Will Dianne Feinstein Vote for High Speed Rail?

Today's San Jose Mercury News includes a fantastic op-ed by State Senator Dean Florez (Fresno) and Erin Steva of CALPIRG, calling on US Senator Dianne Feinstein to support the $4 billion for high speed rail currently pending in the Senate:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein has established herself as a high-speed rail champion. She has another great opportunity to stand up for high-speed rail, since she serves on the House-Senate conference committee that will finalize the bill. Its eventual choice will send an important signal to the country about Congress' commitment to high-speed rail as an innovative solution to our nation's transportation challenges.

Sen. Florez and Steva lay out the case for federal HSR spending:

A $4 billion federal investment would buy new, high-performance locomotives and passenger cars built in the U.S., better signals, track and grade-crossing upgrades and removal of rail bottlenecks — all resulting in faster and more convenient travel. In California, it will create hundreds of thousands of quality jobs in fields that have experienced losses over the last decade, including the technology, construction and engineering sectors....

Americans are turning to passenger rail in record numbers. Rail travel ridership increased each of the last six years, while vehicle miles traveled for cars and trucks has fallen over the last two years for the first time since the oil crisis of the 1970s.

It's a strong argument for HSR spending, especially since putting $4 billion in this year's bill will set a precedent to maintain that level of funding in future budget cycles. Whereas a $1.2 billion amount, as the Senate seems to prefer, would make it more difficult to expand HSR funding, especially in future years when there is likely to be increased pressure to slash federal spending.

It's not the usual way of operating for Democrats, but they would be wise to push as many good things through now, and set a precedent that will be more difficult to undo should they lose control of Congress or the White House in the next decade. Let's hope Senator Feinstein comes through with $4 billion for HSR.

Upcoming Public Rail Meetings

Next week in Los Angeles there will be two public events to showcase and build support for passenger rail in California, high speed rail included. Both are worth attending, especially if you live in Southern California and have the time.

First up is the May 1st 21st Century Transportation for Los Angeles Conference being hosted by CALPIRG. It'll be from 10-3 at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels at 555 W. Temple in downtown LA. Among the speakers will be Quentin Kopp.

The next day, Saturday May 2 at 9:15 AM, also in downtown LA (this time at Union Station) is the RailPAC and NARP joint meeting, with a general topic of Steel Wheels In California. Some of the leading figures in passenger rail will be speaking there - Joseph Boardman, the new CEO of Amtrak; Bill Bronte, who heads Caltrans' Division of Rail, and several other LA-area rail figures. Specifically for HSR, Rod Diridon of the CHSRA board and Bruce Armistead of Parsons Brinckerhoff will be there to talk about the HSR project.

I'm going to try and attend both events, but it's unclear whether I'll actually be able to (the next week and a half is shaping up to be unusually busy for me). Regardless, if you're in Southern California, you ought to consider attending one or both of these excellent public events, a good opportunity to learn about the status of the HSR project - especially since the CHSRA hasn't yet held public workshops in SoCal just yet.

All Aboard!

There are still some votes to be counted in the Inland Empire, and my own home county of Monterey still has not fully reported, but with 95% reporting and a 422,000 vote lead Proposition 1A looks to have passed. Remaining votes in San Bernardino and Riverside counties will have to run much more strongly against Prop 1A than the current results indicate for us to lose.

I have to admit my joy at this is somewhat tempered by the abomination of Prop 8 passing as well, but Prop 1A's passage is an enormous victory for Californians and their future. We stood up to the NIMBYs, the new Hoovers, the oil companies, the right-wing think tanks, and told them "you can't take away our future."

It is especially nice to see Prop 1A joined by other successful transit measures, such as Measure Q - the SMART passenger train from Sonoma to Marin, and Measure R which will provide passenger rail expansion in the LA area (including new connections to Union Station, which will become one of the busiest HSR stations in the state).

The $950 million contained in Prop 1A will also provide immediate benefits to other passenger rail service in the state, from Caltrain and Metrolink to existing Amtrak California lines. It will also likely help get the Coast Daylight service funded, which will serve the SF-LA corridor via the coast (Salinas, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara).

Several folks need to be thanked for their work in getting Prop 1A approved, especially the staff of the California High Speed Rail Authority - Mehdi Morshed and Dan Leavitt in particular. Quentin Kopp and Rod Diridon did an excellent job explaining the project to the public and defending against some ridiculous criticisms from HSR deniers in the Legislature. Emily Rusch at CALPIRG also did excellent work helping build a coalition for Prop 1A, as did that entire organization and their on-campus supporters - I'm sure Dan and Cynthia at UC Santa Cruz are celebrating this morning. The Sierra Club deserves thanks, especially those who ensured that the statewide organization endorsed Prop 1A.

The last-minute campaigning by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Dianne Feinstein was a needed shot in the arm, reassuring Californians of the project's soundness and showing that it is very likely to get the federal funding it needs, especially under President Obama. Fiona Ma has been a key figure here in California for high speed rail, from her high profile public activism to her work in the state legislature. The folks at the "official" campaign are to be congratulated as well for putting together this victory. The Fresno Bee has been a great source of pro-HSR commentary and they should be pleased that Fresno County approved Prop 1A by a 10 point margin.

And of course everyone who helped make this blog the center of Prop 1A and HSR activism online. Matt Melzer and Dennis Lytton have provided invaluable support and information over the last few months. Bart Reed of The Transit Coalition has much to celebrate this morning and I thank him for all his support and help with this site.

Our commenters deserve a special shout-out. rafael has forgotten more about trains than I'll ever know, and has been a key resource for all of us with his information and insight on the technical details and the big picture. Michael Kiesling has provided useful information as well and informed commentary. "mike" has provided some valuable commentary, especially his smackdown of the Reason Foundation's lies. Nikko, spokker, bossyman15, tony d., and other commenters have kept our spirits up and also helped spread pro-HSR information as it was needed.

Now it's time to think about the next steps. This blog isn't going anywhere, although we will move to a unique URL and install a better blog software, which will happen by the end of the year. There is still a lot of work to be done for California High Speed Rail, especially securing federal funding and maintaining a close eye on the planning decisions that will be made in the coming years. We can also expect to see a raft of lawsuits; every major project has them, and we'll be here to provide insight or debunking as needed.

I look forward to being on that first high speed train rolling out of the Transbay Terminal, destination Anaheim, and hope to see as many of you as possible on there with me.

UPDATE: There are still absentee and provisional ballots out there. We don't yet know where or exactly how many, which is why the news outlets have not yet called it for Prop 1A. We are confident of victory but I felt I should make that note. The Secretary of State expects to have these reported tonight or tomorrow.

UPDATE 2: LA Times calls it for Prop 1A. We very nearly won San Diego County - 48%-52%, with a 35,000 vote difference.

UPDATE 3: The LA Times map of Prop 1A:



Apparently Del Norte County's early reporting was flipped, so no they didn't vote for the SUPERTRAIN. But every county that is getting a station in Phase I did vote for it, except Orange County. That's OK, we'll give them a station anyway. San Bernardino and San Diego counties were fairly close, and the vote was extremely close in Riverside County. The county with the widest margin of victory was SF, 80-20. The strong pro-HSR vote here in Monterey County (58-42) bodes well for when it comes time to fund the Monterey Branch Line.

Pelosi, Feinstein, Newsom for Prop 1A

At a press conference in San Francisco today Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom all spoke out in favor of Proposition 1A. Their presence ought to dissuade some of the Prop 1A critics who claim that federal funding is uncertain - in 2009 these two members of Congress will be among the most powerful politicians in America and will be in a VERY strong position to help fund California High Speed Rail. They emphasized the environmental and the economic benefits of the project, and DiFi had some strong words for the HSR deniers:

One newspaper said now is not the time because we can’t afford it. I would say we can’t afford not to do it.

Which is of course the truth. As Paul Krugman explains in today's column deficit spending by government to prime the economic pump is an absolute necessity for getting the country out of the recession.

It's not just leading national politicians and Nobel laureate economists making this point. Average Californians grasp the necessity of passing Prop 1A as part of an overall economic stimulus program, as shown by this letter in the Modesto Bee:

California has budget problems because our legislators have been unable to control spending growth and have been unwilling to raise taxes. The current budget uses gimmicks and tricks and is unbalanced. Our state government is dysfunctional. Killing beneficial infrastructure projects will not solve California's problems. We need to invest in California. In the long run this will lead to better lives for the state's residents and will result in increased state and local tax revenue. We need to approve the high-speed rail measure, and we need to demand that the Legislature do its job. These are compatible goals.

JOHN MENSINGER

Modesto

Thanks John for helping inject some common sense into the debate. Killing Prop 1A will do absolutely NOTHING to help California's economy or budget. Nothing at all. Especially when you consider that the cost of doing nothing is not zero - whether it's the cost to consumers of higher gas prices or the cost to the budget of expanding roads and airports, Prop 1A and HSR is the affordable solution.

Prop 1A Forum at UC Santa Cruz

For those of you in the Monterey Bay or San José areas, I will be part of a panel discussion on Proposition 1A at UC Santa Cruz at noon today, in Cowell Conference Room 132. Rod Diridon of the California High Speed Rail Authority will also be there. RSVP here.

Then at 2pm I will be a guest on Deborah Lindsay's show Tomorrow Matters, broadcast on KRXA 540 AM here in Monterey. Deborah Lindsay focuses on sustainable communities, peak oil, and other environmental solutions to our ongoing ecological crisis. You can listen live online if you don't live in the Monterey Bay area.

UPDATE: Now that was fun. The event at UCSC was a great success - thanks go in particular to Cynthia Burrage Armour and Dan Xie for helping to put it together. I gave a good overview of HSR and the reasons why it is so vital to our future as Californians, and then Rod Diridon gave a really compelling and detailed explanation of HSR around the world and of our own system. He was asked some very good questions by the audience and answered them quite effectively. Diridon gave some key details on the financing of high speed rail that I had not known and that I hope to pass on to you all tomorrow or Wednesday once I can get them written down and confirmed.

The discussion on Deborah Lindsay's show also went well. We got some good calls from folks with questions, some critical, of the HSR project and I thought I did a good and thorough job of responding to them. KRXA is a small operation and doesn't have complete audio archives, otherwise I'd offer you an MP3 here. I was surprised that none of the usual HSR deniers called into the show!

CALPIRG Prop 1A Info Sessions

CALPIRG is hosting a number of high speed rail and Prop 1A forums at college campuses around the state this month - including one at UC Santa Cruz where yours truly will join Rod Diridon on the panel explaining the benefits of high speed rail, the reasons to vote Yes on Prop 1A.

You can RSVP at this link.

The schedule of events:

BAKERSFIELD:

When: Monday, October 20th, 5pm
Where: California State University, Bakersfield, Dorothy Donahue Hall Room G102

Speakers include:
Bakersfield Mayor Harvey Hall
State Senator Dean Florez
Aaron Hegee, Professor of Economics and Director of the Environmental Resource Management Program at CSUB

LOS ANGELES:

When: Tuesday, October 21st, 12pm
Where: University of California, Los Angeles, Kerckhoff Grand Salon

Speakers include:
Maria Elena Durazo, Executive Secretary-Treasurer Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO
Alex Pugh, Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce Senior Public Policy Manager

SAN JOSE:

When: Wednesday, October 22nd, 4pm
Where: Santa Clara University, Benson Hall, Parlors 2 and 3

Speakers Include:
San Jose City Council Member Sam Liccardo
San Jose City Council Member Forrest Williams

BERKELEY:

When: Wednesday, October 22nd at 11am
Where: University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley Art Museum Theatre, 2626 Bancroft Way

Speakers include:
Professor Dan Kammen, UC Berkeley
State Senator Leland Yee
Jim Lazarus, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce

SAN DIEGO:

When: Thursday, October 23rd, 1:30pm
Where: University of California, San Diego, Price Center Ballroom B

Speakers Include:
State Senator Christine Kehoe
State Assemblymember Lori Saldaña
Jay Hansen, Legislative Director, Building and Construction Trade Council
Kelly Cunningham, Policy Fellow, San Diego Institute for Policy Research

SANTA CRUZ:

When: Monday, October 27th, 12pm
Where: University of California, Santa Cruz (RSVP below and we'll send you the room information)

Speakers include:
Rod Diridon, High-Speed Rail Authority Board member and Executive Director of the Mineta Transportation Institute
Robert Cruickshank, High-Speed Rail blog

Where Things Stand

November 4 is three months away, but as far as I'm concerned the campaign to pass Proposition 1 and build high speed rail in California begins now. We've spent five months hashing out the details of the project and the big picture reasons to support it here on the blog. Those have been productive and valuable conversations and I expect them to continue. But as we gear up for the Prop 1 campaign, it seems like a good time to take a step back and assess where we're at - what we've achieved, what challenges remain.

We begin from a solid base of public support for high speed rail. Polls consistently show a yes vote in the mid 50s with 56% in July saying they would support it, according to the ultra-reliable Field Poll. The official campaign has about $90,000 on tap according to the AP but as E.J. Schulz' article in the Bee papers explains, there is no opposition. Look at this statement from Southwest Airlines that he quoted:

Southwest Airlines, which serves some of the markets targeted for bullet train service, "could never support the use of public money to subsidize" high-speed rail, said company spokeswoman Marilee McInnis. But "we don't have any current plans to engage in lobbying efforts on this issue."

Translation: they are staying out of it. Schulz reports Union Pacific will do the same. The only organized opposition might come from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the usual crew of HSR deniers in Menlo Park and Atherton, but Californians are not likely to listen to them.

The polling numbers and lack of organized opposition are wonderful. But the Field Poll also noted that an astounding 78% of voters are not aware of the project. That creates an opportunity for us HSR supporters - but it also creates an opportunity for the deniers. Their stock in trade is sowing fear, uncertainty, and doubt - FUD - and unfortunately, a 78% unfamiliar number suggests their claims might change more than a few minds.

That makes it all the more important for us to not only counter their flawed arguments here, but in the traditional media as well. Look for more newspaper op-eds and letters from HSR supporters. It's a shame we lost Erik Nelson, but if anyone else wants to play in the newspaper comments pages, by all means do so - feel free to post a link back to us if you do.

We also need to build the pro-HSR coalition. CALPIRG is out there mobilizing public support - apparently they had someone in Monterey last week while I was gone. The National Association of Railroad Passengers is a major supporter. We already have 34,000 members on the Facebook group, the official campaign has a long roster of backers, and politicians such as John Garamendi, Antonio Villaraigosa, and Gavin Newsom have expressed their support. But we need more active support. Politicians in Sacramento and Washington DC have been rather unserious about this project, as the wrangling over AB 3034 demonstrates. We need to rally these politicians to take action on HSR, especially as a vastly superior solution to the energy crisis than the idiotic offshore drilling nonsense.

Gas prices are a major reason why passenger rail ridership has soared nationwide, and why HSR ridership will have little trouble meeting expectations. Of course, gas prices have begun to retreat from their earlier highs - we're at $4.15 here in Monterey, down from $4.65 just a couple weeks ago. That's part of the normal fluctuation of prices, and the long-term outlook includes nothing but increases. Still, as prices drop, we need to remind the public that this is but a momentary relapse, and that if they don't want to be stuck paying $10 a gallon to drive between LA and SF, they ought to pass the HSR bonds.

The deepening airline crisis also deserves a higher public profile. Currently confined to the business pages, except when an airline begins charging for bags, the story of the long-term dismal prospects of the US airline industry needs to be better understood by voters. Californians cannot rely on cheap Southwest airfares for much longer and already the high cost of fuel is leading to fewer flights and higher fares.

We also need to reinforce the long-term value of HSR. It is the most important project this state has considered in 50 years, since we approved the State Water Project. Like the SWP, and like the Bay Bridges that were built in the depths of the Depression, HSR would provide both immediate jobs, helping our ailing economy, and set California up for long-term economic growth. As the rest of the world understands, HSR is vital for a 21st century economy.

HSR is also key tool in fighting global warming and improving the state's environment. If California is to be serious about energy independence and rolling back carbon emissions, we MUST build HSR. We cannot achieve the necessary transportation emissions reductions without it.

Finally, we need to repeat early and often the crucial point that the cost of doing nothing is NOT zero. If I had to pick a favorite post of the last five months, it'd be that one. All those folks who hem and haw about "boondoggles" and cost overruns and financial soundness are being misleading if they do not present the full picture. If we don't build HSR the costs to Californians in higher airfares and gas tank fillups will far outweigh whatever they'd have to pay to service the bond debt. The lost economic growth, the cost of expanding freeways and airports, these are all far larger than the $10 billion bond we are going to approve this November.

We are in a good position going into the final three months. But if we are to win this vote and get started on high speed rail in California, we must intensify our efforts. California's future is at stake. Let's not let those who believe the 20th century is still viable, those who think oil is still a viable base for transportation, and those who think a few wealthy landowners' desires should trump the needs of 36 million people win this debate. It's time we brought California into the 21st century.

PS: Thanks so much to Matt Melzer for filling in while I was gone these last two weeks. His post from last Thursday in particular provided a valuable set of stats and arguments proving just how and why HSR will be a success here in California.

High Speed Politics

High speed rail is an inherently political project. We can - and should - discuss the technological and transportation merits of the plan, defend its purpose, its value, its need. But to make it reality we must navigate the politics of California - never an easy thing no matter what the issue - as we've seen this week.

The main obstacle facing high speed rail is this state's political inertia. For the last 30 years California has slowly but steadily fallen apart as its public services are hollowed out from a lack of investment. Californians don't like $4.50 gas and are flocking to rail travel - but without massive investment this can never become the viable alternative to oil-based travel that we need to stay afloat and economically competitive.

That investment - in rails, in schools, in health care - hasn't been forthcoming despite the obvious need for it because politicians always find it easier to avoid having to solve the state's structural revenue shortfall. The state's media, convinced that the #1 problem facing government is how to keep spending down, certainly doesn't help matters, but state politicians from both parties remain locked in an obsolete view of financial risk, predicated on the belief that anything new, anything that requires a substantial investment, is a bad idea.

Perhaps it is - from their perspective. California politicians like taking the easy way out, using cheap and easy budget "solutions" to kick the state's underlying revenue problem a few years down the road. HSR threatens them because it demands a solution - a spending solution - right now.

This problem is compounded by their inability or unwillingness to accept new realities. I've spent the last two days on California's trains - the Coast Starlight, the Pacific Surfliner, the Metro Red Line. All were packed, no matter the hour of the day. Gas prices are on everyone's mind and virtually everyone I talk to here - conservative, moderate, liberal - agrees on the need for non-oil alternatives.

California is changing before our eyes, as I explained earlier this week. The desire for new investment is there and if the state's politicians and media understood this, we wouldn't have this HSR problem. The ridiculous notions of "financial risk" wouldn't be discussed with no reference whatsoever to soaring fuel prices, to the airline crisis, to the cost of doing nothing. HSR's finances must be examined in context - and weighed against $80 billion for new runways and freeways, or the far larger economic cost of high oil prices, HSR's finances look pretty damn good.

Still, the project isn't completed, and the CHSRA hasn't yet nailed down other funding sources. This is a chicken-and-egg problem - how can CHSRA get federal and private commitments unless we've staked our $10 billion? We have every indication that Congress will pony up big money for HSR but not unless we prove we're willing to do so as well.

The absence of these guarantees, combined with their unwillingness to seek new revenues, led the State Senate Transportation Committee to suggest spending the state's money on commuter HSR and abandon the long-distance trains. The thinking is that by building the commuter segments first, voters will flock to HSR, building public support for it, and helping earn federal money to finish the system. Many strongly pro-HSR people have supported this idea in the comments on the last post, but I am more skeptical.

Here's why:

• I don't believe the commuter HSR approach will succeed in its goal because it doesn't address the core political problem I outlined above. It would essentially leave the middle section unfunded, including the expensive Pacheco Pass and Tehachapi tunnel segments which will be difficult to find leveraged funding to support. If we can't get it now, what's to ensure that funding will materialize in the future?



• It will not be as lucrative as long-distance rail. The State Senate's own report is inconsistent - they note that commuters will bring in just 9% of the profits, whereas most money will be generated by the long-distance riders. If "financial risk" is really their concern isn't it more risky to try and build the system on commuters alone? Commuter rail in California, wonderful as it is, remains subsidized by government, and insufficiently at that.



• It won't generate the necessary public support to build out the system. Look at all the HSR activism that exists. 27,000 members of the Facebook group. Thousands of calls and letters generated by CALPIRG. The CHSRA's own popular online animations. All this was generated not by support of high speed commuter rail, but high speed intercity rail. Folks get excited and active about linking north to south - not by a faster Caltrain (as valuable as that certainly is). I am not confident that commuter HSR can be easily translated into long distance HSR. It serves a very different group of riders, and does not bring rail travel into a new area of life the way intercity HSR would.



• And it may torpedo the fall HSR bond. As wu ming, a Central Valley resident, explained in the comments on the last post, Valley voters are suspicious of big-ticket infrastructure projects that benefit the Bay Area and SoCal and leave them out. Voters, cities, and businesses there have been counting on HSR to lead them into a 21st century economy. Cutting them out with a commuter HSR system will hurt the bond vote there, and we're going to need every vote we can get.

I think that HSR is on much more solid ground by maintaining the LA-SF core, and guaranteeing a phased approach to construction. We have every reason to expect federal support. And if not, then we reexamine how to pay for it ourselves. That might cause the usual suspects to freak out - but their concerns are based out of their desire to see as little government spending happen as possible.

Our concerns are to grow the California economy, provide an alternative to skyrocketing gas prices, provide green jobs and help fight pollution and global warming. I will put that up against the small government zealots any day - because California is changing, and people now understand the need to make the right investment.

I'm willing to be convinced that a commuter HSR approach as Phase I - with guarantees on finishing missing links - is a smart solution to our political problem. We're all on the same side here - getting HSR built is one of our state's highest priorities.

Anaheim-SF by 2014, and more Altamont-Pacheco

Today's Modesto Bee reports on efforts by Asm. Cathleen Galgiani to address the Altamont corridor and generate more support in the Stockton-Modesto region for the fall high speed rail bond vote. It's got a ton of information in it, but before I get to the Altamont vs. Pacheco nitty gritty, there's this rather stunning item:

High-speed rail supporters say eventually they'll run tracks north from Merced to Sacramento, passing through Modesto. That could happen by 2020, assuming the Bay Area-Anaheim line is done by 2014, Galgiani said.

That's a game-changing statement. Most public statements on HSR - my own included - have anticipated 2018 to 2020 as the opening date for the system. Galgiani is instead saying just six years out - 2014 isn't that far away. It's much easier for voters to envision a system that opens in five or six years, instead of ten to twelve years. Assuming this is accurate, it could be the deal-clincher with California voters. We should certainly begin playing it up, if we can get some further confirmation (not that I don't trust you, Asm. Galgiani, I just want to be certain).

Once you're done absorbing that, the bulk of the article focuses on the ongoing fight over Altamont vs. Pacheco. Personally I see this like Obama vs. Hillary - the decision has been made so let's move on to the big fight in November instead of dragging this out any further. Unfortunately not everyone sees it that way:

The $950 million carrot "was in the bond from the start," said David Schonbrunn, president of Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund. He said his group will sue to force reconsideration of the Altamont route, which was rejected, he said, because land along the Pacheco alignment is much cheaper.

"This is a real estate deal," Schonbrunn said, "not transportation. We think high-speed rail is the future of California, we think it's crucial and we think they're screwing it up badly."

I'm sorry, but if you consider yourself an environmentalist, or that HSR is the future of California, suing over the alignment runs directly against both goals. It will be immeasurably more difficult to win funds and a public vote for HSR if we have already rejected it - does anyone see Texas and Florida hard at work on an HSR system after they canceled their projects? Didn't think so.

The TRANSDEF arguments on HSR are disingenuous at best. On their site they claim that:

The Pacheco alignment (blue on the map below) would provide no additional public benefits for our region, doing nothing for congested corridors. In controversial (and we suspect corrupt) actions, the Pacheco alignment has nonetheless been recommended by both MTC and the High Speed Rail Authority staff. The only substantial beneficiaries of Pacheco we can see are speculators, who would open up vast areas of undisturbed wetlands habitat for sprawl development (the dark areas in the map below). For these people, public investment in High Speed Rail in the Pacheco Corridor would shower windfall profits on their holdings.

This is bunk. The Pacheco alignment provides service for the Monterey Bay region and provides faster travel times between SF and LA. Moreover, the map on their HSR page falsely implies that an extension to Stockton and Sacramento isn't planned, when instead it will be in the second phase and remains an integral part of the overall proposal.

But the claims of corruption are really too much. I have no reason to defend the CHSRA staff and board but there is no evidence to suggest land speculation. Galgiani's bill will prevent a station from being built at Los Banos, and anyone who bought land around that region expecting an HSR windfall is going to be very disappointed. Of course, as I have argued before, sprawl is an endangered concept thanks to the end of cheap oil. The fears TRANSDEF is trying to stoke here are not supported by any available evidence.

Further, other California environmental groups, like the Sierra Club, appear to have come around and are working constructively with the CHSRA to ensure the best, most environmentally friendly system possible:

Some environmentalists, however, are appeased by the amendment to Galgiani's bill prohibiting stops from Merced to Gilroy, to protect expansive waterfowl habitat. The Sierra Club of California continues to negotiate for resources to help valley agencies plan for transit-oriented development, or growth focused around depots to reduce vehicle trips.

"The role high-speed rail will play will push the valley either toward being more sustainable or less sustainable," Sierra Club advocate Tim Frank said.

Credit where it's due: I was critical of the Sierra Club for not being fully on board, but if their statements in this article are representative, they've made the right choice in working to improve the plan. TRANSDEF should follow suit.

Asm. Galgiani is working instead to improve service along the ACE Altamont corridor to build political support in the Stockton-Modesto region for the fall HSR vote:

Democratic Assemblywoman Cathleen Galgiani is pushing a bill that could win about one-tenth of the bond money, or $950 million, to upgrade Altamont Commuter Express trains taken by some valley workers to the East Bay. Bullet trains could use improved ACE rails to zip from the valley to the Bay Area in a fraction of the time required by cars, Galgiani said....

Galgiani notes that a recent bill amendment "elevates the focus" of Altamont trains. She envisions ACE adding tracks and grade separations, or running rails over or under roads where vehicles now wait for trains to pass.

"Essentially, we're preparing the ACE system so that it could share tracks with high-speed trains," she said.

ACE trains carry about 3,500 riders daily, including about 350 from Stanislaus County, spokesman Thomas Reeves said. Delay complaints because of conflicts with Union Pacific freight trains could be reduced if ACE had money to build more and longer "sidings," or turn-out spurs, used to let other trains pass, he said.

Galgiani's bill is AB 3034, mentioned in yesterday's post and is coauthored by Fiona Ma of San Francisco. AB 3034 deserves our support. CALPIRG has a online tool to lobby the Assembly to pass AB 3034. Look for this site to step up its activism around this bill, which should help get the bonds passed this fall.

And remember: Anaheim-SF by 2014. Wow.

CALPIRG Mobilizes Students for High Speed Rail

When I was a UC Berkeley undergrad in the late '90s CALPIRG was best known for activism on financial issues - student fees, credit card companies, things of that sort. Worthy causes, of course, but I never expected them to get that involved in high speed rail. That's exactly what they've done, however, over the last few months. From their high speed rail spring break in March to their current activism on campuses like UC Irvine CALPIRG has emerged as one of the most important organizations backing the HSR project.

CALPIRG's legislative director, Steve Blackledge, has an op-ed at the California Progress Report explaining CALPIRG's strong support for HSR, emphasizing energy independence:

Nothing bums me out like realizing that all the money I spend on gas helps keep oil barrens like ExxonMobil in the black, while contributing to smog and global warming.

One good thing about high-speed rail: No gas. And right now, with gas prices going from costly to scary, that's no small advantage....

California has a choice to make. With our growing population we have increasing transportation needs, however expanding highways and airports have huge price tags attached. For example, the master plan to expand LAX airport would cost more than $11 billion. Meeting interstate requirements for Highway 99 in the Central Valley and widening to eight lanes would cost between $20 billion and $25 billion. Expanding roads and airports cost us more than just money â?" they also increase our oil dependence, contribute to sprawl, and lead to even more unhealthy pollution.

All are excellent points, and students find them compelling. Earlier today I asked students in my poli sci class to propose a solution to the problem of high gas prices - they could offer whatever they chose, and I expected half would try to focus on lowering prices at the pump and the other half would focus on alternatives. As it turned out, virtually all of them focused on alternatives, with three quarters calling for higher gas taxes (and most of my students are car commuters!). High speed rail was a frequently cited proposal they wanted to build, which warmed my heart because I haven't mentioned it or this blog to them at all.

And we would be wrong to dismiss this student support for HSR. Polls show that young people are going to turn out in enormous numbers this fall, and that will only be solidified with Obama on the ballot in November, as now seems likely. Strong support from California's students may be what helps the HSR bond survive the election.

It would be fitting. If the students are our future, they're making a strong statement about what kind of future they want - a future with sustainable transportation like high speed rail.

HSR at the Democratic Convention

Yours truly with Fiona Ma, who was sporting a CALPIRG High Speed Rail Spring Break t-shirt

So I spent the weekend up in San José at the California Democratic Party Convention. It was my first convention and a great experience overall. And in between some of the official meetings, I got a chance to talk to some present and future Democratic elected officials about high speed rail and our state's energy future.

As you saw above, I spoke with Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, who has taken a strong leadership role on this issue. We had a good conversation about high speed rail, and she told me about her recent trip to Japan to tour the Shinkansen. She pointed out the Japanese trains' phenomenal on-time record - averaging within six seconds of the scheduled time - and mentioned the Spanish AVE trains' guarantee of a full trip refund if the train runs more than 5 minutes behind schedule (which rarely happens). She has a clear grasp of the necessity and the value of the project, and is a very good public advocate for what is too often seen as an "esoteric" idea. Fiona Ma is definitely one of our most important allies in the Legislature on high speed rail.

This morning I met with Debbie Cook, who is running for Congress down in Orange County, challenging right-wing incumbent Dana Rohrabacher. Debbie Cook is the mayor of Huntington Beach, and she is also active in the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO), perhaps the world's leading group of experts and activists dealing with our looming energy crisis - she is planning their September meeting up in Sacramento. Debbie Cook made it clear that one of the driving forces behind her campaign will be sustainable transportation - Orange County, like the rest of the state, remains dependent on oil-based transportation systems, and she did a great job of explaining why that must change. Her candidacy for Congress will help give this state a much greater awareness of peak oil, and will also help spotlight another advocate of high speed rail.

HSR did not otherwise have a very high profile at the convention, which was mostly focused on endorsement fights, the presidential campaign, and the usual schmoozing. But it was good to encounter these two Democratic officeholders who will be likely playing important roles in our high speed rail campaign this year.

Many of my fellow bloggers, especially those from Southern California, expressed the wish that we had high speed rail up and running. The San José stop will be just one mile from the convention center, connected to it by the VTA's light rail line, and HSR would have made it a lot easier for folks to travel to and from the convention. Especially on a Sunday afternoon, exhausted from the weekend's revelry.

Spring Break for High Speed Rail Update

The San Francisco Citizen brings us a photo and some details about CALPIRG's High Speed Rail Spring Break Tour:



Included in the picture are, from left to right, SF Supervisor Aaron Peskin, former SF Supervisor and now Chairman of the CHSRA board Quentin Kopp, and State Senator Carole Migden. There were at least 100 supporters there for the kickoff rally yesterday, and a similarly decent number down at San José City Hall.

NBC 11 gave some good coverage, including these quotes from trip organizers:

"I'm spending my spring break on a road trip, but not to Cabo," said Jenn Engstrom, a second-year student at University of California at Berkeley.

Gambit Ramos, an organizer staff member from University of California, Irvine, came with his red bicycle, bearing a sticker reading, "I'd rather be riding high-speed rail."

(And can I just say, as a one-time UCI student and as a UC Berkeley grad, how pleased I am to see students from both those schools taking part in this?!)

Today they spoke in Sacramento and Stockton, and tomorrow they'll be in Fresno. The full remaining schedule is:

Fresno
When: Wednesday, March 26th, 11:30am
Where: Fresno Convention Center (students will bike in with the Congressman a little before 11am)
Joining the Students:
Congressman Jim Costa
To join the Bike Event: Meet at Convention Center at 10:30am

Bakersfield
When: Wednesday, March 26th, 3pm
Where: Bakersfield City Hall
Joining the Students:
Bakersfield Mayor Harvey Hall
Fran Florez, High-Speed Rail Authority Board Member
Staff from Congressman Costa’s office and State Senator Dean Florez’ office
To join the Bike Event: Meet at 2:30pm, location TBA

Palmdale
When: Wednesday, March 26th, 3:30pm
Where: Palmdale Transportation Center (39000 Clock Tower Plaza Drive)

Los Angeles
When: Thursday, March 27th, 10am
Where: South side steps of City Hall
Joining the Students:
Staff from Congresswoman Diane Watson’s office
To join the Bike Event: Meet at Union Station parking lot at 9am

Anaheim
When: Thursday, March 27th, 1pm
Where: Amtrak Station, 2150 East Katella Avenue Anaheim, CA 92806
To join the Bike Event: Meet at Amtrak Station parking lot at 12:30pm

Riverside
When: Friday, March 28th, 9:30am
Where: Riverside Cesar Chavez Community Center (students will bike in from UC Riverside to the Community Center)
Joining the Students:
Riverside Mayor Ronald O. Loveridge
To join the Bike Event: UCR campus (corner of Canyon Crest Dr. and University Ave) at 9am

San Diego
When: Friday, March 28th, 1:30pm
Where: MTS headquarters downtown
Joining the Students:
Assemblywoman Lori Saldaña
State Senator Christine Kehoe
National City Mayor Ron Morrison
Escondido Mayor Lori Holt Pfeiler
SANDAG Executive Director Gary L. Gallegos
To join the Bike Event: Meet at Balboa Park at 12:30pm

Check back for updates - details may change last minute

It is also very, very cool to hear that they're biking for at least some portion of the tour.

Capricious Thoughts

Pantograph Trolleypole in the comments on the last post pointed me to The Capricious Commuter's thoughts on high speed rail. This person blogs for the Contra Costa Times, and is very down on our high speed rail plan. His post follows a very typical pattern of the dying print media: pooh-pooh some activists (in this case CALPIRG and their HSR spring break), then lament that government didn't produce perfection, and then dig up some libertarian gadfly who is not representative of public opinion to show how that public supposedly thinks. And ultimately all the post shows is how prevalent fundamental misunderstandings about HSR are in our state's media. The post closes with this:

But as cool as it might be to zip down to Bakersfield at 200 mph, I just can’t see it happening. Passing the $20 billion transportation bond required a unified campaign by the governor and legislative leaders to sell it to voters. In a year when those folks are pleading poverty, it’s just not gonna happen.

In fact, the Sacramento Bee reported yesterday that the HSR bonds currently have 58-32 support. More on this in the next post.

The problem with this framing is it assumes HSR is just some ultra-cool toy that only a few railgeeks and engineers will love. But that ignores some very important context. Taken a look at oil prices lately? Or studied up on peak oil? What that means is by 2018, when the system is slated to open, it is going to be extremely expensive to fly or drive from the Bay Area to LA. The expense may even be prohibitive for most Californians.

Even if one wanted to deny peak oil, the way some used to deny global warming, we are then left with the fact that to handle the expected increase in passengers, we will need to spend nearly $80 billion to expand airports and freeways. HSR serves the same passenger demand for half the cost. Wouldn't that be a smart investment?

I agree that the plan is imperfect. But as anyone who follows mass transit knows, the hardest part of a new system to build is the first line. Once that line is up and running it becomes MUCH easier politically to add new lines and extensions. Oakland may not be on the first line built. But it will likely be on the second or the third.

I do agree that the state budget crisis is going to cause difficulty for the bond vote. But I think he's also totally wrong in his framing of the matter. First, the HSR bonds do not come from the same funding pool as schools. Second, we can stave off the budget cuts to schools with some relatively easy and inexpensive revenue solutions - the only thing stopping this is Republican stubbornness. Third, an economic downturn and a fiscal crisis is actually a GOOD time to build infrastructure - the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges were, after all, built in the depths of the Depression.

We need to stop reacting to the state budget crisis as if paralysis is the only reaction. There is a growing movement and coalition determined to solve our budget shortfall this year. But regardless of how that turns out, we should not let a temporary crisis stop us from building a piece of infrastructure that is absolutely necessary for this state's economic survival in the 21st century. Not building HSR would be like not building the bay bridges or not building the State Water Project. It won't be an easy sell, but it is also a necessary sell.

In any case, this particular blogger doesn't seem to have much understanding of the ins and outs of transit funding, as shown by his rather dismissive and selfish comments on Capitol Corridor ridership (if you want more seats, we need to buy more cars, and the HSR bond would provide $950 million for such purchases). It would be bad enough if this was just some random blogger, but apparently the guy writes for the CC Times. I guess the best reaction is to echo UC Berkeley professor Brad DeLong's famous line, "why oh why can't we have a better press corps?!"

CALPIRG High Speed Rail Spring Break

The folks at CALPIRG are taking their support of high speed rail on the road (so to speak) during next week's spring break:

After more than ten years of planning, California is finally ready to start building a high speed rail line connecting California’s cities. First, California voters need to pass a ballot initiative in November to set aside more than $9 billion in bonds to fund its construction.

So, from March 24th to the 29th, we are spending our spring break traveling the proposed route for California’s high speed rail line, from Sacramento and San Francisco all the way down to San Diego. Along the way, we’ll meet with elected officials and the media to build support for a November ballot initiative that would secure funding to start laying the tracks.

WHERE WE’LL BE (all times are subject to change):

* Monday, March 24th: Bay Area Kick-off in San Francisco at 10am
* San Jose event at 2pm. (Camp in Sacramento)
* Tuesday, March 25th: Capitol Kick-off in Sacramento at 10am,
* Stockton event at 2pm. (Camp near Merced)
* Wednesday, March 26th: Fresno event at 10:30am.
* Bakersfield at 3pm. (Stay in Los Angeles.)
* Thursday, March 27th: Downtown Los Angeles event at 10am.
* Anaheim event at 1pm. (Camp/stay in Riverside.)
* Friday, March 28th: Riverside event at 10am.
* San Diego event at 2pm. Hang out. Have a party that night. (Stay in San Diego).

Sort of odd that they're not going to San José, but then again the Central Valley is key to the project practically and politically. I hope they're taking the San Joaquins from Sacramento to Bakersfield.