“Phase 1, I’m trying to redesign it in a way that in and of itself will be justified by the state investment,” Brown said. “We do have other sources of money: For example, cap-and-trade, which is this measure where you make people who produce greenhouse gasses pay certain fees – that will be a source of funding going forward for the high speed rail.”

Cap-and-trade is the name given to the system established by AB 32, passed in 2006 and supported by voters in 2010, to address carbon emissions and global warming. AB 32′s cap-and-trade fees go into effect later this year and that makes money available to help reduce carbon emissions. We know high speed rail will reduce carbon emissions – after all, transportation accounts for 39% of California’s carbon emissions, the largest of any kind of source. So on that basis alone it makes sense to use some cap-and-trade funds to help build high speed rail.

It could also help get tracks from the Central Valley to the coastal metropolis – the essential step to getting to an Initial Operating Segment and bringing private capital on board to help finish the entire route from SF to LA. Brown hinted at this possibility in the ABC7 interview, talking about using money to bring Metrolink up to Palmdale to help connect to a segment between Bakersfield and Palmdale. This may be what Dan Richard had in mind when he said last week that the urban areas would be included in the upcoming business plan revision.

This is the kind of thinking I’d like to see more of from the state legislature. Senators like Mark DeSaulnier, Joe Simitian and Alan Lowenthal ought to be figuring out how to make options like this work, rather than joining right-wingers to try and kill the high speed rail project. California should be a state where problems are solved, rather than used as excuses for giving up.

Brown also challenged claims that the project would cost $100 billion:

“It’s not going to be $100 billion,” the Democratic governor said on ABC 7′s Eyewitness Newsmakers program. “That’s way off….It’s going to be a lot cheaper than people are saying.”

I hope he’s right, even though I’m not as worked up about costs as others are.

Ultimately this interview shows how Governor Brown is key to the survival of California high speed rail, and how his refusal to embrace what he calls “defeatism” (as, sadly, Senators DeSaulnier, Simitian and Lowenthal appear to have done) about the state’s future is making a difference to the project at a time where it needs a strong champion.

This week the Smithsonian Magazine blogged about a remarkable find – a plan to connect San Francisco to Los Angeles with high speed rail in under four hours. The kicker: the plan was floated in 1910.

The April 17, 1910 San Francisco Call ran an article titled, ”From Call Building to Oakland City Hall in 5 Minutes.” The Call Building in San Francisco is now known as Central Tower. Felts lived in Los Angeles but had once lived in San Francisco and imagined a system of suspended auto motor railways that would “revolutionize railroading the world over.”…

Felts clearly had a bigger vision for his railway system than just Oakland to San Francisco, explaining that a trip from Los Angeles to San Francisco could take just under four hours:

“My suspended auto motor railway, at the rate of 100 miles per hour, would make the same distance of 471 miles in 5 hours, including five stops of five minutes each,” said Felts. “This distance between San Francisco and Los Angeles could be shortened to 400 miles with the suspended auto motor railway, and the speed easily increased to 150 miles per hour, making the time between San Francisco and Los Angeles 3 hours and 39 minutes. The stops would be San Jose, Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles.”

Some might dismiss this as mere “gadgetbahn” and perhaps that’s all it ever was. Who knows whether the technology was actually workable. But what we do know is that 100 years ago it was obvious to Bay Area residents that there was not only benefit in crossing the bay with fast rail, but in linking the state with fast rail as well. The question isn’t whether we should build rail connections between cities and between regions, but how we get it done.

Besides, there’s precedent for major infrastructure in California to go from a dream to reality. The Bay Bridge was opened in 1936, but one of its earliest incarnations was in an 1872 order from Emperor Norton I:

More than a century after a quirky San Francisco character who called himself Emperor Norton I ordered a bridge be built spanning the bay, a move is under way to name the later-day Bay Bridge in his honor….

In 1872, Norton ordered “a bridge be built from Oakland Point to Goat (Yerba Buena) Island and thence to Telegraph Hill.”

Emperor Norton wasn’t the only one to call for a bridge – newspaper articles in the early 1870s discussed the subject and a “Bay Bridge Committee” formed in 1872, including businessman James Otis and a former San Francisco mayor, to promote the project. The crash of 1873 and the ensuing Long Depression put an end to those discussions, but it was clear that a Bay Bridge was needed. After a series of proposals in the 1910s (including the idea discussed in the Call article) were considered, the growth of automobile traffic in the 1920s finally solidified public support for a bridge. But even then it took the Great Depression and public support for spending on infrastructure to get the state out of the mire to make the bridge a reality.

Of course, those were the days when California believed in building, believed in trying, believed in infrastructure. There’s a cottage industry in California today devoted to arguing that it is wrong for California to build infrastructure, that to spend money is inherently wrong, that to inconvenience anybody is an act of evil.

But those voices remain in the minority. Californians voted to build high speed rail in 2008 and Governor Jerry Brown still supports it today, having won a 13-point victory in November 2010 over a gubernatorial candidate who opposed high speed rail.

California still believes in innovating its way to a better future. And that is why the high speed rail project hasn’t gone away and why it won’t go away, despite the efforts of its opponents to kill the project.

Assembly Bill 900, the companion bill to SB 292 which gives Farmers Field protection against legal chalenges, provide the same protection to ANY project costing more than $100 million. Thus, any lawsuit filed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) against the Westside Subway will go directly to the Court of Appeals and be heard within 175 days. I’m sure the Expo Construction Authority is jealous.

“The subway is a natural from a job-creation standpoint, from an investment standpoint, from an emission reduction and air quality standpoint,” said Senator Alex Padilla, the author of SB2 292, to the Daily News.

If the Westside subway might benefit, what about high speed rail?

Let’s take a closer look at AB 900. Here’s what the bill’s intro text has to say:

This bill would enact the Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011 and establish specified judicial review procedures for the judicial review of the EIR and approvals granted for a leadership project related to the development of a
residential, retail, commercial, sports, cultural, entertainment, or recreational use project, or clean renewable energy or clean energy manufacturing project. The act would authorize the Governor to certify a leadership project for streamlining pursuant to the act if certain conditions are met.

Does HSR meet those “certain conditions”? Back to the text of AB 900:

(b) “Environmental leadership development project,” “leadership project,” or “project” means a project as described in Section 21065 that is one the following:
(1) A residential, retail, commercial, sports, cultural, entertainment, or recreational use project that is certified as LEED silver or better by the United States Green Building Council and, where applicable, that achieves a 10-percent greater standard for transportation efficiency than for comparable projects. These projects must be located on an infill site. For a project that is within a metropolitan planning organization for which a sustainable communities strategy or alternative planning strategy is in effect, the infill project shall be consistent with the general use
designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in either a sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy, for which the State Air Resources Board, pursuant to subparagraph (H) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 65080 of the Government Code, has accepted a metropolitan planning organization’s determination that the
sustainable communities strategy or the alternative planning strategy would, if implemented, achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
(2) A clean renewable energy project that generates electricity exclusively through wind or solar, but not including waste incineration or conversion.
(3) A clean energy manufacturing project that manufactures
products, equipment, or components used for renewable energy
generation, energy efficiency, or for the production of clean
alternative fuel vehicles.
(c) “Transportation efficiency” means the number of vehicle trips by employees, visitors, or customers of the residential, retail, commercial, sports, cultural, entertainment, or recreational use project divided by the total number of employees, visitors, and customers.

Keep in mind that I’m not a lawyer. But as I read this…I am not seeing how HSR would qualify. And to be honest I’m not seeing how the Westside subway qualifies either. Neither seem to count as a “residential, retail, commercial, sports, cultural, entertainment, or recreational use project,” neither appear to be “infill,” and neither appear to be clean renewable energy projects or clean energy manufacturing projects.

When I first read about AB 900 last week I took a quick glance at the text and came to the same conclusion. Upon seeing Senator Alex Padilla’s comments I decided to take another look for the purposes of writing this post, and I am again coming to the same conclusion. But then he is much more familiar with this bill than I am, so maybe I am missing something, though it doesn’t seem that way.

This bill is clearly part of a broader effort in Sacramento to streamline CEQA review for large projects that could create jobs and help the environment. So even if the Westside subway and HSR don’t fall under the specific and narrow definitions of AB 900, a precedent has been set. Both projects are environmentally friendly, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and will create desperately needed jobs for the state. If AB 900 is perceived to be a success, then political momentum could be generated in Sacramento to apply it to more projects, including rail projects.

That might be a good thing. As I have written before, CEQA is outdated and needs to be reformed. California needs land use planning law that promotes projects that help lower greenhouse gas emissions. CEQA, however, was written in the 1970s when those concerns didn’t exist. CEQA has had a positive impact on the environment, but over time NIMBYs have found ways to use it to stop projects they don’t like, including rail. And that has fueled sprawl and dependence on automobiles, increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

CEQA needs to be a tool to help fight global warming, not a tool to help wealthy people stop those fights. That means it’s time to bring it into the 21st century. AB 900 is one way we can get there. Even if it doesn’t apply to rail projects, it’s still a good way to get infill redevelopment moving more quickly, without actually preventing people from using the law as a basis to sue against projects they dislike.

Currently there are no discussions that I’m aware of regarding HSR and CEQA. That may change. In the early 1980s Jerry Brown exempted HSR from CEQA altogether. I doubt that would ever happen today. But an expedited lawsuit review process could. It may be something worth exploring, as part of the effort to bring jobs and economic recovery to California and improving CEQA without gutting it or undermining its positive aspects.

The fact is that California’s dependence on freeways is overstated. There are other ways of getting around the region, as many discovered the benefits of trains – apparently the Pacific Surfliners were standing room only on Saturday – and other methods of travel. There was the flight versus bike challenge, where a group of people riding bicycles got from North Hollywood to Long Beach beat people flying JetBlue from Burbank to Long Beach Airport by well over an hour – and beat someone taking public transit (Red Line to Blue Line) by about 15 minutes.

Many more Angelenos realized they could live just fine without driving everywhere. “Carmageddon” was avoided because many people simply took fewer vehicle trips. That’s not a bad thing either. In a metropolis of nearly 15 million people, it makes sense for most of the necessities of life to be locally available, with restaurants and coffee shops and retail and groceries being accessible by foot or by bicycle. It’s just a better way to live – no wonder people are saying they wish it were like this all the time. Southern Californians learned this weekend that they can live just fine without being solely dependent on the car.

Of course, the 405 closure came on a summer weekend, and avoided a rush hour commute. One of the main problems with Southern California’s urban geography is the distance between many residents’ homes and jobs. On the other hand, nobody actually likes having a long commute. I have yet to meet the person who enjoys sitting in traffic on the 91 at 5:30 AM or who likes that it sometimes takes two hours to drive from downtown LA to Orange County on a weekday afternoon.

But Southern Californians usually don’t have much choice because of the mismatch between workplace and home. That mismatch is the product of deliberate policy choices. In the decades after World War II, SoCal was designed as a series of bedroom communities, with work and home purposely not in the same area. My hometown of Tustin, located smack in the middle of Orange County, has a sign at many entrances to the city that reads “work where you must but live and shop in Tustin.” It’s a classic example of 1950s-era thinking, that livable communities are not ones where jobs are located but instead are oriented around residence and retail. Following this logic, workplaces were spread out across the region and housing often located nowhere near one’s workplace. Freeways and wide arterials were intended to handle this far-flung situation, enabling sprawl and commutes.

60 years later, hardly anyone seems happy with this arrangement. Commuting takes a huge toll on marriages and happiness. Home values near the urban centers are high and have held their value far better than the furthest suburbs, where home values fell the furthest. That’s no coincidence. As gas prices soar and the toll of the commute wears on people’s lives, more and more Southern Californians realize that living near your job leads to a much better quality of life. Policies that promote density and provide the infrastructure to support it can help more people live near their jobs, which would reduce dependence on freeways to a significant degree.

That being said, there is still value in having access to a region-wide job market. If you live in Riverside, it’s good to be able to have the option of finding work in Orange County or LA, and vice versa. Improved rail transportation – including, yes, high speed rail – can help meet those demands, allowing people to participate in a region-wide economy. HSR adds to that economic activity, bringing places like Fresno and Bakersfield into the SoCal economic orbit. And if someone still finds value in commuting from, say, Riverside to downtown LA, rail makes that commute much better, allowing folks to stay connected to their family and friends rather than sitting behind a wheel on the 60 cursing their fate.

Rail could also have helped provide an alternative to the Sepulveda Pass during the 405 closure. The Cahuenga Pass has a rail option, with the Metro Red Line running beneath it from North Hollywood to Hollywood proper via Universal City. With the Orange Line BRT connection, it helps give people an alternative to the 101, and played a key role in helping move people from the Valley to downtown LA during this weekend’s closure.

Providing a similar rail route under the Sepulveda Pass seems a pretty high priority. The folks at The Transit Coalition have come up with a plan to do just that, using a tunnel (as was built for the Red Line) to connect Sherman Oaks to Westwood as part of a larger 405 rail corridor. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa included the Sepulveda Pass corridor as part of his visionary 30/10 initiative, although the discussion is early and all modal options are still on the table.

At least three times in the last 30 years – 1984 Olympics, 1994 Northridge quake, and now the 2011 closure of the 405 – have shown Southern Californians that life without the freeway is not only possible, it can be wonderful. Let’s hope that this time the lesson sticks, and the region – which has already been moving away from dependence on the automobile – can seize the moment to develop a fuller range of transportation options. Some folks will still drive, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I love to drive, and I acquired that love on the streets and freeways of Southern California. But there are a lot of other things I love as well in the region, and each time I’m down there I find that trains in particular help me enjoy them more completely than driving ever did. Judging by the public reaction to “carmageddon,” I’m not alone.

Southern California has the plan to build a better system with the 30/10 initiative, with high speed rail, and with growing awareness of the economic and social value of density. 2011 ought to be a tipping point that sees the coalescence of public support behind those efforts to build a better Southern California, instead of maintaining the completely and utterly failed fantasy that freeways are the best way to get around a region.

In an article titled “We Are Approaching Peak Car Use,” the magazine examines an Australian study [PDF] which found driving rates are falling in a number of cities in Europe, North America and Australia.

Explanations include rising fuel prices, the increasing appeal of urbanism, and another interesting theory: that many urban areas have reached the limit people are willing to drive as part of their daily commute (about one hour).

The study authors conclude that traffic engineers need to change their models and rethink the assumption that traffic will increase annually.

Meanwhile, new data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics adds to the body of research about the decline in driving — but whether that amounts to “peak car use” is worth further consideration. The report shows a leveling off in vehicle miles traveled, beginning at the end of 2007….

These numbers don’t point to a cause. But the decline in driving aligns pretty well with the greatest period of economic contraction in a generation. And driving declines have long been linked to recessions. Which leaves us wondering: Is the decline part of a lasting trend, or does it just reflect a cyclical pattern tied to the economy?

Angie Schmitt goes on to cite stats that show both a recession-fueled decline in driving as well as declines that began well before the crash. The Pacific Northwest saw a decline in vehicle miles traveled beginning around 2002 with gas consumption peaking at about the same time. Some regions, like St. Louis, have seen VMT increase, but the Pacific Northwest numbers do suggest that “peak car” has arrived in some regions of the country.

And the numbers from the study that kicked off Schmitt’s article shows that California saw declines too. Car use in Los Angeles declined by 2.0% and in San Francisco it fell by 4.8%.

There are deeper trends at work too. As we examined on the blog about a year ago, the great shift away from driving is well under way. Millennials – those of us about age 30 and under – are leading the way, with a long-term decline in driving habits under way since 1995. We’ve found that it’s far more important to be connected to our digital devices than waste time unproductively behind the wheel of a car.

And of course, there’s the constantly-rising price of gas. But it’s not just gas prices alone – the Pacific Northwest peak in VMT from 2002 came at a time when the average price of gas there was about $1.75 per gallon, and fell even as gas prices remained around $2 at most (only in 2005 did prices begin marching up toward $3).

While some claim that the advent of electric cars will reverse the trend and send VMT back up, it seems that the iPhone and the iPad are more important. It doesn’t matter what engine is in a car, it is still a slow, expensive, and inconvenient way to get around. While some older generations will never believe that truth, wedded as they are to decades-old ideological beliefs that cars are always superior, the truth is now quite clear: Pacific Coasters, at least, have reached “peak car” and are eagerly adopting alternatives when and where they can.

In California that includes nearly a decade of rising ridership on intercity trains operated by Amtrak California.

The evidence is clear: the demand for alternatives to driving is there. High speed rail is an important part of meeting that demand. If you build it, Californians will ride.

While the closure will have an impact, it’s probably overstated. I am just old enough to remember the claims that the 1984 LA Olympics would lead to massive traffic problems, which never actually materialized. People adapted then and they’ll adapt now.

The real “carmageddon,” however, is the fact that $1 billion of local and state money will be wasted on this project. One wonders where Elizabeth Alexis, Alan Lowenthal, Mac Taylor and others who have criticized the cost and plans for the California HSR system are on this stunningly unnecessary project. There is no business plan for the 405 widening, no ridership study, and most of all no indication that it will actually achieve its intended goal of traffic relief.

The vast majority of the project is being subsidized, both in its construction (much of the money comes from the Measure R sales tax) and in its operation. Fuel taxes do not pay the full costs of highway maintenance in California, and nobody has yet dared suggest tolling the 405 through the Sepulveda Pass, even though it’s a damn good idea.

Why is it wasteful? Both in the short-term and the long-term it will not be a good use of funds. The phenomenon of induced demand suggests that the 405 will quickly fill up with new vehicles, at least for a short time. Over the next few decades, however, progressively fewer people will drive on the 405 as gas prices and the great shift away from driving reduce demand for freeway lanes significantly. Eventually, a transit tunnel will have to be bored under the pass between Sherman Oaks and Westwood, which will again become key transportation nodes but this time for rail instead of cars. That will cost more than $1 billion, but it would at least make sense to start putting money away for it now.

The 405 widening project is just one of a number of potentially costly and wasteful freeway projects. The long-proposed closure of the Interstate 710 gap, using a bored tunnel, is projected to cost about $3 billion, probably more. The crazy plan to widen Interstate 5 in San Diego County would cost $4.1 billion. Neither the 710 nor the 5 projects are fully funded, but you don’t see the Senate Transportation Committee or CARRD or the LAO screaming about the lack of a credible financing plan or the risk of cost overruns there.

No, it’s only rail that gets hit with those charges. Freeways are always given a pass and are never held to the unreasonable and absurd standards that HSR critics generate to attack the rail project. Most HSR critics, whether they’re aware of it or not, believe that freeways are normal and right and the best way to move people around, but see trains as new, foreign and unusual, and therefore something that deserves higher scrutiny. For some it’s because they are NIMBYs and seek excuses for stopping something they just don’t want in their backyard, for others it’s because they view trains as a threat to their car-centric world, and for still others it’s because they grew up in an era that viewed trains as obsolete and optional.

In any case, California now has a bunch of people finding ways to make the most important infrastructure project in the last 50 years look like a waste of money, even though it has been successful from a financial, economic, climate, energy and transportation standpoint around the world – and totally ignoring the huge sums of money wasted on unnecessary freeway projects around the state. And if those folks won’t hold freeway projects to the same standards they hold HSR to, then doesn’t it call into question their motives for attacking HSR in the first place?

Now, 2 1/2 years later, the second guessing is in full swing. In recent weeks some have suggested that we should put the project on hold.

We couldn’t disagree more….

In the last 2 1/2 years the case for high-speed rail has gotten stronger, not weaker. When voters approved the plan, a barrel of oil cost about $55; today the price is almost $100. Unemployment was around 8 percent back then, and it is now over 12 percent statewide and even higher in many areas. Californians need the jobs.

Awesome. They nail it. And its gets even better when they go to the point by point defense:

Let’s take the criticisms one at a time.

First is federal funding. While we don’t know precisely how much we will get in future years, we’ve competed well up to this point. California’s project has received the largest slice of federal high-speed rail funds to date – $3.6 billion out of $10.2 billion. This is in large part due to the extensive planning already under way at the state level and the ability to leverage voter-approved Proposition 1A funds. There is no other program where California competes so well for federal funding. We will continue to encourage additional investment – both public and private – while promoting efficiencies that allow us to stretch every dollar in creating jobs and planning for the future growth of this great state.

In other words, these mayors are going to go to DC and fight for federal money. Alan Lowenthal and Joe Simitian, on the other hand, seem content to sit on the sidelines and complain. Federal funding doesn’t just fall from the sky, you have to push to get it. These mayors understand that. Why don’t Senators Lowenthal and Simitian?

Second is state funding. The voters said high-speed rail was a priority and authorized spending $9 billion in state funds. The state continues to experience fiscal constraint due to diminishing revenues, but because construction is ramping up slowly we will only need 2 percent of these funds in the coming year to keep the project on track. The amount approved by voters will be spent over many years, keeping the impact on our state’s budget low in any given year.

I’m guessing they said “many years” because the timeline is uncertain. But it’s worth noting California would pay the bonds back over 30 or 40 years. That’s an appropriately long period of time that not only minimizes budget impact, but ensures that HSR will be a net benefit to the state budget through the tax revenues and economic activity it will produce.

Third is private funding. Our high-speed rail system is expected to make money and attract private investment – similar to systems in Europe and Asia. Twenty-two different funds have shown investment interest in financing part of the system’s capital costs. Demonstrating our commitment by beginning major construction and finalizing all the approvals will minimize investor risk and net the best terms for the taxpayers.

Yep. The notion that the private sector is scared of this is absurd. Their only hesitation comes from the lack of political commitment. They are convinced it will make money. The state and the federal government need to get their act together, and the private sector WILL show up, just as they did in Florida before Governor Rick Scott killed the project.

Finally, there is the matter of where to start building. Many Southern Californians have said we should give priority to their part of the state; same in the Bay Area. We know that this system will never be a success until it connects these two population centers and does so in a way that is sensitive to local concerns. But the question of where to start does not require complicated analysis. The place to start is the place where we’re ready to start, and that’s the Central Valley.

No one thinks we should build the line through the Central Valley and then stop. And we won’t.

That’s awesome. This is solid, solid stuff. It undercuts the arguments of people like Lowenthal and Simitian that the choice of the Central Valley is unpopular in the Bay Area and SoCal. Voters understand that construction of big projects doesn’t happen all at once.

It’s huge to see these five mayors, who lead some of California’s biggest cities, step up to mount this powerful defense of the project. While the anti-HSR forces think they can kill the project by sowing fear, uncertainty and doubt, the pro-HSR forces remain strong and aren’t going away. And the public is on their side.

Discussion on HSR should air around 11am to 11:30am. Daniel Krause, Executive Director of Californians For High Speed Rail, is one of three guests discussing high speed rail.

You can listen via the link above, or tune into to 89.3 if you are lucky enough to live in LA. And the call-in number is 866-893-5722.

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.

Today and tomorrow the US House of Representatives Transportation Committee will be holding hearings in California, with an emphasis on high speed rail. Chairman John Mica of Florida has been taking a critical look at the California HSR project lately, and organizers as well as opponents are gathering to try and influence his thinking.

The first hearing is happening right now in Fresno (sorry for the delayed posting!) at the University of California Center, 550 E. Shaw Boulevard. Tomorrow’s hearing in Los Angeles will be at 8:30 AM at the Brentwood Theater on the campus of the Los Angeles Veterans Administration center right next to UCLA. Senator Barbara Boxer will be at the LA hearing as well.

Mica’s concern has been that the California HSR system won’t generate enough ridership to be worth funding. I think we all agree that the Fresno-Bakersfield segment alone won’t be a big ridership generator, but the purpose is to build the San Francisco to Los Angeles corridor, of which there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that it will fail to produce huge ridership numbers, as have similar HSR systems in Spain, France, Japan, and even the Northeastern United States (which as we know, has much slower speeds than what we are planning to build in California).

Speaking to a Fresno radio station this morning, Assemblymember Henry T. Perea defended the project:

In response to such criticisms, Perea says, “My hope is that we can keep High-Speed Rail on track, I mean, I certainly understand their concern in terms of the cost and the benefits, and I think that over time we’ll still have to deal with that, but to just outright stop it and kill it, I think is the wrong thing to do.”

Perea also criticized Central Valley Republican members of Congress who are calling for stealing the HSR money for inefficient and wasteful roads projects:

“I think what they are trying to do is pit two good projects against each other which is unfortunate.”

Fresno Congressman Jim Costa agreed:

Congressman Jim Costa, a Democrat from Fresno supports High Speed Rail and improving Highway 99, but points out High Speed Rail funds are for trains, not highways. “It is apples and oranges. That’s the point. This money is set aside for High Speed Rail, if state’s don’t want High Speed rail that’s their prerogative, as Ohio and Wisconsin chose not to do.”

I hope to have reports and updates from today’s hearing later in the afternoon. A large contingent of HSR supporters will be at tomorrow’s hearing in LA as well.

We’ll also have more this week on proposed state legislative action regarding high speed rail, including anti-HSR Senator Alan Lowenthal’s effort to change the composition of the California High Speed Rail Authority board.