Streetsblog San Francisco

Is Bakersfield-to-Fresno a good start for HSR in California? Photo: Neighborhoodr

On Thursday, the California High Speed Rail Authority accepted the resignation of Ogilvy Public Relations. The PR firm was about to get axed over accusations that it billed excessively while doing little to counter a tide of anti-rail propaganda.

Meanwhile, on Wednesday, at the Rosemead Community Recreation Center, east of Los Angeles, the Authority displayed maps and renderings of the rail system it’s designing to link California’s major cities. Up and down the state, in fact, the Authority is holding regular outreach meetings as it draws up detailed blueprints, including a planned initial segment from Bakersfield to north of Fresno, through the state’s agricultural Central Valley. “We hope to start construction in the fall of 2012,” said Project Manager Maj. Gen. Hans Van Winkle at a high-speed rail conference in downtown Los Angeles. So in theory, everything’s on schedule and there’s $6.3 billion in state bonds and federal funds ready to go.

The Ogilvy firing, however, was just the latest indication of the vicious brawl going on between HSR opponents and supporters nationally and in Sacramento. With Florida’s decision to abandon its project, California is now the only state with a dedicated HSR system in advanced planning. That’s put California in the cross-hairs of anti-rail politicians and petroleum-and-aviation-industry-backed groups such as the Reason Foundation.

The battled heated up May 10, when California’s Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) came out with a report attacking the decision to build the first leg in the Central Valley. Engineers prefer this long, straight section because it minimizes construction challenges. Nevertheless, the report set off a flurry of anti-rail editorials in papers ranging from the Sacramento Bee to the Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. Many echoed the Reason Foundation’s statements that the Central California segment will be a “train to nowhere.”

“This initial money, if we spent it instead in Southern California…we could use it for existing commuter rail and high-speed rail,” said Southern California State Senator Alan Lowenthal.

In 2008, voters in California approved Proposition 1A, which authorized the state to issue $10 billion in bonds to begin funding a dedicated, 220-mph high-speed line from Los Angeles to San Francisco. However, it stipulated the dollars can’t be spent unless they’re matched — in this case by the Feds.

Read more…

Just when we thought transportation had gotten off relatively easy in the shutdown-aversion budget deal:

House Appropriations Chair Hal Rogers (R-KY). Image: Mindfully

The House Appropriations Committee has released details [PDF] on the budget agreement between the two houses, including more information on the agreed-to $38.5 billion in cuts. Where we’d heard before that high-speed rail was getting a $1.5 billion haircut, down to the $1 billion for 2011 that President Obama had originally requested, it turns out now that that last billion dollars is being cut too. And to add insult to injury, they’re also zeroing out $400 million of rejected Florida rail funds (technically cutting funding from 2010), bringing the grand total of HSR cuts to $2.9 billion.

This is a big blow to one of the president’s signature projects, with which he was planning on “winning the future.” It further clouds the outlook for his $53 billion proposal for high-speed rail over the next six years, starting in 2012. These budget cuts, of course, are for FY2011, before the $53 billion was to start, but please believe the Republicans aren’t looking for a massive increase in rail money for next year either.

TIGER, which had appeared to be safe, is getting $72 million cut from its $600 million budget, and the Appropriations Committee eliminated all funding for “planning, preparation or design” of projects eligible for TIGER funding. For now, the Partnership for Sustainable Communities appears to be safe.

Meanwhile, New Starts transit funding, already slated for $280 million in cuts, is now getting $502 million cut from its $2 billion budget, with another $128 million coming out of Amtrak grants for capital improvements and debt service. They’ve also cut $3.1 billion in highway contract authority that had not been obligated, as opposed to the $2.5 billion cut announced Friday night.

Gov. Rick Scott got to say no, yet again, to Florida’s dreams of high-speed rail.

The attorney for the state senators argued in Florida's Supreme Court to save high-speed rail funding.

Florida’s Supreme Court ruled this morning that Gov. Scott doesn’t have to accept federal money to build a high-speed rail line between Tampa and Orlando. Two state senators had filed a lawsuit, claiming Scott had “overstepped his authority” by turning down the money, since the state legislature had voted to authorize the project. (Check out Transportation Nation’s chronology of events.)

Scott put the final nail in the coffin this morning when he formally told Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, for the last time, he was rejecting the federal funds for the project. LaHood had been trying for weeks to assuage Scott’s concerns by assuring him that Florida would not be held responsible for cost overruns and that private investors would assume most of the risk.

A USDOT spokesperson said the department had “addressed every legitimate concern Governor Scott has raised” and “repeatedly and clearly told Governor Scott and his staff that Florida would not bear financial or legal liabilities for the project.” Florida Senator Bill Nelson and Rep. John Mica begged him to change his mind. Still, no dice.

This morning, after talking to Scott, LaHood issued a statement saying, “The Obama Administration’s bold high-speed rail plan will not only create jobs and reinvigorate our manufacturing sector in the near term, it is a crucial and strategic investment in America’s future prosperity. I know that states across America are enthusiastic about receiving additional support to help bring America’s high-speed rail network to life and deliver all its economic benefits to their citizens.”

He’s right about that – politicians from around the country – and especially the Northeast – have been lining up to ask for Florida’s hand-me-downs.

Ohio’s and Wisconsin’s loss will be 13 other states’ gain.

U.S. Department of Transportation announced this afternoon that nearly $1.2 billion in passenger rail money will be withdrawn from the states of Ohio and Wisconsin at the behest of their incoming governors. The money will be transferred to other states to support “high speed rail projects already underway.”

Photo: Fox 6 Now

California, Florida and Washington State come away as the big winners, receiving up to $624 million, $342 million and $161 million respectively. Those funds will help advance plans to connect San Francisco to San Diego, Tampa to Orlando and Portland to Seattle.

Each of the recipients were granted less money than they originally applied for in their HSR application, according to Justin Nisly, a spokesman for DOT. The additional funding will allow these states to further their plans.

“I am pleased that so many other states are enthusiastic about the additional support they are receiving to help bring America’s high-speed rail network to life,” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement accompanying the announcement.

Even Wisconsin will receive $2 million to improve its Hiawatha Amtrak line from Chicago to Milwaukee.

Here is the way the money will be distributed in more detail:
Read more…

Image: CAHSRA

In states where building high-speed rail is not politically toxic, elected leaders are scrambling to get a piece of the federal (essentially free) money Tea Party and Republican pols are unwilling to accept for rail projects. As soon as New Jersey governor Chris Christie killed the Access to the Region’s Core tunnel under the Hudson River, Governor-elect Andrew Cuomo told the Federal Transit Administration he would gladly take the $3 billion the feds had committed to the project.

When newly elected governors in Ohio and Wisconsin pulled the plug on their high-speed rail projects, the prospect of all that money being reassigned got more than a few politicians excited. The Associated Press reported both Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein yesterday informed US DOT Secretary Ray LaHood they would love more money for our High Speed Rail Project.

Now Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is piling on.

“It is with a certain sense of astonishment that we note recent announcements from some of our gubernatorial colleagues that they are uninterested in federal contributions to their high-speed rail systems,” Schwarzenegger said in a statement. “You are more than welcome to redirect that money to California – where we know how to use it to generate hundreds of thousands of jobs and provide a clean, fast and low-cost way to travel.”

Hopefully LaHood isn’t too concerned about the recent conflict of interest investigations casting a shadow on California High Speed Rail Authority boardmembers Curt Pringle and Richard Katz, the latter announcing his retirement from the board yesterday.

Read the rest of Schwarzenegger’s statement after the jump:

Read more…

Image: CAHSRA

The California High-Speed Rail Authority (CAHSRA) Board of Directors won’t make a decision on where to start building California’s first high-speed rail segment until December, but nearly everyone can see the writing on the wall.

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Adminstrator Joe Szabo wrote [pdf] CAHSRA CEO Roelof van Ark on Wednesday to inform him that all of the $2.9 billion in federal money given to California’s project, including the $715 million awarded last week, must fund either of the two Central Valley segments between Fresno and Bakersfield.

The FRA’s letter comes in the middle of the comment period to formalize the segment selection criteria, with the federal government all but deciding the first segment ahead of a formal process. And despite the letter, van Ark said the CAHSRA was committed to objective criteria.

“The selection criteria should be neutral of the four segments,” said van Ark at the CAHSRA Board meeting in Sacramento yesterday. “The first step of the process, to select and build the first segment, is really that, it’s a first step. Building a high-speed rail line means means connecting metropolitan areas. We have to make a selection that will logically lead us to our final goal. The final goal remains building the complete system.”

van Ark suggested his board consider four general criteria for segment selection, with subsections :

1. Provide expansion of the alignment to ensure an appropriate operational high-speed system
2. Minimize construction risk
3. Minimize schedule risk
4. Build the most useful high-speed rail infrastructure for the least cost.

Despite these criteria, van Ark noted the obvious, that the state could lose the federal money if it doesn’t meet FRA requirements. “At this stage, going by the FRA letter, it would be the selection as together: the Merced-Fresno or the Merced-Bakersfield segment should be built first.”

Read more…

Image: CAHSRA

The U.S. Department of Transportation announced $2.4 billion in grants for high speed and commuter rail projects around the country today, including $900 million for various portions of California’s rail network and High-Speed Rail project.

US DOT Secretary Ray LaHood compared the initial investment in high-speed rail networks across the country under the Obama Administration to the Interstate Highway system under President Eisenhower starting in the 1950s. The highway system, writes LaHood on his blog, “is the life-blood of American commerce and mobility.”

“Every vision this nation ever realized began with a few courageous steps,” LaHood continues. “If we put off high-speed rail by saying it will take too long to build, then it will never happen. Now it’s time for another bold step. The America I grew up in didn’t just happen. Our nation’s progress was only made possible through the imagination, investment, and hard work of those who came before. And I’m proud that, today, we’re adding to that legacy with President Obama’s commitment to high-speed rail.”

The federal money is being spread across various high-speed rail corridors from Florida to Illinois to Seattle. John Robert Smith, the CEO of national transit non-profit Reconnecting America, commended the Obama administration for the grants and also compared the initiative to the Interstate Highway system.

“A national high-speed rail system is not only an opportunity to redefine how we travel and how our regional economies grow, it represents the type of innovation and progress that can guarantee another century of growth and prosperity in America,” Smith said in a statement.  “It gives people a choice in how they travel, something polls have shown Americans want.”

Read more…

Last week I mentioned I was about to take Amtrak from DC to New York. Well, it cost over $200 (and there was nothing particularly “high speed” about that rail experience).

Next time, I might take the bus instead. For all the attention given to the potential expansion of high-speed rail, there’s also been a concurrent but not-so-glamorous development: the rise of intercity bus travel.

Greyhound's fancy new buses, with tickets from Philly to NYC starting at $10. Greyhound

Today Greyhound, in their neverending quest to beat first the Chinatown bus lines and then the deluxe Bolt/Mega/DC2NY service, announced that they will step up their service. In a campaign they’re calling Uncommon Transport, they’re lowering fares and dressing up their buses with Wi-Fi, power outlets, and more legroom. All that for just ten bucks between Philly and New York. And next time I head up to meet with my comrades at Streetsblog NYC, I can spend just $30 round-trip if I book it online.

These services have fostered a new era of growth for intercity bus travel. Back when gas prices were skyrocketing in 2008, a report from DePaul University [PDF] found that intercity bus service grew 9.8 percent in the previous year, and 8.1 percent the year before that. Meanwhile, air travel and driving were declining.

It’s great to see bus companies competing to give better service for lower fares. Intercity travel shouldn’t be the privilege of the rich, and a transit option that’s noticeably cheaper than driving is good for the environment. The DePaul study authors calculated that the growth of intercity bus travel had reduced CO2 emissions by 36,000 tons.

But here’s a question: If high-speed rail ever materializes on the northeast corridor, will it be able to compete with prices this low? If it can, will the bullet trains be affordable only for the wealthiest while the rest of us make the most of what Greyhound and the other bus companies have to offer? Interestingly, the same DePaul study noted that intercity rail service increased at the same time as intercity bus service, though not quite as rapidly. It’s definitely not a zero-sum game.

What do you think?

The new design of the California High Speed Rail Authority website.

As California’s high speed rail project continues to gain attention, both positive and negative, the makeup of visitors to the official website has been shifting, with an increasing number of general public who know very little about the project, according to the California High Speed Rail Authority (CAHSRA). In response to this trend and based on thousands of user surveys and feedback from 13 focus groups, the CAHSRA redesigned its website as a portal it hopes will be more user friendly, intuitive and useful to a wide range of interested public.

“A user-friendly Web site is a key way to reach millions of people both in California and around the world,” said Curt Pringle, Chairman of the California High-Speed Rail Authority Board, in a statement. “We took our cues from the people in the online community and revamped our Web site so that it not only provides current and in-depth information, but does it in an easily accessible way.”

In addition to creating a cleaner aesthetic and updated navigation bar, CAHSRA indexed and tagged its documents so the search function is more effective, which CAHSRA spokesperson Rachel Wall admitted was a big improvement over the previous iteration. “The previous site wasn’t serving people’s needs statewide. It had a ton information but it wasn’t navigable,” said Wall.

In a teleconference with media, Wall demonstrated the site’s new functionality, including the new search options that can be geographically narrowed with a simple click for localized data. Wall said this better functionality and tools like the new glossary of terms would enable “every Californian [to] get in touch with the project and understand what’s happening.”

According to the CAHSRA, current website traffic is about 40,000 monthly visitors, depending on the visibility of the project in the press. The most trafficked page on the site behind the home page was the trip planner, then news and facts, followed by the video and image library, which was redesigned to be more user-friendly.

Read more…

Tomorrow morning, I’m getting on a train from Washington, DC to New York. It’s going to take me almost three-and-a-half hours to get there.

Amtrak envisions a new path for 220 mph high-speed rail on the Northeast Corridor. Image: Transport Politic

Sure, I could pay more for an Acela and get there in less than three hours.

But why can’t it take 90 minutes?

Yesterday, Amtrak unveiled a plan [PDF] to build a high-speed rail line between Washington and Boston, with trains running up to 220 miles per hour. Estimated travel time between DC and New York: 96 minutes. New York to Boston: 84 minutes.

And the price tag? They’re expecting it to cost $4.7 billion a year for more than 25 years.

The high cost of the project has led observers to characterize it as worthy but improbable. Like many conversations about the future of rail, this one is full of hand-wringing about how to pay for it all. So what are the options?

First, according to Mark Reutter, author of Making Steel, there’s the Highway Trust Fund, which pays for both highways and transit. In a recent policy paper, Reutter states that “Congress could easily allot $5 billion a year for HSR construction – without an increase in the gas tax – by cutting out earmarks and formula-based grants that now soak up billions of dollars.” His numbers come from a government oversight report on the ineffectiveness of the current HSR program.

But at a panel discussion today in Washington on the issue, Ken Orski, founder of the transportation newsletter “Innovation Briefs,” said using the Highway Trust Fund is a nice idea, but “any such proposal would raise howls of indignation and opposition not just from the highway interests but also from transit.” He’s in favor of an independent Rail Trust Fund.

Another strategy is to identify who would benefit from high-speed rail and find a way to get them to contribute to its cost.

Read more…