November CHSRA Board Meeting

Use this as an open thread for anyone interested in discussing the November CHSRA Board Meeting. Click here for the agenda, which includes a board vote on whether to accept the staff recommendation of Ogilvy for the $9 million communications contract, and a presentation from the authority's "French partners" (I assume this is SNCF? Agenda isn't clear on this). Click here for the live webcast (link updated) of the meeting for those of us who can't make it to Sacramento for the occasion.

Ogilvy Recommended For CHSRA PR Contract

At next week's CHSRA board meeting the board will vote on a staff recommendation to award the $9 million PR contract to Ogilvy, a leading public relations communications firm. It's not a surprising choice, as Ogilvy has extensive experience in California political communications. From the Capitol Weekly article on the topic:

Ogilvy Managing Driector Christi Black said her frm received a letter from CHSRA staff saying they were recommending Ogilvy's proposal to the board. Black cautioned that "nothing is official yet, but it's always thrilling to get the letter of intent."

Ogilvy is a global PR firm with offices throughout California, including outposts in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento. The firm contracts with other state agencies including the state treasurer's office, the state auditor and the California Earthquake Authority, among others.

It's a sensible choice, given that Ogilvy has that experience with other state government agencies and has a worldwide reach - which the California HSR project will need.

No word yet on how Ogilvy would respond to ridculous nonsense like that being peddled in the LA Weekly. But I'm sure they'll come up with something.

The CHSRA isn't the only California HSR organization working on its public outreach. I've recently joined the board of Californians for High Speed Rail, as we are working on a relaunch of the organization in the near future to provide grassroots leadership and citizen oversight of the HSR project. As part of our relaunch, we're looking for someone to help with web design. Interested in volunteering your services for the cause? Send an email to me - robert.cruickshank at ca4hsr dot org.

And yes, the transition of this blog to WordPress is still happening. Once we get some things squared away, I am hoping to launch it this weekend.

Mercury Drops Bid for CHSRA Communications Contract

This was unexpected:

Mercury Public Affairs did not rebid on a $9 million, five-year communications contract with the California High-Speed Rail Authority despite being the frontrunner in September before board members raised objections.

After the board objected, Rail Authority officials scrapped their previous recommendation and reopened the bidding process last month. At the time, Mercury said it would do whatever the board asked. But the firm has since decided not to reapply, saying it lacks confidence in the new bidding process.

"Mercury followed the initial (bidding) process to a tee but we were ultimately sidelined because of internal politics," said Mercury spokesman Brian Jones. "We have subsequently decided to not to invest our time, energy or resources into a process we no longer have confidence in, nor believe in."

There are multiple ways to read this: sour grapes that they didn't get the contract the first time, genuine lack of confidence in the process, annoyance that the skids aren't greased this time around as well (note: I don't believe the skids were greased, but that is an interpretation that's been floated).

Ultimately this will wind up increasing confidence and legitimacy in the CHSRA's bidding process, even if there will still be some critics out there arguing that this is "$9 million for PR" and thereby missing the point entirely (this is for all the agency's communications work, including public outreach, scoping sessions, publishing all those business plans that Roy Ashburn demands, etc).

The final decision on who will receive the contract will be made at the November CHSRA board meeting.

Friday Rally for HSR Stimulus Funds in LA

Friday morning at 9 AM supporters of high speed rail, including CHSRA board chair Curt Pringle, members Lynn Schenk and Richard Katz, and various unspecified "members of Congress, legislators, city and county officials, and representatives from labor, business and environmental groups" will gather at Union Station in LA to hold a rally in support of the state's application for $4.5 billion in federal HSR stimulus money.

Major newspapers in the state are getting into the act, including the San Jose Mercury News:

Friday's a big day for California's high-speed rail plan: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will formally request $4.5 billion in federal stimulus dollars to advance the project that will create about 133,000 jobs, 15,000 of them in the San Jose to San Francisco area.

The U.S. Department of Transportation should find this compelling. California's plan is further along than any other high-speed rail project in the country, and the state will match every federal dollar. As to the stimulus intent, California's unemployment rate of over 12 percent is a powerful argument. Major questions remain about how the line from Los Angeles will traverse San Jose and Peninsula cities. But voters have approved nearly $10 billion in bonds for the project, a solid vote of support.

The best use of stimulus dollars is to not only create jobs but also to strengthen the economy for the future, just as the United States did during the Great Depression by constructing dams, bridges and the like. High-speed rail someday will seem as indispensable as the Depression-born Golden Gate Bridge, and stimulus dollars can make it happen.

Good to see the Merc picking up the right framing on this. Government spending on infrastructure is one of the best ways to pull California out of the worst recession since World War II. It worked for us during the Depression, and it can work for us now.

PS: Almost forgot that today is also a CHSRA board meeting. Watch it live here, and view the agenda here. Finalization of the updated Caltrain/CHSRA MOU is on the agenda, as is staff authorization to issue a Request for Expressions of Interest to potential private funders.

CHSRA's New Pitchmen?

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.

CHSRA Project Workshop Presentation Now Available Online

At last week's California High Speed Rail Authority board meeting a project workshop was held to lay out the CHSRA's current approach to project planning, and to lay out what some of the next key steps are. The powerpoint presentation used at the workshop is now available online (PPT file, 91 slides, 6.1MB). The primary purpose is to demonstrate the status of the project planning at the section level, and there is a TON of information on that that I've only now begun to look over.

There is a lot of other interesting stuff, including a mockup of what a morning southbound timetable might look like (slide 14; don't get too attached to it as it's clearly to demonstrate the concept, but may be interesting fodder for discussion in the comments of what an ideal schedule might be); a discussion of the various options for public-private partnerships (slides 69-71); and an in-depth discussion of the construction needs on the LAUS-ARTIC segment as an example of the overall design and planning work that will have to be done on other system segments (slides 76-89), including discussion of the need to move 18 high-tension powerlines, build 49 grade separations, including constructing a 5.1 mile long viaduct over the BNSF Hobart Yard and a big rebuild of the Slauson Ave/I-605 interchange, and discussion of contract requirements.

Should be plenty of conversation starters here. Have fun!

---

Note from Rafael: documents from the August 2009 CHSRA board meeting are now available here, including clean PDF versions of the slides from the phasing workshop. These download a little faster and are not subject to the vagaries of whatever application you use to read PPT files, what fonts you have installed etc. Enjoy!

The Play To Block HSR Stimulus Funds

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.

Orange County Takes Over The CHSRA Board

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.

July CHSRA Board Meeting

The July meeting of the California High Speed Rail Authority board is tomorrow morning at 10 AM in Sacramento at the city council chambers. You can find the meeting materials here. The meeting will be streamed live at this link (kudos to the Authority for putting that together!).

The agenda includes a discussion of project phasing, an update on HSR stimulus funding and pending legislation in the state legislature relating to the HSR project, and a proposed disability access committee.

June CHSRA Board Meeting Today 10AM

The monthly California High Speed Rail Authority board meeting will be held today at 10AM at Sacramento City Hall. The agenda can be found here and includes the following items:

1. Swearing in of new board members Richard Katz (Governor’s appointee) and Russell Burns (Assembly Speaker's appointee) and reappointed board member David Crane (Governor's appointee).



2. A staff presentation regarding coordination with Caltrans on the application for a major share of federal stimulus funding.



3. An update on bills being considered by the Legislature for board discussion and possible action.



4. Selection of a Program Management Oversight contractor.



5. A presentation on the alternatives to be analyzed under the Environmental Impact Report and Statement in the Anaheim to Los Angeles Union Station Section, preliminary alternatives extending north from Union Station to State Route 134, and the schedule for completion of the Anaheim to Los Angeles Project EIR/EIS.

Can't make it to Sacramento for the meeting? Neither can I (I'm still in DC). But the CHSRA has promised to webcast the meeting at this link. Enjoy!

Republican Budget Stalemate Hurts HSR Project

At yesterday's CHSRA board meeting the effect of the state's budget crisis on HSR became clear - unless Republicans stop obstructing a budget solution, the Authority may have to suspend planning and design work, and terminate contracts with consultants and engineers whose accumulated expertise on our HSR project has become vital.

The California High Speed Rail Authority's budget for the current fiscal year, which ends in June, included $29 million from the sales of high-speed rail bonds authorized by voters in November. But because of the state budget crisis, the credit crisis and the poor market for bonds, the state treasurer has not sold any of the rail bonds.

That's left the rail authority without cash at a time when Californians are eager to see the 800-mile fast train system built. At an authority meeting Thursday, officials said they had halted payments on engineering and design contracts in progress and are holding off on awarding new contracts.

"Unfortunately, I have quite a backlog of bills that need to be paid, but no money to pay them," said Carrie Pourvahidi, deputy director for the authority.

The article is a bit misleading on this. The credit crisis and the poor market for bonds are part of the issue. But the state budget crisis is THE central issue. The crisis has led Treasurer Bill Lockyer to refuse to try and sell authorized bonds, and led the Pooled Money Investment Board to stop all infrastructure spending. To the extent that the market for California bonds isn't good because of the budget crisis, it's because the bond markets are concerned that the state may default on its debts.

And why is that a possibility? Because Republican politicians - from legislators to Arnold Schwarzenegger - continue to block a budget solution. I usually try to keep my more partisan comments to Calitics but we cannot escape the fact that it is Republican obstruction alone blocking a solution. Democrats have compromised far more than the media reports - agreeing to nearly $8 billion in spending cuts that have their labor allies VERY angry with them. Speaker Karen Bass agreed to most, but not all of Arnold's demands on cutting environmental and labor protections. But Arnold vetoed the Democrats' solution, and Republicans refuse to budge.

That won't stop HSR deniers from using this manufactured budget crisis to blame HSR. They've done it before - when the CHSRA wasn't funded as a result of the summer budget delay, pushing back the release of the 2008 Business Plan, HSR deniers said it was a sign the CHSRA was a flawed agency unfit to manage the project. It is likely we will see the HSR deniers use thus cash crunch story for the same purposes.

Arnold has proposed giving the CHSRA the funding they need:

On the other hand, the governor's early state budget proposal for the 2009-10 fiscal year includes $123.8 million for high-speed rail, just a half million dollars short of the agency's request.

But if he keeps blocking budget deals, this doesn't really matter. If consultants and engineers are let go, they may decide to take their expertise elsewhere in the country or in the world, and we will not easily replace them.

The big picture involves conservative anti-government ideologies. One reason the HSR deniers oppose the project is they refuse to accept that government can plan and implement this kind of project effectively, even though HSR has been successfully built by governments around the world. By starving government of revenue they are able to "prove" their case with a self-fulfilling prophecy. They opposed Prop 1A and HSR, so they starve the Authority of funds and then say "oh wow they can't manage money!"

California Republicans need to recall their Constitutional obligations to this state and provide it with a balanced budget that protects Constitutionally-guaranteed services - and respects the will of the millions of Californians who voted their endorsement of HSR by approving Prop 1A on November 4.

It's YOUR High Speed Rail Project

Public involvement and oversight is absolutely crucial to the success of the California High Speed Rail project. This blog is committed to providing you information about opportunities to get involved, attend meetings, or otherwise give your feedback and input to the various agencies planning high speed rail. We support the goals of the project, and realize that if it is to be successful, it needs to be done the right way - and that public involvement is a good way to ensure we get the best HSR system we can.

So in that spirit I offer the following information about public meetings regarding HSR in California this month. If you have any others to add, either leave it in the comments or send an email to my last name at gmail.

• January CHSRA Board Meeting
  Thursday, Jan. 8, 10 AM
  Sacramento Area Council of Governments
  1415 L Street, Sacramento
  Agenda
  
  Doesn't seem to be much on the agenda other than the usual project updates. The board will discuss a MOU with the Caltrain board, which may be of interest to Peninsula residents. These meetings always have scheduled time for public comments, as is mandatory under state law.



• Peninsula EIR/EIS Meetings
  
  As Clem has so helpfully described on his blog the Federal Railroad Administration has announced the process for the final Peninsula EIR/EIS statement which includes the following public scoping meetings:
  
  San Mateo County: SamTrans Auditorium, 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, California, January 22, 2009 from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m.
  
  San Francisco: San Francisco State University, 835 Market Street, 6th Floor (Rooms 673-674), San Francisco, California, January 27, 2009 from 3 p.m. to 8 p.
  
  Santa Clara County: Santa Clara Convention Center, 5001 Great America Parkway, Great America Meeting Rooms 1 & 2, Santa Clara, California, January 29, 2009 from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m.
  
  Written comments on the scope of the San Francisco to San Jose HST Project EIR/EIS should be provided to the CHSRA by March 6, 2009, and can be sent to comments@hsr.ca.gov with subject line San Francisco to San Jose HST. (thanks to Clem for this info)
  
  I am going to try and attend the Santa Clara meeting, as that's the closest to us here in Monterey.

As always, if any of you attend these meetings and want to write a report for the blog, let me know and I'll be happy to oblige.

CHSRA Board Meeting December 2008

Peter Nelson attended the California High Speed Rail Authority Board Meeting in San José on Wednesday and filed this report. The agenda is here and Peter has organized his report according to each item. Scroll down for some media files - an MP3 of the CHSRA lobbyist's report on federal funding prospects, and a PPT of the Work Program. My comments are in italics. Lots to chew over here!

Peter's report:

1-2, closed doors.

3. Approve Oct. Meeting Minutes - I noticed that at the meeting "Frank Guzzo from Siemens presented an overview of Siemens' progress in high-speed train technology." This sounds like it would have been an interesting presentation, but unfortunately the Authority does not seem to video tape their own meetings. It would be nice if they had something like SFGTV, where every single SF meeting is recorded and placed online. [Robert: Yes, this would be a very good way to encourage citizen engagement and continue to promote a culture of openness at the Authority.]

4. Something about compensation for meetings, I didn't listen.

5. Member's Reports - this was most of the patting themselves on the back. Really nothing of substance. There were also a bunch of people like the San Jose mayor and a Silicon Valley Leadership Group representative that gave generic reports / congratulations.

6. Executive Director's Report. This was the start of any actual substance.

• They decided they will produce an annual report to the legislature with the past year's progress. Very good idea, and kinda cool that they brought it up on their own without being told to do so. I assume like the other major filings this will appear online (after a few weeks delay).
  
  
• BNSF has indicated that they are open to negotiation and sharing of their Right of Way, unlike most other companies that own track.
  
  
• The executive director is in the process of negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding with Caltrain defining both sides rights/responsibilities. This is so that the shared Caltrain corridor is developed in a coherent fashion by a single joint entity. Along with Caltrain, it was explicitly mentioned that this would involve also talking with the Transbay Joint Powers Association to get to the Transbay Terminal. So despite the media reports, the Transbay Terminal is still their plan. [Robert: Yes, this was indeed always the plan. As we reported last month there are some turf wars going on between CHSRA and the TJPA, some of it over legitimate issues. But conversations continue to happen, which is very good.]
  
  
• The FRA has given a Record of Decision signing off on the SF/Bay Area EIR.
  
  
• All future meetings will be on the 1st Thursday of the month in Sacramento, so this looks to be the only meeting I'll be attending. [Robert: That's probably a sensible cost-savings move, although it would be good to have a few meetings in other locales around the state each year. I'm going to try and make as many of these meetings as possible. Yay for the Capitol Corridor!]

7. Cooperative Agreement with Caltrans. There was some argument about this agreement. The idea was basically to utilize some of their expertise in RoW acquisition and construction inspection, by contracting the work to them. One board member was quite against giving anything to Caltrans that could be done by a private firm, basically anything related to construction. The main concern though was if Caltrans could actually meet reasonable schedules to expedite the work. It was decided that the executive director would negotiate a contract with Caltrans and then bring it back to the board for approval.

8. Federal funding. Most of the meat managed to be within a single 5 minute presentation by one Mark Kadish, the CHSRA's lobbyist in Washington DC (used to be Dianne Feinstein's Chief of Staff). Click here for an MP3 of his presentation. He mentions a number of different funding sources that are being looked into:

• The Amtrak re-authorization bill with $1.5 billion in it.
  
  
• The new HSR bill Kerry introduced with billions in it.
  
  
• The economic stimulus package everyone is expecting to come into Washington with Obama that will be mostly transit related. Initial wording of the stimulus though is for things that can turn dirt within 180 days, which we are nowhere close to. He mentioned this horizon might be expanded, and they're looking to see if there's anything useful that could be done so quickly (I can't think of anything). [Robert: We'll see about this. There is a lot of momentum and support for a broader stimulus, especially given the likelihood that this recession is going to last a while. Still, this Congress is not known for its grasp of policy or forward thinking, so we will have to work hard to ensure HSR gets stimulus money.]
  
  
• Doing this as an annual appropriation is not realistic, we need to build it into the baseline.
  
  
• Build a coalition for a national program, not a 1-state HSR program. Need to get other states closer to the the CA level in both planning and funding. This will help us get the funding we want, by helping others.

[Robert: As you can hear in the clip, Kadish believes that striking while the iron is hot and ensuring that HSR is part of a stimulus package is key to getting this funded. This site will be part of a grassroots effort come January to ensure that happens.]

There also was a lot of talk about getting more early private investment and reviewing the state of the private investment workings, especially since Lehman Brothers is no more due to going bankrupt. Conclusion was to have a report at the next meeting.

9. Work Program update. Unfortunately this was the point that they broke for lunch and I left. Before leaving I managed to snag the PPT that was going to be presented, and it looks like it would have been an interesting update. Without any notes the PPT by itself is somewhat limited in usefulness, but I've attached it anyway. [Thanks for getting it Peter!]

So ends Peter's report.

CHSRA Board Meeting in San José on Wednesday

The California High Speed Rail Authority will be holding its first post-election board meeting this Wednesday in San José. The agenda is online (PDF) and includes mostly housekeeping matters, although there will be an update on the federal funding strategy.

The meeting details:

December 3, 10:00 am
Santa Clara Administration Building
Board Chambers
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110

At this point it doesn't look like I will be able to attend, even though it's only an hour or so away. If there's anyone reading who can attend and provide a report, send me an email - my last name at gmail dot com.

I-15 Express Lanes Force Rerouting of SD HSR

Caltrans is about to open 4.5 miles of new express lanes on Interstate 15, part of an ambitious project to add four reversible express lanes to the freeway between Escondido and Miramar. Whether you think more freeway lanes are going to be useful or not (I don't), what's relevant for us is that the LA to SD routing of the high speed rail line was going to run in the I-15 ROW.

The operative word is "was." The Caltrans I-15 project makes it difficult if not impossible to use I-15 between Escondido and Miramar for HSR tracks, so the Authority is exploring other options:

Two months before Californians vote on a $9.95-billion bond measure for trains, state rail officials are going back to the drawing board to map out a new route for 20 miles of high-speed railroad tracks in North County. Peter Gertler, project manager for the system's Los Angeles-to-San Diego corridor, said Wednesday that construction of express lanes on Interstate 15 between Escondido and Miramar will preclude laying down tracks next to the freeway.

Gertler is vice president and national rail director at HNTB Corp. in Oakland. HNTB is the lead consultant on the southern piece of the 800-mile statewide project and Gertler is coordinating preliminary engineering and environmental studies. Gertler said the original idea was to build the railroad along the west side of I-15. Now planners are looking for other routes because that idea no longer will work, he said.

There is a slight chance planners could keep the train in the I-15 corridor by elevating the tracks above freeway lanes, he said. But that may not be feasible.

"There's bridges in there that weren't there before," Gertler said.

I'm not deeply familiar with that section of San Diego County, but judging by the map nothing immediately presents itself, especially considering the hilly topography in the area.

The usual HSR deniers will use this to attack the Authority's route planning, but the SD branch is still in the development stage anyway. The Authority's board meeting yesterday included a presentation from SANDAG on their local transportation planning, including a multimodal transit center at Lindbergh Field that they want to include HSR. As Phase II of the project there is still time to nail down these details.

The I-15 issue does show the need for stronger leadership in this state on coordinating transportation projects, to ensure that things like potential rail corridors aren't paved over. The lack of coordination seemingly plagues rail projects around the state. San Diego officials, the Authority, Caltrans, state legislators, and anyone else I've forgotten need to work together to ensure that there is a workable HSR route solution.

Powering the High Speed Train With Renewable Energy

Sitting here on the northbound Coast Starlight contemplating the past, the present, and the future. Off to the left is the Santa Barbara Channel with its oil rigs, representing a past that some believe, against all evidence, is still viable. The train is the present - a slow yet beautiful way to get from south to north, but reaching the limits of present capacity and stock. And I'm reading about the future - a high speed train that is not only a fast and efficient way to move people around our state, but that can provide massive benefits to our environment through the use of sustainable and clean technologies.

Back in the spring the California High Speed Rail Authority commissioned a study on powering high speed rail with a fully renewable electricity source. That study is now complete. Produced by Navigant Consulting, it will be discussed at tomorrow's board meeting in San Diego.

The report makes clear that California high speed rail can be powered by 100% renewable energy at an affordable cost - but only if the Authority is "committed early to renewable energy." In other words, to achieve the maximal environmental and economic benefits that 100% renewable energy provides, the Authority must decide soon whether it will commit to that goal.

While the details matter, and will surely be hashed out here on the blog and elsewhere in the state, it is my recommendation that the Authority pursue an all-renewable option and make it a priority in system planning.

Carbon Emissions: The report notes that HSR will save 12 billion pounds of CO2 annually, but the electricity it generates will produce about 5 billion pounds of CO2 per year. That's still a net reduction of 7 billion pounds of CO2 above where we're at today, which is laudable. Certainly there will be some HSR deniers who will point to the 5 billion pounds figure and say "omg this is going to wreck the environment" - but that attitude is akin to refusing to abandon a sinking ship for a lifeboat out of fear you might get cold. Still, HSR should maximize its carbon savings potential, and 100% renewable energy is worth pursuing for that reason alone.

Long-term savings: It's also economically sensible to pursue it - the report notes the "volatile" cost of natural gas, and considering the likelihood that fossil fuel costs will continue to rise over the coming years, 100% renewables is likely to provide a significant long-term savings to the Authority and to the state.

Affordable to the passenger: The report looked at how much renewable energy would add to fares, and found that it would be quite affordable, even without assuming greater innovations in solar energy that would bring down its cost. They considered three scenarios:

100% wind: 86 cents per ticket (on average)
80% wind/20% solar: $1.68
100% solar: $4.92

These numbers reflect the fact that wind is a "mature" technology whereas solar is not. Given the increasing amount of research being done on solar technology it's likely that its cost will decline by the time the system opens. But even if it doesn't, $5 per ticket is quite affordable.

Those costs are an average - shorter trips will see a smaller charge and longer trips will see something more, but even the long term trips will not be significantly more costly than the average.

Further, the cost to the passenger of renewable energy is likely to be much less than a carbon tax or cap-and-trade fee, either of which is highly likely to be in place in California by 2030. And the total ticket price even with renewables included will still be cheaper than airfare or multiple gas fillups will cost by 2030.

Stimulus to renewable energy generation: As a "reliable customer" the high speed rail project would provide a big boost to renewable energy developers, providing a stable and guaranteed purchaser of their product. It would boost California's efforts to achieve greater proportion of electricity generation from renewables - currently the goal is 33% by 2030. Proposition 7 on the November ballot would accelerate that to 50% by 2030, and even if that fails we are likely to see further efforts to achieve a more accelerated schedule. High speed rail would help the state meet those goals by providing a reliable customer, especially as the train will comprise about 1% of the state's daily electricity load.

Issues to resolve: The report identified two main issues that need to be resolved for high speed rail to be powered by 100% renewables. The first is that currently neither solar nor wind provide the full amount of energy needed at peak load times - which for HSR will be from 7-8 AM and 6-7 PM. Wind comes pretty close, and solar gets most of the way there but needs more refinement. Better storage technology, which is a central focus of renewables research right now, would alleviate that issue.

The second is logistical. The high speed rail route crosses areas served by twelve different utilities. The Authority will have to work to ensure that all of them are working together to meet a 100% renewables goal if the Authority adopts it (which they should). This isn't impossible, but to make this work they will have to start negotiating and planning now. The Authority's issues with Union Pacific have been overblown by the project's opponents, but it does suggest the need for the Authority to be proactive and diligent in bringing all 12 utilities on board with a 100% renewables goal. State and federal legislation could also help that process along, and here again, sooner is better.

Van Jones rightly called upon Americans to move "from opposition to proposition" - that the only way we will defeat ludicrous calls for more drilling is by giving America a better option. Not only is high speed rail that better option, but high speed trains powered 100% by renewable energy are an ideal option. Adopting a 100% renewables standard would make an already compelling project even more valuable and would help show Californians the value and importance of sustainable transportation.

The Authority should adopt a 100% renewables goal as soon as possible.

More Details on AB 3034's Fate

This week's issue of the San Francisco Bay Guardian has an article on HSR by Steven T. Jones, who was at the CHSRA board meeting last week. Most of it focuses on an overview of where the project is at, which will be familiar to regular readers of this blog. It also has some good quotes from San Franciscans about their support for the project.

Jones also includes some new information on the fate of AB 3034, which failed to come to a floor vote on Monday:

Sen. Mike Machado (D-Stockton) was unhappy with the Pacheco choice and decided to oppose the project, meaning that proponents needed three Republican votes to win the two-thirds needed for passage and only Sen. Abel Maldonado (R-Santa Maria) was willing to cross party lines, Capitol sources told the Guardian.

That is both interesting and unfortunate. Machado needs to understand that this isn't about Stockton alone. Just because Altamont wasn't chosen doesn't mean we should block the project. Machado endorsed Hillary Clinton in the primaries but is presumably supporting Barack Obama now - it's not much different for HSR. You can't withdraw support just because your choice didn't win out.

It is welcome news that Maldonado, my own State Senator, did finally back the bill. He had previously expressed doubts about it, supposedly concerned that it gave nothing to his district (a ridiculous concern) but he now saw the light. Unfortunately because Machado voted no that still left two Senate Republicans who could not be bothered to look to the benefits for their own constituents and voted against AB 3034.

Some Senate Republicans tried to go further:

Meanwhile, a project opponent, Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield), sought to kill Prop. 1 by doing what's known as a "gut and amend" to an unrelated bill, SB 298 by Senate Minority Leader Dave Codgill (R-Modesto), in an attempt to push the bond measure back to 2010.

If he can find the two-thirds vote in both houses — which most sources consider unlikely — it would be the fourth time the bond measure has been delayed. So barring any unusual political deals, the high speed bond measure is still up in November.

I'm shocked, shocked to hear this. Of course Ashburn wanted to postpone the vote - he wants to kill HSR dead. That's what was behind his absurd 11th hour objections to the lack of a business plan (which AB 3034 would have provided) and his push for a reorganization of passenger rail oversight into a Department of Rail (couldn't that have been proposed much, much, much earlier?). Ashburn simply doesn't support this project but doesn't have the guts to tell his Bakersfield constituents, who will see significant benefits and dramatic economic growth from HSR.

Still, we don't need AB 3034 and never really did. The Final EIR does not include a station at Los Banos and does not include Union Pacific ROW use (so Stuart Flashman's one-man crusade to kill HSR has even fewer legs to stand on). The original plan proposed in 2002 and contained in Prop 1 is fiscally sound and a solid map for building high speed rail.

California cannot meet the challenges of the coming decades without high speed rail. Those who raise objections based on this or that small issue are missing that much larger point. They implicitly believe that the status quo is just fine and we have no need to make major changes. Tomorrow Al Gore will give a major speech attacking just such thinking and calling for a "reset" of how we approach the climate crisis, junking what Martin Luther King Jr called "the tranquilizing drug of gradualism" for a call for a new "hero generation" of dramatic change.

HSR is one necessary part of that bolder, very necessary strategy for dealing with the problems that ail our state.

Note: Beginning tomorrow posting will be more sporadic on the blog, until August 4. I am headed to Austin for Netroots Nation, and from there am going to Seattle where I will be married on July 26. After a week on the Oregon Coast I'll be back in Monterey to renew the fight for Prop 1 and high speed rail.

Over the next few days I'll be putting up a few posts, but mostly you'll have open threads to discuss HSR as you will. I've also got some guest posts lined up, which should be a great way to broaden the discussion. Have at it!

HSR Is An Attractive Investment

In the comments on the previous post there is an interesting discussion about private investment in high speed rail, including some understandable concerns about whether that money will materialize given the worsening credit crunch facing the global economy.

California HSR is actually very well positioned to benefit from this, and there is every reason to expect that private investors will line up around the block to be a part of it. To understand that point we must first look to France where SNCF has turned a profit by emphasizing high speed rail. (H/T to The Overhead Wire)

Guillaume Pepy, SNCF chairman and chief executive (PDG) since February, says that, unlike his predecessors who had to manage a railway recession, he is presiding over an accelerating boom. The state-owned SNCF delivered a net €1.1bn (£875m) profit last year and first-half figures, due next week, are said to be sparkling. Pepy envisages up to 80m extra passenger trips this year or an increase of around 8%.

"This change will speed up because we are facing a twin energy and environment crisis," he says, pointing to surging fuel costs and growing personal worries about carbon footprints. "People want sustainable mobility and, in France, more trains and more SNCF."

Rail travel is booming around the world as well as here in California, as the latest numbers prove. Given that oil prices are going to remain high for the foreseeable future, we can reasonably expect train ridership to continue rising.

In other words, ridership will grow. And what do private investors look for? Growth opportunities. Don't be fooled by the weakening economy - there remains an enormous amount of capital sloshing around global markets, looking for a good rate of return. Currently a lot of that capital is in oil, creating speculation that is partly responsible for the high level of oil prices (but only partly - the underlying fundamentals of insufficient supply to meet demand remain likely to keep prices high for a long time to come).

But even though oil prices are on a long-term upward trajectory, they are also volatile. Over the last week prices fell by $10/bbl before rising again. Private capital would prefer a much more stable and reliable investment. Something fixed, that won't be ephemeral, and something that offers the prospect of long-term growth.

Meaning infrastructure. It's no accident that the largest funds are looking to own physical things instead of worthless mortgage tranches or the declining dollar. Abu Dhabi's purchase of the iconic Chrysler building is but one example of the trend. More relevant is Argentina's high speed rail example, financed by a French bank.

High speed rail would be an extremely attractive investment even in a bad economy and during a credit crunch. It offers returns with very little risk. Every high speed rail system in the world has strong ridership levels and most generate operating surpluses. SNCF relied on it to return to profitability. Here in California the long-term airline crisis and oil crisis, as well as global warming rules, will help sustain high levels of demand.

The key is public funding. A presentation at the June 2008 CHSRA meeting explained the results of a survey of private investors who might be interested in our project. Many were supportive, but said that they needed a minimum of 60% public funding to be willing to invest, and would be most comfortable with 75%. In other words, the state of California needs to provide the first stake, and then the federal government.

Given that HSR is such an undisputed global success, it should not be difficult to attract private investment. Proposition 1 is the necessary first step to bringing that about. If we vote for it, we will build it - and they will come.

Pacheco It Is

The California High Speed Rail Authority today approved the EIR, including the Pacheco alignment. This comes as a surprise to nobody, but it may hopefully lay to rest the long-running debate over whether it or the Altamont alignment is the best way to connect SF to LA. I never had strong feelings either way - each had their pros and cons, neither clearly outweighing the other. Yes, Pacheco provides us folks in Monterey a closer stop, but it wouldn't have been difficult to get to San José for the Altamont alignment if that had been chosen either.

It's time now for HSR advocates to unite behind this project alignment and help ensure the bond is passed this November. The last piece is AB 3034, which goes before the Senate Appropriations Committee tomorrow in Sacramento. It's not clear what will happen - whether Leland Yee's changes, including reprioritizing the SF-LA "spine", will remain. There isn't a great deal of time to make these changes, as the bond language has to be prepped for the ballot presumably sometime in August.

The HSR project is moving from the refinement stage to the campaign stage. It's about time. The bond vote was postponed twice, of course, but it's hard to imagine how 2004 or 2006 could have been better - high gas prices, the airline crisis, global warming, soaring passenger train ridership are all showing Californians the value of high speed trains. With a huge turnout in November Proposition 1 has an excellent chance of passage.

There'll be one fewer reporter to cover it though. Erik Nelson, aka the Capricious Commuter, is leaving his job with the Bay Area Newsgroup - 29 employees were to be fired, and Nelson chose to switch places with one of them. He's heading to Afghanistan, or somewhere near to it, where his wife works as an NPR correspondent. He may not have always had the firmest grasp of the HSR project but he was willing to engage the public through his blog, and his knowledge of HSR did improve over the last few months.

As the California political press corps shrinks, blogs like this become more important in getting information out to the public about HSR. Thanks to all our commenters for helping us do that. On to November!

HSR Seizes European Short Haul Market

So reports The Times today on how soaring fuel costs are driving passengers to high speed trains:

The airline industry has been crushed by the price of kerosene and deserted by passengers fed up with delays. After decades of disappointment, false dawns and virtually bankrupt Channel Tunnels, we have finally arrived at the age of the train and the evidence is in the crowd at St Pancras.

Only eight months after opening its doors in November, the new station is choc-a-bloc at peak hours, an exciting but slightly nerve-wracking development for Eurostar and its biggest shareholder, SNCF, the French state railway.

Traffic growth on Eurostar is accelerating like an Alstom locomotive, increasing by 21 per cent in the first quarter, compared with the same period in 2007, and revenues are up by a quarter. Those figures were no flash in the pan, a boost from all the hooplah at last year's opening of St Pancras. Traffic in the second quarter has grown at similar rates, insiders say.

While Eurostar thunders through Kent, the competing service to Paris and Brussels is lost on a never-ending building site west of London. The Terminal 5 fiasco has not helped British Airways's short-haul European business, but by next year (assuming no new operational disaster) it should have ironed out the wrinkles.

Then, BA is left with the awful question of whether short-haul air traffic has any future in Europe. The answer has to be a resounding “no”.

There are a LOT of reasons for high speed rail and we've covered all of those and then some on this blog (no really - check the archives!), including economic stimulus, the environment, declining oil supplies, and air quality. But it may be that the airline crisis is the tipping point that convinces Californians of the value of high speed trains.

For many years, even at the beginning of this year, a common reaction to the high speed rail proposal was "why would I take a train when I can take Southwest for $50?" Until this year Californians assumed that cheap air travel would always be there for them within the state.

No longer. As more and more media outlets report on the airline crisis, and as Californians make the correct link between higher fares and the higher prices they pay at the pump, they realize that cheap airfare is about to become a thing of the past. And since driving isn't an attractive replacement, owing to cost and time, high speed rail is the perfect solution for shorthaul intercity trips within our state.

I promise this isn't going to become "the airline crisis" blog. You'll continue to hear more about the full range of benefits of the HSR project. But it may be that the airline crisis is what cements in the public mind the need for high speed rail. And it should put the final nail in the coffin of the ridiculous ridership debate - as if there's any doubt about HSR's ability to attract enough riders with this knowledge in mind...

CHSRA Meeting: The Authority held its public comment meeting on the Final EIR today in San Francisco. Owing to my obligations here in Monterey I wasn't able to get to the meeting until around 3 PM, by which point it was already over. If only there were some sort of high speed train to get me to SF...oh well. As rafael told me there wasn't much new - the usual pro and con comments ahead of tomorrow's vote to accept the EIR.

The real action on HSR continues to happen at the State Capitol, where the Senate Appropriations Committee was expected to debate AB 3034 yesterday - but instead postponed that until Thursday at 10 AM. It's anybody's guess what's going to happen to the bill. We hope to have someone there for the meeting on Thursday.