House Transportation Committee Comes to California
UPDATE: Californians For High Speed Rail joined a coalition of HSR supporters to issue this statement making the case for HSR in both California and the Central Valley. Original post begins below:
Today and tomorrow the US House of Representatives Transportation Committee will be holding hearings in California, with an emphasis on high speed rail. Chairman John Mica of Florida has been taking a critical look at the California HSR project lately, and organizers as well as opponents are gathering to try and influence his thinking.
The first hearing is happening right now in Fresno (sorry for the delayed posting!) at the University of California Center, 550 E. Shaw Boulevard. Tomorrow’s hearing in Los Angeles will be at 8:30 AM at the Brentwood Theater on the campus of the Los Angeles Veterans Administration center right next to UCLA. Senator Barbara Boxer will be at the LA hearing as well.
Mica’s concern has been that the California HSR system won’t generate enough ridership to be worth funding. I think we all agree that the Fresno-Bakersfield segment alone won’t be a big ridership generator, but the purpose is to build the San Francisco to Los Angeles corridor, of which there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that it will fail to produce huge ridership numbers, as have similar HSR systems in Spain, France, Japan, and even the Northeastern United States (which as we know, has much slower speeds than what we are planning to build in California).
Speaking to a Fresno radio station this morning, Assemblymember Henry T. Perea defended the project:
In response to such criticisms, Perea says, “My hope is that we can keep High-Speed Rail on track, I mean, I certainly understand their concern in terms of the cost and the benefits, and I think that over time we’ll still have to deal with that, but to just outright stop it and kill it, I think is the wrong thing to do.”
Perea also criticized Central Valley Republican members of Congress who are calling for stealing the HSR money for inefficient and wasteful roads projects:
“I think what they are trying to do is pit two good projects against each other which is unfortunate.”
Fresno Congressman Jim Costa agreed:
Congressman Jim Costa, a Democrat from Fresno supports High Speed Rail and improving Highway 99, but points out High Speed Rail funds are for trains, not highways. “It is apples and oranges. That’s the point. This money is set aside for High Speed Rail, if state’s don’t want High Speed rail that’s their prerogative, as Ohio and Wisconsin chose not to do.”
I hope to have reports and updates from today’s hearing later in the afternoon. A large contingent of HSR supporters will be at tomorrow’s hearing in LA as well.
We’ll also have more this week on proposed state legislative action regarding high speed rail, including anti-HSR Senator Alan Lowenthal’s effort to change the composition of the California High Speed Rail Authority board.
Channel 30 11am news aired protesters shouting down those who enter the hearing carrying signs “the valley wants water not your dam train”. Yes dam, not damn, referring to the peripheral canal. There was also a pro rail rally.
John Mica is scheduled to speak on the KMJ Ray Appleton show about now.
StevieB Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 12:10 pm
John Mica on KMJ Morning News again and again mentioned Jeff Denham saying he was there at Denham’s invitation and would defer to Denham on California High Speed rail.
tony d. Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Did someone remind those protesters crying about water that Prop. 1A was passed by California voters in 08?
At the least they should have been told we live in a Democracy. (LOL)
Aaron Reply:
February 25th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Hi Roger,
I was at the event, and was one not in support of the HSR. We were not near the entrance, however we were on the side of the building. We were shouting with the members directed to be there by the Union workers, who by my estimation believe that HSR=work (specifically for them, as if they were given some guarantee). You might also want to follow some of the other articles out there that would seem to show that people there in support were essentially those consultants working on the project and union workers hoping to get jobs. I personally only saw maybe one member of true public support.
Second, when they say dam, you might make a better case if you said Temperance Flat. The Peripheral Canal is a system to shunt water around the delta, no dam needed.
Sorry my error. Mica already gave KMJ interview and not on this afternoon.
Looking forward to coverage of the event which presumably is essentially about the transportation bill.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 9:26 pm
Tomorrow with Boxer in Los Angeles lets see if things are little different… and hopefully the show will definitely keep mentioning high-speed rail and advancing the Los Angeles transportation projects much faster than 30 years.
O/T But more news from Florida: Get ready for the opposition to turn up the heat in California. No sooner than Sen Nelson and The USDOT are trying to make a deal for FLHSR, the usual suspects (Wendell Cox, Robert Poole) have started their propaganda machines again:
http://www.newgeography.com/content/002062-tampa-orlando-high-speed-rail-the-risk-local-taxpayers
for Wendell Cox’s view and
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2011/02/reason-foundation-scott-made-the-right-decision-on-high-speed-rail.html
for Robert Poole’s view on the new idea to create a local gov’t entity to go around Gov Scott. It appears our common ‘enemies’ for CA and FL HSR will never stop their outright lying!
maybe there’s something I’m missing. Congressman Mica doesn’t think the SF-LA ridership will be high enough? What would a Congressman from Florida know about projected ridership on a train in California?
The San Gabriel Valley Democratic Center will meet Wednesday, February 23 at 7 pm in the Community Room of the Covina Public Library.
This month, Genoveva Arellano from the California High Speed Rail Authority will join us to discuss the planning, design, and environmental efforts associated with the state’s future high speed rail system.
Was there an ample supply of pom poms?
YesonHSR Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 9:03 pm
IF they really want to impress all the big shot Republicans do what any good old boy network does take in the local gentleman’s club… that’s where they’ll get their pom-poms…
So what happened at the big meeting??
StevieB Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 7:04 pm
Mica was in Fresno to support Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Atwater, who is a rail opponent. “Fresno rail debate derailed at hearing” is a report by the Fresno Bee.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Of course he is.. let’s put it this way if Oberstar was still chair this meeting would be in San Francisco… at least they are going to be meeting in Los Angeles
Castle Expert Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 11:13 pm
For the record. I spoke with Congressman Denham this Monday one on one in a relaxed setting with no staff or anyone around him just me and the Congressman talking about High Speed Rail. These are his concerns from our 20 minute conversation.
First, the Congressman hates the authories business plan and in fact his concerns almost echo verbatim what CARRD has been saying about this project . He thinks the business model needs to be strenghtened and does not believe the current staff is up to the task.
(The congressman believes that any new project that is asking for this kind of money in this economy must be examined carefully) When Congressman Denham was a State Senator he was a big supporter of the much needed Damn project at Millerton and he said the business model on that bond money was far superior in quality than what has been turned in by the authority to date. He also thinks that for this to be a true stimulus project that the President needs to exempt it from CEQA and NEPA requirments because they will ultimately delay this project and will not in fact employee large numbers of people quickly which really is the purpose of stimuls dollars
His Second concern is his district is driven by AG and recently he was real excited about his friend Bill Lyons former secretary of AG for the state of California applying for a job with the authority. Lyons a democrat was to be brought on by the authority as their expert on AG issues, AG land values and possible mitigation measures. Mr. Lyons is a brillant person and is highly respected in the Ag community. Sadly, the Lyons appointment was handled so poorly by the authority staff that it really rattled alot of Ag folks and only further alienated them.
(My own personal opinion on Bill Lyons is he would have been an excellent spokesperson for the Authority and would have brought a lot of creditability to the process. The fact that authority staff went side-ways on this appointment is very troubling.)
Third, Congressman Denham is worried about the north valley being cut out all together in the project. He wants to see a useable segment being built in the valley and was troubled because he felt this FRA money from Florida might be spent elsewhere. In fact his amendment he put out was mainly due to cost overuns, poor business plan and the north valley being cut out.
So what made the congressman withdraw his amendment on stopping High Speed rail funding?
On February 16th in DC he was given the latest memo from Van Ark stating that Fresno to Bakersfield and Merced to Fresno were the authoritys top priority. The congressman believes that if the busniess plan is tightened up and the authority is in fact committed to using this FRA Florida money to build Fresno to Merced and now having a useable segment he will support the project.
He reiterated to me that in theory he supports the project but he has real concerns with the costs and the fact that he believes that economically that this country is in poor shape and needs to cut its spending not increase it. But like education and water issues which he supports he beleives this project if done correctly could really help diversify the economy of the central valley which is a good thing.
(Finally, my prospective on what I have read on this blog. To me the beauty of High Speed rail in theory is it really should be a bipartisan project because it has what I call the big five going for it. Jobs, clean air, new technology, connectivity, (liniking many parts of the state together quickly) and finally a continuous revenue stream. (For example when you build a freeway it does not generate revenue directly) Whereas this project like a hydroelectric damn generates revenue and the cost to build these projects is only going to increase as land becomes more scare in California.
What bothers me is all the Republican bashing on this site. Face it half this country is conservative and the Congress of the United States is now a conservative majority. I see way to much bashing of Conservative representatives on this blog. Let’s face this is a huge project with many warts but if in fact the state of California wants FRA money those who control the purse strings (Conservatives need to be heard). The venom coming from some of these posts about conservatives or tea-party folks is only causing more damage to this project and I worry that
High Speed Rail is now becoming a Red vs Blue issue which I feel could stop this project dead in its tracks.
There is nothing wrong with pointing out incongruencies or faulty logic by politicans but please do not act like one party is more enlightened than the other.
Finally Denham is a supporter of this project in theory but if the costs continue to escalate and the
StevieB Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 12:09 am
Denham has shown his lack of support for rail by calling for diversion of already allocated funds to State Road 99. He co-sponsored the bill and issued this statement:
Donk Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 7:49 am
Yeah, like SR-99 will be immune to cost overruns.
joesez Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:20 pm
And SR-99 repairs pays for themselves 100% in ridership fees….. Uh.
SR-99 improvements to road surface would save car owners repairs due to poor roads but HSR would save about 0.50 per mile driven by car.
Donk Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 7:52 am
Thanks for the update, and you make some good points. But I still don’t see how you can seriously, honestly argue that it is better for the state to go to Merced before SJ or LA. If you want to accomplish #4 and #5 on your list (connectivity and revenue), getting to SJ first is the obvious choice. You are obviously a YIMBY on this issue.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 10:56 am
Merced lies on the highest ridership, lowest cost, lowest risk, most readily phased (initial operating segment to Livermore BART), highest utility route between Fresno and the Bay Area.
Of course it makes sense to construct north towards that city rather than to waste billions of tax dollars to serve Los Banos.
Rick Rong Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 11:36 am
Los Banos is excluded from being a station location in Proposition 1 A:
Streets and Highways Code section 2704.09(d) says:
“The total number of stations to be served by high-speed trains for all of the corridors described in subdivision (b) of Section 2704.04 shall not exceed 24. There shall be no station between the Gilroy station and the Merced station.”
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_3001-3050/ab_3034_bill_20080826_chaptered.html
Elizabeth Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 1:15 pm
Doesn’t say anything about commuter trains stopping there…
joesez Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Prop 1A doesn’t say CA can’t build a zoo in Los Banos either but the topic is HSR and the funds used for the HSR project and infrastructure covered under the Environmental Impact Report.
There will be no station at Los Banos using the HSR Project’s funds or planning infrastructure.
Maybe CA wants to build a second project, commuter rail to Los Banos. Prop 1A wouldn’t stop that project but that new project would need an Environmental Impact Report and a project manager.
Phase II building HSR East to Gilroy. It connects to VTA/MST/SanBonito County Express and is on the doorstep of CA’s 2nd largest city. people will see the station as they sit in traffic backups on the 101/152 East exchange.
Elizabeth Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:54 pm
The reason the loophole matters is that the no los banos provision was a key part of negotiation f with the environnmental groups to get their support or at least their acquiescence as they all preferred Altamont for one reason or another. (http://iba.audubon.org/iba/viewSiteProfile.do?siteId=173&navSite=state) Development in Los Banos and the areas wet of the 5 along the 152 http://www.sacbee.com/2010/08/23/2976625/urban-sprawl-encroaching-on-borders.html are greatly feared as having a negative effect on the wetlands. Most of the projects proposed probably wouldn’t get off the ground without good train service into SV (They are to have high price points).
James Fujita Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:35 pm
it seems to me that as long as the “no HSR station in Los Banos” provision holds, and I think it will, Los Banos development is stuck in a Catch-22.
The state of California is not in the habit of building commuter rail to areas which are not already built up to some degree. But Los Banos can not grow (they can try, but it won’t succeed) without sufficient links to Silicon Valley.
Putting Caltrain’s financial problems aside for a moment, the much more obvious next expansion beyond Gilroy would be to the Salinas-Monterey-Santa Cruz area.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:17 pm
And there’s nothing to prevent a simple legislative vote to change it.
Just like there was nothing to prevent the inexplicably unindicted fraud-promoting criminals at VTA and MTC from, say, defunding a project approved by multiple popular votes (rail in the Dumbarton corridor) and instead funnelling billions of dollars directly into the pockets of their very, very, very special BARTy little pals at Parsons Brinckerhoff. Who, just so happen, astonishingly, to have such a strong interest in building rail lines through (but not stopping in, oh no, don’t ever do that!) Los Banos. Strange, no?
James Fujita Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:19 pm
Nothing to prevent it except for the exact same environmental groups who opposed putting a station in Los Banos in the first place. Who have strong connections with the Democratic-controlled legislature.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 6:52 pm
Whether a station gets built there is rather irrelevant. The developers (speculators) who own those parcels could care less.
What the developers do want is a new 6-lane interstate in that corridor. There have been Plans for a new highway going all the way back to the 1970s. Environmentalists (and budgets) have thwarted efforts to build it, but along comes the high-speed rail project. And wouldn’t you know it, the preferred HSR ROW is exactly the same as the proposed highway. What an incredible coincidence, eh?
James Fujita Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 7:21 pm
which would mean that they can’t build a 6 lane highway there, wouldn’t it?
also, it’s not a coincidence if that’s the best geological, topographical and geographic route through there.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 7:22 pm
Not really, the places to build broad sweeping curves for highways tend to be good places to build broad sweeping curves for railroads or vice versa.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 9:51 pm
No. The easiest place to build is to utilize an existing ROW. Instead of doing that, CHSRA decides to blast a whole new ROW, which just by coincidence is along a route bought up by speculators.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 10:19 pm
The mountain crossings can’t be done in an existing ROW anyway, regardless of whether the line goes through Altamont or Pacheco.
Rick Rong Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Presumably a different system could stop in Los Banos, so long as it wasn’t part of the HSR system funded from Prop 1 A bonds. As for Mlynarik’s comment, Prop 1 A would have to be amended by the voters, since it was approved by the voters, in order to make a major change.
Donk Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Fine, it is then a matter of your outlook of the project. If you believe we won’t be able to get the money to finish the job from LA to SJ, then getting it to Merced makes sense. But I am still optimistic that we can finish the job.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 8:53 am
Thank you Castle for that interesting report…. didn’t know you were so high up the food chain! I agree if there’s any money from Florida it should go to extending the line to Merced.. and at this point it’s the only logical choice .. there won’t be enough money from Florida to go very far south of Bakersfield better to put his money to use for a complete Valley segment Merced to Bakersfield. As far as the red blue issue its exactly the tea partiers that started to elevated this when it comes to high-speed rail You’re very correct this should be a totally bipartisan, and was a few years ago .. Of course, now it is a Obama wish list item to be attacked
YesonHSR Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 8:59 am
BTW I like his idea that the project should be exempt from CEQA and NEPA as he is correct spot on with those reasons
jimsf Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:02 pm
half the country is not conservative. Half the voters may be, but not the general population. The left of center and the more disenfranchised have a much lower turnout. That doesn’t make the country conservative as a whole. Don’t get it twisted and the tea party is a joke.
jimsf Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:07 pm
and further, only when conservatives start telling the truth and quit looking into the cameras while telling bold faced lies and engaging in destructive anti american demagoguery, then they will be taken seriously. The current state of right leaning politics in this country is a disgrace and they ought to be ashamed to show their faces in public let alone get up on tv to speak forked tongued lies and deceptions.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:34 pm
But their supporters like to be lied to. It then enables them to show how supportive they are, when they repeat the bold faced lie.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 6:18 pm
First, thanks so much for posting this. It is good to hear that Denham does not appear to be a vehement HSR opponent. Most HSR supporters want to see the plan be as strong as possible and the Authority to be as effective as possible. Denham won’t produce that by cutting off funding.
As to the issue of Republicans – I have been pretty careful about that issue. It is a fact that the Republican majority in the House is not friendly to high speed rail. Their continuing resolution defunds it entirely at the federal level. Denham, Devin Nunes, and Kevin McCarthy all voted for that CR.
They also signed their names to the proposal to take money from the HSR project and move it to Highway 99.
I welcome support from anyone who backs HSR, regardless of party. That being said, Republicans in Congress are not acting like friends to this project right now, and that includes the Central Valley Republican representatives. HSR supporters, no matter their partisan affiliation, have to confront the fact that Democratic members of Congress have been favorable to HSR and Republicans haven’t.
One solution is for Republicans to push back on those GOP members of Congress. That would help.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 8:34 pm
And we have Republicans on the board of CHSRA..and a former Governor that came around very strongly for HSR after the Prop1A passed.. If anything there are 2 Democrates(I will let you all guess) ! that are just as big a threat to HSR moving forward without delay.
JJJ Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Jerry, Mica said he wasnt interested in talking about rail. Apparently, it’s not surface transportation.
And arguing about water or farm land is the biggest red herring there is. Come to clovis and Ill give you a tour of all the under-construction subdivisions that used to be farms and will require a whole lot of water
YesonHSR Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 9:00 pm
Very true they seem to forget that little fact when they sell three or 4000 acres of the time for houses.. and I have never read anywhere on the authority website that 40,000 acres will be needed especially for this region.. I think even the one option that was total greenfield only needed like three or 4000 acres and that one was discarded… so once again more mistated facts printed in the media.
HSR supporters were on one side of the street and those against the project were on the other with some police presence. There were at least 5 different TV stations (or at least cameras) present. When I arrived around 7:55 AM there were about 30 or so of each. I went straight in – so I don’t know what happened outside between 8 and 9 – perhaps someone else can comment. I saw channel 30 and 47.
Inside, by the time the meeting started there were about 200 people seated and about 30 people standing along the back wall. Mr. Van Ark was there, as was Jeff Barker and several other folks from the HSR team. I didn’t see any board members.
Rod Diridon was a last minute addition to the panel.
Rep. Mica opened the meeting saying that it was a listening session to focus on the transportation bill and that he wanted to hear only constructive ideas for funding or how to improve things. He did not want to get “involved in the local food fight.” He also said that the comment period for hearing ideas would be for two weeks from today and that ideas could be sent to Rep. Schuster.
Rep. Mica made it clear that although Rep. Schuster is a freshman, he will be the point person for HSR matters and that hearings on HSR would be held at a later date. The focus would remain on the bill.
Unless there’s interest, I won’t go into each panel person’s suggestions. Overall, most everyone agreed that there is little money if any to work with and so the focus should be on upgrading existing infrastructure. Since this meeting was focused on the CV, I think everyone (except for Rod Diridon – and one other guy) talked about the importance of moving Ag goods from the CV onto trucks, freight lines and into the ports (specifically Oakland). For example, the guy from the Oakland ports talked about getting federal funding to have the ports open earlier and stay open later so trucks didn’t have to sit in traffic.
Diridon talked about the need for more money for transportation education (ie – things like Mineta), and also briefly mentioned that CA should be the model for HSR by having had a vote of the people and then putting up $9 billion in bonds with the Feds picking up most of the rest (I didn’t hear him mention private money).
There was one other guy that talked about something called “mitigation banking” which as you probably know is similar to the carbon credits idea. Rep. Schuster seemed very interested in this concept.
Another common theme was that NEPA was taking too long and costing too much. One official suggested changing the law so that, for example, if they had to do work within an already existing ROW, and the project was under $1million and it was a simple improvement (like adding a guard rail) that they should be exempt from NEPA to save time and money. The Representatives were interested in specific examples of NEPA being a problem and asked questions about how many cents on the dollar were roughly being spent on NEPA costs. All panel members were asked to please send their comments in writing (many turned them in on the spot).
HSR barely came up at all except at the end when Rep. Mica turned it over to Schuster who then picked 2 people from the audience to say something. One was a guy from a farm (I didn’t catch the name) who said that communications with the Authority have been awful and only by improving that was there any hope of even working together. Another farmer, Kole Upton, then spoke and echoed that communication has been terrible and that the Authority is simply not listening to the Ag concerns.
Finally, a woman from Fresno Works stood up and said she supported HSR because she believed that getting cars off the road would help trucks move around more easily. She then asked that everyone there today supporting HSR should stand up. From where I was sitting, it looked like roughly half the room stood – but most noticeable was that it was a sea of suits vs. those that were seated which were dressed a bit more casually.
Many people were discussing the Van Ark emails regarding the event and what a blow it was to the project. Apparently, Bryn Forhan, who wrote one of the emails, was reported to be a Fresno lobbyist in one media article. Instead, it turns out she is actually working directly for the Authority as the Outreach person for the environmental review process for the Merced to Bakersfield Area. Several folks I talked to were really upset about that….
Tomorrow, the same Representatives will be in LA with Barbara Boxer.
Nadia Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 7:30 pm
By the way, for those interested, the bottom of this article has the full text of the Van Ark emails including the distribution list: http://www.examiner.com/transportation-policy-in-san-francisco/california-high-speed-rail-consultants-for-high-speed-rail
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 7:59 pm
Round up the usual suspects.
To: Albrecht P. Engel (AECOM),
Alistair W. Baillie (IBI Group),
HEYM Andreas,
Anthony A. Hernandez (CH2M),
Antonio Perez (Talgo Inc.),
Armando Ramirez (AECOM),
Armin Kick (Siemens),
Beth Power (Caltrop),
Brian Gardner (Kiewit),
Brian Hausknecht (CH2M),
Cara Strom (HatchMott),
Charles Wochele (Alstom),
Clare Singleton (Skanska),
Dale Muellerleile (HDR Inc.),
Anthony Daniels (Parsons Brinkerhoff),
David L. Borger (STV Inc.),
Diego Diaz (SystraUsa),
Donald Phillips (Arup),
Eduardo Romo (Pro Intec),
Frank Guzzo (Siemens),
George L. Pla (Cordoba Corp),
George N. Dorshimer (LTK),
Harley L. Moore (LEA Elliot),
Jack Ybarra (Transmetrics),
James Hammer (Caltrop),
Jim Fea (Caltrop),
Joe Quigley (Alstom),
John A. Belvedere (CH2M),
John Bollier (StacyWitBeck),
John F. Barna (AECOM),
Jose Martinez (Cordoba Corp),
Juan Ortega (Pro Intec),
Larry E. Miller (GFNet),
Mark Ashley (TYLin),
Mike Aparicio (Skanska),
Nora Friend (Talgo),
Peter Cipolla (HatchMott),
Peter Gertler (HNTB),
Rick Peltz (GFNet),
Robert J Dietz (GFNet),
Robert M. Sergeant (Parsons),
Robert Schaevitz (URS Corp),
s. mayman,
Sabro Takeda (LTK),
Shinji Kobayashi (Sumitomo Corp),
Stephen Polechronis (Aecom),
Steve Schibuola (ibi group),
Steven Pearson (URS Corp),
Amy Brown,
andrew antwih,
Beau Biller,
Dominic F. DiMare,
Donna L. Lucas,
Emily Rusch,
kathleen Van Osten,
Mark Smith,
Mark Watts,
Michael Quigley,
Roxanne Miller,
Tim Cremins,
Tim Flanigan,
Tony Gonzalez,
Bena Chang,
Bill Frandsen,
Bill Knapp,
Dave Snyder,
Deanne Baker,
Gabriel Metcalf,
Gail Brydges,
Greg Garcia,
Grizelda (Cordoba Corp),
Jeff Morales,
Jen Labrado,
Jim Earp,
Jim Lazarus,
Jim Wunderman,
John Eddy (ARUP),
Joseph Cruz,
Kathy Ortiz,
Keith Dunn,
Kiana Buss,
Luis Iglesias,
Marty DeSollar,
Michael Cunningham,
Michael Lasko,
Nick Brand,
Noelle Mattock,
Obe J. Schrader,
Pedro Morillas,
Peter Skinner,
Pierre Mattot,
Richard Napier,
Robert M. Snoddy,
Rod Diridon,
Ron Hartje,
Russel Rudden,
Steven B. Falk,
Stuart Sunshine,
Tad Widby,
Todd Schultz
Alon Levy Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Other than the inclusion of people from Skanska, I don’t see any red flags. Is there any other problem with the distribution list?
Elizabeth Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 6:11 pm
The problem with the email is not the distribution list. The problems are van Ark and Bryn Forhan’s emails. Both are part of the environmental review team and organizing the pep rallies and drowning out naysayers seems inappropriate at the least and possibly in violation of CEQA.
Elizabeth Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 6:13 pm
Actually there is one problem with the distribution list. The guy from TY Lin is the oversight consultant for the project. Being part of the pro CA HSR lobbying effort and serving on the same board with PB seems in conflict with the task assigned to them.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 6:13 pm
Hearings held by the Federal government aren’t part of the CEQA process.
Elizabeth Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 6:21 pm
Exactly.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 10:00 pm
An individual serving on a government board is still permitted to lead private life, and participate in civic activities, so long as he speaks for himself.
Joe Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 10:17 pm
Conflict of interest refers to monetary conflicts. There are none between a HSR board member and advocating for HSR.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 8:52 pm
So I guess it is more than fine that the mayor of Burlingame and a city councilman whos paychecks are paid by the taxpayers can organize and show up at a anti-HRS rally and made derogatory comments about the project when the majority of the people in that town voted yes ?? Then don’t have to worry about people influencing this project do we?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 8:59 pm
That’s different. It’s okay if you are against HSR.
Elizabeth Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 9:06 pm
The big deal is that van Ark and Bryn Forhan are involved with the environmental review. The Authority is both the proponent and the decider. This is generally not the case with environmental review. When it does happen (a city wants to do a project), the people deciding are directly accountable to the voters.
The fewer inbuilt checks and balances, the further over the line is.
It becomes difficult for farmers and others to sit down with Ms. Forhan and van Ark and believe that they will take their concerns seriously, when rhetoric like drown out “negative contributers” is used. The labeling of anyone expressing doubts or not buying into current plan as a NIMBY, a naysayer or a negative contributer is a brilliant strategy. I love the alliteration. How long before the “I’m a negative, naysaying NIMBY” t-shirts go on sale?
YesonHSR Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 9:30 pm
Lets see … how about the placing of signs in stores up and down the street in Burlingame with the words” boondoggle” destroying the town etc. etc. and those are very those more than fine??
YesonHSR Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 9:39 pm
scratch.. very those..edit function please!
Clem Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 9:41 pm
Both the proponent and the decider… Nothing new there. The preparing agency is also the certifying agency. That’s how environmental review under NEPA/CEQA works, and if anybody considers that a conflict of interest, remember it’s not just a Bad Idea, it’s the Law!
The purpose of public outreach is nothing else than to strengthen an EIR/EIS to make it resistant to the inevitable (and fully intended, under the law) legal assault. The lawsuits are the explicit checks and balances of this process.
So, no big deal.
Elizabeth Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 9:59 pm
It is not always the case. Exhibit A: http://www.hsrupdates.com/news/details/FRAs-draft-EIS-could-delay-DesertXpress-project–611
morris brown Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 12:29 pm
The case Elizabeth notes above is different since the DesertXpress project is a private project not a government sponsored public project. It is like any private development wherein the developer does not certify the EIR, but a governmental agency (like a City) does.
The HSR project here is a government project and CEQA says the government agency will certify the EIR. Clem is right about this and indeed it is through the legal process that objections can be made.
However, CEQA assumes the governmental body will obey the law. In the case of the CHSRA, that has not always been the case.
They did not produce the mandated business plan before the Nov. 2008 election. The ballot header was written by the legislature and has now been declared illegal by the Calfironia appeals court, since it was not un-biased.
The current proposal of the project in the Central valley, violates AB-3034 / Prop 1A law in several ways.
The assumption that this governmental body will obey the law, is a very bad assumption. That may well be the best reason for the Lowenthal proposal to be approved, and the CHSRA be abolished.
Joe Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 10:24 pm
Governmental bodies obey the law. There is a separation of powers.
Projects like roads and etc happen all the time but HSR is somehow different.
NIMBYs sued the HSR EIR. If laws are broken, a citizen can sue in court. So sue.
Peter Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 10:41 pm
He did, remember? The judge told him to take a hike.
Elizabeth Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 10:03 pm
This kind of stuff is what leads to these: http://www.ci.chowchilla.ca.us/councilagendas/Council%20Reports/5.4%20-%2011.08.10%20agenda.pdf
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 6:25 am
Are any of the segments in a nepa/ceqa comment period? If not, then comment is moot.
Elizabeth Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 10:29 am
They are definitely in the middle of nepa/ ceqa process.
Clem Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 6:33 pm
They are definitely not in a comment period, although I’m not sure why it matters. That an agency would promote its work is hardly surprising, and I don’t think there’s any pretense under the law that the environmental review should be impartial. It just needs to be factual and complete enough to stand up in court.
Here’s an earlier article describing Kopp and his band of contractors having Martinis after Prop 1A passed. The outrage!!!
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 9:46 pm
It is a matter of perception, that is all. It appears worse if this were to occur during a comment period, because after all, they are suppose to be impartial or unbiased with regards to incoming comments.
Btw, CHSRA is the Lead Agency for the project with regards to nepa/ceqa. Just like any Lead Agency, yes, they plan the project, lead enviro review, and ultimately make the decisions. The have a Board of Director’s to assist them.
Clem Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Impartial and unbiased? Hardly. Just not too brazen in order to pass legal muster. EIR/EIS documents always “spin” the impacts either higher or lower based on what they want to build. There is nothing impartial about the process, except maybe the judge who shoots it down.
I believe the FRA is the lead agency for NEPA.
Peter Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 10:11 pm
All that matters for NEPA and CEQA is that the agency analyzes the issues and comes to a decison based on the evidence. NEPA and CEQA do not require that the BEST alternative is chosen, but the reasons for the decision have to be extensively analyzed.
As one of our guest speakers in my environmental protection law class stated, the agency knows in advance what it wants to build, and their analysis will do whatever it can reasonably do to justify the project it wants to build. They will do whatever they can to knock out the comments, but they do change the project if one of the comments make an excellent point.
Elizabeth Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 10:41 pm
My understanding is that NEPA does not require the best on, but CEQA does. It is an important distinction.
Peter Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 10:45 pm
CEQA requires the agency to do reasonable mitigation, that’s the big difference between CEQA and NEPA. CEQA is therefore referred to a NEPA with teeth.
The “best” option is always going to be the one that the agency chooses. They just need to have it analyzed and justified.
Peter Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 10:50 pm
Under CEQA, the agency is only allowed to build a project without mitigation if it files a Statement of Overriding Consideration, which details why it can’t mitigate certain environmental effects.
It still doesn’t force them to build a particular alternative.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Exactly. This is a clear double standard being made here. HSR opponents in elected government can organize to stack a meeting with their people, but the Authority apparently can’t. “It’s OK if you’re an HSR opponent.”
I’m sorry, that’s just bullshit.
HSR opponents are trying to stack the deck in their favor. They have no other choice, since the people of California have consistently rejected their extremist, selfish agenda.
Elizabeth Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 6:32 pm
Jo Linda, the lobbyist for the CA HSR contractors is free to stack a meeting. The people who will prepare the recommendations for the EIR need to be very careful in what they do and how they do.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 7:44 pm
I do not see how encouraging supporters to attend a meeting does anything to undermine an EIR recommendation. It is not as if the Authority is prevented from saying “we should build the project.” They exist to build the project California voters have already approved.
James Fujita Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 8:44 pm
right. Los Angeles Metro maintains mailing lists of people, any people and not just supporters, who might want to know about a project and attend EIR and other meetings, speak out or learn information. it’s just part of being a public agency
Clem Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 8:12 pm
Why?
How is the environmental clearance process, or its outcome, in any way prejudiced or remotely affected by agency advocacy, even of the astro-turfiest sort, by the very people who will certify that the EIR is good to go?
Spokker Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 10:20 pm
The issue is when articles start appearing about “behind the scenes maneuvering.” For every person who doesn’t think it’s a big deal, there’s one person who screams, “Corruption!” and some of those people will contact their own representatives about the perceived corruption.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 24th, 2011 at 6:08 am
How much experience do you really have in these matters? Honestly? If I were to estimate… You could be an idealistic grad student in a planning program.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 8:56 pm
In the Fresno paper it said 90percent… and talk about bad news over sensationalism.. that farmer states 40,000 acres of farmland will be taken for high speed rail.. !!first of all where does he get those numbers from and second of all there is 400,000 acres of farmland in Fresno County alone.. And the same farmers seem more than willing to sell the land to housing tract developers
Risenmessiah Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 9:28 pm
It should go without saying but:
Farmers, especially in CA own their water rights. If Uncle Roelef comes in and blasts your trees and barn to smithereens for HSR you get a check. What you lose is the right to play “Water Monopoly”, where you can gamble with your water rights and land to developers who errantly continue to convert farmland to homes thinking there’s an inexhaustible supply of the wet stuff. That’s why these guys are complaining. The Ag peoples want the leverage to make a good deal for themselves and for decades that’s never been a problem. Suddenly their magic isn’t working in Sacramento, and they are none too happy.
thatbruce Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 11:17 am
Wait, what? Are you saying that farmers who relinquish portions of their land for a HSR easement would also relinquish their water rights for that portion? If so, who would then get the water rights for that portion?
( I say ‘portion’ as it would obviously be ridiculous for the farmers to lose their water rights for their entire land when the HSR easement would only take a rather small portion, and in some cases, the HSR tracks would be above the farmer’s land, making the argument of ‘we will end up with tracts of land separated by an impassable barrier’ a tad moot. )
Risenmessiah Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 12:07 pm
I would think (not a lawyer speaking), that if the State uses an easement solely for the train and does not seize it outright, then the water rights stay intact. The issue here is that developers need water rights to build. If your family has grown a water intensive crop for generations, chances are you can convert that land into a subdivision with big houses that allow you to make a bunch of money, but also get fast-tracked through the permitting process because it’s also a lot of money for local jurisdictions. But if you have a loud bullet train whizzing through your property, the chance that said developer (unless they are really really desperate) will buy your land goes down.
Also, what makes the sale really lucrative is that the longer you have owned the land (the older the water rights are that go with it) the more of a ridiculously low price you are paying. So as you can imagine, that jacks up the price even more. Plus, if you then attempt just to sell the water rights for the displacement caused by the train, you can still make money, but only in the case of a developer coming up short on another project and needing more water to finish the job.
Arthur Dent Reply:
February 24th, 2011 at 12:29 am
“And the same farmers seem more than willing to sell the land to housing tract developers”
Are you making this up? The latest numbers from the USDA state that California’s farm acreage remained stable from 2009 to 2010. The only selling that occurred was to other farmers.
JJJ Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 9:07 pm
The farmer who spoke against HSR Manuel Cunha, president of the Nisei Farmers League.
He believe HSR is a plot by the chinese to destroy the farms so we have to import our food.
I’m dead serious.
http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/01/07/2222706/high-speed-rail-problems.html#storylink=misearch
It’s really convenient that he was selected to speak.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 9:32 pm
Half the stuff they grow is industrial crops for junk food or feedstock to stuff cows and pigs so they get fat off a diet that they’re not even supposed to eat that’s what makes them sick all the time so they need antibiotics.
Aaron Reply:
February 25th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Oh this one is Easy. YesonHSR if you are ever in the valley take a look around. We have one of the largest dairy concentrations that requires feed, but that milk goes to feed your kids with things such as milk, cheese, yogurt, etc. We also have a large concentration of walnuts, pistachios, almonds and pomegranates. A lot of your fresh fruits come from the east site of the valley like citrus, plums, peaches, nectarines and the ultimate body regulator….PRUNES! Oh not to mention we also have grains, cotton, and the awesome delight called figs. Oh man almost forgot all those favorites are also grown around here organically in some cases. You make comments like this and it really makes you look unappreciative of the effort and work that goes into all the food and products you use. Or maybe you are so pure you grow all your own food and produce all your own products. You ain’t perfect and your comments prove it.
James Fujita Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 1:04 pm
For the record, the “Nisei” Farmers League is a highly misleading title.
Nisei normally refers to second-generation Japanese Americans, although for events such as Nisei Week, the “second gen” part is ignored.
The Nisei Farmers League’s web site openly acknowledges that Japanese Americans of any generation are outnumbered in the league.
Plenty of Japanese Americans shop at Japanese grocery stores where they can buy imported food (although the most popular brands, such as Nissin ramen and Kikkoman shoyu, have factories in the U.S.)
It would be highly ironic for the Nisei Farmers League to speak out against Asians…. IF they were Nisei.
Risenmessiah Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 9:23 pm
Pennsylvania Republican and Chairman of the Railroads Subcommittee is not actually a freshman. He has been in the House for several years, but he inherited his seat from his dad who served there for decades I believe.
Nadia Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 6:40 am
My mistake – I meant Rep. Denham is a freshman! You’re right – I believe they said Schuster has been there and it took him 4 yrs (he’s in his 8th yr) to get on a committee while Rep. Dehnham got on in 4 weeks.
Risenmessiah Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 12:09 pm
So…does that mean that Mica was saying Denham will handle it HSR questions or Shuster?
Nadia Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Denham
StevieB Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 12:04 am
The two farmers were invited by Jeff Denham who received more than $1 million in contributions in his run for Congress, mostly from crop producers. Money buys influence in politics.
Here we go four dollar gas again in California. Last time it got this high we passed prop 1A. What will we get this time??
http://www.cnbc.com/id/41721766
Keep in mind this is March. How high will it be when Summer driving kicks in?
Spokker Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 8:07 pm
When the blitz to leave the car at home (or in the park and ride) happens again, drivers are going to find that the service is worse than it was in 2007 or simply not there anymore.
Spokker Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 8:08 pm
And this could actually backfire on HSR. Drivers may temporarily care about transit again, and they might determine that intercity rail should be canceled in favor of urban and suburban transit (commuter rail might see big support).
Ben Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 8:22 pm
I don’t get why it’s seen as urban rail vs. high speed rail. The answer is we need both– light rail/subways in urban areas and high speed rail connecting cities. For the GO(B)P it isn’t unnecessary $2 trillion Middle Eastern wars or massive tax cuts for the extremely wealthy. THey got both.
Spokker Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 8:29 pm
I’ll use my girlfriend as an example. She must commute to work every day, a distance of about 12 miles. She goes to San Francisco or San Diego about once a month for business. Getting her out of her car every single day is better than getting her out of a plane every month.
Orange County’s Centerline light rail system would have dropped her off 1 or 2 blocks from her current place of employment. I think that project and others like it are more important than high speed rail.
Spokker Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 8:31 pm
By the way, even though they widened I-5 to like 50 lanes, she still takes surface streets home! That’s how much she and others like her don’t want to drive anymore. The freeways don’t even work. High speed rail won’t do shit for that daily commute. Doesn’t mean it’s not important, but if they said we’re going to spend $53 billion on urban/suburban rail and bus projects instead, I’d take that deal in a second.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 9:05 pm
That is what is so lame about this country.. everything cost too much to do when it comes to investing in our transportation future why can’t we have high speed rail and good urban transit multiple go hand-in-hand together to decrease oil usage… of course I believe 114 billion set aside next year for the Afghanistan wars…. how forward thinking
Risenmessiah Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 9:36 pm
Asking the federal government to fix urban traffic patterns borders on the insane. The feds have almost no control over local urban planning that (big breath) plays a much larger role on traffic and congestion than freeway widening does or Centerline. Sacramento, could of course, preempt the cities and counties using a combination of statutory and constitutional mumbo-jumbo. But that’s not the point. Orange County has 3 million people in it. Los Angeles has another 10 million and there’s at least 2 million more in the Inland Empire. For a metropolis of 15 million, one has to think there isn’t all that much spent on urban or suburban rail compared to say….New York City, Chicago, London, Tokyo. It’s the hard, nasty, ugly truth but there has to be a local contribution to local problems and federal money for regional or statewide projects doesn’t count.
Spokker Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 10:03 pm
In Orange County, local money was and is being used to widen *Interstate* 5. Local money is being used to widen *state route* 57 and 91.
Federal and statewide projects created a local problem, and now the feds are nowhere to be seen. And local governments bend over and take it. Everybody has thrown the entire concept of user revenues paying for highway construction and maintenance out the window, yet bus and rail is an afterthought because “it won’t pay for itself.”
In order to mitigate the damage done to cities by highways, New Starts should be a much bigger program than it is.
Risenmessiah Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 10:51 pm
Eh-he-hem.
I don’t think the Feds told local authorities in Los Angel-eze and Orange County to pave over everything and to do it by empowering local cities to annex a bunch of land and use home impact fees and sales tax revenue to fund the sprawl’s ever marching growth.
It’s true that the federal “solution” to the sprawl engendered more problems…but it’s not like local government made a great case of its efficiency before things like Proposition 13….
Spokker Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:30 am
That 80/20 funding deal was far too good for the old white men in charge back then to pass up.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:51 am
Originally it was 90/10. My theory is that they had to do it to entice the yahoos to allow building through the hinterlands. Alternately the yahoos suckered the city people into paying for their infrastructure yet again.
Risenmessiah Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Still…the question should be asked? Do people who live in Orange County work in Orange County? If not, there’s going to be traffic. Lots of traffic.
Wad Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 9:06 pm
@Adirondacker, the city people craved highways like circus seals, too.
Wad Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 9:07 pm
@Risen: Yes, Orange is very much an urbanized county. Not only do many of its residents work within the county, but Orange County is a job magnet for L.A., Riverside and San Bernardino counties as well.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 24th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
The city people craved highways too … and went out and found a way to build them with minimal government subsidy – there’s toll roads all over the Northeast and Midwest that are still toll roads.
Joey Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 10:33 pm
It’s not a question of who’s doing the planning. It’s a question of where the money is going.
James Fujita Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 1:07 pm
if Orange County is doing the planning, Orange County’s money is going to go to highways.
James Fujita Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 12:19 am
The Center Line is dead. Light rail in Orange County is dead. And Orange County has nobody to blame but themselves.
Orange County is still stuck in “build more freeways” mode, but next door neighbor Los Angeles is moving forward with plenty of local rail projects.
Cal HSR is not responsible for Orange County’s mistakes.
Joey Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 8:30 pm
Yes, but if you’re looking at where people spend most of the time in their cars (where high gas prices will hit most and where most of the congestion is), it’s not in intercity travel, but in peoples’ daily commutes – that is, urban and suburban traffic. If you’re goal is to get people out of their cars, that’s where you should start (though this is by no means the only reason to build rail). Now, I agree that it shouldn’t be either or, but financial realities will often force us into a choice.
James Fujita Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 12:40 am
but airports do have an effect on local traffic. that’s why Los Angeles is working on not just extending the Green Line to LAX but the Crenshaw Line as well.
And also one reason why local rail transit advocates are considering a Valley-Westside-LAX rail line as well.
Because while a lot of 405 traffic is Valley to Westside or South Bay to Westside, a lot of it is also LAX traffic. (One individual person may only use LAX a few times a year, but there’s a lot of individual travelers using LAX every single day — just not always the same travelers, obviously)
High speed rail, by cutting back on the number of local flights, can be a local traffic fighter as well as an intercity travel option.
joe Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Nope, drivers are not going to kill HSR and give back the money.
Ben Reply:
February 22nd, 2011 at 8:13 pm
Jack, as I’ve said previously on this forum, the Glenn Beck disciples whole think high speed rail is a socialist plot and who think it the most patriotic thing to do to driving the largest SUV or truck they can will be whining the loudest when gas is $5 per gallon.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_jdgaGaDfeqE/RYGXhN6TyMI/AAAAAAAAADo/UkhqbQrbEqo/s1600-h/HummerCustomer.0.jpg
Donk Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 7:51 pm
Yeah, with gas back up to $100/barrel, maybe Gaddafi will be the savior of HSR and public transit in the U.S. If this keeps up, they will have to include HSR and public transit in the next transportation bill.
I personally saw only about 10 opponents and far more project supporters at the press conference/rally. A group of opponents and a subgroup of supporters began communicating with one another by shouting and some talking immediately following the short press conference (which I was suppose to speak at along with other folks). We we were confused why we couldn’t speak but some thought it was do to the shouting going on. Anyhow, am not saying there weren’t a balance of opponents/supporters at the time and location Nadia describes, but I personally saw no evidence throughout the entire press conference and the following rallying going on. Of course the headlines of the stories in the media are describing the event as a f*** protest, or spinning it in a very negative light, rather than what it primarily was – an organized rally to support the project with a small group of protesters. Whatever.
Nadia Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 6:45 am
I missed the press interviews beforehand that was outside and the press conference inside just after the event that was held in a smaller room.
Daniel, did you hear shouting or “talking” while you were inside the main room or once you went outside? I stayed inside the whole time and did not see any of that (everyone just swarmed Mica, Denham and Schuster once it was over since they hung around for about 15 min before going to the press conference? – it was loud – but not b/c of yelling….?)
John Ellis of the Fresno Bee estimated 60 supporters and about a dozen opponents demonstrating outside.
Aaron Reply:
February 25th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Yep, you are pretty much right on. Maybe a few more on the supporter side, all dressed up in suits and ties. Pretty impressive amount of salaries getting paid out on that side of the fence. Had to take a vacation day just to see this most expensive circus in town organized by the HSRA.
I don’t know if this has already been posted but, fox news has attacked high speed rail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJGrvoQ83-0
Spokker Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Anti-HSR rally in Tampa.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJj7nIgSRsY
James Fujita Reply:
February 23rd, 2011 at 5:35 pm
What, no Fred Phelps?