Roelof van Ark, chief executive officer of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, announced this afternoon that he is quitting, the latest setback for the state’s beleaguered campaign to build a nearly $100 billion rail network in California.

His resignation, announced at a board meeting in Los Angeles and effective in two months, comes at a critical point for the project, with rail officials bidding for Legislative approval to start construction in the Central Valley this fall….

Van Ark cited personal reasons for his resignation.

“I need to focus myself more on my family, and maybe some other interests,” he told board members. He said he may continue on the project as a consultant.

Van Ark used his resignation announcement to reiterate his support of the rail authority’s decision to start construction in the Central Valley, controversial because it is far from California’s population centers. The administration signaled no change of course.

Is this really a setback? I’m not entirely sure. Van Ark was, from all I have seen and heard, a good leader for the project. It’s definitely a loss and not something I would prefer to see. It will also produce some challenges as a transition unfolds. But that’s not the same thing as a “setback.”

What this does indicate is that the momentum to combine the Authority and Caltrans under a Transportation Agency may be stronger than we realize, and Van Ark may have felt his role in such an agency would be smaller. No matter the actual reason, if the Authority is indeed combined, then they will actually get access to a lot more expertise than they currently have. So while the loss of van Ark is going to cause problems, there is a path forward to provide insight and expertise to the Authority.

Van Ark’s departure comes alongside two other staff departures. Deputy Director Dan Leavitt is leaving the Authority, as is Rachel Wall, the Authority’s press secretary.

Additionally, changes are underway at the CHSRA board:

Minutes after van Ark’s announcement, Tom Umberg announced that he is stepping down as chairman of the rail board, though he will remain a member of the board. Umberg is to be replaced next month by Dan Richard, an adviser Gov. Jerry Brown appointed to the board last year.

The chairmanship rotates regularly so I don’t see this as a negative in any way. In fact, if anything it may strengthen Governor Brown’s hold on the board.

Many media outlets will spin this as a negative for the project, but that’s a reflection of their growing levels of pessimism. Objectively there’s just no way to know what the impact will be since we haven’t seen yet where the project goes from here. New blood isn’t a bad thing – it’s been an intensive couple of years for the project and that has probably taken its toll on staff. There’s something to be said for brining in fresh people who also have a background in HSR projects, rail planning, or transportation planning more generally. That’s no slight against current or former staff, to be clear. Van Ark, Leavitt, and Wall have done excellent work.

Responses to van Ark’s resignation have started coming in. First up is Tom Umberg:

“With admiration, I would like to thank Mr. van Ark for his service to California and the high-speed rail project. The announcement of his resignation will resonate throughout the State. His energy, passion and dedication to this critically important project are a testament to his character and his professionalism. We are extremely lucky to have his continued counsel and advice as we move to implement high-speed rail in California. I remain grateful for his professionalism and friendship.”

Assemblymember Cathleen Galgiani also offered her thoughts:

“I am grateful to Mr. Van Ark and Chair Umberg for their tireless efforts and tenacity during the most critical early stages of taking High Speed Rail from a vision, to reality, bringing us “high-speed jobs” with the start of construction in September 2012.

“We have always known there would be challenging circumstances building the nation’s first high-speed Rail system, particularly when it requires being sensitive and responsive to diverse communities, with varying needs along the entire 800 mile stretch of the project all at once. Mr. Van Ark and Mr. Umberg have worked with stakeholders to address everything from whether “wind speed” from the train will affect bee pollination in agricultural areas, the importance of respecting sacred sites and Native American burial grounds near the Grapevine, the value we place on involving small emerging business enterprises during the engineering and construction contracting process, building the first public private partnership of this scope in California, and navigating the political turbulence associated with building the nation’s first High –Speed Rail system. I have deep respect and owe my deepest gratitude to both Mr. Van Ark and Mr. Umberg.”

Governor Brown has been a vocal supporter of the project, and last year and appointed two advisers, Dan Richard and Mike Rossi, to the rail board. Board Member Richard will serve as the new Chair of the Authority Board.

“Today represents a turning point for the Governor to put his stamp on the project. I am pleased that his long-trusted Advisor, Dan Richard, has been chosen to succeed Chair Umberg, and I am confident that Governor Brown will put his full resources behind the success of High Speed Rail. I remain committed to working with Governor Brown, and Chair Richard to move this project forward and put California’s economy on a fast-track to recovery with “high speed jobs.”

From a CHSRA press release:

“California’s high-speed rail project is a historic undertaking – the coming year is critical as we focus on the initial construction of the statewide system,” said Umberg, who was appointed to the Authority Board in 2008 by the Speaker of the Assembly. “I am dedicated to representing the people of the state in guiding the successful implementation of the system envisioned by voters. I’d also like to thank Curt Pringle for his leadership and the long hours he has put in over the last two years as chairman.”
 
The Board policy requires that Board members elect a chair and vice chair from amongst themselves annually. Members are elected to serve one-year terms, and no more than two consecutive terms. Today’s election was a unanimous vote of the members present.
 
Mr. Umberg is an attorney with the law firm of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, specializing in federal and state policy and regulatory matters. Earlier in his career, Mr. Umberg was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles and Orange County.  As a federal criminal prosecutor, he tried numerous white-collar and civil rights cases. Umberg was appointed Deputy Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy in 1997. He served three terms in the California Legislature, most recently between 2004 and 2006. In the state Assembly, he chaired the Environmental Safety and the Elections and Redistricting Committees.

Curt Pringle’s term as chair had been controversial at times, although much of that controversy stemmed from anti-HSR folks looking for someone to personalize as the face of a project they don’t like. Pringle was chair during the term of a Republican governor, and Umberg might be the right fit for the first year of a Democratic governor’s (third) term.

While I don’t know the details of the relationship between Umberg and Jerry Brown – or if Umberg still has any strong ties to anyone left in the Assembly (term limits mean that anyone he served with in the Assembly from 2004 to 2006 is no longer in the Assembly) – Umberg’s relationships could help block the notorious SB 517, the sneak attack on the HSR project by Alan Lowenthal.

On the agenda are discussions of several Alternatives Analyses – LA to Palmdale, LA to Anaheim, and LA to San Diego. You can find links to those reports here. Some items of note:

• LA to Palmdale: The Authority is now discussing a bored tunnel under Elysian Park, avoiding the Rio de Los Angeles Park area entirely by going on the opposite side of the LA River. A station at the Burbank Metrolink stop and at Pacoima Wash are not recommended to be carried forward.

• LA to Anaheim: No draft EIR is expected until fall 2012. 2011 will be spent meeting with the communities along the route. There is a proposal to trench the tracks near the Buena Park Metrolink station.

• LA to San Diego: Alignments along I-10 and SR 60 are proposed to be carried forward, at least as far as the 605 freeway. East of there, alignments along Holt Avenue and 1st/State streets will be considered for reaching Ontario Airport. From there, two I-215 alignments (one via San Bernardino and one via I-10, bypassing San Bernardino but potentially having a station in the Colton area) and an I-15 alignment will be carried forward. From there to San Diego, two alternatives – LOSSAN (via Rose Canyon or a tunnel under University City) and SR 163/I-8 – are proposed to bring the tracks from the I-15 corridor to the San Diego airport.

I don’t think any of these are particularly noteworthy developments, except maybe the Elysian Park tunnel concept.

Anyone here going to be at the meeting? It starts at 9AM.

Not much of note on the agenda, although station area planning will be discussed, and officers chosen. Use this as an open thread on the meeting or on anything else related to HSR.

How far toward Bakersfield can they get? That depends, as the staff report explains:

The actual miles of construction which can be built with the $616M, including Prop 1A funds, (total $1.232 Billion) will depend on the final selection of the preferred alignment among the alternatives being evaluated, namely:

a. Through Corcoran [C1] OR Corcoran Bypass [C2]
b. West of Allensworth Park [A1] OR along BNSF east of Allensworth Park [A2]
c. Through Wasco & Shafter [WS1] OR Wasco & Shafter Bypass [WS2]

These alternatives and the various iterations thereof offer numerous tie‐ins to the BNSF tracks to offer “Operational Independence”. However, as the alternatives are numerous, staff have included the most expensive [1A] and least expensive [1B] combinations and shown these on Figure 4.

1A, which would include an expensive viaduct in Corcoran, would get them to roughly Allensworth. 1B, bypassing Corcoran, Wasco and Shafter, would get them to the Bakersfield side of Shafter. That decision won’t be made today (at least I don’t believe it will be) but it indicates the range of options open to the Authority.

Click here to watch it live (updated link)

UPDATE: In a move that should surprise nobody, the board approved the recommendation to build toward Bakersfield. Here’s an excerpt from the CHSRA press release:

Moving quickly to take advantage of $616 million in new federal funding, the California High-Speed Rail Authority Board voted unanimously today to approve committing state matching funds to extend construction of the initial Central Valley backbone of the statewide system south to Bakersfield.

The new federal funds – which were redistributed from other states that returned federal high-speed rail support – will now be coupled with state matching dollars, bringing the total available funds to begin construction to $5.5 billion. The new total will allow engineers to significantly extend initial construction, potentially building as many as 120 miles of the project’s 520-mile first phase, and incorporate the Valley’s largest urban centers: Bakersfield and Fresno.

“Ohio’s loss is our gain. When other states shrunk from the challenge of high-speed rail, California’s firm commitment to this project paid off,” said Tom Umberg, Vice Chairman of the Authority’s Board of Directors. “This is the right place to start and the right way to start. Working from the midpoint of the system gives us flexibility to keep building north and south – and builds the backbone fundamental to a true high-speed rail system.”

Project engineers also looked at the option of extending construction north toward Merced, but recommended against it until a final alignment is chosen. With several alternatives for tracks still being studied in the environmental impacts, a commitment at this stage to build further north would carry a risk that the tracks could not tie in with existing passenger rail service – a requirement for this round of federal funding.

Depending on which alignment is ultimately selected – a decision that will not be made until all applicable environmental work is done – the initial section may stretch nearly 120 miles from near Madera to the northernmost part of Bakersfield.

In addition, the Authority is working with federal officials to jump-start designing and planning for high-speed rail stations across the entire state – including Merced, Bakersfield, Gilroy, San Jose and Los Angeles. The Authority anticipates that final agreement being negotiated with the Federal Railroad Administration will include allocations to Southern California and potentially other areas, a step toward funding advanced improvement projects, station area planning and right-of-way acquisition.

$5.5 billion and a route connecting Fresno, Hanford/Visalia, and soon Bakersfield is a pretty damn good way to start building our high speed rail project. Sure, I wish that at the end of 2010 we had more federal money, a commitment for long-term federal funding, and more of the route marked for construction. But we’re on our way now, and this momentum and ongoing public support will help ensure that over the next 9 years, the project continues to unfold as planned, as expected, and as the voters of California have commanded.

We saw this in recent weeks with the first construction segment of the California high speed rail project. Even though the segment included stations at Fresno and Hanford, it was reported by some as being a “train to nowhere” since its endpoints were, for the short time being, the small Valley towns of Borden and Corcoran.

One of the most intellectually dishonest forms of this claim came in the Sunday San Jose Mercury News, in Scott Herhold’s misleading column that repeated the lie. Herhold only casually mentioned that Fresno and Hanford would get stations; he spent most of his time in Corcoran, population 25,000 (including one Charles Manson), and from the two or three people he talked to, concluded that nobody cared about the project.

Neither Herhold nor the infographic that accompanied the article noted that Fresno, with a metro area population of 922,000 (the city itself has over 500,000 people), or Hanford-Visalia, the state’s 9th largest metro area with over 400,000 people, were being served with a station. That didn’t stop his column from running, however dishonest it was.

Now Herhold and the other “train to nowhere” critics are going to have to find a new lie with which to attack the project, because Bakersfield has been added to the new segment:

The first part of the valley’s high speed rail line has suddenly more than doubled in size.

Just last week, the high speed rail authority announced the line would run 54 miles from Borden on the Fresno-Madera County line, to Corcoran.

But Friday, the authority announced the line will be extended another 60 or so miles to Bakersfield.

What exactly is meant by “Bakersfield” here is unclear – will this include a station at Bakersfield, or will the tracks merely end at the city’s edge as was previously discussed for this construction phase? And what does this mean for Hanford-Visalia, which finally got the station they have long desired?

We’ll find out the answers to those questions a week from today, when the California High Speed Rail Authority board meets in Sacramento to approve the new recommendation.

I’m sure that HSR deniers will find a way to claim that Bakersfield, with a metro area population of over 800,000, is somehow “nowhere.” Sure, the Bakersfield and Fresno metro areas are each larger than the city and county of San Francisco, and Bakersfield was one of the fastest-growing areas of the country before the recession. As we knows, facts haven’t stopped HSR critics before.

There are obviously some issues to resolve with the HSR alignment in Bakersfield (Go Drillers!) – but the fact that Bakersfield is now included in the first construction segment is big, big news, showing that this project is not only alive, but well, to quote Vin Scully. That’s 800,000 more people to mock derisively the anti-HSR claims that their city, like Fresno, is somehow “nowhere.” These towns are going to pioneer high speed rail in California – and will be transformed as a result.

UPDATE: The US DOT is now “insisting” that Bakersfield be included in the first segment, according to the Bakersfield Californian:

Initial construction of California high-speed rail must extend to Bakersfield if the project is to qualify for $616 million in federal money announced this week, a U.S. Department of Transportation spokesman confirmed Friday.

I’m only speculating here, but I have to imagine that the Hanford station will get cut in order to get the tracks to Bakersfield. I also wonder if the tracks will begin at Borden as originally proposed, or whether the segment will just be shifted southward and more closely resemble the original Fresno-Bakersfield concept.

I don’t yet have any further information on exactly what this modification would include, but it would at minimum include an extension of the segment to get the project closer to Bakersfield. Whether the northern end of the route would be altered as well, to provide more of a Fresno-Bakersfield route than, say, Borden to Shafter is an open question for now. We’ll hopefully learn more soon.

But this does show that the California HSR project is proceeding exactly as planned – with each round of new funding, more of the route gets built. As I argued yesterday, this should be incentive for cities that want the trains but who weren’t included in this first round to be as aggressive as they can in bringing more dollars to the project.

Merced HSR supporters have been actively lobbying CHSRA board members to overturn van Ark’s recommendation and select Merced-Fresno instead, with Congressman Dennis Cardoza demanding federal intervention. Van Ark, for his part, has defended the choice by downplaying the importance of the specific location and instead emphasizing the importance of focusing on the statewide aspect of the system.

I don’t know what will happen at the board meeting today. My guess is that the board will ratify van Ark’s recommendation. I won’t be able to liveblog this meeting, but have at it in the comments!

UPDATE: The CHSRA board unanimously approved the staff recommendation, meaning Borden-Corcoran will be the first place where HSR track will be constructed. The San Joaquin Valley’s two Democratic Congressmen had different views on the outcome: Dennis Cardoza slammed the decision, but Jim Costa praised it:

That has Congressman Dennis Cardoza of Merced fuming. In a statement issued from Washington he said…”The process used to come to this decision was deceptive… This is not a good day for California or this project.”

But Congressman Jim Costa of Fresno points out the Interstate Highway system started in remote rural areas. By phone from Washington he told us the entire Valley will soon benefit from the High Speed Rail project.

“Four and a half billion dollars is a big economic shot in the arm that will bring in a total of 135 thousand new jobs when you build both segments from Merced to Bakersfield, that’s what we have to remember,” Costa said.

Keep in mind that the first HSR construction project is, of course, in downtown San Francisco at the Transbay Terminal. Neither SF, Fresno, nor Hanford count as “nowhere.”

CHSRA Board Member Tom Umberg hinted that Merced wasn’t being abandoned, in remarks included in the CHSRA’s press release on today’s decision:

“Other states are shrinking from the challenge of high-speed rail. In California, we’re rising to meet it,” Umberg said. “And we’re sending a clear signal to Washington – we’re ready to put those dollars to use – north toward Merced and the Bay Area and south toward Bakersfield and Los Angeles.”

Of course, that doesn’t say when Merced would be connected. The CHSRA Board appears to have endorsed CEO Roelof van Ark’s vision of building track outward from this first segment to connect to SF and LA as quickly as possible, with other spurs coming only after that was complete.

UPDATE: In a move that should surprise none of you, the CHSRA board voted to certify the revised Program EIR connecting the Bay Area to the Central Valley via the Pacheco Pass. The Authority also approved a Supplemental Alternatives Analysis for bypassing Hanford to the east instead of sending tracks through town, and made some adjustments to alternatives through the Tehachapi Pass area.