Former Anaheim Mayor and Assembly Speaker Curt Pringle resigned from the California High-Speed Rail Authority Board today, saying in a letter he would like to focus on a his lobbying firm and “other responsibilities.”

Which is ironic since Pringle stepped down as both mayor of Anaheim and as a member of the Orange County Transportation Authority at the end of 2010 after coming under criticism for supposedly holding “incompatible offices” – apparently sitting on a local transportation agency and on the CHSRA board was somehow a bad thing.

There’s no indication that Pringle’s resolution was directly tied to that, but with Democrats retaking the governor’s mansion – and an Orange County Democrat, Tom Umberg, recently elected chair of the CHSRA board, it may have been that Pringle, a Republican, felt his influence had faded, his time had passed.

Pringle’s resignation makes him the fifth person to leave the nine-member board in the last few months. In fact, one might wonder why exactly we need the Alan Lowenthal bill that would replace the Authority board when in fact a majority of the board will already have been replaced.

Assessing Pringle’s legacy is difficult. He was Arnold Schwarzenegger’s tool on the board, and while Pringle did help land about $3.5 billion in funding, he also didn’t do a particularly good job navigating the anti-HSR minefield placed by people like Lowenthal, the NIMBYs, and right-wingers.

On the other hand, I’m not sure I agree with Mike Rosenthal’s take on Pringle’s tenure, particularly the state of public opinion about the project:

Public opinion of the project swung significantly during his term, especially among fiscal conservatives and on the Peninsula, as the cost of the project soared, with the authority securing a fraction of the funds it needs to build the railroad.

I don’t see any evidence at all for Rosenberg’s claim that public opinion swung significantly. I actually haven’t yet seen any evidence public opinion has swung at all. 52% of voters approved Prop 1A in November 2008. In February 2011 a Harris Poll found 70% of Californians still support state and federal HSR funding. The flawed criticisms of the HSR project have only gained traction among people already opposed to the project.

Overall, I think it’s a good thing that there’s a new chair of the CHSRA board, and it can’t hurt to have new blood on the board. Of particular interest will be the status of the LA-Anaheim segment, and the plans for running tracks into ARTIC. Pringle had championed a particularly expensive option for the approach to ARTIC, for which he had come under criticism from other board members such as Quentin Kopp. Both Kopp and Pringle are now off the board, and presumably the ARTIC issue will be at least revisited.

It may be 2011, but it’s still not Curt Pringle’s year. After stepping down from the OCTA Board of Directors in order to keep his seat on the California High Speed Rail Authority Board, several remaining board members turned on Pringle’s signature project, the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center – aka ARTIC. OCTA HSR opponents, led by right-wing Orange County supervisors Shawn Nelson and John Moorlach, are claiming that ARTIC is ineligible for Measure M funds and that the HSR project is a bad idea anyway. They’ve never been supportive of the project, but appear to be using Pringle’s departure to make their move:

Several board members of the Orange County Transportation Authority say they doubt that the so-called ARTIC station is eligible to receive about $99 million currently earmarked for the project from a county half-cent sales tax. They say the Measure M road and transit money should be used to pay for improving existing stations, not building new ones.

They also assert that if the state’s high-speed rail project is canceled because of money problems, it could turn the $184-million station into a white elephant. According to ARTIC’s environmental impact report, about 90% of the station’s train passengers would come from high-speed rail.

These are two separate issues, but are being linked by anti-HSR OCTA board members. The city of Anaheim’s director of public works, Natalie Meeks, said that the Measure M matter “has never been brought up before” and that legal counsel has ruled there is no conflict, and argued (correctly as far as I am concerned) that ARTIC is an improvement of the existing Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink station.

Here’s what the LA Times says about the language of Measure M, a 1/2 cent sales tax in Orange County originally approved in 1988 to widen freeways (and yes, that IS a subsidy for roads) and renewed in 2006:

According to its guidelines, Measure M established a competitive program for local governments to convert Metrolink stations into regional gateways that can accommodate high-speed trains. The three main objectives call for the improvement of existing stations, the expansion of transit options for regional travel and projects related to the initial segments of high-speed rail service where feasible.

My reading of that is ARTIC does qualify under Measure M rules, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see some HSR opponent litigate it anyway. But the critics have other arguments against the station:

If the tracks are shared, high-speed trains won’t travel much faster than conventional trains, which experts say can be improved to increase their speed.

“What is the point of doing high-speed rail when you can get the same performance with the equipment you now have?” said Moorlach, who added that he is looking forward to the funding debate. “There are some very compelling arguments.”

Pringle’s response was that the benefit to HSR from LA to Anaheim was avoiding a transfer at LA Union Station, instead offering a one-seat ride to any destination on the HSR system. Moorlach and Nelson rejected that too:

“They want a seamless link, but at what cost?” Nelson said. “Debt is a major state and national issue. If it costs a few billion just to avoid a transfer, it would be better to take a plane. It’s not efficient sometimes to accommodate everyone’s design.”

Unsurprisingly, this misses the point almost entirely. This is about much more than “avoiding a transfer” – HSR ridership is greatly boosted by a single-seat ride, as numerous studies have shown. Taking a plane isn’t going to be a viable or desirable option for a lot longer. And of course, this ignores the huge economic benefits that HSR will create for Anaheim and Orange County as a whole by enabling the rest of California to reach the region quickly and affordably and vice versa.

I’m guessing neither Nelson nor Moorlach really care about those benefits – and they probably don’t believe they’ll ever materialize, despite a mountain of evidence from around the globe. Still, this will be worth watching. Orange County needs to be part of the HSR system, and while there’s been controversy about the ARTIC design, it is still something that OC will be better off with than without.

UPDATE: An OCTA committee backed ARTIC and a plan to rewrite their guidelines to be able to use Measure M money for ARTIC. OCTA’s counsel told the committee that the courts “probably would not uphold using Measure M funds for ARTIC under the guidelines as currently written,” leading to the proposed changes to enable ARTIC to get funded.

“It is absolutely critical that we invest these funds where they will do the most good – and position California to ultimately create a true high-speed rail system that connects major cities to one another,” said Authority CEO Roelof van Ark. “We want our board of directors to have all the facts when they make this decision, so we are spelling out both the legal requirements and a clear assessment of the benefits and risks in each eligible section.”

The staff memo includes a very clear and strong process by which the board members will adopt the criteria, designed to reduce backroom dealing and ensure the Brown Act is followed:

Based on the advice of legal counsel, it is essential that the members of the board comply with the following protocol:

1. Each individual board member shall provide his or her written comments, if any, concerning the proposed selection criteria to the Chief Executive Officer by October 27th, 2010.

2. Board members shall not share their comments with anyone else.

3. On a date to be determined by the CEO, but before the next Board Meeting, all comments received from board members shall be published on the Authority’s web site.

4. Following publication of the comments, it is essential that board members refrain from any communications with one another concerning the comments or the proposed selection criteria. The proper time for any discussion, deliberation, or action is at the noticed public meeting that will be held at a date and time yet to be determined.

The emphasis – bolded and italicized – is in the original staff memo van Ark wrote, showing how serious he is about respecting a fair and open process. I hope it will be followed when the board discusses the actual route selection as well.

The selection criteria themselves are laid out as a scoring sheet, with some criteria being “pass/fail” and others being scored on a 0-10 scale. This is standard practice in determining how to fund California transportation projects; I have used something similar myself when serving on an ad hoc committee in Monterey County last year to disburse ARRA transportation funds. This ensures that the projects (or in this case, the segment) that is selected is done so in a fair and accountable process that prioritizes facts and minimizes, if not eliminates, political considerations.

The criteria are as follows:

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act/FRA Requirements (Pass / Fail Criteria)

a) Construction must be completed by fall of 2017

b) The project must have “operational independence”

In short, each of the four segments will be scored on a pass/fail scale on a and b. Simple and straightforward.

Then come four other criteria, designed to follow the Prop 1A (AB 3034) rules, minimize risk, and cost savings:

I. Logical expansion and evolution of the alignment to an operational HSR system.

‐ Ensure the first investment forms the core of a state‐wide 220 mph system that can be logically expanded and extended as additional funding becomes available

‐ Ensure the earliest startup of a high‐speed rail service with the least funds required

‐ Consider connectivity of sections, availability of control centers and maintenance facilities, and phasing of future expansion

All of this is very sensible, matching earliest startup with most affordable segment.

II. Minimized construction risk.

‐ Right of Way [ROW] availability and ability to reach
agreement with stakeholders to acquire easements or operating rights
‐ Least construction complexity equating to lower cost volatility
‐ Least impacts to existing railroad facilities and operations

Also very sensible. The legislature and HSR critics constantly crow about risk – well, here’s a criteria that directly addresses it.

III. Minimized schedule risk, to meet the ARRA criteria of completion by the fall of 2017.

‐ Probability of achieving ROD/NOD by fall of 2011
‐ Ease of construction, reduces probability of delay
‐ Possible risk of delay due to litigation.
‐ Future construction and equipment procurement sequencing

This is certainly relevant given the situation on the Peninsula, where folks feel like they’re being rushed – but I cannot imagine how the SF-SJ segment will score well here.

IV. Builds the most useful HST infrastructure for the least cost.

‐ Builds HST infrastructure that will not result in unreimbursed costs to the Authority
‐ Builds HST infrastructure that promotes current and future connections to other modes of transport
‐ Builds HST infrastructure that can be expanded to complete the entire CAHSR system in an efficient manner
‐ Builds the most useful segment of HST infrastructure that does not require additional federal or state funding

Alan Lowenthal and Joe Simitian in particular should be pleased by all of this. It gets at exactly the kind of risk and cost concerns they have been mentioning all year. These criteria strike me as pretty straightforward and sensible, and though I’m sure HSR critics and HSR deniers will find things to dislike about it, this is a very positive step that shows the HSR project will move forward in a clearly defined and meritorious process.

In the comments to yesterday’s post, some have speculated that this criteria is almost certain to wind up favoring one of the two Central Valley segments (Merced-Fresno or Fresno-Bakersfield) as opposed to the Bay Area or SoCal segments. That may well be the outcome, but it doesn’t seem as if the criteria were created with that goal in mind, especially when you look at the details of the segments below.

The board members’ comments the segment criteria are due by October 27 (next Wednesday). So we’ll see how the board reacts.

Appendix C goes on to describe in more detail each of the four corridors, notes that California has $3.312 billion with which to build the segment (when ARRA and Prop 1A funds are combined), and then explains what in each of the four corridors could actually be built with the funds:

• Fresno-Bakersfield: The tracks would depart from the BNSF mainline at Borden, go through Fresno and include the HSR station, and head south to Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF mainline. The Authority proposes not going all the way to Bakersfield with the ARRA funds in order to build the Fresno HSR station, but believes that the FY 2010 Service Development Programs (SDP) grant application can get the tracks to just outside Bakersfield. The Amtrak San Joaquins would use this, providing independent utility.

• LA-Anaheim: The funds would build new tracks from just east of the LA River to Carmenita Road in southeastern LA County, on the edge of La Mirada. The tracks would be used by the Pacific Surfliner and most Metrolink services (except service to Riverside/San Bernardino). Hobart Yard would be bypassed. No new HSR station would be built at Norwalk, since they haven’t yet decided whether Norwalk or Fullerton will be picked. The FY 10 SDP grant would fund construction of the remaining segment to Fullerton Junction, and “update” at-grade crossings in Anaheim.

• Merced-Fresno: As with Fresno-Bakersfield, the HSR station at Merced would be built with ARRA funds and the FY 10 SDP grant would fund the rest of the trackwork to Fresno. They’re now proposing a bypass of Chowchilla to the west, then heading out to use the BNSF line to get to Fresno.

• SF-SJ: As with LA-Anaheim, the $3.312 billion available wouldn’t be enough to build the whole segment. They propose using the funds to do work to upgrade the line south from 4th and King in San Francisco and to build tracks along the Peninsula. Importantly, though the document proposes those tracks be aerial from Brisbane to Redwood Junction, using existing tracks from Redwood Junction to Mountain View, and an aerial from Mountain View to Santa Clara, the document notes that trenching is still an option (so don’t get your panties in a wad, Peninsula NIMBYs) but would mean that “less infrastructure could be implemented.”

Judging by this, it could well be any of the four corridors that get selected for ARRA funds. I don’t necessarily think the Central Valley is in the lead, or any other segment for that matter. We have a clear process that will be followed, and that is a very good step forward for the HSR project.

The Good Jobs Express (PDF link) will hit five locations along the route of the HSR project this week, with public events to show that Californians want the sustainable jobs that HSR will provide – and the sustainable mass transit that the jobs will build.

Here’s what the Labor Fed says on the flier:

High-speed rail would create hundreds of thousands of jobs statewide.

MEG WHITMAN wants to KILL construction of high-speed rail and all the jobs that come with it.

JERRY BROWN will bring high-speed rail to California and invest in our rebuilding our communities.

THAT’S WHY THIS ELECTION IS SO IMPORTANT!

Come out to show your support for high-speed rail and Jerry Brown for Governor!

The intent of the tour is to highlight the fact that Meg Whitman has pledged to stop the HSR project, even though California voters have already approved funding and even though it will create hundreds of thousands of desperately-needed jobs. The California Labor Federation has, of course, endorsed Jerry Brown for governor, so their goal here is to hit Whitman as being in opposition to economic recovery and innovation.

The tour stops:

Tuesday

Anaheim: 10AM, Amtrak Station, 2150 E. Katella Avenue (behind Angels Stadium)

Bakersfield: 3PM, Liberty Bell, Kern County offices, 1415 Truxtun Avenue

Wednesday

Fresno: 10AM, Amtrak Station, 2650 Tulare Street

Modesto: 3PM, Graceada Park, 401 Needham Street

Thursday

Sacramento: 11AM, Federal Building (5th and I, across from Sacramento Valley Station)

More info here.

Their basis for the claim is a letter from the Legislative Counsel dated April 23, 2010 that concluded that because Pringle as Mayor of Anaheim and Katz as a member of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority board have a conflict between those positions and their membership on the CHSRA board, that the offices are incompatible under state law:

Accordingly, it is our opinion that an individual who is the Mayor of the City of Anaheim or a voting member of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority may not simultaneously serve as a member of the High Speed Rail Authority under the common law doctrine of incompatibility of public offices that is now codified in Section 1099 of the Government Code.

It should be kept in mind this is just an advisory opinion, and that it doesn’t carry any legal force. Hence CARRD’s call for the Attorney General to investigate:

CARRD Co-founder Elizabeth Alexis said, “This situation is jeopardizing the public’s confidence in the integrity of the process and must be resolved as soon as possible. We urge the Attorney General to take immediate action to remedy this situation.” CARRD is in complete agreement with a statement made at a recent CHSRA meeting by board member David Crane. Mr. Crane stated, “What all of us should want on something that is the largest public works project… is a process that everybody can have complete confidence that everyone is doing things for the right reason.”

The LA Times picked up on this story, and shed some light on the background to this issue, which was raised by anti-HSR State Senator Alan Lowenthal several months ago:

In June, Lowenthal addressed a proposed deal — backed by Pringle — to use $200 million in high-speed rail money to complete a huge, canopied transportation center next to Angels Stadium in Anaheim at the southern terminus of the bullet train’s first phase. Lowenthal said it looked like parochial interests were taking precedent over statewide interests.

CARRD also offered a timeline of the issue as it pertained to the CHSRA, including the recent board meetings where Quentin Kopp proposed a motion regarding incompatible offices. There has been speculation that Kopp and Pringle have been at odds over the HSR project, particularly since Pringle ousted replaced Kopp as board president last year, which might explain some of this. (Note: Quentin Kopp explained that Pringle did not “oust” him, but that his term as president merely expired, and Pringle was elected to replace him.)

Pringle has previously indicated, in an interview with the anti-HSR writer Tracy Wood at the Voice of OC, that he is “swearing off” elected office when he steps down as Mayor of Anaheim in December. Pringle’s term as an OCTA director expires at the same time. Still, CARRD believes this issue was important enough to call a press conference about it, in order to give a public push to get this issue investigated.

It’s not exactly clear what CARRD seeks from this. Do they want Pringle and Katz off the board? If so, why? Perhaps they want to clear the field for the next governor to appoint more new members. CARRD has been a strong advocate for more local involvement in the project, yet they are going after two local officials who have done quite a lot to provide exactly that kind of local engagement, particularly when OCTA, Metro, and the Gateway Cities in Los Angeles County called for further study of track sharing. So that begs explanation.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting Pringle and Katz stay on the board if the Attorney General says they need to go – but neither am I saying they ought to resign immediately. (And it may be the case that a legislative exemption would clarify this and enable them to continue to serve, as do many other local officials who serve on regional transit authorities). I’m not quite sure why this issue needs to be discussed and decided right now, and would love to hear from CARRD and others who share their concerns as to why this is worth pursuing and what kind of outcomes they want to see on the CHSRA board as a result of any investigation by the Attorney General’s office.

UPDATE: CARRD obtained a letter dated July 30, 2010 from the Attorney General CHSRA CEO Roelof van Ark suggesting that “your potentially affected members review the relevant law for themselves…and take appropriate steps to clear up any lingering issues.”

UPDATE 2: There’s been some discussion in the comments about CARRD’s motives, so let me add my thoughts. I had a good conversation with Elizabeth Alexis earlier today, who indicated that CARRD is primarily motivated by a desire to both enforce the law, and more broadly to see the CHSRA reformed to become more effective.

As CARRD’s Sara Armstrong said, they’re not a neutral organization, and they have and will continue to be much more critical of the project than I think is warranted. And the commenters are right to place this move in that context. At the same time, it’s clear that this is an issue the CHSRA board has already been dealing with, and while CARRD may be trying to force the issue, it was going to be forced by someone, one way or the other, before much longer (and note that Quentin Kopp was trying to do that already).

There seems to be a convergence of events – this particular issue, the gubernatorial election, and the ongoing legislative criticism of the CHSRA – that indicates to me we are likely to see in 2011 some kind of reform of how the CHSRA operates. I’m open to what the details of that reform are, so long as it does not compromise the ability of this project to get built on-time and in the manner that the voters approved in November 2008.

At an estimated cost of $6.75 billion for the 168 miles, the third segment is cheaper to build per mile ($40.2 million) than the other segments. Also, by extending the third segment an additional 114 miles to Sacramento, the state would tap the largest travel market in the state, within and between the San Joaquin Valley and major California cities.

This plan would create a viable showcase of high-speed rail that could help generate the outside investment needed to complete the system.

At speeds of nearly 200 mph, the running time from Bakersfield to Sacramento is cut to about two hours from 5 1/2 hours, and to the Bay Area to about 3 1/2 hours from six.

It’s an interesting point. The CHSRA would be able to crank the trains up to the maximum 220mph speed – and they’ll need a “test track” anyway to test the trainsets before they’re put into service. That would be a great “showcase” of the speed of HSR technology, and would make it real for Californians, who could come see the trains and thus generate public support for completing the system.

The construction cost would indeed be less expensive. There is widespread political support for HSR in the Central Valley – though there’s also widespread support for it along the SF-SJ and LA-OC segments, and there are growing debates between farmers and cities about where the tracks in the Central Valley ought to go, a debate that can only be resolved by one side or the other being made unhappy.

The op-ed author, Walter Strakosch, did make an important error in his justification for this option:

The projected cost of the 282 miles from Bakersfield to Sacramento is $11.34 billion. The $9 billion in bond money, plus the $2.25 billion in federal economic stimulus money, is nearly enough to build this entire stretch.

Unfortunately, the rules of the Prop 1A bond are that it can only be spent 50/50 with federal funding, so the full $9 billion cannot be spent until the feds pony up $9 billion.

Strakosch’s overall argument is that the Central Valley segments are likely to attract more riders as well:

A return on investment is doubtful if the system only cuts about 20 minutes from present rail time between L.A. and Anaheim and 30 minutes between S.F. and San Jose. Yet, the authority is preparing for just that scenario. If further funding were not to materialize, California would be left with improved commuter rail in the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas only.

I’m not so sure I agree here. 30 minutes between SF and SJ is cutting the current best travel time by train in half. A 50% time savings is pretty significant. You can’t even drive from downtown SF to downtown SJ in 30 minutes, unless you are willing to break the law by speeding. Hell, it would be a shorter journey in terms of travel time than going from downtown SF to many neighborhoods in SF itself. A 30 minute train trip would be a big draw for riders in the Bay Area and shouldn’t be discounted.

The LA-Anaheim time savings would be another 50% improvement (Pacific Surfliners currently travel that route in about 40 minutes). Given that the segment is in the heart of the nation’s second-most populous metro area, it’s entirely possible that it would indeed be cost-effective to operate the LA-Anaheim service. Further, it would be an extremely high profile service, being in the backyard of the media industry’s headquarters. We all remember the pilot episode of the new Fox TV show Human Target, set on board the California HSR system on opening day? I can imagine TV productions flocking to use the trains, just as they have the LA subway, giving a major publicity boost to HSR, in addition to the improvement in transportation service and the increase in passenger rail ridership.

In many ways, this debate resembles the old and now settled debate between supporters of the Altamont and Pacheco Pass routes to connect the Bay Area and the Central Valley. Like that choice, there are good arguments for and against each of the eligible segments being the first one to be built. In my estimation, however, they balance out, just as the Altamont/Pacheco choice balanced out.

So Californians For High Speed Rail currently takes a position of “positive neutrality” on this question. We think each of these segments deserves to be funded and built, and will be happy with whichever one is built first. Of course, we will continue to evaluate these segments and reserve the right to change that view as new shit comes to light. But for now, our view is that whichever of these segments comes first, it will be a good choice for not just the HSR project, but for the state of California as a whole.

Unfortunately, Orange has also been governed by right-wing extremists for as long as I can remember. Back in my misspent youth, I was in a Rush Limbaugh Fan Club that met at an Orange restaurant (this was around 1993 or so), with members of the Orange city council regularly in attendance. The council and the school board were almost always in the news for embracing this or that element of the far-right agenda.

Sadly, times don’t seem to have changed. Yesterday the Orange City Council passed a resolution opposing the HSR project – which isn’t even going to go into Orange itself, at least not initially.

The Orange resolution is an HSR denier’s dream. It cites all the discredited anti-HSR studies, such as those of the State Auditor and the Berkeley ITS group. But the resolution went further than those reports intended. They claim the ridership studies “were inflated in order to move this project forward with unachievable goals” and that “the project costs are now estimated at $45 – $80 billion for project completion,” despite there being no actual evidence for either claim.

Project opponent Cynthia Ward, writing at the right-wing website Red County, commends the Orange city council for passing this resolution:

Rather than using State resources to pummel a City government for standing up for their own people, I would prefer to see the CHSRA show us where Orange is inaccurate in their assessment of the situation. We will be waiting for that statement for a very long time, because the CHSRA no longer has a leg to stand on in this argument. They continue shoving blindly forward on an underfunded project whose benefits have been exaggerated, and kudos to the City of Orange for taking a stand. This Resolution was not only appropriate, it is a model that could be lifted word for word and used by other communities up and down the State. I envy the people of Orange their bold leadership, and congratulate those at City Hall who were behind this Resolution, written so carefully that even proponents of the project can find no reason to deny their yes votes to protect the people of Orange. Good work.

In fact, as I just explained, the resolution wasn’t written carefully at all. Instead it makes unproven allegations that people like Ward then insist the CHSRA respond to, even though the allegations themselves are false. It’s the exact same thing as asking someone “when did you stop beating your wife?” A flawed statement is made, passed off as truth, and when the Authority says the statement is untrue, critics pounce and accuse the Authority of stonewalling and refusing to admit a “truth” that isn’t true at all.

The Authority’s response to the Orange resolution was given by Deputy Director Jeff Barker:

“The California High-Speed Rail Authority is working with hundreds of communities throughout the state – we value their feedback and want to work together to develop the best high-speed train project possible. So it is disappointing that the elected officials in the city of Orange have declined the opportunity to help shape this historic project and have declined to represent residents of their city – especially at this early stage in our development when input and constructive feedback is so vital. In opposing the high-speed rail project, the city council is opposing the creation of tens of thousands of jobs, opposing improved air quality, and opposing a needed new transportation option that will ease congestion on our freeways and in our airways. The Authority will continue to reach out to the residents of Orange and listen to their ideas about the high-speed rail project because we know we cannot develop the best train system possible without their feedback.”

This is the right response for the Authority to make. From the perspective of HSR supporters like ourselves, we can go further and call out the city of Orange for their misleading claims and their open embrace of obstructionism.

It’s not the first time an Orange County city has tried to undermine a California HSR project. In 1983 the city of Tustin hired researchers to knock down the HSR project Governor Jerry Brown had authorized the previous year. Their report did help push the Legislature to kill the project, but the project was on life support anyway – the Legislature had never really embraced it, and the new governor, Republican George Deukmejian, wasn’t a supporter.

Things may not be different in Orange in 2010, but they are very different around the state. California voters approved the project and $10 billion in bond money for it in November 2008. The governor and the state legislature have been much, much more supportive this time around, as have our Congressional delegation and the president. And the poll released yesterday shows that public support remains very high for this project.

So Orange can pass its resolution if they want to. I’m sure they’ll find some other councils controlled by right-wing opponents of passenger rail to pile on board. But those won’t be representative of the true views of the people of California, who continue to reiterate their support for the project and their desire to see it completed.

There should be a live feed of video or audio, but I’m not seeing it on the CHSRA website. As soon as I find such a link, I’ll post it here. (Update: you can listen live by calling 213-922-6045, the MTA board room streaming number)

UPDATE: Some highlights from the AA reports:

• Shared track alternatives for LA-Anaheim: 3 freight/passenger tracks and two separate passenger-only tracks. One option is to have the 2 passenger tracks as an aerial, especially in places with narrow ROW, or to add them next to the existing 3 tracks.

• CHSRA is indeed looking at having only one station in the San Fernando Valley, either at Burbank Airport, Sylmar, Pacoima, or a point in between Sylmar and Burbank near the I-5/CA-170 split.

Live updates:

Someone just said “nobody will drive 100 miles to an HSR station.” That is a joke of a comment, with no basis in evidence. People drive 100 miles to an airport.

David Ory of MTC is up now, reading a letter from MTC head Steve Heminger about the ridership modeling, noting that the original modeling was verified by the original peer review team, and shows the flaws of the Berkeley ITS study – which increasingly appears to me to have been an outright hatchet job.

Elizabeth Alexis is up now. Says the ridership model “absolutely failed” – but she presents NO evidence this is the case. She’s condemning the Altamont/Pacheco numbers by saying “you would guess” that Altamont would add riders. I’m sorry, Elizabeth, but that’s not a supportable evidentiary claim. You cannot make a supposition and then attack a study because its research doesn’t fit your preconceptions. That’s not how the scientific method works.

A rep from MTA’s ridership expert is up now, who has expertise from Taiwan HSR planning. He served on the original peer review for MTC/Cambridge Systematics. “Based on my professional judgement, this high speed model is the most advanced model in the nation” and says the model is solid. As we know, MTA is not shy about criticizing HSR.

Up now is Michael Gimbel, a student advocate and who heads one of the CA4HSR local advocacy teams. Here’s the statement he delivered:

The Berkeley ITS report did not invalidate the HSR ridership study, or prove that its numbers were incorrect. Instead it disagreed with the study’s methodology, but these disagreements are themselves questionable.

The Berkeley ITS report has some flaws. First, there are many reasons to expect business travel will occur during peak hours, given the speed and convenience of the trains.

The Berkeley ITS study also believes it is not realistic for people to simply show up at a station and take the next available train. But we know from experience around the world, including in Japan and Germany, that riders currently do exactly that when it comes to HSR trains. If headways are low, then the ridership study’s assertions are plausible.

The Berkeley ITS study assumes that rail travelers will act like air travelers, but this is a dubious and unproven assertion at best. Rail travel provides fundamentally different kinds of service to the traveler, and travelers respond to it differently than they do with planes. Evidence from Spain and the Northeast Corridor indicates that air travelers will flock to trains when given the choice.

Overall, the Berkeley ITS study raises some questions that warrant further investigation, but in itself should not be seen as invalidating the HSR ridership projections.

David Schonbrunn of TRANSDEF is up to continue his HSR denial, says “you no longer have a viable project” – says we should select a bidder to pick their preferred route. That’s a bad idea. But then Schonbrunn asserts Cambridge Systematics’ study is “shady” showing that he isn’t interested in honest debate.

I’ll be giving some live updates as best I can, but don’t expect a complete liveblog.

This week Lowenthal has found a new angle of attack on the HSR project. He is making up a claim of “conflict of interest” against two members of the California High Speed Rail Authority board – Curt Pringle and Richard Katz – and is sponsoring a bill designed to kick them and all others who sit on a local transportation authority board off of the CHSRA board. This attack on the HSR project is not only baseless, but if it were to succeed, it would undermine the project and its all-important ability to effectively integrate with local transit systems. From the LA Times:

As the state’s $42-billion high-speed rail system draws closer to breaking ground, a key state lawmaker is calling for leadership changes that he says would prevent conflicts of interest but could expel two influential Southern California officials from the project’s board.

Sen. Alan Lowenthal, (D- Long Beach), who chairs the Senate transportation committee, is drafting legislation that would ban individuals who hold elected office or sit on local transportation boards from also serving as a director of the California High-Speed Rail Authority.

The proposal is aimed most immediately at two prominent Los Angeles and Orange County board members — Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle and Richard Katz, board member of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

What’s behind this? There’s no real principle at work here. Instead there is a relatively minor dispute over the ARTIC station that Lowenthal, instead of seeking to resolve in private, is blowing up into an unnecessary controversy that could do much greater damage to passenger rail in California.

Triggering Lowenthal’s concern in part is a proposed deal — backed by Pringle — to use $200 million in high-speed rail money to complete a huge, canopied transportation center next to Angels Stadium of Anaheim at the southern terminus of the bullet train’s first phase.

Pringle, a former GOP assembly speaker, is chairman of the high-speed rail authority and director of the Orange County Transportation Authority board. Both the OCTA and Anaheim have been trying for decades to build the soaring, intermodal transportation hub.

But the deal was not envisioned under the voter-approved high-speed rail funding plan, Lowenthal said. And it would set a bad precedent of earmarking critically needed funds for local priorities before planning is even finalized for the high-speed rail project, he added.

Lowenthal is not being entirely accurate here. The voter-approved HSR plan, Prop 1A, did not go into specifics about which elements of the HSR project it would fund. It laid out the specific corridors, travel times that must be achieved, and rules by which the funds could be spent, but did not actually program that funding in any way.

Lowenthal wants to frame the ARTIC plans as being some later deal not intended by Prop 1A, but that is a misleading way to frame it, since Prop 1A explicitly enables funding to be used for stations. That includes ARTIC.

The LA Times goes on to discuss Lowenthal’s problems with Richard Katz:

His concerns also extend to Katz, who serves on both the MTA and Metrolink commuter rail boards as a Villaraigosa appointee. Both agencies are heavily involved in the bullet train project because they would share Union Station and various right-of-ways with high-speed trains.

Among other things, Katz has pushed for a potential track-sharing design suggested by the MTA — the lead funding agency of Metrolink — for the high-speed rail segment between Los Angeles and Anaheim . Track sharing could cut bullet train construction costs and help upgrade Metrolink track systems.

“There is a great benefit from the coordination from my roles at the MTA, Metrolink and high-speed rail authority,” Katz said.

Katz’s role in the track-sharing solution has been extremely positive for the HSR project and for the MTA, helping avert a damaging split and potentially providing a solution to using the LA-Anaheim corridor that saves money and makes local governments happy.

In short, Katz’s role proves the benefit to having members of local transportation agencies on the CHSRA board. They help integrate HSR into the existing transit networks, and act as brokers between a project that serves a statewide need and local agencies and systems that meet local needs.

Important Southern California political leaders understand this, and have criticized Lowenthal’s ill-conceived attack on the HSR project:

“I appreciate the senator’s concerns; he has raised lots of legitimate questions,” Katz said. “But he is taking a pretty big shotgun to something that is minor and can be easily resolved other ways.”

Their position is backed by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who says policy makers serving with several transportation agencies can better understand high-speed rail as it relates to commuter rail, public transit and communities.

In addition, Lowenthal’s own role in the ARTIC dispute indicate his bill is totally unnecessary. After questioning Katz about the ARTIC plan at a Senate hearing in May, Katz agreed that Lowenthal had raised legitimate questions about the plan and the CHSRA has pulled it for further study.

That shows the existing process of legislative oversight works just fine – as does the existing process of the CHSRA board. Lowenthal raised concerns and they were addressed. There’s obviously no need for Lowenthal’s proposal, and given its damaging effect on passenger rail planning around the state, the proposal should be quickly abandoned.

Unfortunately, Lowenthal prefers to play the role of concern troll on HSR. Instead of helping strengthen the HSR project by providing legislative leadership to shepherd the project through the planning process, he seems to prefer to undermine the project – whether it’s through bills like this, or baseless statements attacking the project’s ridership proposals.

The HSR project is the most important infrastructure project undertaken in California in 50 years. We need to make sure we do it right – but we also need to make sure we do it. Alan Lowenthal should be taking a more supportive role toward the project, and abandon this “death by a thousand cuts” approach.

My wife and I will be driving there, and this gives me a perfect opportunity to, once again, explain how incredibly useful HSR would be to me right about now. This is especially relevant given recent discussions in comments about the HSR ridership model and whether people will choose a bullet train over driving from NorCal to SoCal and vice versa.

The numbers matter. But from a conceptual perspective, I am stunned there’s even any doubt about this. My experience, which is similar to that of many other Californians considering a cross-state trip for this holiday weekend, shows how HSR would be an enormous improvement over driving.

Because of work schedules and upcoming vacation plans, my wife and I can’t take any time off for this weekend. So we have to get to and from Orange County in the free/off time we have.

We could leave as soon as she gets home from work, which would be about 6:15 PM. We’ve done that before – head out from Monterey immediately after her work ends. It’s inconvenient and undesirable, since the last thing we want to do after a long week of working is sit in a car for the 6 to 7 hours it takes to get to central Orange County from Monterey. By the time we arrive it’d be past midnight.

But the alternative isn’t much better. We’re going to leave early tomorrow morning, around 8AM, with hopes of making it to my sister’s new place in Anaheim around 2PM. That’s more relaxing for us, but it won’t leave us a lot of time in Orange County. We’ll have lost most of Saturday, have a full day on Sunday, and then only part of Monday – if we want to get back to Monterey at a decent hour on Monday and not so late that we are exhausted on Tuesday, we’d have to leave OC around noon or 1PM.

Flying isn’t much better. Let’s add it up:

• Travel time to the airport: 1:30 (if we’re going out of San Jose, and a Friday afternoon/evening from any Bay Area home to any Bay Area airport will probably be less, but perhaps not by very much)

• Security/Preboard: 0:45

• The flight itself: 1:00 (to SNA, a bit less if to BUR or LAX)

• Deboarding: 0:15

• Getting from the airport to our final destination (0:30 if there’s no traffic)

Total via airplane: 4:00

If we left here at 6:30, we might get in to my sister’s in Anaheim around 10:30. Not bad, but flights on a holiday weekend aren’t cheap, and flying isn’t the most convenient thing in the world.

What about HSR?

• Travel time to Gilroy station: 1:00 (0:45 if not on a Friday afternoon; there’s usually about 15 minutes extra of traffic getting from Monterey to Marina)

• Preboard: 0:15 (could probably cut it closer, but I like to be cautious)

• HSR from Gilroy to Anaheim: 2:16

• Deboarding: 0:05

• Travel to final destination: 0:20

Total via HSR: 3:55. Let’s make it an even 4:00.

So the train would be about the same in terms of travel time as a plane. Even if you think I padded the security/preboard (and I don’t think I did, you have to be there 30 minutes before departure and 15 minutes for security sounds about right to me), it’s a hell of a lot better than getting in after midnight. As any working person knows, those last two hours make a huge difference.

Moreover, the travel experience on a train is much better than on a plane or an automobile. We can relax, stretch out, get some dinner on the train, watch a movie, etc. Most importantly, we’d get an extra day on our vacation (all of Saturday) and a lot more time on Monday.

And it’s likely that the fare on the bullet train would be cheaper than the flight – especially in 2020, when high fuel costs will make it difficult to buy a plane ticket for an affordable price; the era of “$50 flights on Southwest” will be long gone by then. Even if it were somehow the case that the HSR ticket cost more than driving, the time savings is so totally worth it that I wouldn’t mind paying more – and yet it would be a more pleasurable experience than flying.

HSR is a huge improvement over driving, especially for a 3-day weekend. It would spur significant growth in tourism and service industries, and allow people an easier and more affordable way to get around California to see family and friends than flying or driving.

I’ll be enjoying our Memorial Day trip, but I’d enjoy it a lot more if I could use a bullet train to extend the vacation.