How Will the FRA Decide?

As we await the Federal Railroad Administration's decision on awarding the $8 billion in HSR stimulus funds, some observers are wondering how exactly the projects will be selected - and what the role of merit and politics will be. Over at Railway Age, editor William Vantuono suggests the FRA will be caught between those two considerations:

Let’s assume two things. First, Administrator Szabo has every intention of sticking to the letter of the law, and to the intent of the program, by awarding project grants based on merit. Second, any program involving government dollars is going to involve politics. That’s just the way it is. Anyone who doesn’t believe this needs a serious reality check.

In the case of HSR—actually, “HrSR” (“higher speed” rail, incremental improvements to existing freight rail corridors to enable 90-125 mph passenger trains)—the political game-playing will mostly come from the states. Case in point: A project in one Midwest state, we’re told, does not meet all the FRA’s criteria, in terms of project management, environmental and ridership studies, financial plan, technical score, etc. The state agency in charge of submitting the grant application asked the FRA for guidance. The FRA basically said, “You don’t meet the criteria; don’t submit the application.” We’re told, however, that this state’s Republican governor ordered the agency to submit the application anyway. Why? Because if it’s rejected, the governor can go to his constituents and claim that the Democrats running Washington won’t give his state the funds for a project that will create jobs.

Partisan politics as usual? Of course. Did you expect anything different?

There's much less doubt about whether California's HSR project meets the criteria - it clearly does, AND it has widespread political support from the Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Vice-President Joe Biden, and the California Congressional delegation which, after all, includes the Speaker of the House. It is certain that California will get a big chunk of the stimulus money.

But how big? That's where these issues of the merit and politics of other HSR proposals will affect us in California. We submitted a $4.5 billion request, but can really only expect to get $3-$4 billion. Where we fall in that range will depend on how the FRA and the White House decide to allocate the rest of the money. If they feel the need to keep Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, and Florida happy (states that were key to Obama's 2008 victory and will be key to his 2012 reelection bid) then we may have to make do with $3 billion and not $4 billion. It's highly unlikely, of course, that they'll give it all to California.

As sources have described the FRA decision-making process to me, the FRA will determine which CA HSR projects get stimulus funding. It won't be a case of them giving us a set amount of money for us to use as we see fit. They may choose to fund the Central Valley test line (Merced-Fresno and Fresno-Bakersfield) and LA-Anaheim and not fund SF-San Jose. Which is actually what I expect will happen.

What I hope we avoid is a situation where CA gets less than $3 billion because Obama feels the need to shore up his position in some of those states I mentioned. Given the amount of stimulus money applied for - around $50 billion from 24 states - there will be the temptation to squeeze California. Especially since it's easy for those other 23 states to whine about California hogging all the money.

California Members of Congress Lobbying Hard for HSR Money

As the decision point for awarding $8 billion in federal HSR stimulus nears, and with some $50 billion in applications submitted, California's federal representatives are making a strong push to ensure California gets a significant portion of those funds:

Employing every tool of persuasion from gift books and phone calls to hallway chats and high-level letters, including several to be sent as early as Friday to the White House, the state's lawmakers are making their case for $4.7 billion. But with 23 other states likewise seeking funds, and merit supposedly mattering more than politics, success could be elusive.

"We think because California is further along in this effort, we're well placed to receive federal funding," Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, insisted Thursday....

"We're doing a number of things," Costa said, when asked how California is promoting its high-speed rail bid.

Still, the longtime rail advocate acknowledged that California will "probably" not receive its entire request. Speaking at a U.S. High Speed Rail Association conference Thursday morning, Costa shared the stage with congressional colleagues who have their own plans.

Which isn't unexpected. I would be surprised if we got less than $3 billion, and would be pleasantly surprised if we got $4 billion or higher. There will be pressure on USDOT to distribute the funds widely, but there is also a recognition that if you spread the money too thinly, it won't do much good at all.

Jim Costa has been a longtime champion of HSR, having authored the 1996 legislation that created the CHSRA and got this project off the ground. But our Senators are getting in on the action as well:

"I'm very hopeful we'll get a large portion of what we're asking for," Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer said Thursday. "We're ready for it."

As part of the lobbying effort, Boxer said she, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will be sending President Barack Obama another letter as early as Friday. It will likely remind Obama that California is providing $9 billion from a bond measure, and it will be accompanied by letters from the Sierra Club and the Chamber of Commerce to show support spanning the political spectrum.

Trying for the personal touch, Costa sent Obama and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel copies of historian Stephen Ambrose's book about the building of the transcontinental railroad, "Nothing Like it in the World." And this week, California High-Speed Rail Authority leaders roamed Capitol Hill and huddled with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

Since January, records also show, lobbyist Mark Kadesh -- formerly Feinstein's chief of staff -- has been paid $120,000 to advocate for California high-speed rail.

I don't know that a Stephen Ambrose book is going to make the difference - perhaps sending Rahm to Spain to ride a special AVE train with the destinations changed from Spanish cities to California cities ("next stop: Los Angeles Union Station" instead of "proxima estacion: Barcelona-Sants") would have more of an impact - but it does show that CA is making an all-out effort.

Of just as much importance is the fact that Obama Administration officials have repeatedly stated that California is likely to get a significant piece of the HSR stimulus. I am confident they'll keep to that pledge.

Rod Diridon colorfully explained to the New York Times:

"We've likened it to California and the high-speed rail program being the ugliest girl in town, or the ugly duckling, and she was growing up and nobody wanted to be associated with her," Diridon said. "Her uncle gives her $9 billion, and everyone wants to take her to the prom. Well, everyone wants to take us to the prom now."

I'm not quite sure that's accurate. It's more like the attractive boy or girl in your class who you had a huge crush on, but you weren't sure if they were available or not; their parents are kind of strict and tightfisted and might not approve of he or she dating. But now you've heard from the parents that they do approve of the date, and what's more, they're willing to give you some money to buy him or her dinner. Now you know what to do - bust a move.

Friday Open Thread

Some California high speed rail items to keep you occupied and engaged as we approach the weekend. Apologies for not being able to offer a more in-depth post, but after that wild storm came through this week, the beautiful weather here in Monterey calls me outside.

• The Caltrain/California High Speed Rail Authority’s Policymaker Working Group met last night to get their work off the ground in providing advisement to Caltrain and the CHSRA about the rail improvement project. As Gina Papan's comments showed, not only is misinformation widespread, but there's a disturbing willingness of elected officials to believe whatever they hear from constituents.



• Merced Mayor Ellie Wooten and Merced County Supervisor John Pedrozo published a pro-HSR op-ed in the Merced Sun-Star today. It offers some very good restatements of the basic case for HSR, from jobs to the environment, but the main reason for their op-ed is to reiterate their case for building the maintenance hub at Castle Airport.



• A recent HSR scoping meeting in Escondido showed that NIMBYism can be found virtually anywhere in the state. Although most attendees supported the project, one whiner claimed "I'm going to fight it" because he's convinced the noise will lower his home values. Someone living in Escondido, which currently lacks a direct link to either the LA metro region or to the job centers in San Diego, should think twice about leaving their city's fate in the hands of oil and freeways. (Yes, Escondido has a rail link to downtown SD via the Sprinter and the Coaster, but it is indirect, requiring a transfer at Oceanside.)



• Over at the Transport Politic, Yonah Freemark criticizes the FRA's preliminary rail plan that avoids pissing anyone off (a classic trait of the Obama Administration) and therefore doesn't actually offer any specific recommendations about how to develop a national rail program.

Enjoy your weekend, everyone.

23 Members of Congress Sign Letter Supporting HSR Stimulus Funds

Led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, 23 of California's Congressional delegation have signed a letter to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and FRA Administrator Joseph Szabo supporting the CHSRA's application for federal HSR stimulus funds. The presence of Pelosi and the two Senators alone is significant, as they are among the three most powerful members of Congress, but the other 20 members of Congress are significant as well in that they show widespread support in California for this application.

As you can see in the letter below, the members of Congress emphasize the potential for significant and badly needed job creation as a primary reason to approve the stimulus application:

CA Congressional Letter to USDOT/FRA re: ARRA HSR stimulus

One name is notably absent from the letter: Anna Eshoo. She represents the 14th Congressional District, which includes the Caltrain corridor from Redwood City to Sunnyvale. In contrast, Jackie Speier, who represents the other half of the Caltrain corridor on the Peninsula, did sign the letter. Speier has been a tenacious advocate of passenger rail, particularly during her time in the state legislature - and her work in support of Caltrain earned her the distinct honor of having a Caltrain locomotive named after her. Other representatives whose district includes or is near the Bay Area portion of the HSR route, including Mike Honda, Zoe Lofgren, and my own representative Sam Farr, all signed the letter.

The letter states that the San Francisco to San José section of the HSR route would "directly create 11,400 jobs and be responsible for a total of 34,200 jobs beginning immediately."

So the question is, what does Anna Eshoo have against job creation in her district?

---

Addendum by Rafael:

This is an economic stimulus issue, the focus is on jobs, jobs, jobs.

Considering the fiscal hole California has fallen into is even deeper than already feared, getting people back to work is indeed a high priority. Remarkably, California state bonds are now trading at yields slightly below those in April, though 7.23% is still nosebleed territory for the eighth-largest economy in the world. Still, investing in infrastructure now is the right thing to do, even if the cost of borrowing is high. The Bear Republic cannot recover through spending cuts alone, it needs to take on additional debt so it can act as the spender of last resort - in partnership with the federal government.

The letter is signed by both of the state's US Senators and 22 members of the House, all of them Democrats. Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D - 10th) resigned in June to serve as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security in the Obama Administration. Her seat is vacant, a special election is pending.

That means 11 Democratic and 19 Republican members of the California delegation failed to sign this letter, whose sole purpose is to bring $4.7 billion federal dollars to the Bear Republic just when they are most needed. Anna Eshoo is among them, but she is not alone.

Democratic Non-Signatories:

Lynn Woolsey - D - 6th
Barbara Lee - D - 9th
Pete Stark - D - 13th
Anna Eshoo - D - 14th
Lois Capps - D - 23rd
Xavier Bacerra - D - 31st
Diane Watson - D - 33rd
Lucille Roybal-Allard - D - 34th
Maxine Waters - D - 35th
Joe Baca - D - 43rd
Susan Davis - D - 53rd

Republican Non-Signatories:

Wally Herger - R - 2nd
Dan Lungren - R - 3rd
Tom McClintock - R - 4th
George Radanovich - R - 19th
Devin Nunes - R - 21st
Kevin McCarthy - R - 22nd
Elton Gallegly - R - 24th
Howard "Buck" McKeon - R - 25th
David Dreier - R - 26th
Edward Royce - R - 40th
Jerry Lewis - R - 41st
Gary Miller - R - 42nd
Ken Calvert - R - 44th
Mary Bono Mack - R - 45th
Dana Rohrbacker - R - 46th
John Campbell - R - 48th
Darrell Issa - R - 49th
Brian Bilbray - R - 50th
Duncan Hunter - R - 52nd

To see if your Representative in the House is among those listed above, please consult the maps of congressional districts. If so, ask him or her to fight the Golden State's corner!

FRA Guidelines On Federal Funds For HSR

by Rafael

Earlier today, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) published a press release to notify the general public of guidelines for applicants seeking a slice of the $8 billion allocated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) a.k.a. the stimulus bill passed in the spring.

The same guidelines will be used to evaluate applications for the $1.5 billion reserved for HSR in the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) that was signed into law last October. The principal difference is that PRIIA funds are limited to 80% of total project cost. The proposed 2010 budget also includes a provision for an additional $1 billion in federal funding to be made available in each of the next 5 years and will presumably be allocated according to the same or similar guidelines as PRIIA.

USDOT Secretary Ray LaHood expects the first HSR grants to be awarded by mid-September. To allow for timely processing, the guidance calls for pre-applications to be filed no later than July 10 (preferably sooner). These are essentially expressions of interest with rough outlines that FRA will use to establish the volume of applications it will need to process and, to aid applicants in drafting their formal documentation. Final applications for Tracks 1, 3 and 4 (Projects, Planning and FY 2009 appropriations, respectively) due no later than August 24. Those for Track 3 (Service Development Programs, e.g. the California HSR network) are due October 2. These dates may be pushed back by at least 30 days if FRA decides to make changes to its guidelines in response to formal comments received no later than July 10.

Each application will be evaluated using 7 criteria in three categories. From 1 to 5 points will be awarded for each to reflect how well it conforms to the objectives of the federal government and Congress. The results are summed up, with different weights used for the various Tracks.

The first category addresses the return on public investment. This includes a rigorous analysis of financial costs and benefits of service operations. Further, it includes quantification of indirect benefits such as population mobility and safety, economic recovery benefits, energy efficiency, CO2 reduction etc.

The second category covers criteria related to project success, specifically project management and the sustainability of claimed benefits.

The third category examines the timeliness of estimated project completion and the risk of delays, which typically entail cost overruns as well.

These evaluation criteria will apparently be used to arrive at shortlists of candidates in each of the Tracks described above. The final selection among those will be based on what the guidelines refer to as "balance and diversity". This refers to the geographic extent of the projects, the level of technical innovation required etc. USDOT will explicitly favor those shortlisted projects that have already attracted non-federal investment. Tracks 3 and 4 explicitly require 50% matching funds.

Even so, these selection criteria remain quite fuzzy, so political clout on Capitol Hill and with the Obama administration will almost certainly play a significant role. Keep in mind that only projects in the eleven official high speed rail corridors are eligible at all. However, the Secretary of Transportation has limited powers to modify their definition. Brand-new corridors could only be created by and act of Congress, which would also have to amend the PRIIA and/or ARRA to make them eligible.

The Associated Press interprets the guidelines as favoring California and the Midwest over other regions. My own take is that Florida's HSR effort is still stalled and lacks funding commitments, though it is otherwise well placed thanks to the advanced state of its environmental impact review. In addition, Rep. Oberstar (D-MN) and Mice (R-FL) intended the NEC to be the primary beneficiary of HSR funds in PRIIA, to cut the Amtrak Acela Express' line haul times for New York to Washington, DC from roughly three to under two hours.

Sunday Afternoon Open Thread

I'm headed to Portugal for two weeks this coming Thursday and am spending the day getting my preparations done. Our trip will take us all over the country, from Porto to Coimbra to Lisboa to Faro and the Algarve (where I'm hoping it won't yet be totally overwhelmed with British tourists). Not only will it be representative of the various regions of Portugal, but it's a trip that can be done via high speed rail. Comboios de Portugal operates the Alfa Pendular, a tilting train of the pendolino family. The trains have a top speed of 220 km/h (136 mph) which isn't exactly TGV or AVE speed, but certainly qualifies as a kind of HSR. It connects Porto to Lisboa (the nation's two largest cities) in about 2 hours. So I'll get to see the Portuguese HSR system in action, although before the planned upgrades of the Porto-Lisboa line to 300 km/h (to be completed by 2015) and before the HSR link from Lisboa to Madrid is completed (due in 2013).

Anyhow, enough about me. Two brief HSR items for this Sunday afternoon:

• The FRA presentations from the Sacramento meeting have been posted online (h/t to Matt Melzer). Haven't yet had a chance to look these over, but if you do, be sure to offer your thoughts in the comments.



• The Bay Area Council Economic Institute has proposed $7 billion in infrastructure stimulus for the region, including HSR-related projects such as upgrading Diridon Station.

Ray LaHood's European Vacation

US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has been touring European HSR systems in recent days and is coming away impressed:

Spain's bullet train system is a model to follow as America plans how to spend the money the government is injecting to stimulate the economy, the U.S. transportation secretary said Saturday....

The Spanish network is likely to interest the U.S. government because its specially designed, electrified tracks — first devised for the French TGV system — are not as expensive to lay and run as some German or Japanese alternatives.

And Spanish state-of-the-art tunneling technology has proved successful in boring efficiently through mountain ranges to reach the cities of Valladolid and Malaga.

LaHood met with Spain's Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to discuss how investing in such a train system could stimulate job creation in the U.S.

"Yesterday I traveled on a train at close to 350 kilometers (215 miles) per hour, the fastest I've ever ridden on a high-speed train," LaHood said. He said he had enjoyed a conversation and beverage aboard and found the experience very civilized.

"Our leaders have made the decision that America will have high speed rail," LaHood said.

As a longtime aficionado of the AVE system I am pleased, but not surprised, to see LaHood taking to the Spanish system. Because the Iberian Peninsula had its own rail gauge, Spain had to build all-new tracks using standard gauge for the AVE - meaning they have dedicated HSR tracks just as California will. Of particular interest is the tunneling technology Spain has employed, as The Transport Politic points out:

What is clear is that the distinctively Spanish obsession with using tunnel boring machines (TBM) seems to be a model for the Transportation Secretary; these semi-automated devices save on both time and cost in building underground rail corridors. For example, the 3.5 mile tunnel under downtown Barcelona, which is part of a larger project that will allow high-speed trains from central Spain to reach France, will only cost 180 million Euros to build. That’s far cheaper per mile than any similar U.S. tunneling project, and part of the explanation is the efficient use of those TBMs.

TBMs will be a godsend here in California where significant tunneling in the Pacheco Pass and Tehachapi Mountain areas will be needed to complete the system. Of course, I am sure that the Peninsula NIMBYs will seize on this as well as an argument that their tunnel is financially viable - which it probably isn't, and besides, they need to defend the position that their tunnel is more important than the all-important Pacheco and Tehachapi tunnels which are sorta necessary for the whole project to work as intended.

It's also possible that the tour is going to reconfirm for Ray LaHood the importance of adopting European safety standards for HSR trainsets. The FRA's weight rules need to be modernized - the current rules are an embarrassment and an impediment to proper HSR development in America. As the head of the Department that includes the FRA, LaHood is in a strong position to insist that the FRA enter the 21st century.

Perhaps the most important aspect of LaHood's visit is intangible - a renewed commitment to building European-style HSR here in America. Currently the only project that meets that standard is California's. I have every reason to believe this trip to France and Spain will bolster LaHood's demonstrated conviction that California's HSR project is deserving of robust federal support.

Review of Yesterday's FRA Meeting in Sacramento

Thanks to Matt Melzer for attending and compiling these notes (with help from Ryan Stern) from yesterday's FRA meeting in Sacramento on high speed rail. Lots to chew over here! -Robert

Besides presentations from the feds, there was one from Amtrak's VP Policy and Development, Stephen Gardner, who emphasized that Amtrak wants to be THE national HSR operator. He also said that expanding state partnerships is "Amtrak's future."

Will Kempton, Mehdi Morshed, and Bill Bronte acted as the regional presenters, making the public case for California to receive stimulus funds based on the obvious success and maturity of California's passenger rail programs. Their PowerPoint also had nice maps showing CAHSR integrated with each existing Amtrak California corridor, as well as all three. Yet, there was no illustration of long-distance routes, regional rail systems, or Thruway motorcoach connections. So the visualization severely minimized the true reach of the state passenger rail network.

The Surfliner route north of LA looked like an errant finger, with San Luis Obispo positively orphaned. This, of course, has no relation to reality, with the existing Thruway connections to Hanford and the Bay Area, as well as the Coast Starlight and the future Coast Daylight. It's this lack of emphasis on statewide connections on the part of the HSRA that leads to situations like Pete Rodgers of SLOCOG opposing Prop 1A supposedly because he didn't think there was anything in it for SLO. Even if the $950 million for feeder rail and transit improvements didn't exist, he'd still be wrong.

After their presentation giving an overview of the federal HSR Strategic Plan and Next Steps (to which I'll refer readers to previous posts regarding details), Karen Rae (FRA Deputy Administrator), Paul Nissenbaum (FRA Director, Office of Passenger and Freight Programs) and Gardner engaged in Q&A. Some of the juicier questions:

Representative of LA County MTA: With the billions of dollars LA County voters approved for new transit projects in Measure R, why can't MTA use future HSR connectivity benefits as part of cost-effectiveness calculations for FTA New Starts applications? Why aren't FTA's criteria more holistic?

Rae: "We've talked more with FTA in the past 6 months than [we probably did] in the past 15 years." FRA and FTA are aware of such issues and will discuss them more moving forward.

Jason Lee, San Francisco MTA: With so much focus on cost, won't HSR grant applicants cut corners and shy away from key projects like the $1 billion Transbay extension?

Rae: We're "struggling" with how to handle such megaprojects, of which there are many across all modes, that demand huge resources concentrated in very small project areas. Some of these issues could be addressed in the transportation reauthorization bill. Criteria for numerous federal transportation grant programs could conceivably evolve.

Representative of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers: Union Pacific is grappling with Positive Train Control, which system is best, and how to implement it. Shouldn't the feds lead the charge for one interconnected PTC system?

Rae: FRA and the Rail Safety Advisory Committee are working to support the federally-mandated effort for a national PTC standard. We hope that PTC will be as interoperable as other standard railroad equipment.

Gardner: Interoperability is in the law (S.294, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act [PRIIA], the Amtrak/passenger rail reauthorization and rail safety bill that passed last year). Train control will be a critical issue as we develop corridors that exceed 79 mph.

IBEW Rep.: UP gave the impression that they didn't know about the interoperability requirement!

Paul Dyson, President, Rail Passenger Association of California and SW Division Leader, National Association of Railroad Passengers [Disclaimer: I, Matt, serve under Paul on the NARP Council]: There's a lot of talk of partnerships today. Look at the three providers of passenger rail in Southern California: Amtrak, Metrolink, and Coaster are crummy partners [along the Surfliner route], with passenger-unfriendly schedule coordination. Who's to say states like Arizona or Nevada would ever be willing to work with California as regional "partners" in HSR development, as FRA is encouraging states within regions to do?

Rae: "It is not an easy conversation." But there's nothing like competitive grants to provide an impetus for partnership. "There's not nearly enough money to go around," but best practices in multi-state compacts will emerge from this process.

Representative of Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen: Amtrak is mandated to be profitable; will HSR operations be?

Nissenbaum: Capital subsidies will be required, but it's the responsibility of applicants to account for operating expenses. Amtrak or other operators will seek assurances so that they're not exposed to any risk of operating losses.

Gardner: The profitability clause is gone from Amtrak's mission due to PRIIA, which did stipulate that Amtrak must still minimize the need for federal coverage of their operating losses. States must also cover the losses of any new services.

Rich Tolmach of California Rail Foundation (and plaintiff in the lawsuit seeking to invalidate CHSRA's EIR): Will the same FRA safety standards still apply to new high-speed equipment?

Nissenbaum: Absolutely, yes. We will need to create new standards for equipment that operates about 150 mph, since they don't currently exist.

Rae: FRA Administrator Joe Szabo isn't here today because he's touring European HSR equipment, seeing how they achieve both efficiency and safety.

Ryan Stern, State Representative, National Association of Railroad Passengers: Given the moribund state of the domestic passenger rail supply industry, how do we create an environment that allows for ongoing production of rolling stock, so that cars can be purchased quickly and affordably?

Gardner: This falls under the work of the PRIIA-mandated Next Generation Corridor Equipment Pool Committee [which is developing national standards for various types of passenger rail cars]. But we do have to live in the world we have now.

Rae: The White House is in active talks with our domestic industrial manufacturers to retool underutilized production capacity.

Matthew George, Caltrans: Do Amtrak's agreements with host railroads provide for HSR?

Gardner: They apply at any speed, hypothetically. But we'll work collaboratively with our partners and not just "show up" with high-speed passenger trains intermingling with slow freights.

George: How much can you rely on those agreements?

Nissenbaum: You can't; there must be operational agreements specific to each service. But "master agreements" can be a starting point.

Beverly Mason, AECOM: What is FRA's policy on adapting European and Asian HSR trains to domestic use?

Rae: "We will not compromise our safety record." But new technologies are being explored. Sealed HSR systems especially could support more exotic equipment.

Lastly, there was one hour of breakout groups to address the following three sets of questions, which we randomly called upon share with the whole audience at the end. At least a good 60 percent of attendees stayed for this, whereas crowds had apparently thinned considerably in other cities' workshops. Rae emphasized that FRA is taking all feedback seriously, since the entire national HSR effort is a nascent work-in-progress. The questions were:

1. What does success from a national perspective look like in 2 years, 5 years, and 10 years? How do we measure success?

2. What factors are critical for implementation of the program? What is the role of the federal government, states, and others?

3. What does your region need to succeed, in the short or long run?

All groups wrote their ideas on worksheets, which were ultimately collected. The FRA is expected to make the presentations given at the meeting available on the web "at some point in the future."

-Matt Melzer

Two Thursday Meetings

Tomorrow, Thursday May 28th, will see two meetings on the high speed rail project. I can't attend either of them, but hopefully you can!

First up is an FRA meeting in Rancho Cordova (Sacramento suburb) from 1PM to 4:30PM:

FRA’s High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Workshops
Start May 20, To Tour Nation

Dear Stakeholders:

As we begin to implement President Obama’s vision for developing a cohesive national intercity and high-speed passenger rail network. This vision was set forth in FRA’s Strategic Plan for High-Speed Rail (HSR) announced by President Obama, Vice President Biden, and U.S. Transportation Secretary LaHood, and sent to Congress that same day on April 16, 2009.

The workshops will be led by FRA Deputy Administrator Karen Rae or myself. Through these workshops, FRA is reaching out to the rail community in seven regions across the country to seek your input on the Interim Guidance we are required to issue on or before June 17, 2009, for the $8 billion in grant funds provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) for the high-speed rail corridors program, intercity passenger rail grants, and congestion grants. The workshops will enable FRA to discuss the HSR Strategic Plan with key stakeholders such as state departments of transportation, regional planning authorities, metropolitan leaders, associations and labor groups (under the ARRA, these workshops exclude the participation of lobbyists).

We seek your input not only to provide us with your regional vision of high-speed and intercity rail networks, but to enable stakeholders to focus on the critical factors that will make this program a success for generations to come.

The goal of the workshop is to take the first steps toward determining how we can best partner together to make the Strategic Plan a reality. During the workshop, you will have an opportunity to share experiences, raise concerns, provide insights, and make recommendations on several key issues and questions, as well as hear those of your colleagues and representatives from a regional perspective. The workshop schedule will include the following:

Introduction 10 minutes
Overview of FRA strategic plan and next steps 30 minutes
Amtrak presentation 15 minutes
Q & A 35 minutes
Regional presentation 30 minutes
Break 15 minutes
Working group break-out 1 hour
Wrap-up 15 minutes

The workshops will be held 1:00 p.m. 4:30 p.m. on the following dates and locations:

California Corridor: Sacramento May 28; Sacramento Marriott Rancho Cordova, 11211 Point East Drive, Rancho Cordova, CA 95742

In addition to participating in the workshop, I am inviting you and other members of the public to submit written comments to FRA by June 5, 2009, on issues that should be addressed in the Interim Guidance and specific recommendations on the criteria to be used in evaluating grant applications. FRA has created a public docket (Docket No. FRA-2009-0045) for the receipt of written comments. Please visit FRA’s Web site at: www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/2236 for information regarding the various ways in which you may submit comments to the public docket.

Please note, additional sessions to aid states with the mechanics of applying for ARRA funds will be scheduled after these workshops, as will informational sessions for industry, labor, intergovernmental and other interested parties.

I look forward to working with you over the coming months to ensure the grant programs funded by ARRA are implemented successfully.

Sincerely,
Joseph C. Szabo
Administrator
The Federal Railroad Administration

The other meeting is in Atherton at 7PM:

The meeting is open to the public, and will be held at the Jennings Pavilion in Holbrook-Palmer Park, 150 Watkins Ave. in Atherton.
Atherton officials, and many of the town's residents, have grave worries about the local effects of the state plan to run high-speed trains along the Caltrain corridor that bisects the town. If the high-speed rail line can't be rerouted to avoid the town, Atherton officials would rather have the train run through a trench or tunnel, instead of on an elevated berm.
The scheduled speakers at the meeting are: Mike Garvey and John Litvinger, public outreach consultants working for the California High Speed Rail Authority; John Townsend, executive vice president of Hatch Mott Macdonald, a leading tunnel-engineering and construction firm; Duncan Jones, Atherton's public works director; Gary Patton, attorney and former director of the Planning and Conservation League; and Jim McFall, who will present a digital model of elevated high-speed rail tracks going through Palo Alto.

I'm really curious about this "digital model" that will be shown. Is it going to be an accurate representation of what an elevated solution could look like, or is it going to be a biased depiction of some kind of Berlin Wall? I hope that the CHSRA has been able to generate some more accurate and realistic digital images of their own.

Update: Thanks to Clem in the comments who links to Jim McFall's video - videos that put the worst possible spin on this, making the HSR grade separation look like an Orange County freeway.

Additionally, I'm curious what the tunneling exec will have to say. Will he explain the price tag of a tunnel? Will Atherton residents have their checkbooks and credit cards ready to go to pay the multi-billion cost of such a tunnel? Only one way to find out - go to the meeting!

If anyone does attend, and wants to write up their impressions of the meeting(s), I'll be happy to post it here unedited.

Open Thread: Next Steps for California?

Last week's announcement of a national strategic plan for HSR was essentially the official start of the intense lobbying efforts by multiple states to secure a slice of the $9.5 billion in federal dollars currently on the table. The plan clarified that "emerging HSR", i.e. selected upgrades from 79mph to 110mph top speed, would be prioritized for phase 1. Related grant awards are supposed to happen by the end of summer, in keeping with the objective of the stimulus bill: turn dirt early.

Strategic corridor development, i.e. "regional HSR" (speeds up to 150mph) and "express HSR" (bullet trains at speeds in excess of 150mph) would be addressed in phase 2. This presumably includes both the Acela, California and Florida corridors. Texas still needs to decide if it wants to split into 5 states so the other 49 will kick them out of the union. Sometime after that, they may get around to deciding on the T-bone network. SoCal-Vegas would also be a bullet train of one type or another, preferably compatible with the California network, but at this point it's not even on the map of federally designated corridors yet.

Congress will have to allocate significant additional funding to make any bullet train system at all feasible in the US. Perhaps the President expects Congress to do just that for him, since his budget proposal includes just $1 billion per year for the next five years for HSR, over and above the $9.5 billion already on the table. He knows full well that's not going to be enough.

So what should the next steps be for California HSR regarding funding? A focus on increasing the regular budget allocation for HSR? A tariff on all crude oil and refined products imported from non-NAFTA contries? A hike in federal or state gasoline tax?

Or should the focus instead shift to making California a center of excellence in HSR technology and associated regulation? Should the state ask FRA to designate a senior liaison who would sit across from a counterpart from the CPUC, with Caltrans Dept. of Rail and CHSRA engineers down the hall in a building in Sacramento? Should there be a formal federal program for developing standards for mobile broadband internet access at speeds of up to 300mph, headquartered in Silicon Valley?

The Keys to the Magic Kingdom

One of the relatively late changes to the definition of the HSR starter line was the inclusion of the segment from LA Union Station to Anaheim ARTIC, OCTA's planned multimodal transit hub. Nothing wrong with that at all, after all Orange County is the second most populous in the state. Besides, OC needs the grade separations along BNSF's core "91" line to support future capacity growth for container freight out of the LA/LB harbors. A similar billion-dollar project is to improve grade crossings with UPRR's lines in the San Gabriel valley, dubbed Alameda Corridor East, is already underway. Grandiose plans for using fancy, unproven freight maglev technology to shuttle containers to a new Inland Port in Mira Loma appear to have bitten the dust and those for maglev to Vegas along with them.


Anaheim ARTIC on YouTube

The hoped-for quid pro quo for grade separation is that BNSF will offer CHSRA enough land to run dedicated tracks between Redondo Junction - the northern terminus of the successful Alameda Corridor - and Fullerton. To date, BNSF has been receptive to CHSRA overtures, but that was in the Central Valley. The company's ROW between Richmond harbor and Bakersfield is arguably not fully utilized, much of the alignment is single track.

The "91" line, named - this is Southern California for you - after the adjacent freeway through the Santa Ana river valley, is a whole different ball of wax. It is the only ROW out of California that BNSF actually owns outright. All its other routes out of the state depend on trackage rights on competitor UPRR's network. Up to a point, those could be restricted or canceled without falling foul of anti-trust laws. The price for the trackage rights is also subject to change.

Therefore, we should expect BNSF to take a much tougher line in negotiations regarding the sale of part of the "91" ROW. The Alameda corridor currently carries about freight 40 trains a day, but sooner or later that may double, even triple. With prescient investment in modern signaling, diligent track maintenance and professional operations, two track ought to be enough for BNSF to handle its share of that. But what if there is an accident or an earthquake. UPRR has multiple rights of way that it can use to re-route its trains. The companies may well have secured mutual emergency trackage rights on each other's lines. Still, BNSF risks putting itself at something of a competitive disadvantage if it sells part of its most precious asset in California. Once you give up a right of way, you never get it back. Not ever. BNSF may want to be a good corporate citizen and it knows that grade separation will reduce the risk of accident-related disruptions to its own service. But does that mean CHSRA will get to lay down tracks? We'll see.

Between Fullerton and the OC/SD county line near San Onofre, the right of way is owned by the Southern California Regional Railway Authority (SCRRA) which operates Metrolink. Amtrak Pacific Surfliner and some BNSF freight trains also use this alignment. BNSF owns the connector that runs north from Orange to the "91" line as well as the bit from National City to San Diego. The harbor down there is not a container terminal, it appears to be used for importing cars. All of these trains use FRA-compliant locomotives and rolling stock.

The SCRRA ROW in Orange County is quite narrow, really only wide enough for two tracks in most places. Widening it via eminent domain for the sake of laying down dedicated HSR tracks would be massively unpopular and ruinously expensive. The plan is therefore to seek FRA approval to operate mixed traffic, i.e. to add a limited number of non-compliant bullet trains to the mix via time separations guaranteed by signaling upgrades that prevent engineers from running red lights by accident. Top speed for this last stretch would be down to 79mph, but it's so short that presents no object. After last year's disaster at Chatsworth, HR 2095 mandated the installation of positive train control technology on busy rail corridor and those carrying hazardous materials by 2015.

The request for the mixed traffic exemption will be rolled into that for a "rule of special applicability" that CHSRA will anyhow need for its entire network. FRA currently has no rules at all for passenger train operations at speeds in excess of 150mph, nor any for the safe design and operation of 25kV AC overhead catenary systems. The agency had already begun to draft such rules for Florida HSR some years ago but they were shelved when Gov. Jeb Bush killed that project. They will soon be dusted off and completed, presumably many will be cribbed from the regulations Asian and European countries have already drawn up.

However, there's always a chance that one or more domestic - or at least North American - would-be HSR vendors will emerge. They might seek to gain a competitive advantage by getting FRA to draft rules that would force more established global players to modify their designs. That would be foolish from a safety/reliability/cost point of view, but protectionism-by-red-tape is one of the oldest games in town. Bureaucrats, too, love to draft special rules under the guise of "special conditions" that supposedly exist in the territory they are responsible for. In the US, some freight operators may well seek some regulatory overkill to push back against states that suddenly want to acquire part of their ROW, just so they can benefit from the federal largesse that is now being heaped - ok, spooned - onto high speed rail projects. Well-connected organizations that oppose HSR in principle, a particular project or impacts on their back yard might also try to lobby FRA, in the hope that this might kill or at least delay HSR implementations. We should be vigilant and push back against such selfish efforts.

The rules for California will set a national precedent for both true bullet trains running at well over 125mph on dedicated tracks and, for rapid rail below that speed, with freight and passenger trains each using the equipment best suited to their business model yet sharing a ROW and even tracks. Let's hope President Obama and Secr. of Transportation LaHood realize the importance of FRA's rulemaking on HSR in the years to come.

Clem Tillier over at the Caltrain-HSR compatibility blog has published the following diagram in his analysis of SF Peninsula Rail Traffic in 2030. It shows statewide train traffic on the HSR network, based on CHSRA's 2008 business plan. It does not include non-HSR trains that HSR will share track with in sections such as Fullerton-Anaheim.


Hi-Resolution Version

For Anaheim, CHSRA is apparently forecasting 2-3 trains in each direction per hour during a six-hour peak window. Of those, 60% would head up to the SF peninsula and 40% to Sacramento. There appear to be no plans to terminate trains in Los Angeles. Today, Metrolink's Orange county line between LA and Oceanside is served by up to 3 trains per hour each way during rush hour, but far fewer during the day. Amtrak Pacific Surfliner adds one more. If there were a 100% increase in legacy train operations by 2030, we'd still only be talking about 10-11 passenger trains running on the existing dual track alignment between Fullerton and Anaheim. That's a 6-minute headway, quite busy but not extremely so, provided that all trains run pretty much on time. I don't know how many freight trains run through Anaheim station today, let alone in 2030. That's a wildcard.

In a comment on the March 10 post entitled LA - San Diego: Quo Vadis?, yeson1a suggested that CHSRA might want to keep it simple and stupid (KISS): continue on to San Diego by staying on the 91 corridor from Fullerton through Corona and switching to the I-15 median there. This option has not been studied by CHSRA and would not be considered unless securing a ROW past Ontario airport proves impossible or too expensive. Yeson1a's alternative would leverage the investment already made for LA Union Station - Fullerton in phase I. A connector from Anaheim to Atwood would permit a capacity-defined subset of HSR trains to detour from the main line to Anaheim. If desired, some of the rest could stop at a no-frills auxiliary station in Fullerton. Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs would then only be served by some of the trains that make the detour into Anaheim. The route would probably feature and intermodal with Metrolink in Corona, with the option for a regular secondary station in Lake Elsinore, though Murietta would be fairly close by.


View Larger Map

The principal downside of this idea is that neither Ontario airport not Riverside are on the route. However, a possible phase II/III spur up to Las Vegas could give the downtown areas of Riverside, San Bernardino and Victorville HSR stations. Passengers hailing from Northern California would likely prefer a shorter spur off the starter line at Mojave. Perhaps both will end up getting built someday, with tracks joining up in Barstow. Such a full build-out would, however, require quite a bit of magic dust from the money fairy.

The Acelafication of California High Speed Rail

Today marks the one-year anniversary of this blog. I'd actually been trying to build out a much bigger pro-HSR site using a dedicated URL, a Joomla! installation, and with neat bells and whistles. But it was taking months, and by March 2008, I gave up and decided to just whip something up on Blogger to fill what I felt was a big gap in the online world, a lack of a site dedicated to both the discussion and support of the California High Speed Rail project.

It's been an eventful year, to say the least. The dramatic gas price spike that showed Californians passenger rail was an essential part of our future infrastructure. The long fight over AB 3034. The constant efforts of HSR deniers such as the Reason Foundation to sow misinformation about HSR to the public. The passage of Prop 1A. And now the fight over whether there will be high speed trains on the Peninsula. We've covered all of it here, sometimes contentiously. I think we've all achieved something fantastic here, and I thank all of my readers and especially the commenters for helping keep this blog going.

Looking back on that year, two things have stood out to me that define this project:

1. The public as a whole supports high speed rail and wants it to happen.

2. However, the political conditions that produced 40 years of passenger rail stagnation, as well as California's broad 21st century crisis (an economic, environmental, and energy crisis), are still there, and the necessary political leadership to overcome those conditions and solve those crises does not yet exist.

President Barack Obama may be the game-changer here, as he is in so many other aspects of American life. His support for high speed rail is genuine, as he played the central role in putting $8 billion in HSR funds into the stimulus. His budget proposal includes $5 billion more for HSR. He could provide the leadership that has been lacking, and could help bring groups to the table to hammer out differences.

Such leadership is desperately needed right now in California and on the Peninsula in particular, where concern over above-ground structures - concerns I believe to be overblown and misplaced - have given rise to a de facto willingness to weaken the HSR project unless it is built underground. Way too much of the NIMBY commentary on the situation implies that HSR isn't necessary, and some of the old HSR denier arguments from the 2008 campaign - that HSR can't turn a profit, that the ridership numbers aren't credible, that the Peninsula doesn't really have any need for this anyway - have unsurprisingly been mobilized to attack the project.

This is but one example of some of the underlying political conditions that have produced passenger rail stagnation and economic crisis. Parochial self-interests have spent the last 30 years constructing any number of methods to veto policies they don't like, whether it's the 2/3rds rule or systematic abuse of the environmental review process to accomplish inappropriate NIMBY objections.

And some of it stems from an ongoing unwillingness to admit the need to change. The NIMBY attack on HSR is grounded in the assumption that the status quo is perfectly acceptable - a state dependent on carbon emitting, pollution spewing, fossil fuel burning methods of travel that are not physically sustainable or economically viable. That the physical landscape of Menlo Park can remain that way for all time.

Nobody here wants to destroy communities. But when some in those communities define the way things look in 2009 as a perfect status quo that must not be changed, then ANY change, no matter how sensible or beneficial, becomes viewed as a threat.

Such attitudes have led to the economic crisis we face, where an unwillingness to confront basic realities, stemming from a desire to cling as tightly as possible to a status quo that is quite clearly failing, has prevented necessary action.

Unfortunately we've been here before. In the early 1990s the Northeast Corridor High Speed Rail project was announced with much fanfare, and was promised to finally bring true high speed rail travel to the United States.

15 years later, we have the Acela. It's a workable system, a train that has over 40% of the market share on the NEC and a generally positive reputation among travelers. But it's also not what was intended. The Acela only achieves its true top speed of 150 mph in a few places; in many others it's held to 79mph.

What happened? To put it simply, stakeholders weren't willing to accept some changes in order to build the Acela properly. Some didn't want to give up land to straighten the tracks. Others were concerned about noise and speed. Some didn't want to spend money upgrading the infrastructure. The FRA wouldn't relax its inane weight rules. And in the 1990s, cheap oil lulled people into complacency, believing that passenger rail was a toy that had little practical use, that filled little practical need.

To me it is self-evident that if we're going to build a project, we should build it the right way. That if we ask voters to approve something - especially if we ask them to help pay for it - then it seems self-evident to me that we should deliver exactly what they approved. The City of Palo Alto and many others on the Peninsula appear happy to gut the HSR project by forcing it to run unacceptably slowly along the SF-SJ route, or to force an unworkable transfer to Caltrain at SJ Diridon that will significantly reduce ridership, or to bypass the state's third largest city (San Jose) just to make a small handful of residents happy.

That's just not right. We must build HSR the right way. We can build it in a way that meets the needs of everyone in California, but when NIMBYs refuse to compromise, they're implicitly saying that a flawed system or no system is preferable to one they don't like. They're happy to Acelafy our project.

We see these problems anytime efforts are made to address our multifaceted crisis. Obama wants to restore higher tax rates on the wealthy to pay for his economic recovery plan? Oh god no, can't have that! Solar energy companies want to build a solar plant in a sunny desert spot, but need to build power transmission lines through open desert to get there? Oh god no, can't have that! We need to build a high speed train along an existing rail corridor? Oh god no, can't have that!

If the underlying political problems did not exist - a state government hamstrung by the 2/3rds rule, a small but vocal group of NIMBYs who are expert at hijacking planning processes, a lack of political leadership on passenger rail - then we wouldn't have these crises at all. HSR would have been built long ago, California's budget would be in the black, and the US would not be staring economic Depression and the massive effects of global warming in the face.

The reason I am such a strong advocate of California high speed rail is because I understand that things must change if our state is to survive this crisis. HSR is just one aspect of the changes that need to be made. And that requires fixing the underlying problems that have produced the crisis and threaten to strangle the HSR project.

The big picture has been lost. If people truly believe that an above-grade trackway is more of a problem than mass unemployment and global warming, then maybe we're in a bigger crisis than even I imagined. If a small group of NIMBYs can block HSR, what's going to happen when we try and build wind turbines or tidal energy projects?

One year later, I am encouraged that Californians as a whole understand the need for passenger rail. But I am concerned that even HSR supporters have lost sight of the big picture, and aren't sufficiently willing to challenge the failed assumptions, rules, procedures, and practices that have brought us to this crisis point. Palo Alto is a warning shot across our bow. Unless we find away to remind Californians of the stakes, of why HSR is such a vital part of the solution to our multifaceted crisis, it will be turned into another Acela, rendered less effective and less viable because we did not have the courage to face down those who created this crisis, and those who believe there's no urgent need to do anything at all to solve it.

HSR News From Around the World

Some tidbits for the weekend:

• Portugal to move ahead with Lisbon-Madrid HSR line, slated for completion between 2013 and 2015. The ruling Socialist Party believes it has the funding in place, and though a defeat in upcoming elections might derail the plan, the Socialists currently lead the polls. My wife and I are planning a trip to Portugal later in the year, and we'll make extensive use of their existing train infrastructure.



• Rochester, Minnesota is getting serious about being part of a proposed HSR line from Chicago to the Twin Cities. The Mayo Clinic, a large employer in the town, is strongly in favor of Rochester's inclusion, but other cities in southeastern Minnesota want the HSR route to follow the existing Amtrak route.



• A Georgia Senate panel has endorsed HSR to Chattanooga - don't know much about this particular proposal, but it's good to see Georgia getting serious about HSR planning.



• The FRA got a strong response to a solicitation for interest in building HSR. The Transport Politic has a full list of those groups that submitted bids and plans.



• Also from The Transport Politic (that site is an amazing resource) comes word that the otherwise flawed Senate stimulus bill avoids cutting transit funds and includes the $2 billion for HSR funding that we'd supported. I expect that to remain in the reconciliation process with the House, although it would be good if the state stabilization funds are restored - if California doesn't get federal help to close the deficit, that will hinder HSR planning efforts and hurt transit more broadly around the state.

What's on your mind?

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.

Ray LaHood - HSR Denier?

Some troubling news out of Chicago where a relatively unknown Republican Congressman from Illinois, Ray LaHood, is slated to become Barack Obama's Secretary of Transportation.

LaHood doesn't appear to have much of a record as a transportation expert - at least when Bush crossed the aisle for Norman Y. Mineta he got someone who knew the issues well. But the troubling thing is that what LaHood has said about HSR isn't encouraging. From 2004:

LaHood dismisses Illinois Amtrak high-speed service

U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood (R) said on July 15 he does not favor high-speed rail for Illinois.

"I think it’s a bad idea, mainly because we don’t have the money to fund the routes that currently serve Illinois," LaHood said at the Statehouse.

Amtrak President David Gunn said earlier this week in Chicago that upgrading the Chicago-St. Louis corridor for faster passenger trains is a top priority for Amtrak. Planners want trains to be able to go 110 mph in the corridor, while the current top speed is 79 mph – but it would take nearly $200 million for the next phase of track and equipment upgrades.

LaHood said he considers Amtrak "the lifeblood transportation for small communities," and he knows many college students from Chicago’s suburbs use trains to travel to school, Copley News Service reported via The Lincoln Courier.

"On the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak is fabulous," LaHood added, "and after 9-11, it became the transportation of choice for a lot of people because they felt it was safer than flying.

"I think if we’re going to have a pot of money where we subsidize airlines and we subsidize the funding of highways, that we certainly ought to continue to subsidize Amtrak," LaHood said.

He said, "I don’t think we can afford at this point, with the kind of deficits we’re running," to be talking about high-speed rail.

While funding is his main concern, he said, "People in rural Illinois are not for high-speed rail... They do not want a train traveling 120, 125, 150 miles per hour through the rural areas, and I support them on that."

Obviously 2008 is different from 2004, and the "HSR vs. Amtrak local" dichotomy that LaHood set up in these 2004 comments may no longer apply (if it ever did). But this doesn't exactly inspire confidence in our new Secretary of Transportation, who ought to be someone who understands the ins and outs of transportation policy, particularly high speed rail.

Some may argue that Obama-Biden's strong support for HSR will force LaHood to change his views. But that's quite a risk to be taking with such an important position. Many transit advocates are either wary or skeptical of the choice with one commenter at Streetsblog writing:

Not to sound like a reactionary here, but given the pool of great candidates like Janette Sadik-Khan and Earl Blumenauer, you have got to be freaking kidding me.

Blumenauer had taken his name out of the running and endorsed Mortimer Downey. The Bay Area's own Steve Heminger was high on the list too, with support from Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Other names like Jim Oberstar, chair of the House Transportation Committee, had also been floated.

There are rumors that Rahm Emanuel had a big role to play in suggesting LaHood, who may be a purely political appointment to satisfy Obama's desire to have some Republicans in the Administration. If so this was a particularly bad place to put one, especially if LaHood doesn't have the expertise to fill this vital role effectively.

We need the DOT's help big time to get HSR off the ground - from FRA exemptions to disbursements of money; the Kerry HSR bill sets up an Office of High Speed Rail within the DOT. We need someone heading that department who knows what they're doing and who fully supports high speed rail. I am concerned Ray LaHood is not that person.

Something for the confirmation hearings, I guess...

FRA Says Pacheco Pass is OK

From the Federal Railroad Administration:

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has issued of a Record of Decision (ROD) on the California High-Speed Train (HST) system environmental impact statement (EIS) for the corridor between the Bay Area and Central Valley. The FRA's decision supports the State's selection of preferred alignment and station locations, and considers the environmental benefits and adverse
impacts associated with the preferred network alternative. It also describes mitigation measures to address adverse environmental impacts.

The FRA has served as the lead Federal agency for the environmental review of the HST program, while the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) is responsible for its planning, financing,
construction, and operation. The Authority and FRA completed the EIS in accordance with both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), including a broad effort to solicit input from the public, affected agencies and interested parties. This step concludes the program level of NEPA review that will be followed by preparation of site-specific environmental documents for sections of the HST system.

The full ROD can be found here.

One hopes this would give pause to the lawsuit-happy activists who continue to argue that the Pacheco route is the seventh sign of the apocalypse. Sure, Pacheco is imperfect, as is Altamont, but hopefully the FRA's decision will help put to bed that particular routing dispute. There are MUCH bigger issues for us to worry about, particularly what happens in Congress in January.