Obama on HSR and "End the Age of Oil"

We've noted before that Barack Obama is a huge supporter of high speed rail. As our friends at Trains for America pointed out, Obama gave a strong case for HSR in Youngstown, Ohio earlier this week:

At one point, asked about his support for high-speed rail, Obama lapsed into what was almost a comedy routine. All he needed was a fake brick wall behind him and a two-drink minimum.

"If you think about the Midwest, think about right here, what we've got is all kind of towns that we could connect," Obama said. "All of these cities are, they basically take in the air about 45 minutes to an hour to fly."

"But by the time you get to the airport," Obama continued, "take off your shoes, get to the terminal, realize that your flight's been delayed two hours, go pay $10 for a cup of coffee, and a sandwich for another $10, come back, you get on the plane, you're sitting on the tarmac for another 25 minutes, you finally take off, you're circling above the city for another half hour, when you land they can't find your luggage, and then you get to where you're going -- by the time it's all done it's a five-hour trip! …So the time is right now for us to start thinking about high-speed rail as an alternative to air transportation, connecting all these cities and think about what a great project that would be in terms of rebuilding America."

What I really like is how well Obama articulates high speed rail as not just a neato piece of tech, not just a solution to our climate and energy crisis, but as something that just plain works, and can give workaday people a better way to travel. High speed rail saves time and money. It's a populist and smart way to push back against the Republican lie that oil drilling is going to help solve the crisis.

Obama is showing that he understands quite well Van Jones's argument that we must move from opposition to proposition. It is not enough to fight against the idiotic drilling policy - you must also propose a better solution. High speed rail is one of those better solutions.

Of course, it would be great to pin Obama down on whether he will fight for federal money for the California high speed rail project, and how much he'd budget for it. The US budget deficit may be as high as $500 billion next year, and while the traditional media gives Bush and the Republicans a pass on this, they won't do the same for Obama and the Democrats. We're going to have to continue to fight to bring money to California for HSR.

But no money is going to come at all unless we pass Prop 1(A?) this November.

AB 3034 Passes the Senate

(Updated as information comes my way - now on Update 3)

The State Senate today finally passed AB 3034. It will now return to the Assembly, which will consider the Senate's amendments and send it on to Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Despite their earlier opposition, several Senate Republicans voted for AB 3034. They include Roy Ashburn and Dave Cogdill, who have previously been less than supportive of HSR. Additionally Jeff Denham, Tom Harman, Bob Margett, and my own Senator Abel Maldonado voted for AB 3034.

What changed? The Senate amended the bill yesterday to provide more oversight, including a "peer review" committee (see the bill text for details) and mandating that a revised business plan be produced by September 1 - not October 1 as previously suggested.

Also, Monday is the new deadline for altering the Prop 1 ballot language, contrary to reports from mid-July that suggested the deadline had already passed.

The Sierra Club, which took some criticism from this blog earlier this week, did play a major role in getting AB 3034 passed. The bill would address many of their concerns and Tim Frank of Sierra Club California had this to say, in a press release put out by Sen. Leland Yee's office:

This bill will ensure that the High Speed Rail Bond on this November’s ballot contains important environmental and fiscal safeguards and accordingly will help assure voters that their money will be wisely invested in a system that can dramatically improve California’s environment while providing mobility options that improve our competitiveness and quality of life.

That's more like it. Good to see the Sierra Club keeping focus on the value of HSR. Let's hope they will endorse Prop 1.

This good news, however, is tempered by remaining obstacles. The Assembly may not be pleased with the changes the Senate made, which include Leland Yee's move to secure the "spine" from SF to LA and Anaheim. But the Assembly is under the gun to approve the changes by the Monday deadline. Time to call your Assemblymembers and let them know that they ought to back AB 3034 as-is, and send it onto Arnold for his signature.

And that part is also tricky. Arnold is throwing a temper tantrum right now, claiming that he'll not sign any new bills the Legislature sends him until a budget deal is done. Funny thing about AB 3034, though - Arnold himself was its driving force, as the bill primarily exists to satisfy many of his demands about the HSR bond. Some Republicans who praised Arnold's silly move - like Jeff Denham, who said most bills "do more harm than good anyway, voted for AB 3034 anyway.

More importantly, AB 3034 required a 2/3 vote to pass each house. 2/3 just so happens to be the amount needed to override a governor's veto. So if Arnold continues his hissy fit, AB 3034 can still become law anyway.

All in all, it's a very good result. Props to everyone who helped pass it through the Senate - they understand the need to keep our eye on the ball and get HSR built.

UPDATE Here is what I'm told about how the ballot stuff works. Apparently the Legislature can remove Prop 1 and replace it with AB 3034 - as a new Prop 1 - if they act by August 11, which is Monday. They must both remove the existing Prop 1 AND pass AB 3034 for this work, and AB 3034 would go onto the ballot as Prop 1. If they miss the deadline, then AB 3034 would go onto the ballot as a supplemental prop - Prop 12 or, god forbid, Prop 13. It's been shown that this might cost 5-10% points in support, which could be fatal. Also, having two HSR props on the ballot would be incredibly confusing and might well lead to both failing.

The lesson: This last-minute stuff is really not good policymaking. This needed to have been resolved at least two months ago. If the first scenario cannot be accomplished - removing the current Prop 1 and replacing it with AB 3034 as Prop 1, then AB 3034 should be abandoned and groups should move to support Prop 1.

UPDATE 2 Sen. Dean Florez, longtime HSR supporter, calls on Arnold to support AB 3034 in a press release:

If Assembly Bill 3034 is not signed into law by Monday at 5 p.m., voters will be forced to consider a measure which lacks information considered critical to garnering support.

“The Governor’s childlike pledge has put years of work on the high-speed rail project in danger,” Florez said, chiding, “We need to end the foot stomping and get to work. Given Schwarzenegger’s handling of the budget crisis thus far, I wouldn’t be surprised if his next press conference included a new pledge to hold his breath until he turns bright blue.”

While the Governor may be loathe to reverse himself so quickly, Florez – who is sure Schwarzenegger could not have been aware of every possible ramification when he made his latest pronouncement – encouraged him to look to his own words on the issue.

“The Governor himself told a national television audience that flip-flopping is a great thing; that it is a wonderful thing when someone has made a mistake and is able to be honest about it and change his mind,” Florez said. “Keeping a viable high-speed rail bond off the ballot at this critical juncture -- after decades of laying the groundwork for a system that will move this state forward -- would be a huge mistake. The only thing remaining to be seen is whether the Governor will recognize and acknowledge that fact before it is too late to correct.”

Sounds like the ball's in Arnold's court now.

Update 3 Missed this the first time I read through the amended AB 3034 - if Arnold signs it by Monday at 5, Prop 1 is dead and will be replaced with Prop 1A:

This bill would require the bond measure to appear first on the November 4, 2008, general election ballot and to be designated as Proposition 1 1A. The bill would specify the ballot label and title and summary to be used for the measure.

Apparently the revisions also have more flexibility on funding minimum operable segments, but as I read it the "spine" from SF-LA-Anaheim is still prioritized. Anyone have a better reading? Put it in the comments.

Perspective

The most important news of the week isn't about a lawsuit. It's the report from a top British government climatologist arguing that global warming is going to happen faster and at a higher temperature than previously assumed. A 4C increase - equivalent to 7° Fahrenheit - would have a devastating impact on rainfall patterns, agriculture, and sea levels. Even if 4C is the upper end of the scale, the more widely accepted 2C figure is damaging enough, and a sign that we need to delay no further on implementing global warming solutions.

California has just such a solution on the November ballot - Proposition 1. It's worth reviewing just what the true environmental impact of high speed rail will be:

-Reduce carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to removing 1.4 million cars from the road, and take the place of nearly 42 million annual city-to-city car trips (Final EIR p. 92)

-Reduce CO2 emissions by up to 17.6 billion pounds/year (Quentin Kopp op-ed)

-Reduce California’s oil consumption by up to 22 million barrels/year (same as above)

According to the Final EIR 63% of intercity trips over 150 miles in California are taken by car (scroll to page 12). This is a major factor in causing most of California to be out of compliance with state clean air goals. Given that HSR would be much faster than driving between California's major metro regions, and will likely be less costly as well by 2018, HSR would make a significant dent in those car trips and therefore in the pollution they spew.

HSR provides a VAST carbon emissions savings over other forms of transportation:


(Image from Alberta High Speed Rail)

HSR will also help reduce air pollution. A 2006 Fresno Bee article explained that lung problems have soared among residents in recent years, and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District estimated that to counter this trend, the region needed to eliminate 400 tons of pollution per day by 2011. High speed rail would help accomplish that task.

The California Air Resources Board in June issued its draft scoping plan for implementation of the AB 32 carbon reduction goals. They cited high speed rail as one of the methods the state will need to use to achieve the targeted reductions.

Those who are willing to jeopardize passage of Prop 1 by suing because they didn't get their way on the alignment decision or because they don't want safer, cleaner tracks in their neighborhood are overlooking all of these benefits. This isn't anything like oil rigs on the Alaska North Slope or on the California coast. The worst that might happen are tracks through some ranches near Pacheco Pass. The trains will tunnel beneath the pass itself and Pacheco Pass State Park. If that's the price we have to pay for achieving important carbon reductions, I think it's well worth paying.

Because California has failed for decades to act on climate change and energy independence, we are past the point where we can make easy choices. Everything we do to solve the energy-environment-climate crisis will have a possible downside. What we need now is leadership and action. We need to get started on our long-overdue high speed rail project and pass Prop 1, because if it fails at the polls, it's not coming back to the ballot for a long time.

Van Jones, who knows a thing or two about environmental policy, is exhorting audiences to move from opposition to proposition. Without it, he argues, we have no hope of stopping the right-wing's destructive environmental policies. We don't have the political room to be fighting each other over the small differences, and we certainly don't have the time to be suing because someone didn't get their way.

It's not easy to advocate for mass transit in California. Anytime a project is proposed, parochial concerns often derail even valuable projects - witness LA County's MTA tax plan. We have a pathetic rail infrastructure partly because few are willing to accept a compromise in the interest of investing in a better system. How long will we go around in these circles before we finally decide to act?

HSR is one of the most environmentally friendly projects California has considered in a very long time. It won't solve all our problems, but it's the necessary first step. It's time we rallied together to support the passage of Proposition 1 and take the lead in fighting for a better 21st century environment for all Californians.

Frivolous Lawsuits

In a move they've been telegraphing for weeks, a group of wealthy NIMBYs have convinced the cities of Menlo Park and Atherton to join forces with the Planning and Conservation League, the California Rail Foundation (which has all of 3 members) and "lawsuit-happy activist" David Schonbrunn of TRANSDEF and sue to block high speed rail. Their claim is that the EIR/EIS that was adopted last month by the California High Speed Rail Authority violates the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) - but what is really going on is that a small coterie of long-time HSR deniers are greenwashing themselves and using the courts to stop one of the most important projects in state history.

Menlo Park and Atherton's objections are perhaps the most absurd. Driven by a handful of wealthy landowners, including Morris Brown and Martin Engel, their argument is that HSR would harm the aesthetics of their wealthy enclave:

The proposed route of the project runs down the heart of Menlo Park and Atherton on a narrow corridor occupied by CalTrain. The necessity of 4 tracks, where there are currently only 2 as well as needing the high 15 foot berm for the rail bed to accommodate grade crossings is of concern to both communities. With a minimum of 100 feet of width needed , as well as overhead catenaries for the electrical power to power the train, the impact in both communities is severe.

This is a comical, classic NIMBY objection. They're arguing that clean, sustainable mass transit, which California so desperately needs, should be stopped because it might not look pretty in two of the state's wealthiest communities?! That they're making an environmental argument is even more ridiculous. Currently Caltrain is powered by diesel trains and has a high rate of accidents caused by cars and people wandering onto the tracks. HSR would solve both problems by electrifying the tracks and physically separating them from the surrounding landscape, eliminating air pollution and making the entire corridor much safer.

Morris and Engel are inherently opposed to this project, and have spent months trying to dredge up any thin reed they can find to kill HSR. They never have proposed alternatives to how California can deal with the energy and climate crisis, and seem to prefer the failed status quo. And why not? They've got their land already, who cares about the masses?!

NIMBYism is one thing. The involvement of the PCL and TRANSDEF, two groups that have done good work in the past on containing sprawl, in this lawsuit is another. It's a profound disappointment to see them engaged in an effort to kill the HSR project. Surely they realize that a lawsuit filed three months out from the election jeopardizes the passage of Proposition 1. They don't have an alternative political strategy either on this, either for passing the HSR bonds or for dealing with our state's transportation issues.

Their reason for suing involves the choice of Pacheco Pass to connect the Bay Area to the Central Valley instead of the Altamont Pass. As this blog has repeatedly argued, both alignments had their good points and their bad points - but neither was clearly superior to the other. The most important thing for those who truly want to see HSR built in California is that we make a choice and stick with it. The California High Speed Rail Authority chose Pacheco, and so these Altamont supporters are choosing to sue.

The arguments against Pacheco are weak and by no means enough to suggest HSR should not be built. We dealt with the sprawl issue on Sunday but more detail is warranted. Much of the Pacheco Pass region cannot be built upon for topographical or legal reasons. A station at Los Banos has been permanently canceled. Gilroy has an urban growth boundary that could be stronger, but it exists. Moreover, HSR as a station-oriented system would primarily encourage growth near the station itself, not in far-flung exurban areas. Finally, these critics have consistently ignored or dismissed the reasons why sprawl is in mortal danger - without cheap oil and cheap credit, sprawl is simply not possible.

More to the point, sprawl is a problem whether we build HSR or not. So why hold HSR hostage to an issue that we have to solve no matter what? This really is a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good. HSR would mitigate against sprawl, would reduce carbon emissions, save on oil consumption, and promote mass transit riding habits. Why on earth would two organizations who are usually supportive of mass transit try to kill HSR?

The Altamont option isn't perfect either. It would require a new rail bridge across the bay, which would bring environmental problems of its own. The cities of Fremont and Pleasanton promised to sue if it were built, while the cities along the Pacheco route are supportive. On the whole there is no clear and compelling case to choose Altamont over Pacheco - and besides, if we really want HSR to be built, we need to rally around the project and ensure it passes, not drag this out forever. It's like Hillary vs. Obama all over again.

The deeper problem is that these groups have no sense of urgency. Al Gore and Van Jones have both explained the need for environmentalists and conservationists to come up with solutions NOW if we are to blunt the momentum of the "drill now, drill everywhere" crowd. We cannot build the public momentum for mass transit solutions if environmental groups spend their time in opposition, It is time to start showing Californians that high speed rail is a better deal for them than relying on wallet-busting oil prices, a failing airline industry, or carbon-spewing methods of travel.

The last group involved in the suit is the California Rail Foundation, headed by Richard Tolmach. Their opposition sounds dire, but the CRF has all of three members. The much larger - and therefore more representative - California rail organizations have chosen not to join the suit, such as TRAC, or openly support high speed rail and Prop 1, such as RailPAC and the National Association of Railroad Passengers (TRAC's decision on whether to endorse will be made later this month). Several chapters of the Sierra Club, including many in Southern California, are also supportive of high speed rail, suggesting something of the broad support HSR has around the environmental community.

So it's deeply unfortunate that a small group of people upset that their favored route wasn't picked, or upset that their wealthy communities will have safer and cleaner trains, are choosing to sue. They don't represent the California environmental movement, they don't represent the California transit movement, and as the election results in November will surely demonstrate, they don't represent Californians period. Their frivolous lawsuit is a nuisance, but it won't stop us from making the case to Californians that high speed rail is a good and necessary project.