January 28th, 2011 at 8:14 am
I all for a new NEC ..but CAHSR is just as important and doable much faster and Mica needs at least 2 or 3 systems being built for true nationwide support funding to happen and thats what Obama is trying to jump start
Donk Reply:
January 28th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
This is great news. Mica is really serious and actually seems to understand the importance of HSR.
In reading over the documents, it was interesting to see that in the main document, in the history section it noted that “In October 2008, President Bush signed the Passenger Rail and Investment and Improvement Act…”, as if it was GW’s idea. This is ok with me, lets pretend that HSR was GW’s idea instead of Obama’s idea, and maybe we can get the Republicans on board.
Spokker Reply:
January 28th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
He understands the importance of HSR in the Northeast.
StevieB Reply:
January 28th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
I read recently a reason the Northeast Corridor did not receive recent high speed rail funding is that the have no environmental reports. A first step is building the reports and that will take several years. Upgrading the track between NY and DC to true high speed is a worthwhile project. When California demonstrates the ability of the country to build a profitable high speed system there will be a public outcry for northeast construction.
John Burrows Reply:
January 28th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
An indication that faster trains are attracting more passengers:
For Oct.-Dec 2010 ridership on the Acelas was 885,000– For Oct-Dec 2009 ridership was 806,000
The increase in ridership was nearly 10%. Increase in revenue was even more—nearly 13%.
For Oct-Dec 2010 ridership on the Northeast Regionals was 1.907,000—For Oct-Dec 2009 ridership on the regionals was 1,881,000–an increase of only 1.4%.
Systemwide— Amtrak ridership increased just under 6% over the previous year. An interesting
note: Ridership increase on Amtrak routes in California was less than the national increase.
Ben Reply:
January 29th, 2011 at 6:59 am
But we all know from the esteemed transportation expert, Glenn Beck, the Acela ridership numbers are fabricated by the liberal media. Nobody rides trains.
Regarding ridership in the Northeast corridor, however, one of the most interesting things is growth of intercity bus: http://las.depaul.edu/chaddick/docs/Docs/2010_Intercity_Bus_Study_12-29.pdf .
The Regional Plan Association also released a report this week calling for $15B in new runways and other infrastructure investment at Newark and JFK International Airports. The report also looked at the ability of high speed rail to handle some of the passenger demand to/from the New York region.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/nyregion/27airports.html
Donk Reply:
January 28th, 2011 at 11:31 pm
Well it was also because all of the states submitted ARRA applications for routes that were wholly within their states, not the more useful interstate routes. Like the route from NYC to Albany, Philly to Pittsburgh, etc.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 28th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
odd that they are having the hearing in Grand Central which Amtrak abandoned years ago…
Off topic and not for the first time:
I thought that a 4 track system up the Peninsula was a done deal, but according to the Menlo Park Patch—maybe not. I am not that knowledgeable about the current situation on the Peninsula in regard to track layout.
J. Wong Reply:
January 28th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Nothing is a done deal. The report says they are going to delay for a year the EIR for the Peninsula to study a 2 track option.
thatbruce Reply:
January 28th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Any train, any track, any platform might still have a chance ;)
MGimbel Reply:
January 28th, 2011 at 6:27 pm
I wonder how much money could be saved by proceeding with a four-track option?
J. Wong Reply:
January 28th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
Saved? The 2 track option is probably much cheaper. For example, the berm from Belmont through San Carlos would not require any (or much) work. Also, the grade separation ongoing for San Bruno.
Mica to Obama: “I’m the best cheerleader.”
http://www.redstate.com/tomtflorida/2011/01/26/john-mica-to-obama-on-hsr-im-the-best-cheerleader/
In other news, rail ridership, both on Amtrak and commuter services, rises–again (third item down):
http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/hotline/more/hotline_691/
Again, if this is happening with what some here have derided as “slow dinosaur trains,” what can we expect with a true high-speed service?
J. Wong Reply:
January 28th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
The reality is that air travel will never be enjoyable again (unless you can pay 1st class or business). The last 20 years were an anomaly. The only way the airlines were able to make it cheap and pleasant was by losing money and going out of business. Now the airlines keep prices down by making it uncomfortable and charging for everything.
Joe Reply:
January 28th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Airlines have finite, allotted gate space. They can use a gate to fly LAX to SFO or opt to use their gates for longer, more profitable flights.
HSR frees up gate space by off loading lower profit travel to rail and connecting airports to funnel travelers from rail to airports. Win-win.