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.

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.

You can listen to the show here. I thought Pringle did a great job defending the project against Moore’s absurd criticisms. Whether you agree or not, feel free to share your thoughts in the comments.

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.

With his time to make appointments coming to a close, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Thursday announced the reappointment of former Assemblyman Curt Pringle to the High-Speed Rail Authority.

Pringle, 47, was mayor of Anaheim until earlier this month.

Schwarzenegger also appointed Thomas Richards of Fresno and Matthew Toledo of Malibu to the authority. Compensation is $100 per diem, and the positions do not require Senate confirmation.

Richards is president and chief executive officer of Penstar Group, a Fresno-based developer. Toledo is publisher of the Los Angeles Business Journal.

So Pringle is reappointed after all, despite controversy over his possible holding of “incompatible offices” related to his post on the Orange County Transportation Authority board, which he will relinquish at the end of this month. Pringle did not run for re-election as mayor of Anaheim this year.

Matthew Toledo replaces Richard Katz, who resigned in November in the wake of the “incompatible offices” controversy (he chose to leave the CHSRA board in order to remain on the LA Metro board). In addition to publishing the LA Business Journal, he served this year as chair of the LA Chamber of Commerce, which has been strongly supportive of HSR. It’s not exactly easy to find out much information about him, though Toledo has been active in supporting Metro’s 30/10 plan.

Tom Richards replaces Fran Florez Rod Diridon and is a Fresno developer:

Richards, 61, has been president and chief executive officer of the Penstar Group since 1981.

He is the developer of the 11-story United Security Bank office building, which is on M Street near the convention center, and with developer Ed Kashian has proposed the Fancher Creek project in southeast Fresno.

Richards also chairs the Fresno Workforce Investment Board.

Toledo and Richards are therefore very similar figures – leaders in their local business communities, active in promoting economic development efforts. They do not have a background in transportation policy or planning, although they’ve been active in supporting local transportation projects.

Their appointments are likely a reflection of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s ideological belief that businessmen are better at managing government projects than politicians and transportation experts. It’s far from clear that’s actually the case, and Arnold’s own tenure in office seems to prove that a lack of previous government experience is not exactly a good thing. On the other hand, both Toledo and Richards will likely be able to maintain private sector support for the project. And besides, most project planning will be done by the CHSRA staff itself, with particular responsibility resting with CEO Roelof van Ark. So it is far too early to tell whether these two appointments are wise or not.

Reappointing Pringle, on the other hand, is almost certain to cause further friction with the state legislature. Senator Alan Lowenthal and Pringle do not get along, although to be fair to Pringle, Lowenthal opposes the HSR project anyway, so he will not be inclined to look favorably on whomever it is that chairs the CHSRA board. Still, we can reasonably expect Pringle and the legislature to continue butting heads in 2011.

That raises two overall issues about these appointments. First, it would have been better for Arnold to not make any appointments at all, rather than doing so on his last day in office. Jerry Brown will be sworn in as governor on Monday, and he ought to have been able to fill these three seats on the CHSRA board. That’s not a reflection on Pringle, Toledo or Richards, but instead a recognition of the fact that Jerry Brown is the new governor and should have had the chance to make these appointments himself, since he’ll have to work with these appointees for the next four years.

Second, Authority reform is going to be a major topic of conversation – and probably of legislative action – in 2011. Without having his own people on the board, Jerry Brown may be more open to such reforms than if he had been able to make three appointments of his own. Authority reform could be a positive step for the project, depending on how it is done. I am guessing these appointments make it more likely, not less, that there will be substantial reform of the Authority in 2011.

I wish all three of them well. After all, when it comes to HSR, I don’t care what one’s background or politics are – as long as they strongly support the project and work hard to get it built, that’s what matters most to me.

UPDATE: More from the outgoing governor:

“California high-speed rail is ushering in a new era of economic and environmental leadership for our state, and ensuring that it is completed successfully and at the lowest cost to taxpayers is of the highest importance to me,” said Governor Schwarzenegger. “I know that Curt, Thomas and Matthew all have the vision, commitment and qualifications to move this project forward, and I look forward to watching this historic high-speed rail system become a reality.”…

Richards, 61, of Fresno, has been president and chief executive officer of the Penstar Group since 1981. Previously, he was general partner for North American Investments from 1974 to 1980 and secretary-treasurer for Sunset Company Realtors from 1973 to 1974. Prior to that, Richards served as treasurer for MacElhenney Levy from 1972 to 1973 and staff accountant for Faletti, Knapp and Jarabin Certified Public Accountants from 1970 to 1972. This position does not require Senate confirmation and the compensation is $100 per diem. Richards is a Republican.

Matthew Toledo, 48, of Malibu, has been chief executive officer and publisher of the Los Angeles Business Journal since 1994. He is a chair of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce board of directors and a member of the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation board of directors, Los Angeles Sports and Entertainment Commission board of directors, Los Angeles coalition board of directors, Town Hall Los Angeles board of directors and Central City Association Executive Committee. This position does not require Senate confirmation and the compensation is $100 per diem. Toledo is registered decline-to-state.

Again, no transportation background or experience for these two. Which doesn’t necessarily mean they won’t be good, but the board does need to have a lot of folks who understand how to plan and build transportation projects in this state.

UPDATE 2: My own sources confirm it is indeed Rod Diridon who isn’t getting reappointed. That’s a real shame, since he has a great deal of experience with transportation policy and projects in California. As I said above, while I have no specific objection to Toledo or Richards, we saw with Schwarzenegger himself the problems that come from appointing people without experience to run government. Diridon is a tireless champion for HSR and brings a lot of experience with passenger rail projects to HSR. Hopefully Jerry Brown can find a place for him to be useful to the HSR project.

AG Incompatible Offices Opinion

So what does this mean in practice? Richard Katz already resigned from the CHSRA board, effective this past Wednesday. Curt Pringle did not run for re-election as mayor of Anaheim, so he will end his term on the OCTA board at the end of this month. My reading of this opinion is that Pringle would be able to continue serving on the CHSRA board if he chose – he did not attend yesterday’s board meeting – because the AG said that the first office – in Pringle’s case, the OCTA board – was forefeited and not the CHSRA board. Additionally, this does not appear to invalidate any decisions the CHSRA board made with either Pringle or Katz as members.

Of course, Pringle could choose to follow Katz and step down voluntarily. He has an incentive to do so – if he resigns before the end of the month, Arnold Schwarzenegger would be able to appoint his replacement, as he already will for Katz.

Personally, I do not believe Schwarzenegger should fill Katz’ vacancy, or a Pringle vacancy were one to arise. Arnold will be governor for less than a month – Californians elected Jerry Brown to be their new governor, and it is only right and sensible that Brown be able to fill any vacancies on the CHSRA board.

In a related story, anti-HSR reporter Tracy Wood at the Voice of OC site uncovered emails Pringle sent that were highly critical of HSR engineers:

California High-Speed Rail Authority Chairman Curt Pringle had no faith in the engineers responsible for designing and implementing the Anaheim-to-Los Angeles segment of the $43 billion statewide bullet train project, according to emails sent by Pringle in January that have been obtained by Voice of OC.

“I do not think that the engineers working on the Anaheim to LA segment are capable of doing the work,” Pringle wrote in a January 18 email to Mehdi Morshed, who at the time was chief executive of the Rail Authority.

“They seem to be so dense … they are not able of understanding the impacts of their words and actions. I sincerely do not know how they can work on a project of this size!”

The occasion for these emails was that engineers were not telling him what he wanted to hear about the location of the ARTIC station. The original plan was that HSR tracks would go over the 57 freeway. However, Caltrans ruled that out. A proposal to move ARTIC to the Angel Stadium parking lot was nixed by Pringle who predicted the Angels would cause a “whirlwind of anger.” So he proposed spending $200 million to tunnel the tracks to ARTIC – which upset anti-HSR Senator Alan Lowenthal and set a lot of this into motion.

In response, Morshed hinted at the “incompatible offices” issue:

The emails also raised a conflict-of-interest issue that the California Attorney General’s Office is expected to address soon. In his response to Pringle, Morshed began his email by writing, “in reading your email I had difficulty separating the message from the Mayor with that of the Chairman of the Authority.”

Interestingly, the emails also show that Pringle has been frustrated with the CHSRA’s public outreach, an area of constant criticism leveled at the Authority:

“I am preparing for the FIRST community meeting in my city on Wednesday,” Pringle wrote on Jan. 18. “How a project of this size could ever move this far without EVER talking to the public is inconceivable!”

Lots of people up and down the route would agree with this statement. Pringle told the Voice of OC that he felt outreach had improved, and let’s hope that the new members of the CHSRA board and CEO Roelof van Ark will make outreach a top priority.

Overall I’m not sure what this “incompatible offices” issue has accomplished. Some kind of reform of the CHSRA is probably going to happen anyway, and depending on the reform, it might be just what the project needs. However, instead of reform, we got a scandal that in the end may force two members off the board, but does nothing to actually improve project outreach or help get the project closer to completion.

I can’t say I’m totally surprised at this news:

Los Angeles transportation official Richard Katz is stepping down from the state panel overseeing development of California’s $43-billion high-speed rail system.

Katz, who also serves on the boards of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the Metrolink commuter rail system, said Tuesday that he submitted his resignation to the governor and will leave his state post Dec. 1.

This stems from the controversy about Katz and Curt Pringle holding “incompatible offices” – it has been argued that under current state law, their positions on the MTA board and the OCTA boards (respectively) are not compatible with membership on the California High Speed Rail Authority board. Katz has decided to resign rather than be potentially forced off the MTA board:

Katz has argued to the attorney general that his public offices are compatible. But he said he did not want to risk being able to continue work on local transportation projects, including a plan to leverage county sales tax receipts to build 30 years of transit projects in the next decade.

The so-called 30/10 proposal “is one of the most exciting things I’ve ever been involved in,” Katz said. He said he also wants to see through a major collision-avoidance system and other safety improvements at the five-county Metrolink system.

“I’m not willing to risk all that for high-speed rail,” Katz said.

It would be a shame if his tenure on the board were remembered only for this controversy. Katz’s dual membership actually served the HSR project and the MTA quite well. When MTA head Art Leahy and OCTA head Will Kempton called on the Authority to study track-sharing, Katz and Pringle were able to help provide such a study, easing concerns among MTA and OCTA members while keeping the HSR project moving forward.

Katz told the LA Times that he thought it was important for local officials to be involved in the HSR project:

But Katz said that barring officials from urban areas that would be traversed by the bullet trains, and who are likely to have more knowledge of complex transit planning, from the statewide rail panel makes little sense.

I strongly agree with Katz on this. The legislature can and should pass a law exempting the CHSRA board from the “incompatible offices” law. Many transit authorities have such an exemption, and it makes a ton of sense to have an exemption here – for the HSR project to have the most success, it needs to be fully integrated with regional transportation plans. While HSR critics have had their fun undermining the project with this “incompatible officies” issue, the departure of Katz offers an opportunity to correct the law and enable the project to move on.

Particularly since Pringle’s own tenure on the CHSRA board may be ending as well. He did not run for re-election as Anaheim mayor, and will also be losing his spot on the OCTA board as a result. Pringle’s term on the CHSRA board itself expires at the end of this year, and while Pringle has indicated he wants another term, incoming governor Jerry Brown may choose to use the opportunity to appoint his own people to the board.

Katz and Pringle (whatever his future on the board) both deserve a lot of credit for helping the project not only survive, but thrive. The criticism they have drawn is primarily intended to undermine the project itself, and while I haven’t agreed with everything they’ve done, I know that without them we would not be on the verge of building the first HSR segment in California.

UPDATE: CHSRA CEO Roelof van Ark has a statement on the question of board members and local expertise:

“The Authority – and the people of California – clearly benefit from having leaders on its Board who are well versed in local government and regional transportation issues and who understand the needs of complex transportation infrastructure projects. The law requires that we develop a modern high-speed rail system that integrates with existing rail, bus and transit networks. We need Board members who understand both worlds to guide the Authority in its decision-making.

“While the incompatible offices issue is being resolved, the Authority will continue its focus on the most important infrastructure project in our state, because high-speed rail will create jobs in the near term and strengthen our economy and environment in the long term.”

Sounds like another voice in support of legislative action to enable members of local transit agencies to serve on the CHSRA board. Is there any argument against such an exemption (leaving aside for the moment the questions about Katz and Pringle)?

Amid budget talks last week, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders tried to ease restrictions in a state conflict-of-interest law so that two prominent officials from Anaheim and Los Angeles could remain on the board of the California high-speed rail project.

Their attempt to retain Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle and Richard Katz, a member of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority board, would have been tacked onto the state budget bill. However, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) derailed the effort after opposition arose from other Democratic legislators.

The article explains that Senator Gloria Romero and Senator Alan Lowenthal pushed Senator Steinberg to reject the proposal, which he did:

State Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), chairman of the transportation committee that oversees the bullet train project, said he learned from Steinberg’s office last Friday that the panel wanted to exempt Pringle and Katz.

“I went ballistic,” Lowenthal said. “I couldn’t support that. The law is the law. Everyone knows what’s going on and they’re trying to sneak something into the budget.”

At a committee hearing last spring, Lowenthal questioned whether Pringle and Katz had conflicts of interest. He was particularly concerned about a proposal backed by Pringle to use $200 million in high-speed rail money to complete a huge transportation center in Anaheim that would also serve buses and commuter trains.

The proposal to ease the conflict restriction was initially raised by someone in the Schwarzenegger administration, according to a legislative aide who was privy to the discussions but would only speak on condition of anonymity.

My take on this is that it’s the worst possible outcome for Pringle and Katz. Had the effort to get them an exemption – which the Legislature absolutely has the power to grant – succeeded, then it would be seen as a fairly straightforward solution to a possible conflict.

But with the effort failing, it merely draws more attention to the issue and solidifies the argument that Pringle and Katz are holding “incompatible offices” – otherwise why would Governor Schwarzenegger have tried to give them a legislative exemption? The fact that this was raised in a budget meeting will only add further fuel onto the fire.

Pringle is not running for re-election as Anaheim mayor this fall, and is stepping down from OCTA at the end of the year. Still, this issue has already rocked the CHSRA board, and is only growing to be more of a distraction for the project.

My guess is that either Pringle or Katz (or both) will step down from the board by the time a new governor is sworn in at the beginning of 2011. Meg Whitman isn’t likely to want to keep them around as she seeks to blow up the project, and Jerry Brown will want to put his own people there. Still, this issue is only growing more high-profile, which in turn means the CHSRA board is going to have to find a way to resolve this. Short of a legislative dispensation – which is now almost certainly never coming – I don’t know how Pringle and Katz can stay on board.*

(*Note: that’s not my preference, or the preference of Californians For High Speed Rail, neither of us have taken a position. Just an assessment of where things probably stand.)

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.

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.