Ashburn Keeps Trying to Kill HSR

The State Senate is back in session and Roy Ashburn is continuing his campaign to deny his constituents cheap, sustainable transportation by trying to kill the HSR bonds:

Sen. Roy Ashburn, R-Bakersfield, lost his bid Monday to delay the vote now scheduled for Nov. 4 on a bond to help start building a high- speed railroad in California.

The Assembly Transportation Committee turned down Senate Bill 298, which would have pushed the $9.95 billion bond to the 2010 ballot.

Ashburn, who represents most of Tulare County, said he's a supporter of high-speed rail but opposes a bond vote this fall because there isn't adequate information available on such issues as expected use, fares, routes and energy use for the proposed train that would travel through the San Joaquin Valley.

Despite this rejection, the Bakersfield Californian reports he's going to keep trying anyway:

An Assembly committee rejected a bill by Sen. Roy Ashburn, R-Bakersfield, to postpone the measure until 2010. However, Ashburn said he’ll try again later this week, when a fiscal oversight bill to be attached to the bond comes before the Senate for a vote....

Ashburn said he supports high-speed rail but the project is too expensive to approve without firm commitments for the rest of the funding. He also feels a September due date for the California High-Speed Rail Authority to produce an updated business plan isn’t enough time for voters to thoroughly assess the project.

“It’s a last-minute, last-ditch effort to put something together and rush it to the ballot,” Ashburn said. “For those of us that are truly supportive of high-speed rail, let’s take it off the ballot, give it time and work on these things.”

I don't believe Ashburn on this for a minute. He is being deliberately disingenuous, and the only thing that is last-minute, last-ditch about this is Ashburn's objections.

Let's think about this for a moment. Ashburn isn't a random voter, he is a two-term State Senator. If he felt there were problems with the Authority's business plan and funding, why didn't he raise these objections sooner? Why didn't he push for an updated business plan earlier? He must know that it's simply not possible for a thorough and complete update to be done sooner than September. And had AB 3034 been approved three weeks ago, the Authority would already be working on the plan.

As he must know, private enterprise and Congress are not going to commit funds to a project that California hasn't already committed itself to building. Not only does someone have to make the first step, but that "someone" can only be the state of California. It would have helped if our Congressional delegation, especially our two Senators, had been more proactive about securing at least a small amount of federal funding - perhaps $45 million for an HSR study, the same amount LA-Vegas maglev got - to show that Congress plans to support this. And private enterprise absolutely will not commit until the public sector has done so, as they explained to the Authority in June.

Ashburn's 11th hour objections are irresponsible. As a public servant he ought to have raised these concerns earlier in the year, instead of holding up the very bill that would address his concerns.

But more significantly, Ashburn is using this fear, uncertainty, and doubt strategy to try and kill the project outright. If he merely wanted an improved bond measure, he would have spoken up sooner. Instead he's using these last-minute objections to block AB 3034 - he already delayed past the deadline to alter Prop 1 - in hopes that either the bond will be pulled or the public will turn against a plan he's labeled as inadequate.

Even a delay is not a financially sound move, as Sen. Dean Florez explained to the Bakersfield Californian:

“Every year we put off moving forward with this ... we not only watch the overall cost of the project rise,” he said, “but we run the risk of losing investors who are unsure of our commitment to making high-speed rail a reality.”

We've already delayed this vote twice. It's time we let the voters of California have their say. Especially those in Bakersfield, in Ashburn's district, who desperately need a non-oil based affordable method to travel around their own state.

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.

The Sierra Club Loses Focus

It wasn't the article I was hoping to read upon my return from my honeymoon, but it's not that surprising to read in the Fresno Bee that the Sierra Club and the Planning and Conservation League are hesitating on backing Prop 1 and even considering a lawsuit - and for the nonsensical reason that the choice of the Pacheco route might "induce sprawl." That objection is bad enough, for reasons I'll discuss in a moment.

But what's really disturbing about this move is that it suggests the Sierra Club and the PCL have lost their focus - instead of looking at the big picture of high speed rail and emphasizing the game-changing environmental benefits it brings, they're focusing on a small non-issue instead. They've lost sight of the forest for the trees and instead of providing leadership on this issue they may instead cast their lot with the far right and leave Californians with no viable alternative to soaring fuel prices and a transportation system that is making our environmental problems far worse.

First, their criticisms as reported by E.J. Schulz:

But the environmentalists are still seething over the selection of relatively undeveloped Pacheco Pass as the route to connect the Central Valley to the Bay Area. They favor the more urban Altamont Pass to the north because they say it would induce less sprawl....

Environmentalists would rather see trains run farther north in the Valley before heading west so that more populated cities are served. They like the Altamont route because it would bring trains closer to Modesto, Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore in the first phase.

By contrast, the Pacheco route -- roughly following Highway 152 -- is in a less populated area. Environmentalists worry that a planned station in Gilroy would induce sprawl in surrounding rural areas.

These worries are baseless. Gilroy and much of southern Santa Clara County have strict urban growth boundaries. If those places were going to sprawl they would have already done so given their proximity to the job center and hot housing market of Silicon Valley. HSR doesn't change that dynamic.

Nor does it change the fact that sprawl is facing hard times. Sprawl is bad, but it isn't a force of nature. It is instead a product of three major factors: cheap oil, cheap credit, and favorable land use laws. The first is disappearing for good, thanks to peak oil. The second doesn't exist now, and may never return. Certainly land use policies need to change to limit sprawl, but those changes have long ago been made in southern Santa Clara County. Why should HSR alone carry that burden? AB 32 carbon reduction goals should be applied to new housing developments, and ultimately, localities will have to change their ways.

The loss of cheap oil and the shortage of cheap credit together will lessen sprawl dramatically in the coming decades. I fully support land use changes to further kill off sprawl, but it's not worth holding HSR hostage to produce the changes that need to happen anyway at the state and local level.

The death of sprawl has already made itself manifest in Gilroy. The Westfield shopping center developers had a plan to convert a significant amount of farmland acreage east of Gilroy along Highway 152 into a huge mall. The plan aroused the opposition of the community and it was dropped earlier this year. High fuel prices, the credit crunch, and public defense of urban growth boundaries all combined to kill that sprawl project. Those factors will do so again.

A Gilroy HSR station would produce strong incentives for transit-oriented dense development in Gilroy, the kind of development that California cities need to focus on instead of sprawl. Gilroy is already partway there, and an HSR station where the current Caltrain station is located at 8th and Monterey would actually discourage sprawl because there would be viable alternatives to building on new farmland. The combination of infill development and strict urban growth rules are what have made Portland's anti-sprawl plans a success - you need both for the anti-sprawl measures to work. And high capacity mass transit is a necessary component.

Further, since the Authority has rejected plans for a Los Banos stop, and since as Mehdi Morshed explained in the Fresno Bee article that the communities along the Altamont route were not supportive of HSR, what on earth explains the ongoing refusal of the Sierra Club and the PCL to throw their support to Prop 1?

The only answer is a very depressing one, but an answer that is becoming more widely accepted among many environmental activists, sustainability activists, transportation activists, and folks on the left more broadly: the Sierra Club and the PCL have lost their way, and have lost sight of the big picture. In case folks haven't been paying attention, this country faces a climate crisis and an energy crisis. It's not like we have a whole lot of time to be fighting over objections that are not grounded in fact. At Netroots Nation two weekends ago Al Gore explained that we need to stop burning carbon and make a bold move to power our society with renewable energy. An electrically-powered high speed train system won't achieve that 100% renewables goal itself, but it would provide significant environmental benefits:

-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). HSR would provide a huge dent in that figure.

High speed rail is one of those game changing proposals. How can the Sierra Club and the PCL overlook the cars taken off the road? How can they overlook the CO2 reductions? How can they overlook the reduction in pollution, especially in the Central Valley?

Four years ago Michael Schellenberger and Ted Nordhaus criticized the Sierra Club directly in their seminal essay The Death of Environmentalism. In their view the environmental movement, by focusing on small battles, has totally failed to address global warming, and that organizations like the Sierra Club "have little to show" for nearly 30 years of environmental activism after the big victories of the late '60s and early '70s. One of their specific criticisms is that the Sierra Club, for example, often eschews big policy changes for a niggling incrementalism that has done nothing to arrest the rate of warming. This has led them to refuse to articulate a bold vision for addressing the global warming crisis that of course hurts the natural environment, and it has led them to ignore the politics of producing change.

The Sierra Club's failure on high speed rail proves each of Schellenberger and Nordhaus' controversial charges. Instead of helping change the way Californians get around their state, shifting them away from oil-burning methods of travel to clean methods of travel that limit sprawl and generate urban densities, they are focusing on a small objection that doesn't even hold up on close examination. They have endorsed the concept of high speed rail in the past but if they don't endorse Prop 1, what other opportunity will they have to get it passed? If the HSR bonds don't pass this year, they aren't coming back anytime soon. It might take 10 years to revive the project - it's taken 15 in Texas - and that means completion of the line wouldn't happen until close to 2030.

By then it may be too late. Instead of refusing to support Prop 1 out of pique that they lost the Altamont vs. Pacheco argument, the Sierra Club and the PCL should follow Van Jones' advice and move from opposition to proposition. We have a proposition - literally - before us. Instead of being on the constant defensive the Sierra Club and the PCL can help California take a bold step in the right direction with Proposition 1. If we pass these bonds in November it will then be a signal to other states and to Congress that HSR is a politically popular project and it will spur similar projects around the country - projects that we desperately need.

Why would the Sierra Club and the PCL oppose these things? They have let their opposition to the Pacheco alignment blind them to the bigger picture. That decision has been made and even though the Sierra Club and the PCL lost, they can still be big winners. Let's hope they recognize the pressing environmental need for high speed rail before it's too late.

Friday Open Thread

Comment Starter: Prop 1 will authorize $9.95 billion - and the $950 million that isn't for the high speed rail project is intended for passenger rail that will connect to the system, as well as providing funds to Amtrak California. Where should that money go? What are the state's most pressing non-HSR passenger rail needs? Bear in mind that local rail, such as light rail or BART, is presumably ineligible for this funding.