New Business Plan Will Be Released on November 1
Today California High Speed Rail Authority board chairman Tom Umberg announced that the new business plan will be released on November 1, a delay of two weeks beyond the original release date of October 14. The reason given was that Governor Jerry Brown’s new appointees, Dan Richard and Michael Rossi, needed more time to review the document. Here’s the full release text:
Board Chairman Tom Umberg today directed California High-Speed Rail Authority staff to postpone its planned release of the business plan until at least Nov. 1 to give Gov. Jerry Brown’s new appointees a chance to fully immerse themselves in the plan and offer their own feedback.
“The California High-Speed Rail Authority has put together an extensive business plan that comprehensively addresses the future of this project,” Umberg said. “At the same time, we have new appointees to the Board who weren’t able to be a part of its development. This postponement will provide them the necessary time to participate.”
Staff at the California High-Speed Rail Authority had originally set Oct. 14 as a working deadline, though it was not a requirement and does not otherwise affect the project’s schedule. But that was before the appointment of two new members to the Board – Dan Richard and Michael Rossi – by the Governor.
Additionally, Will Kempton, former director of the California Department of Transportation and a peer reviewer of the project, wrote in a letter dated Sept. 16 that “Very frankly, our experience with projects of this type has shown that patience and careful planning at the beginning always pay off in the end.”
“I look forward to having these extra two weeks to delve into the business plan – which numbers in the hundreds of pages – and take a close look at the funding, ridership and implementation information it presents,” Richard said. “Governor Brown, the Legislature and all Californians will be well-served by a plan that lays the foundation for the future of this sorely needed transportation option.”
The Nov. 1 publication of the plan will commence a 60-day public comment period, which includes public meetings to be scheduled in November and December.
This logic makes sense to me. A two week delay is not major, and it’s for a perfectly legitimate reason. Governor Brown is taking a closer look at the project, and he’s relying on his appointees to help him do so. The goal here should be to get the business plan right, rather than get it out on October 14.
Ultimately the real significance of the news is that Governor Brown is going to play a major role in how the business plan is shaped – and how HSR will develop going forward.
How is this not a Brown Act violation?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 4th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Brown only applies to city and county for starters. Why would document review trigger it anyhow?
Drunk Engineer Reply:
October 4th, 2011 at 9:14 pm
Normally the public receives meeting materials the same time as Commissioners. If a Majority (or quorum) are discussing this with staff sequentially, that is not permitted.
And yes, should have said “Bagley-Keene Act”, not Brown Act.
peninsula Reply:
October 4th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
You are CORRECT!
From California State publication: “A HANDY GUIDE TO THE BAGLEY-KEENE OPEN MEETING ACT 2004
http://ag.ca.gov/publications/bagleykeene2004_ada.pdf
“WHAT IS A MEETING?
The issue of what constitutes a meeting is one of the more troublesome and controversial issues under the Act. A meeting occurs when a quorum of a body convenes, either serially or all together, in one place, to address issues under the body’s jurisdiction. (§ 11122.5.) Obviously, a meeting would include a gathering where members were debating issues or voting on them. BUT A MEETING ALSO INCLUDES SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE BODY IS MERELY RECEIVING INFORMATION. To the extent that a body receives information under circumstances where the public is deprived of the opportunity to monitor the information provided, and either agree with it or challenge it, the open-meeting process is deficient.
Typically, issues concerning the definition of a meeting arise in the context of informal gatherings such as study sessions or pre-meeting get-togethers. The study session historically arises from the body’s desire to study a subject prior to its placement on the body’s agenda. However, if a quorum is involved, the study session should be treated as a meeting under the Act. With respect to pre-meeting briefings, this office opined that staff briefings of the city council a half hour before the noticed city council meeting to discuss the items that would appear on the council’s meeting agenda were themselves meetings subject to open meeting laws.2 To the extent that a briefing is desirable, this office recommends that the executive officer prepare a briefing paper which would then be available to the members of the body, as well as, to the public.”
joe Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 2:06 am
Hmmm. I think you’re need to read it again.
Gov says individual members, new ones, need more time to read and prepare prior to placing an item on the CAHSRA agenda. If they don’t meet (as defined) and form a quorum, it’s allowed.
The public is NOT “deprived of the opportunity to monitor the information provided, and either agree with it or challenge it…”. The “information” provided to the Board for comment will be sent out for public review and comment.
Peter Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:13 am
Correct. If they aren’t “meeting”, or communicating with one another, the Act doesn’t apply.
Here, if they are separately reviewing the document and speaking with their staff, the Act doesn’t apply.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 8:53 am
That could be interpreted as conducting a series of one-on-one meetings to develop a consensus — not allowed under Open Meeting Laws. Open Meeting laws generally require documents to be made public without delay if being reviewed by a majority of Board Members.
Peter Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 9:00 am
Bullshit. If the board members aren’t discussing the document between one another, IT’S NOT A MEETING. This isn’t rocket science.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 9:13 am
Peter,
They don’t have to talk among each other if Staff is serving as intermediary. Open Meeting laws do not allow that.
As someone who has served on Commissions, I can tell you it is frustrating to develop a Plan that way, but I think the law is really unambiguous on this.
Peter Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 9:17 am
Where did I state that staff was serving as an intermediary? If each Board member only speaks with his or her their respective staff, and the staff is not shuttling messages, how is that a meeting?
Peter Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 9:24 am
http://ag.ca.gov/publications/bagleykeene2004_ada.pdf
The relevant part starts on page 5.
Peter Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 9:30 am
I think our disagreement is related to whose staff we’re talking about. If the board members have no staff of their own, which I guess they may not, then I can see your point about staff.
Nonetheless, if they are not talking to one another directly or through intermediaries (such as staff), there is no “meeting” if all the board members are doing is reviewing a document on their own, separately.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Peter,
There is actually a specific prohibition on what are called serial meetings – where there is a one on one with each board member.
There was a court case a couple of years ago that seemed to limit the prohibition to just cases where a board made a decision but then laws were passed for both Brown Act (local govt) and Bagley-Keene that made the prohibition much more inclusive.
Eng AB1451
“A majority of the members of a state body shall not, outside of
a meeting authorized by this chapter, use a series of communications of any
kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action
on any item of business that is within the subject matter of the state body.”
California is very serious about open government.
That said, whether or not what is going on is a violation would depend on the details. How many board members, are one board member’s comments being given to another etc.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
What are they discussing, deliberating or taking action on?
Peter Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Elizabeth,
Yes, I’m very well aware of the prohibition against “serial meetings”. And, as you said, “whether or not what is going on is a violation would depend on the details.”
Other than Board members getting to see a document before the public gets to see it, there is not a shred of indication that a) any Board members are directly communicating with one another on the issue, b) any Board members are indirectly communicating with one another via intermediaries, or c) any serial meetings have taken place.
SO WHY THE HELL ARE PEOPLE HERE CLAIMING THAT THE BOARD IS VIOLATING THE BAGLEY-KEENE ACT!?!?!?!
peninsula Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 10:07 am
How many of the board members will be receiving advance copy of the document?
And in terms of ‘not discussing with anyone’ – The Chairman Tom Umberg says in the above quoted article,
“to give Gov. Jerry Brown’s new appointees a chance to fully immerse themselves in the plan and offer their own feedback”
So they will study the plan and offer their own feedback. IN other words, they do intend to discuss internally with someone during that two week period (or they’re going to give their feedback to whom – their cats?)
Peter Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 10:25 am
If you weren’t obsessed with conspiracy theories about this project, you would see that “offer their own feedback”, in these circumstances, means that they will be able to offer their own feedback at the next board meeting.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 4th, 2011 at 11:09 pm
So they aren’t allowed to receive a document for review before it is published? That seems rather odd,or perhaps I’m just missing something.
Oh goodie, now the “there’s no business plan” rhetoric will turn into “the state cooked the books”.
I can’t wait. I’m sure the press releases from the standard people were written months ago.
Roger Christensen Reply:
October 4th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
Indeed.
Dan Walters: With more revenue unlikely, California risks becoming America’s Greece
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_19041105
Near the end he writes:
“We should put the high-speed rail project on hold, since it would consume nearly $10 billion in bonds and lacks a credible financing plan, rewrite and perhaps suspend a pending water bond issue, and sell bonds only for emergencies.”
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 4th, 2011 at 10:14 pm
Morris, I’ve asked twice already–what would be your options to the problems we have with the status quo, which includes idiot drivers, oil dependency, congestion, etc.?
Come on, you must have something to say, something that would make us look like idiots. . .but you stay shy or something. Why?
peninsula Reply:
October 4th, 2011 at 10:54 pm
Lubic – for a “mature” guy you sure are using some pretty childish (are you smarter than a 12 year old) logic – that criticism of an idea is invalidated simply by the fact that he can’t or wont give you an alternative for that idea? How does Morris coming up with an option make CHSR any better or worse of an idea? Or his criticism any more or less valid? It doesn’t. All your childish badgering is doing is making you look like a twerp.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 4th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
Pen, I was always taught that if you didn’t like an idea, you should also be willing to offer an alternative, not just say something stank. Now, I see a lot of troubles with the status quo–and a lot of other people do, too. HSR isn’t a cure-all, but it is part of what we may need to do in dealing with peak oil and all that other nasty stuff that is connected with it and an overdependence on cars.
And by the way, others here have argued that local transit (i.e., light rail, commuter trains, etc., even bus service) is important, too, perhaps even more important than HSR (most auto trips are local in nature)–yet I have seen the same arguments, sometimes exactly the same wording, used to say we couldn’t or shouldn’t provide these other services.
Seeing exactly the same wording, almost as if someone were using a copy machine, from places all around the country, and not addressing the problems, or even saying the problems don’t exist, well, that tends to make me think the opposition has no alternative. . .and that there is none. . .and frankly, that frightens me.
I don’t know about you, but I’ve been following the oil situation for almost 40 years, ever since the first oil embargo of 1973. This rail business you’re going through now, and other things, too, should have been settled decades ago–but we’ve been trapped with cars all that time. We need to change our whole way of living, not to be like Europe, but to be a modern America that incorporates the best of the old America.
I know you’re worried about the money situation, but we can’t afford the current America.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 4th, 2011 at 11:40 pm
we can’t afford the current America.
Sure we could. Just go back to the taxes,exemptions, deductions etc. that were voted on in a bipartisan fashion, passed and signed into law by that radical socialist Ronald Reagan, in 1986.
Nathanael Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 8:19 am
Lubic means we can’t afford the oil dependency. And he’s right. But it would be *really simple* to get off of oil and have the rest of our standard of living back like it was in the 1980s, as you say. Renewable energy is making leaps and bounds.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 8:31 am
Err, no it wouldn’t be very simple at all. Renewable energy does jack when it comes to oil usage (which is predominately transportation) and it will never compete well with coal, hydro, or nuclear when it comes to base load electrical power.
TomW Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 10:09 am
Hydro *is* renewable.
Hydro provides base load electrical power in many places.
Therefore renewables can and do provide base load electrical power.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 10:34 am
Hydroelectric is not considered renewable by California renewable electricity mandates.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Most environmentalists separate hydro from solar and wind because it has higher environmental footprint, since it disrupts river ecosystems and often requires flooding large areas.
Derek Reply:
October 4th, 2011 at 11:12 pm
Shouldn’t we wait until the business plan has been released before putting the project on hold?
synonymouse Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 12:05 am
I don’t think California is America’s Greece, rather Venezuela but with nowhere nearly so much oil. Obviously neither Brown nor Pelosi has anything close to the charisma expected of a proper maximum leader. Who has the cojones to become our Hugo?
Nathanael Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 8:18 am
Good grief. If we’re going to use any foreign analogy, California is America’s *Spain*. (I could go into that in detail if you want; housing bubble, pressure from outside to have bad austerity policies, but nothing actually wrong…)
ericmarseille Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 12:46 am
Morris, it’s by being bold that America got out of the great depression.
Unless you want to give still more of your hard-earned money to muslim fat cats and terrorists.
Your move.
Peter Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 8:22 am
If by “bold” you mean “engaged in the largest war in history”. Now THAT was a stimulus-and-a-half.
morris brown Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 11:51 am
@Peter
Well wonderful that you understand this bit of history, which Robert wants to re-write. WWII was what pulled us out of the depression, not relatively short time infra-structure and other stimulus packages.
I suggest that “ericmarseille” do some research to confirm.
Peter Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
That doesn’t mean that World War II wasn’t stimulus. In fact, it was economic stimulus on steroids, employing millions.
While we don’t need a war though for that sort of economic stimulus effect, we do need to think big, not small and then pull back because the stimulus didn’t do much (because it was so small). Then we screw ourselves all over again, wiping out what little gains we could make. Hooverism lives.
synonymouse Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
World War II took a huge number of unemployed out of the picture by putting them in the military.
Stimulus schemes are unproven in the contemporary context. Especially ones that, amongst other things, cost a fortune, give a significant amount of the funds budgeted to overseas companies, build poorly conceived projects that will be underutilized and require subsidies for which there is no money, and employ mostly a relatively small number of highly trained and paid union heavy equipment operators.
Better off with using the money for unemployment benefits and social spending. At least it gets down to the underclass and is spent right away.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Took a lot of 4Fs and women and put them to work too. We could fire bomb Dresden again or we could put the people who would be building the planes and the bombs to work building something useful. Instead of running the cement plants and quarries full tilt so we can build machine gun bunkers up and down the coast we could use the concrete for railroad ties. Or stations. Instead of running the steel mills at capacity so we can build aircraft carriers we could roll rail and rebar out of it. Instead of building tanks we could build trolley cars, commuter cars and HSR cars.
Peter Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
And those things would actually have a point. Instead of being blown up or junked a few years later.
Jerry Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
The “stimulus” of the Hoover Dam is still at work today.
synonymouse Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
It would be instructive to make a comparison of the actual numbers of workers at the Hoover Dam vs. how many would be employed at a similar project today.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
Looking at how Hoover/Boulder Dam was built, it would still call for a lot of people. It’s not like bulldozers, power shovels, and dynamite were unavailable in the Depression era. There was also the matter of properly cooling the concrete as it set (and this dam has a lot), and the work of the plumbers and cooling system men would still be there, along with the electricians, both for power generating equipment installation, and all the temporary power and plumbing work you need in a project like this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam
http://www.riverlakes.com/hoover_dam_info.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8882981936910776035
An important question, raised by George Will (naturally)–Would we build this today, or stay away from it for environmental concerns?
An important consideration from a long-term view, at least for me, would be that the huge lake behind that dam will eventually silt up, and there will be no reservoir. Does this alone make hydro power a less than ideal choice?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
The water is still going to fall.
From Wikipedia: Together, Niagara’s generating stations can produce about 4.4 gigawatts of power.
There aren’t any dams.
James in PA Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 8:12 pm
The dam allows the water flow to be averaged out over 12 months. They still have to manage the flow rate with the seasonal rain in the catch basin.
And besides, Niagara does have a ‘dam’. It is called the Great Lakes. Many times more water than the Colorado just looking at volume and catch basin and rainfall.
Andre Peretti Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
Which would prove that big government can take a country out of a recession while market forces can’t. With the country being at war the government took command of the economy and directed it to the war effort. The money that was nowhere to be found suddenly surfaced and was put to good use. After the war, President Eisenhower was wise enough to invoke national defense for building the Interstate. No NIMBYs, no “road to nowhere” objections. It had to be built, and it was.
It’s a pity HSR can’t be made a national defense priority.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
It is, well proven on Sept. 12th and 13th of 2001.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
My city would’ve been a lot more pleasant if he hadn’t. So would most other non-Sunbelt American cities, with a few exceptions like New York, which destroyed itself to make room for freeways all on its own initiative.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 10:43 pm
New York was ahead of the curve. Other cities, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, were busy carving expressways through themselves. Los Angeles was doing quite a good job too. So did Northern California. The double decked Nimitz, the one that collapsed in the Loma Prieta earthquake, opened in 1957. I-95 in some shape or form would have eventually been completed, probably as a toll road but it would have been completed, as far south as Washington DC.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:07 am
Not Providence or New Haven – most of their freeways were built under the Interstate program or preceded it by a very small number of years (e.g. the Turnpike began construction in 1954, and the Olneyville Bypass in 1953), when the feds were already trying to figure how to build the national system.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:54 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilbur_Cross_Parkway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_Street_Connector
The Junior Leaguers who had stopped the widening of Post Road used that experience to get the Merrti pushed out into rural areas. They used those skills to delay the Connecticut Turnpike. I’m sure Providence had great plans but since they aren’t a suburb of New York or Boston they didn’t have the money to ram highways through downtown as fast as they would have liked to.
What’s now I-80 through New Jersey and Pennsylvania was going to Turnpike until the Feds dropped 90% match on them. The Northway/!-87 was supposed to be Thruway to Montreal. Rhode Island would have figured something out with tolls. Especially after they saw what Delaware was gouging people for…
Andre Peretti Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 3:53 am
“Dan Walters: With more revenue unlikely, California risks becoming America’s Greece”
2010 figures (percentage of GDP):
- Greece: deficit: 12.7. Debt: 112.6
- California: deficit: 4, Debt: 18,94
Elizabeth Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 11:25 am
It is tempting but you can’t compare figures like this for a national government to a regional government.
A national government gets to do the big taxation (20-50% of GDP) and can sustain commensurately higher levels of debt than a regional government (0-10%).
If you want to go apples to apples, figures should be compared vis a vis budgets. In countries/ regions where the % of GDP going to taxes is low, you might be able to push up debt and taxes. In countries/ regions where taxes are already high, there is little room to maneuver.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 11:28 am
If people are interested, here is a list of GO bonds:
http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/bonds/debt/201109/authorized.pdf
There are some various other debt obligations but these are the majority.
Peter Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
My fave is the Economic Recovery Bond Act. Borrowing money long-term because the State can’t pull its head out of its ass to produce a real balanced budget is great fiscal policy.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 2:51 pm
What you say about the big taxation is true, but not what you say about higher levels of debt. A national government with a sovereign currency can indeed run larger deficits in a depressed economy and still pay low bond rates (e.g. the US), but a national government without a sovereign currency is at serious risk of default if it runs 10% deficits.
RisenMessiah Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
…don’t forget a national government with a reserve currency that can run 20% deficits and still walk on water….
Andre Peretti Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 6:34 pm
There is no region comparable to California which is world 8th economy.
When comparing two entities’ ability to repay debts you also have to take account of their assets, and California’s are far higher. Greece’s economy is strangled by the Euro’s high exchange rate which is based on stronger economies, notably Germany. It is totally dependent on loans from the EU, especially French banks which are its main creditors. Compared to its real economy its debt is really huge. That can’t be said of California.
joe Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
It’s laughable.
Look at the interest rate Greece Gov has to offer to sell their debt.
Greece offered 2 year bonds at 26-27% as of July 2011. The current rate is here http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/GGGB10YR:IND
The comparison of CA to Greece is pure propaganda for fiscal morons.
Andre Peretti Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 4:06 am
French and German governments are currently trying to persuade banks to write down the Greek loans by 50%. More and more economists think even half of face value is too high for Greece to pay and the loans will have to be written off, not down. Several French and German banks already have serious problems with their Greek bonds. As they are too big to fail, French and German taxpayers will eventually have to pay the bill.
Nathanael Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 8:21 am
Dan Walters is proving himself to be a dishonest hack again. Greece is a unique case, as Krugman has pointed out, having essentially defrauded its way into the eurozone.
If you want to compare California to a European country, try Spain — doing just fine apart from a housing bubble (with a budget surplus and a booming economy) until the recession and “austerity” policies imposed from outside (the EU / the federal government)….
Alon Levy Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 9:20 am
There’s one big difference: California has been a large tax donor, while Spain is either tax-neutral or a small net recipient, I forget which.
Eric M Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 10:35 am
True. If we kept all tax revenue withing the state, California wouldn’t be having as many problems.
Andre Peretti Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Spain is a net recipient.
Among the big countries, the net contributors are:
1) Germany – 2) France – 3) Italy – 4) UK
The UK contributes less than Italy although its GDP is roughly equal to France’s.
This is due to the British rebate also mockingly called the “Thatcher cheque”.
When Britain was “the sick man of Europe”, Margaret Thatcher obtained special conditions for her country: if the EU aid to British projects was inferior to its contribution, the difference had to be paid back to the British Treasury.
This arrangement is increasingly impopular but it has never been rescinded.
Britain has always been a special EU member: one foot in, one foot out.
Joe Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 11:48 am
If we are a bad risk then the market will demand a high rate of return. Sadly for the hysterical anti-government shills, investors are not asking high rate of returns for our supposedly horrible Grecian debt.
CA is not having problems selling bonds.
synonymouse Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Spain is a poor analogy. When did California get or will get a King and Caudillo?
Pelosi-world will necessarily evolve into Hugo Chavez-world.
Peter Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
I think this is one of your weirder delusions, and that’s saying something.
synonymouse Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
There a number of pundits, notably on CNBC, that have predicted we have an Hugo Chavez in our future.
Dictatorial powers will be required to keep the welfare state going when funds run out.
Peter Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
I knew there was a reason why I don’t watch network news…
Alon Levy Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
CNBC… that would be the network that called people with underwater mortgages losers, right?
RisenMessiah Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
The network who had an analyst call people with underwater mortgages losers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp-Jw-5Kx8k
joe Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
CNBC is probably behind the Miniature Golf Channel in viewership.
Our current president is an Islam-O-Fascist. Calling a future Dem President a Hugo Chavez Dictator is on par with what they called F.D Roosevelt, that is to say it is a moderation of what is being said now.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
I have a strange brain. Someone says one thing, or I think of something, and something else comes up.
In this case, it’s a story about the legendarily peppery Harry S. Truman. This was when he was in his second term as president, and supposedly he was drafting some official letter in which he described a foreign diplomat as “a pile of horse manure.” This upset some people in the State Department; the professional diplomats wished the president to be a bit more diplomatic. Somebody thought about talking to Bess Truman. After all, didn’t the president call her “the boss?”
Some people from the State Department approached Mrs. Truman about having her husband tone down some of his commentary, in particular the “horse manure” remark.
“Oh, my,” Mrs. Truman responded. “Do you know how many years it has taken me to get him to tone things down to that?”
I don’t buy the excuse for the delay either. What value is there in having these two appointees “review” the documents? If they find anything they don’t agree with, are they actually going to make any changes to the document? When did their appointments start? How did they not have time to read this document? It seems pretty fucking stupid to me that they would not publish the business plan by October 10th, unless they had a really good reason to delay it.
peninsula Reply:
October 4th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
Donk, I wouldn’t worry about it at this point – its well past the deadline already. The plan would have had to have been APPROVED by the board prior to submission to the legislature, and its well past the timeline to first present it in a board meeting, give time for public vetting (30-60 days?), and schedule a board vote at a subsequent meeting. They needed to have approved it by 10/10. Too late.
The encouraging thing now is that the new board members clearly are not willing to put their names on the same kind of junk that CHSRA board has been willing to rubber stamp in the past, which would disgrace their own professional reputations would they have had to have approved it. Its clearly not good news, and the big boys are expected to add some value here.
Peter Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:10 am
I’m amused how you and Morris both seem to think that this is somehow an ominous thing. We had an inkling that the business plan wasn’t going to be out on time (since they had trouble finding a company to prepare it for them). But now proof of the delay is somehow the end of the world and a harbinger of darker things?
Joe Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 11:52 am
Or their Stoner reasoning.
If the Board is violating the law, then they may be violating the law. who knows man? Maybe they are forming a consensus via their staff. Dude, it is totally possible.
RisenMessiah Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
Well Donk,
Consider that November 1st is right before the next Board meeting and there could be a desire to not have opposition know what is going to be voted on so that they can’t mobilize.
As far as what might be so explosive? I’m guessing it’s some sort of realignment strategy whereby the state recoups the Local Transportation Fund sales tax money to use as leverage for a state infrastructure bank. That would allow private parties/someone/who knows to borrow money very cheaply. The Feds would still chip in some money, and so would local governments.
OT: An Op-Ed from LA County Supervisor Antonovich
HIGH SPEED RAIL FUNDS: A MORE REALISTIC OPTION THAN THE “TRAIN TO NOWHERE”
http://www.flashreport.org/featured-columns-library0b.php?faID=2011100408313863
“But a high speed rail network can be built using less money, in less time, and with greater economic and employment benefits for the 60 percent of Californians who reside in the state’s southern counties.
Under federal stimulus guidelines, the Federal Rail Administration defines “high speed rail” as “intercity rail passenger service that is reasonably expected to reach speeds of at least 110 miles per hour.” It is possible to upgrade the extensive, existing Metrolink/Amtrak rail system – which already serves over a million riders each month and stretches from Lancaster to San Diego and Ventura County to San Bernardino – to a 110-mile-per-hour network instead of attempting to replace it with a less feasible, budget-breaking 220 mile-per-hour system.
Practical, pragmatic and fiscally prudent upgrades to our existing rail network, including track straightening, double tracking, grade separations, new run-through tracks at L.A.’s Union Station, upgraded locomotives, and positive train control must be given priority. These projects would cost considerably less than a Central Valley test track, provide immediate benefit to current riders and attract millions more. This proposal to upgrade systems and make use of already owned-right-of-ways would also protect communities facing the loss of homes, schools, businesses and farms under HSRA’s current designs demanded by Proposition A’s rigid speed and travel time requirements. Even more importantly, investing in upgrades would also immediately create thousands of jobs throughout Southern California.
I initiated this progressive motion, which the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Southern California Association of Governments, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, and officials from across our region enthusiastically approved, recognizing it as a sensible, cost-effective and community-responsive alternative to crisis.
We must upgrade our Metrolink system, which already carries one million riders monthly. Doing so, we will connect all parts of Southern California to one other at speeds impossible to achieve today. But the state and federal government is blocking our way. It is critical to write to our President, Governor Brown, and state and federal representatives to ask that the federal stimulus bill and Proposition 1A be amended to allow Californians to use their money as they best can for this alternate but realistic approach to high speed rail. “
Peter Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 7:38 am
Soooooo, in other words, he wants the State and the Feds to pay to upgrade Metrolink? With funds that were intended to benefit more than just one region?
I can see that going REAL far in Congress and the Legislature.
morris brown Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 7:58 am
This might be ok with the Federal government, but it certainly is completely at odds with the requirements built into Prop 1A. Of course, what is now planned for the Central valley — Initial Construction Segment (ICS) is at odds with Prop 1A also.
Peter Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 8:01 am
The Feds WANTED construction to start in the CV. How would they be cool with this?
morris brown Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 8:16 am
@Peter
The feds want a project out here. They would take it anywhere out here. They have had their noses rubbed the dust by Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Those states were smart enough to not get caught taking funds and finding their state was going to be on the hook for much more funding, which they could not afford.
The whole “wonderful” High Speed Rail initiative that the DOT has been trumpeting is going down in flames. They really got their nose bloodied with the “Train to Nowhere” label, and they are still trying to escape from that.
Peter Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 8:20 am
I’m talking about when the Authority suggested to start building between LA-Anaheim, SF-SJ, or Merced and Bakersfield. The Feds said they wanted construction with the federal funds to start between Merced and Bakersfield.
That attitude may have changed since, but I haven’t heard anything to that end, except right here from you.
morris brown Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 8:39 am
@Peter
Their attitude certainly hasn’t changed. There is a strong letter from Szabo stating that the funds are for the Central valley. This was in response to some “back door” efforts by those in Palo
Alto to see if funds couldn’t be diverted to CalTrain.
The Central Valley isn’t the Feds plan, it is vanArk’s plan. They just want a project out here, good bad or otherwise.
What is going on now, is the intervention of the Governor. Until we see what his intentions will be, all is in a state of flux.
Peter Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 8:42 am
So, I’m really confused as to what “This might be ok with the Federal government” means.
Joe Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
DOT chief LaHood met face to face with Gov Brown to discuss their mutual support for HSR.
I doubt diverting money to the LA County Supervisor’s awesome rail plans was part of the discussion.
Donk Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 8:24 am
Antonovich is a clown. He and Gloria Molina are the most provincial and irrational of the LA County Supervisors (Molina is worse). They are against anything in LA County that isn’t in their region, even if it benefits their region indirectly. Antonovich was against the subway project until they agreed to fast track the Gold Line Foothill extension (hmmm, which one is more important?).
While his argument makes a lot of sense, he obviously is clueless about the requirements of Prop 1A. You would think he would have done his homework first.
Joe Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 11:58 am
He’s smoking the same weed drunk engineer and peninsula scored.
Hey man, it’s ALL high speed, yah know what I mean? That’s what they don’t want ya to know. Like if I ran a train fast, I could score some major cabbage. I got all these clients lined up man. So like, when and where do I get in on the action man?
Roger Christensen Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 8:37 am
LA County Sup Antonivich represents Palmdale and the entire Antelope Valley.
synonymouse Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 11:16 am
Perhaps Antonivich is laying the groundwork for a Palmdale upgrade sans hsr. IMHO that makes a lot of sense and he would have my support in that so long as Tejon is all systems go.
I am from NorCal but I appreciate the argument that Southern California currently has the greater need for improved mass transit and deserves being highlighted. Perhaps BART needs to answer for its many sins by being sent to the back burner.
Van Ark & co. ought to consider the other options to Palmdale-Tehachapi-eminent domain neo 99 gold-plated STilt-A-Rail.
And it will interesting to see how Brown spins Prop 1A and its many provisos.
Joey Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 9:29 am
If it means we could start modernizing our conventional rail operations with lightweight equipment etc, I’m all for it.
If it means pouring more money into the black hole that is FRA-compliant operations, then no.
LA Times: High-speed rail authority delays release of business plan
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/me-bullet-train-20111005,0,1777424.story
Here the LA Times does an in-depth piece on the delay of the business plan. Good background on Boswell.
in this article is this statement:
“In another report expected next month, the authority also is supposed to identify the sources of money to build the system. ”
Boy this is news to me. I had not heard about any other report due.
Peter Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 8:13 am
“In another report expected next month, the authority also is supposed to identify the sources of money to build the system.”
Wouldn’t that be part of the business plan?
Donk Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 8:47 am
The article says the main source of opposition is “Farming giant Boswell….Central Valley cotton grower”
Maybe it is time for cotton farming to go elsewhere. We don’t need the most water-intensive crop in California.
Mike Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 10:28 am
Morris, the “other report” is the financing plan for the Central Valley segment that is a required condition of requesting an appropriation of Proposition 1A construction funds. It’s described in the text of Prop 1A.
Mike Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 10:35 am
It’s at 2704.08, starting at paragraph (c). But it’s not “sources of money to build the system,” it’s “sources of money to build the SEGMENT.”
RisenMessiah Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Yeah Peninsula at least seems to cling to the fact that they only legal argument is usable segments. Morris, on the other hand, just floats out there….
New $2B Sacramento Airport terminal opens tomorrow:
http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/story/2011-10-05/Sacramento-airport-opens-1B-art-filled-terminal/50664930/1
“Southwest Airlines, which accounts for 55% of all Sacramento flights, paid a fee of $6.05 per passenger in 2008, but is projected to pay $16.15 next year and $19.67 by 2013.”
These passenger surcharges, in addition to rising fuel costs, are really going to put a dent in the competitiveness between Southwest and CAHSR. Remember, Terminal 1 at LAX is in need of a major overhaul as well. When that happens, we are going to be looking at additional passenger fees for travel on Southwest.
Alex M. Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 9:25 am
I went to the Community Day preview on Oct 2nd. The architecture in that place is pretty amazing. Too bad it’s all for an unsustainable form of transportation.
RisenMessiah Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
Air travel itself isn’t unsustainable…but opening more terminals for an unsustainable airline is….
Don’t hold your breath on LAX. Southwest constantly threatens to leave and even with a huge pile of landing fee cash, they can’t seem to agree on what to do.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
If have to use Fischer-Tropsch to synthesize fuel for airplanes there will still be airplanes.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
Vactrains FTW.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
Spend the R&D money Heisenberg compensators…
Alon Levy Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Flight level -50 meters all the way, baby.
jim Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
But none of us will be able to afford to fly in them.
Press release from the Authority: High Speed Rail Authority to issue Revised Environmental Report for Fresno-Bakersfield section.
Will not be available until spring os 2012.
link: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/10052011_fb.aspx
—
Now pray tell, how in the world can they start on a extended Borden – Corcoran Initial Construction Segment, by Sept 2012, when they won’t have an EIR for the South of Fresno section untl late in 2012.
The only conclusion is the ICS is going to change and not include anything south of Fresno.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Because Spring is in the early part of the year? And September is later in the year?
Peter Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
By starting construction first between the wye and Fresno? There are more than enough alternate conclusions.
Peter Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
They don’t need a certified EIR for Fresno-Bakersfield to start building Merced-Fresno.
morris brown Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
@Peter:
Nonsense: The ICS as proposed is Borden to Corcoran and on further.
If the ICS is not gong to change, than then must have a certified EIR for the part south of Fresno. Neither the FEds nor Prop 1A would allow otherwise.
If they suddenly are going to change their plans and propose building Merced to Fresno and propose that as the ICS, that wold meet CEQA findings. That segment has its problems also, since using Pacheco as the routing from San Jose, Merced certainly doesn’t belong in Phase I.
All and all, I would say a big mess.
Peter Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
To quote datacruncher below:
They don’t have to start building south of Fresno right away. They can build between Fresno and the wye, and then they can start building south of Fresno after they certify the EIR.
What the hell happened to logical thinking? This isn’t rocket science, folks.
Eric M Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
There is no logical thinking with someone that adamantly opposes HSR and tries to spread fears and lies
Peter Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
What the hell is up with ridiculous conclusions today, anyway?
First, it was that the Bagley-Keene Act was being violated, for which there is no evidence.
And now, the “conclusion” that the ICS is going to be changed?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
A defective roll of tin foil? Or someone switched the tin foil with aluminum?
RisenMessiah Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
My bad. I’m sorry about that. I shouldn’t have left my three quart sauce pan out. Hopefully all that electricity doesn’t start a fire….
datacruncher Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
It has been reported several times that the first contracts to go out would be for construction basically within Fresno, from the San Joaquin River bridge south. Nearly all of that is covered in the Merced-Fresno EIR, so a Fresno-Bakersfield revision would not impact a late 2012 start date.
Nadia Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 8:10 pm
This has to do with the fact that the Authority decide to leave out alternatives contrary to the recommendations from the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The memo related to their disagreements is available here.
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/assets/0/152/232/278/403ff776-de1a-46de-bf90-be9592b75454.pdf
According to that memo, there were disagreements in Merced to Fresno too. We wonder if this means the same could happen to Merced to Fresno?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 9:56 pm
The alternatives they rejected because they have fatal flaws?
Ran into these looking for something else, and thought they might be of parallel interest:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/10/03/335022/organized-climate-change-denial/
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/10/04/335769/german-state-minister-dont-have-the-koch-brothers/
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
And saw this, too:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/10/05/336821/united-steelworkers-green-jobs-exist/
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/10/05/336864/what-would-shakespeare-clean-energy-tragedy/
And more on the Bloomberg article on our current favorite corporate villains, the Koch Brothers (don’t you wish they had thin Snidely Whiplash mustaches to twirl?)
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/10/03/334001/bloomberg-the-koch-method/
Fresno’s City Council will be reviewing a draft of EIR/EIS comments the city will submit at their Thursday meeting. Those curious can read the preliminary draft comments at
http://www.fresno.gov/CouncilDocs/agenda10.6.2011/900a.pdf
Drunk Engineer Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
Note how the public gets Staff’s preliminary report same time as everyone else.
James in PA Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Are you quoting Yogi?
Directly reflecting on the delay in the business plan was what was said in the March 2sd Authority Finance committee. This is fully noted in this blog entry:
http://againstcaliforniahsr.com/
High Speed Rail Business Plan Release Will Miss Critical Deadline
You can read the transcript and listen to the audio.
CEO van Ark:
“There are two reasons to meet that date. There are two different reports that we have to actually submit. The one is a Draft Business Plan. The Draft Business Plan then has to be in the public view for 60 days before it is finalized by the Board. Then it has to be submitted to the Legislature by the first of January 2012. The second is the Funding Plan…the Funding Plan to meet the requirements of the Prop 1A funding and the release of Prop 1A funds. That too needs to be supplied to the Department of Finance 90 days before the budget is actually submitted. The interpretation thereof is 90 days before the budget is submitted by the governor. And that’s why with all concerned it was agreed that the 14th of October is the latest date for us to submit these two reports.”
So we have writers here in this blog saying this is no big deal — at least on March 2sd, van Ark thought it was a bid deal.