Showing posts with label Curt Pringle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Curt Pringle. Show all posts

Saturday, October 3, 2009

Video From LA Union Station HSR Rally

NOTE: We've moved! Visit us at the California High Speed Rail Blog.

Thanks to @TedNguyen and OCTA for this short video of the HSR stimulus funding rally yesterday at LA Union Station. Included are snippets of remarks by OCTA CEO Will Kempton, CHSRA Board Chairman Curt Pringle, and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger:

Friday, October 2, 2009

CA Submits Second Federal HSR Stimulus Application - Up to $10 Billion Could Be Headed Our Way

NOTE: We've moved! Visit us at the California High Speed Rail Blog.

Across California the California High Speed Rail Authority is hosting rallies in support of the state's application for federal rail stimulus funds. You can follow along at the Authority's official Twitter feed, @cahsra.

The official application was unveiled today in a press conference with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Speaker Karen Bass, and a whole host of other dignitaries, including most of the CHSRA board. The total amount of the application is $4.7 billion, which closely tracks the $4.5 billion the board approved on September 23. When combined with state and local matching funds, including funds from Prop 1A that would be eligible to be spent with the 50% match required under AB 3034, the total funding this could generate for the HSR project is $10 billion, more than enough to get actual construction work underway.

Some of the statements from the LA event:

At a news conference at Union Station, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he is a high-speed rail "fanatic" and asserted the project would provide a $10 billion economic boost to the state.

"I think it is disgraceful for America to be so far behind when it comes to infrastructure," Schwarzenegger said. "In Europe and Asian countries, they're traveling now up to 300 miles (per hour on bullet trains) while we're traveling on our trains at the same speed as 100 years ago. That is inexcusable. America must catch up."

Schwarzenegger said California deserved to get more than half of the $8 billion in federal stimulus money set aside for high-speed rail development because it is further along in planning than other states and is ready to break ground in 2011, a year before the federal deadline for getting the money.

Also, Schwarzenegger said "those stimulus dollars will go further in California than in any other state because California has pledged to match -- dollar for dollar -- all money received" from the federal government....

In a statement, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa touted the project's environmental benefits.

"A high-speed rail system that runs faster on one-third the energy of air travel, and one-fifth the energy of car travel, will dramatically reduce CO2 emissions and the time people spend stuck in traffic on our state's freeways," he said.


Among the backers of the application is Senator Barbara Boxer, who put out this statement:

Senator Boxer said, “I am pleased to support the request that the California High-Speed Rail Authority is making today. California voters have already committed nearly $10 billion in state bonds for this effort. This investment of federal high-speed rail funds could help us create more than 130,000 jobs in California, reduce air pollution and congestion on our roads, and accelerate our push for a cleaner and more efficient transportation system.”


Of course, CHSRA's approved application wasn't the final version. The applications for federal stimulus come from the governor's office. And that is where things are starting to get interesting. No small amount of money was shifted around between the September 23 proposal and today's proposal. From the September 23 application:

$1.28 billion for San Jose to San Francisco, including station improvements, grade-separations, electrification and safety state-of-the-art "positive train control" in an upgraded, shared alignment with Caltrain.

$466 million for Fresno to Merced, including right-of-way acquisition, grade-separations, utility relocation, environmental mitigation, earthwork, guideway structures and track.

$819.5 million for Bakersfield to Fresno, including right-of-way acquisition, grade-separations,
utility relocation, environmental mitigation, earthwork, guideway structures, track relocation and new track.

$2 billion for Los Angeles to Anaheim, including high-speed train facilities at Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS), Norwalk Station, and the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC); right-of-way acquisition, grade-separations, utility relocation, environmental mitigation, earthwork, guideway structures, tunneling, and track work.


And from the October 2 application:

$2.18 billion for Los Angeles to Anaheim, including high-speed train facilities at Los Angeles Union Station, Norwalk Station and the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center; right-of-way acquisition, grade-separations, utility relocation, environmental mitigation, earthwork, guideway structures, tunneling, and track work. Total jobs created: 53,700.

$980 million for San Francisco to San Jose, including station improvements, grade separations, electrification and safety state-of-the-art "positive train control" in an upgraded, shared alignment with Caltrain. Total jobs created: 34,200.

$466 million for Merced to Fresno, including right-of-way acquisition, grade-separations, utility relocation, environmental mitigation, earthwork, guideway structures and track. Total jobs created: 10,500.

$819.5 million for Fresno to Bakersfield, including right-of-way acquisition, grade-separations, utility relocation, environmental mitigation, earthwork, guideway structures, track relocation and new track. Total jobs created: 16,500.

$276.5 million for preliminary engineering and environmental work in all system segments including Los Angeles to San Diego via the Inland Empire, Los Angeles to Palmdale and Bakersfield, Sacramento to Merced and the Altamont Rail Corridor. Total jobs created: 12,000.


The differences appear to be:

-$300 million on the Peninsula

+$180 million for LA-Anaheim

We still don't know yet what the details of the shift have been, as the detailed application information has yet to be provided to the public.

Apparently the funding request for the Transbay Terminal train box is still in the plan, but due to a lack of political lobbying leadership on the Peninsula, other voices on behalf of other parts of the state were more successful in retaining funding.

There are also rumors flying around about money for Caltrans' Division of Rail, which operates the popular and important Amtrak California routes. Some reports I've heard claim that $300 million was moved out of HSR and into Caltrans rail projects. Richard Tolmach, a die-hard HSR denier, put out a press release quoted in the comments to yesterday's post, where he claims that CHSRA staff "successfully convinced the Governor's office on the afternoon of Thursday October 1 to block about $3 billion of conventional rail proposals under development by Caltrans."

The problem here is that under Track 2 of ARRA, most of the money is intended to serve high speed rail projects. It is likely that Amtrak California has gotten some funding, as they should. But the notion that $3 billion would ever have been dedicated by the state to funding non-HSR intercity rail is ridiculous, and it is simply not credible to believe that the USDOT would have ever been willing to fund $3 billion in non-HSR intercity rail even if the state of California asked it to do so. Tolmach is spinning - and that's being generous - when he says, without producing any evidence, that the CHSRA tried to undermine other passenger rail. We have no reason to believe any such thing occurred, in no small part because we have no reason to believe any other passenger rail was likely to get a whole lot of money.

And despite Tolmach's claims, the most persistent stories I've heard on this all day is that Caltrans rail programs actually got MORE money than they were expecting.

While we try to sort out what, if anything, was left on the cutting room floor, we should not forget the movie itself. California High Speed Rail is poised to get around $4 billion in federal funding, which will enable the project to spend potentially $9 or $10 billion by 2012 to get underway.

That is a tremendous accomplishment. Now it's up to the US Department of Transportation to deliver the goods. And based on what the White House has said, California can expect to receive most or even all of the money requested in this application.

Despite what the deniers, NIMBYs, and naysayers may argue, this train is leaving the station. California high speed rail is going to happen.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

CHSRA To Re-Bid Communications Contract

NOTE: We've moved! Visit us at the California High Speed Rail Blog.

California High Speed Rail Authority Chairman Curt Pringle has announced that the communications contract that caused some significant controversy last week when it was announced Mercury would be the winners is going to be rebid:

The California High Speed Rail Authority is scrapping a staff recommendation from last week that a firm with connections to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger should receive a $9 million, five-year public relations contract, according to a memo sent today by Board Chairman Curt Pringle.

The authority will re-advertise the contract and start its selection process from scratch, Pringle said in the memo. He expects that staff will provide a formal recommendation with more transparency as soon as November.


This is exactly what I predicted would happen last week. The full memo from Pringle:

California’s high-speed train project ought to be an example of a government project done right – and that means being 100 percent open and transparent with Californians every step of the way.

In seeking out a new statewide communications and outreach contractor, the Authority followed the proper RFP procedures and made an objective recommendation. However, we realize we could have been more transparent about the process in order to more openly display that objectivity and strict adherence to state procurement procedures.

Therefore, following discussions with and recommendation from Executive Director Morshed and Deputy Director Barker, the Authority will re-advertise the solicitation and re-conduct the RFP process for this important contract in a way that more openly displays our procedures and sets a precedent for transparency in the awarding of government contracts.

Reaching out to the public as broadly as possible and ensuring access to information about the proposed high-speed train system is critical to the success of this project. I expect that a formal recommendation will be brought before the Board as soon as the November meeting.

Curt

CHSRA's critics won't be swayed by this, but this is an honest letter that admits a mistake and sets out how they're going to put it right. The Sacramento Bee article linked above added that the more transparent process used for the re-bid may reach out beyond the CHSRA:

Rail Authority Deputy Director Jeffrey Barker, one of the three staff panelists and a Schwarzenegger aide until Sept. 1, said the authority will use a larger review panel, possibly selected by a third party. Barker also said the authority will provide more information on its criteria for review.

That "third party" will be interesting. USDOT? Governor Schwarzenegger? Department of General Services? Of more importance will be the criteria for review, which enables the public to see the metrics by which bids are judged.

Ultimately this is something of a tempest in a teapot. Most PR firms are basically alike, especially in the relatively small world of California politics. All of them are politically well connected. And the communications strategy isn't quite the same as the all-important decisions about construction contracts, picking someone to supply the trains, and selecting an operator.

This may well be a good learning moment for the CHSRA. When those more important decisions are made, it will be to the CHSRA's benefit to use a very public process to make those decisions. That may or may not have been the plan all along, but this controversy is teaching them how to approach contract decisions the right way.

So we will see what happens in November!

Thursday, September 3, 2009

CHSRA's New Pitchmen?

NOTE: We've moved! Visit us at the California High Speed Rail Blog.

UPDATE 2: Shane Goldmacher explains what went down:

Several rail board members demanded more information about the selection process and the winning bid, calling the staff panel’s report inadequate and saying they might want to hear presentations from the runners-up.

“The staff report and recommendation here wouldn’t be adequate in kindergarten,” said Richard Katz, a board member.

Jeffery Barker, a member of the staff panel and deputy director at the California High Speed Rail Authority, said Mercury’s bid scored 91, the runner-up 90.

Commissioner Lynn Schenk said that was “awfully close – within the margin of error of subjectivity.” And she raised questions about the “formal and informal, professional and other relationship with members of the selection team” and Mercury.

A vote was postponed until the rail board’s October meeting.

I'm all for more time to examine the advantages and disadvantages of the two bids. My guess is this will eventually be rebid with a different oversight and decision process.

UPDATE: As I predicted, this contract was anything but a done deal. Shane Goldmacher reports the CHSRA board voted to postpone the vote on awarding the contract.

Back to the original post...

A little while back the California High Speed Rail Authority announced it was putting out for bid a $9 million contract to handle its communications - everything from designing the form (but NOT the content) of the next Business Plan to public outreach to local communities along the proposed HSR line. Kris Deutschmann of KDC Communications had been leading the communications, along with several other project assistants. I have had very good interactions with Kris and those other assistants. But with the passage of Prop 1A the CHSRA saw the need to ramp up its communications strategy, and invited bidders. KDC bid, as did many others, mostly the usual suspects of California political communications. Yesterday, we learned that the winner was Mercury Public Affairs.

Needless to say, this has raised a few eyebrows.

Mercury Public Affairs has some heavy hitters. Adam Mendelsohn is a partner - he used to be Arnold Schwarzenegger's strategist. Steve Schmidt is a partner too - he managed Arnold's 2006 campaign for reelection (and the "senior campaign strategist" for the McCain 2008 campaign). Not all of their partners are Republicans - one is Fabian Núñez, Democratic Speaker of the Assembly from 2004 to 2008.

The choice of Mercury for this contract by a subcommittee of the CHSRA board (the full board will vote on the choice at today's meeting in Sacramento) is being seen by some as a potential "payback" that might raise "ethical" issues. Shane Goldmacher at the LA Times - one of the state's best political reporters - examines this in his article on the contract:

Two members of the staff panel are former Mendelsohn colleagues.

Ethics watchdogs raised questions about the appearance of favoritism.

"You can't help but raise your eyebrows," said Kathay Feng, executive director of California Common Cause.

"We are seeing a revolving door of legislators and former state officials and state employees going from public service to private PR firms . . . and pulling on all the personal relationships that they've developed to build up their business."

Kathay Feng, who I know and respect as a colleague, is not wrong to point out the revolving door of state officials and employees. And the personal relationships do count for a lot.

However, in the world of Sacramento communications consultants, virtually everyone has a political relationship:

One member of the staff panel, Jeffrey Barker, previously served as associate and deputy communications director in the governor's office, working daily with Mendelsohn. Barker, who began working for the rail commission in August, also worked with Schmidt....

Barker, now deputy director of the California High Speed Rail Authority, said the panel followed a "regimented process" and that there was no conflict of interest.

"We evaluated these proposals based strictly on communications and outreach abilities," he said.

Barker said he and Bowman "knew members of every single [public-relations] team that came in," not just those at Mercury.

So while my Calitics co-blogger Brian Leubitz reads this as having "that whiff of a payback", I don't think that's exactly right. Virtually anyone picked for this contract would be subject to the same charges.

And yet I don't think it is coincidental that Mercury won the contract. It's not a matter of payback but of political logic. The CHSRA's new chairman is Curt Pringle. He's a Republican, mayor of Anaheim, and close to the governor. Another one of Arnold's key point people on the CHSRA board is David Crane, who I wrote about at Calitics in 2007 (before I started this blog).

From what I am given to understand, Pringle and Crane are charting a more assertive course for the CHSRA in leading the HSR project to completion. They are apparently doing so with the support and engagement of the governor's office, which may see HSR as a "legacy project" for a governor with 18 months left in office.

As anyone who is familiar with my writing at Calitics knows, I am not a fan of this governor. His legacy is going to be a state in ruins, a California dream turned into a nightmare. He has usually chosen to play a governor on TV, but has notoriously neglected the details of behind-the-scenes governance. Further, he spent most of his term in office trying to gut the CHSRA's funding, and delayed the Prop 1A bond not once but twice - it was originally to go before voters in November 2004, and again in November 2006. As it turned out, the delay to November 2008 may have ultimately worked in our favor, but that's no thanks to Arnold. History will not be kind to him, nor should it be.

And yet the California HSR project is in desperate need of political leadership. As a separate Authority, the day-to-day management of the project isn't in the hands of legislators or a department of the executive branch that reports to the governor. This is intended as a good thing - authorities have more ability to cut through red tape and get things done, at least in theory, without political meddling or micromanaging.

The downside is that the independence of authorities like the CHSRA means that politicians don't feel they have the same stake in the project as they might otherwise have. This is a particular problem in our term-limited legislature, which aside from a handful of folks like Fiona Ma and Cathleen Galgiani hasn't seemed to give a fuck about the project, except when Senator Alan Lowenthal ramps up another effort to gut the project and turn HSR into glorified and disconnected commuter rail.

Without strong political leadership the CHSRA has started to get bogged down in places, particularly on the Peninsula. Good leadership, and a stronger communications strategy, would have pushed back much harder against the Peninsula NIMBYs, calling them out as anti-environment nutjobs who put their own deluded notions of aesthetic value above safety, economic recovery, and the fight against global warming - all while doing more intensive outreach to reasonable Peninsula residents who generally like the idea of HSR but want to ensure it'll get built in a good way. And with a broken legislature almost totally unable to shepherd projects to completion - but having just enough power to kill good ideas and strangle worthy projects - it was obvious that the CHSRA needed some more robust communications and better political connections.

So in Mercury they'd get both. Adam Mendelsohn, Steve Schmidt and Fabian Núñez would be contracted to help sell HSR to the public. And it has to be said that Arnold Schwarzenegger did a pretty good job of promoting HSR last year whenever he spoke on the subject. I can see the logic to this.

All this being said, this is by no means a done deal. The board has to vote on the contract today and expect to see some "no" votes. There is clearly a power shift going on at the CHSRA, and those that did some of the hard work to keep the project alive and get it approved by the voters might not necessarily be pleased to see a governor that hadn't exactly been HSR's best friend suddenly want to take over. I can't blame them for feeling that way.

My own view is this: the CHSRA clearly needed to shift its approach now that it has the bond money, now that it has federal support, and now that it has to face some real and difficult battles at the project level. If Arnold, Mercury, Pringle, and their team have a sensible plan to navigate HSR through those waters, then I am willing to join up and support them for the sake of getting this built (which as everyone knows has always been my top priority on this blog).

Of course, I'll continue to watch them closely, and offer criticism where necessary. This blog has never been a rah-rah cheerleader for the CHSRA and we're not about to start doing that now.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

The Play To Block HSR Stimulus Funds

NOTE: We've moved! Visit us at the California High Speed Rail Blog.

The California High Speed Rail Authority held its monthly meeting today, and included a project phasing workshop after the regular meeting, part of Chairman Curt Pringle's efforts to provide more opportunities for the public to get involved with providing feedback on the planning process. One of the outcomes of today's meeting was that the Authority is becoming more assertive in providing management and oversight:

Under the leadership of newly elected board chairman, Curt Pringle, the Authority created three standing committees:

* Executive Administrative Committee: Chairman Curt Pringle, Judge Quentin Kopp, Director Fran Florez
* Operations Committee: Directors Richard Katz, Rod Diridon, Jr. and Russ Burns
* Finance: Directors Tom Umberg, David Crane and Lynn Schenk...

Additional organizational transparency measures include maintaining and keeping current the California High-Speed Rail Authority Web site, posting all applications and other required documentation....

Discussed proposal for development of new “investment grade” ridership and revenue forecasts to assist in attracting public-private partnerships.

All of which is quite welcome.

The board apparently also discussed fast-tracking certain deadlines to enable more stimulus funding to arrive in California. It's hard to figure out exactly what this refers to - the article from ABC/7 in LA is written at something resembling a 6th grade level and is maddeningly vague. But whatever was discussed and decided, it was enough to provoke some of the usual suspects into their usual outrage:

"The biggest danger is that citizens don't get heard, alternatives don't get considered. They don't want to study any route alternatives. And to me, that's absolutely wrong when you're doing a $40 billion project," said Richard Tolmach, California Rail Foundation....

"You can't short-cut the process on a high-speed train. You end up with a mess," said Tolmach.

Tolmach is not being truthful here - the CHSRA spent 11 years studying route alternatives. He's just unhappy they didn't pick his preferred route.

More significant than Tolmach's desire to study the project until 2049 is his implication that stimulus funds are less important than building the project his way. This is a completely crazy approach, jeopardizing the entire HSR project and the federal funds it needs to be built over a relatively minor spat over a routing choice.

Tolmach is joined in working to undermine the HSR stimulus funds by the Planning and Conversation League, which last month sent this rather extraordinary letter to a bunch of state legislative leaders:

PCL Letter Re Budget Bill

The key section is quoted below:

Lastly, we would like to rebut several false claims made recently by the Authority. First, the Authority has made the claim that forcing them to do a thorough review of the Bay Area segment will cost the state Stimulus funding. This is not true. Work on the San Francisco to San Jose segment, beyond electrification of the existing tracks and work on the Transbay Terminal, will not qualify for stimulus funding since the environmental review is not currently scheduled to be done in time, even without a complete review of alternate alignments.

But that's not a widely shared point of view, particularly about the Transbay Terminal's eligibility for stimulus funds. However it is designed, the train box needs to be part of the TBT project from the start, and stimulus funds are part of how that will occur. PCL is willing to jeopardize that because of their desire to place a small piece of the project - the Altamont alignment - over the project as a whole.

PCL is also willing to make threats and pass it off as self-fulfilling prophecy, writing in the letter that unless the CHSRA does exactly what PCL wants, there will be more lawsuits, costing the state money. PCL claims that if CHSRA caves to their demands, the state will "save money in the long run" but it's unclear how a lawsuit would match the multibillion dollar HSR stimulus PCL is willing to risk here.

I've often stated my thoughts on Altamont vs. Pacheco: each has their pros and cons, but the decision has been made to route the long-distance trains over Pacheco, the high speed commuter trains over Altamont, and that it's time to accept it and move on for the sake of the entire HSR project.

By threatening HSR stimulus funds, groups like the PCL are showing that the HSR project as a whole isn't relevant to their work. There's no reason the CHSRA, the state legislature, the governor, or the people California should listen to such financially reckless thinking.

Friday, July 3, 2009

Orange County Takes Over The CHSRA Board

NOTE: We've moved! Visit us at the California High Speed Rail Blog.

That's one way to look at the news that the California High Speed Rail Authority board has a new chair and vice-chair, and they're both from Anaheim. According to the press release:

Earlier in the meeting, the Board elected Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle to be its chairman, replacing Judge Quentin L. Kopp who had served two terms as chairman. Former California Assemblymember Tom Umberg was elected vice-chairman.

Pringle is a moderate Republican; Umberg is a Democrat who narrowly lost a primary for a State Senate seat to Lou Correa in 2006. Both are well-known in Sacramento and may have better relations with the Legislature than Quentin Kopp. Pringle is a strong supporter of HSR:

“High-speed trains are needed in California,” said Pringle. “The state must find a viable surface transportation alternative to ease auto and air traffic congestion between major urban centers and high population growth areas like the Central Valley.

Pringle clearly understands the need for the HSR project and for it to be kept whole, unlike Sen. Alan Lowenthal who wants to chop it into a glorified commuter rail for the Bay Area and Southern California.

I wouldn't read too much into the change of leadership on the CHSRA board. Quentin Kopp has been the chairman for several years now, taking time away from his spot on the San Mateo County Superior Court bench. Kopp's term as chair was a clear success, as California voters approved Prop 1A and the federal government approved billions in HSR stimulus money - and California will likely be largest recipient of that money.

Now it's Curt Pringle's turn to lead the HSR project through this crucial moment. On the plus side the project has the support of the people of California, of the Congress and of President Barack Obama. It has as much as $13 billion ready (assuming we get $4 billion of the HSR stimulus, and that is likely to be the high end of the likely funds) and is well along the way of finalizing the project plans in some of the key corridors.

The HSR plan also has some challenges, from the Peninsula NIMBYs to people like Sen. Lowenthal who want to gut the project. Pringle can help sway more Republicans to support a project that will create a lot of jobs and opportunities for business up and down the corridor. And hopefully he can help navigate the project through the state legislature.

So this blog welcomes Curt Pringle and Tom Umberg to their new positions as leaders of the CHSRA board and of the HSR project. Besides, as an Orange County native myself, it's good to see leadership from OC stepping up for high speed rail.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Orange County Knows Better on Prop 1A

NOTE: We've moved! Visit us at the California High Speed Rail Blog.

In 2005 the far-right editorial board at the Orange County Register joined conservative Republicans in a deranged attack on Measure D, which would have diverted existing public safety monies to the Orange County Fire Authority to help pay for necessary fire equipment. It didn't create any new taxes, and met a need that nearly anyone who has lived in OC for any length of time agrees is real. But the Register got its way and Measure D went down to defeat. Afterward the Register and their allies, like Jon Fleischmann, celebrated its defeat.

Almost a year ago Southern California went up in flames. As the fires worsened around the region, the OCFA was left without the adequate resources to respond when the Santiago Fire broke out. Equipment that Measure D would have paid for was not available and the fire spread. My hometown of Tustin was threatened, and the fires were within blocks of where my family lives. A sudden wind change saved that community, but doomed Portola Hills. Dozens of families lost everything they had.

I wrote about this a year ago at Calitics in order to show the madness of conservative philosophy, the staggering costs of being cheap. In response to my article the Register devoted their lead editorial page to attacking me. I didn't mind, it was a nice sort of validation from the hometown paper. I was kind of shocked by how they defended their position on Measure D, which had led to the predicted and tragic results in October 2007 - by advocating against public firefighters:

A broader goal would be more privatization efforts and more private ownership of land. Private firefighting firms would have a financial interest to promote prevention, and more private ownership of land would mean better-maintained property. Private owners are far better at protecting their property than public owners, who follow an entirely different set of objectives.


That should help you understand what we're dealing with when the Register editorializes against Prop 1A. Their editorialists represent the farthest fringe of the California right-wing. They are inherently opposed to any new government spending on principle and believe that even effective services like the fire department are bad. They are quite willing to play recklessly with public safety and ignore basic social needs in order to pursue their strange agenda.

So it was a foregone conclusion that they would oppose Prop 1A. And like all the other HSR deniers in our state, their arguments are built on a lack of evidence or a complete misunderstanding of reality. The bulk of their editorial is drawn from the throughly discredited Cox-Vranich study. They go on to make a clearly false claim:

If a high-speed train were economically feasible – that is, if revenue from anticipated operations were projected to be higher than capital and operating costs – private investors would be lining up to put money into it.

Of course, as readers of this blog know, they ARE lining up to put money into it, as shown at the June CHSRA board meeting. What the ostensibly pro-business Register doesn't understand is that private investors are not going to put down money until the state does so first. Californians must make the first move by approving Prop 1A - which as amended by AB 3034 provides firm safeguards to ensure that if federal and private money somehow doesn't materialize, California voters won't be on the hook.

The editorial repeats other common flaws, such as the notion that without a strong train network we can't attract many HSR riders. Matt Melzer discredited that claim as well by showing how California compares favorably to Spain, where HSR is a stunning success. The Register claims California lacks a "train culture" which the editorialists can easily disprove if they walked about two blocks west from their offices on Grand Avenue to the Santa Ana Train Depot, where Metrolink and Pacific Surfliners do a booming business.

The irony is that Orange County voters have already rejected the Register's bizarre anti-government rantings. In 2006 voters renewed a 1/2 cent sales tax which included massive new investment in Metrolink and other passenger rail, as well as improving public transportation links to train stations. Most Orange County Republicans wholeheartedly endorse Prop 1A, including Anaheim mayor Curt Pringle, who sits on the CHSRA board.

Orange County residents will reap significant benefits from HSR. The Anaheim station, part of the first phase, will provide commuters faster trips to Los Angeles and other parts of the region via the many connecting services at Union Station. It will enable OC residents to visit family and friends in the Central Valley, the Bay Area, and yes the Monterey Bay region more easily (and vice versa). It will help sustain the Disney resort as a viable tourist destination especially as air travel becomes unaffordable for most families over the coming years (whether Disneyland tickets become affordable is unfortunately out of our hands). HSR will create good local jobs, save OC residents money, and spur long-term economic development.

Orange County knows better on Proposition 1A. I would not be surprised to see OC vote for Prop 1A come November 4. The Register can write a good rant. But increasingly OC residents are seeing the high cost of far-right dogma.