On December 15 Congress held a hearing for the sole purpose of examining California’s high-speed rail project. Chairman John Mica’s (R-FL) House Transportation Committee conducted the hearing which was titled, “California’s High Speed Rail Plan: Skyrocketing Costs and Project Concerns.” It was clear from the beginning the lines were drawn. There were project backers who promoted the concept of high-speed rail and all the good things it could bring in the future. Almost in direct contrast, there were those whose focus was on the reality of how this project is being managed compared with what the voters were promised in November 2008.
Sometimes it was about political parties, but not always; sometimes it was about the wisdom of where the project should start, in populous areas or out in under-served rural areas. To complicate things even more, there are vast differences in state and federal law that govern this project, a project with a history as long as 15 years according to Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, though not heavily in the public’s eye until the vote in November 2008 to authorize $9 billion in state bonds to build high-speed rail. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/dec/06/administration-defends-high-speed-rail-in-calif/?print&page=all
But Congressman Devin Nunes, (CA-R, 21st district) which includes Fresno and Tulare Counties, didn’t mince words. He delivered a hard hitting analysis of the California high-speed rail project in what he describes as “a case study on how not to run a government program.” He emphatically says it’s not about jobs; it is about political corruption, public deception, and bureaucratic experimentation.
See six minutes of his powerful testimony. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zivH2bmbYVI&feature=channel_video_title
Congressman Gary Miller- (CA-R. 42nd district) had some tough questions for CEO Roelof van Ark concerning where the money might come from to build this project. Miller was exploring how the Authority would obtain $12.6 billion dollars from the feds through TRIPP bonds. Apparently the project’s business plan was dependent on a proposed bill’s passage (1436). He explained how it is not a law and if it was law as written it would restrict each state to receive 2% of the $50 billion infrastructure bank funds -- or $1 billion per state. When asked why they would use as an example what is not law and if it was, would not have the terms that would grant the funds needed, van Ark answers that it’s a calculation that’s put into the business plan. He later clarifies it’s a calculation of an example of how it could work.
These same point questions were asked by the Senate Transportation and Senate Select High-Speed Rail Committee meeting earlier in December, with some humorous exchanges with State Senator Alan Lowenthal ( CA-D). State Senator LaMalfa (CA-R), in a “Colombo” like fashion, directed his comments to a treasury employee. “So we have an idea that doesn’t have a piece of legislation that hasn’t passed yet that's about leveraging” in a bad economic environment. LaMalfa also asked the presenter if he drew the short straw to be sent over from the treasury office. Central Valley resident, Frank Oliveira suggested a real world translation, “there is an expectation that federal elves will show up with gold coins in wheel-barrels from a yet undiscovered gold mine.” http://www.examiner.com/transportation-policy-in-san-francisco/business-plan-questions-by-the-senators
Elizabeth Alexis, co-founder of Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD), provided testimony as part of the congressional panel. She expressed issues with the troubled project. “If you like the Big Dig, you’ll love California high-speed rail project. This is a project of the consultants, by the consultants and for the consultants.”
In reference to the rush created by the deadlines of stimulus funds, Alexis pointed out that “despite voter concerns with the cost and legislators’ fears the project will be a money pit, there is pressure to move it forward without fixing the problems.” She continued, “Job claims are hyped and legislators were told they need to act now or there will never be high-speed rail in California.” “The $3 billion dollars of federal funds is the tail wagging the $98 billion dog.”
“Six billion dollars will buy un-electrified tracks and will not run high-speed rail trains until an additional $25 billion are found to extend the line either to the Bay Area or somewhere near LA,” said the Bay Area economist. She also gives an example of the “broken” ridership model: San Jose to Bakersfield is predicted would be as high as entire Northeast corridor.” Her advice? The federal government should grant some flexibility to California so they can take a time out to re-assess the program and obtain an independent ridership model.
In closing, Alexis stated that CARRD believes in high-speed rail for California but says, “The train we are on is in the wrong place, it costs too much and it delivers too little.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgcRMIcZgKk (5 minutes)
Greg Gatzka, Director of Kings County Community Development Agency told the Committee HSR is failing in California as far as its planning for the Initial Construction Section (ICS) and its damage is treated with disregard and silence. “When it comes to our concerns, our property owners are threatened by having their land taken away through eminent domain.” Gatzka says there will be impacts to over 7000 acres of farmland, 11 dairies, a critical cow rendering facility that services 800 dairies throughout the valley, and so much more.
The San Joaquin Amtrak service was identified as the independent utility claimed by the Authority as a requirement of the federal grants. This is in case the high speed rail service does not materialize to insure the federal grant monies will not be wasted and will have stand alone utility value. In the environmental work, this re-location of the Amtrak service has not been analyzed and will devastate local businesses since the high-speed rail alignment would eliminate the train stations for the city of Corcoran and city of Hanford. According to the local business community, it would result in an $11 million hit to their economy. Absent from the environmental documents is what will be necessary to remediate those impacts. Gatzka says the Authority intends to figure out those answers after project approval.
Kole Upton, Chowchilla farmer and VP of Preserve Our Heritage, also an invited panelist, spoke of the devastation to agricultural land and dairies by poor planning of the HSR Authority. He described project designs which cut through properties diagonally, leaving parcels either inoperable or difficult to farm or use for dairy land. He also said the current design destroys water pumps and deep wells and the route chosen does not minimize impacts and neither does it use existing transportation corridors.
Upton has been working with the Authority for more than 2 years. He began participating in technical working groups as an elected water official. At one of those meetings in June 2010 he asked if anyone supported the Wye north of Chowchilla, a particular route the Authority was planning. There was unanimous opposition from every public agency. Shortly after that, the Authority chose that northern route and Wye as their preferred route. The Authority said Chowchilla wanted it, Chowchilla denied it, and then HSRA said it was the FRA who wanted it. After more than a year, the FRA hasn’t responded to Upton’s requests for information.
Upton also described a poorly done EIR work and promised that Preserve Our Heritage would take legal action. He offers the committee this advice. When Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he responded, because that’s where the money is. Using that logic Upton advised, “For goodness sakes put this high-speed rail where the people are. The Northeast Corridor, Anaheim to San Diego but if you insist on doing it in the San Joaquin Valley, like the FRA apparently wants, then do it on the west side. It’s a straight shot from San Francisco to LA.”
Jerry Amante testified as well. He is the Chairman for Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and is on the Lossan corridor Joint Powers Authority. The high-speed rail routing should be reviewed with respect to LA and Anaheim. That corridor is the second busiest Amtrak line with 7.2 million passengers Amtrak and a combined 4.5 million commuter rail passengers between Metrolink and the Coaster.
Mr Amante also praised the Authority for a “marked improvement” with the newest business plan especially the blended plan (using existing tracks to combine regional rail and high-speed rail.) He says that he outlined grave areas of concern in his written comments of which not all would be covered in his oral testimony. (Note: Just days before the hearing, the OCTA board approved a stern letterscheduled to be sent to the HSRA.) He asks for a balanced approach for funding for all transportation systems both regional and high-speed. He feels the phasing, now in the Authority’s business plan, is the most important aspect. During his testimony, he advocated development of the Initial Operating Segment South from Bakersfield to Los Angeles which would close the gap for a valuable passenger service corridor presently underserved by a combination of commuter train and bus service.
Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin testified that she supports high-speed rail as a “cost effective transportation mode that makes a profit and drastically reduces travel time between regional destinations.” She supports it for three reasons. 1. It has a profitable business model: after public funds are used for the capital, operational costs will be paid for by the fair box. 2. It will be the fastest alternative travel mode available in the Central Valley. 3. Affordable ticket price -- 80% of the air ticket costs.
Congressman Kevin McCarthy (CA-R, 22nd district) wants the committee to look at what went before the voters in California, for that HSR is totally different from what is proposed today explains that the project claims there will be twice as many riders of all of Amtrak. “They project millions of people will ride the train in our valley but only 700,000 people take a plane or train right now. The population does not mix and match the numbers of what they say.”McCarthy says that high-speed rail is a great idea but if the investors do not materialize, “you will have to decide what you have to give up to subsidize everyone who’s on that train.”
McCarthy introduced a bill in Congress, 3143, which will “freeze all unspent federal dollars through September of next year while General Office of Accounting (GOA) studies is done on the project’s viability. He advises he does not feel that’s extreme and it’s not saying no. McCarthy says it is time to “stop for a minute and get some accountability for this.”
Congressman Denham had some observations. “Often times when the facts don’t go your way, words like courage and guts get thrown out there. I just want to see this project on time, on budget and off AG (agricultural) land.” He considers “putting the $3.3 billion that’s left and switching it to HWY 99 absolutely is a switch but sending $3.6 of stimulus dollars for shovel ready projects and then letting it sit for 3 years is not stimulus and I would consider that a bait and switch. I also would consider a bait and switch, when you send something out to the California voters and say here’s present a $33 billion project to the people, you are on the hook for $9.9 billion then it goes to a $98.5 billion is also a bait and switch.”
Congresswoman Grace Napolitano (CA-D) from Santé Fe Springs was most concerned that high-speed rail would take away from regional rail and she stated that she agrees with Mr. Schuster about development of the high-speed rail should be in Southern California first. She states that Southern California makes up about 1/3 of the population and suggests work on regional rail and grade separations should be the priority. Napolitano told the committee, “I am not against high speed rail, I am against the project’s funding being inadequate and concerns it will eventually take away from my local transportation.” “She was also concerned about high costs moving from $48 to 98 billion and she wonders who’s going to pay for it.” “Most Californians wouldn’t be able to ride the High Speed Rail if it’s projected at $150 one way ticket to go from southern California to San Francisco or Sacramento. Why are we paying to build High Speed Rail If only the wealthy can afford a ticket?” “
She said her cities have had meetings with the Authority and “they have done a lousy job being transparent to the cities, the voters and the California delegations She says there hasn’t been follow-up or has there been any satisfaction to allay some the fears my communities have. She says “there are issues, eminent domain for homes, businesses, demolishing of current transit centers and passenger rail service.” [] “I am in favor of high speed rail not at the expense of the working class rail transit services.”
Congresswoman Laura Richardson (CA-D) from Long Beach questioned Joseph Szabo, the Federal Railroad Administrator. Appointed in 2009, Szabo is the first and only union representative ever appointed to the position. http://www.allgov.com/Appointments_and_Resignations/ViewNews/Federal_Railroad_Administrator__Who_is_Joe_Szabo_90609
Richardson’s question was why congressional authority was necessary to change the location of the initial route. She didn’t understand if she didn’t vote for a particular place why congressional authority was required. Szabo explained how they came up with the initial construction location. He said unemployment rate is a key part of it, Central Valley had that criteria as well as project readiness, how advanced the engineering was and where they were in the environmental process.
Richardson, who is a supporter of high-speed rail, pressed, “if it was determined that the initial segment would be in a different place in California--” Szabo interrupts, “We don’t have the ability to shift these dollars now and meet the requirement of the law. It’s simply impossible. No ability to shift it.” Congresswoman Richardson asked Szabo to provide information for the record if the project location can or cannot change and under what condition would those changes be allowed.
The high-speed rail project will continue to be under the microscope for the state of California in the coming months. The critical question will be whether the California legislature has enough confidence to fund the Central Valley segment or whether they consider other options such as de-funding the plan or letting the public vote again due to the tremendous change in cost estimates and project scope that has occurred since the 2008 vote.
Comments