Streetsblog San Francisco

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…

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…

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.

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?

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.

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…

Though most of the California political class celebrated the groundbreaking of the new Transbay Transit Center with U.S. DOT Secretary Ray LaHood in San Francisco yesterday, significant questions remain for funding a national high-speed rail network through the federal transportation act.

The event swarmed with Secret Service and various other branches of law enforcement keeping an eye on a crowd that, as San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom joked with LaHood, was mostly made up of consultants on the Transbay project.

LaHood cracked wise several times at Newsom's expense, repeating more comments Newsom made before the press conference to the public and the media and suggesting Californian's should vote him in as Lt. Governor on his humor alone.

When he stopped ribbing Newsom, LaHood gushed about how far "ahead of the curve" California is on high-speed rail. LaHood said U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) had cast "courageous votes" that made the stimulus bill possible, which meant a $48 billion infusion for the US DOT or nearly two-thirds his annual budget. From the $8 billion President Barack Obama added for high-speed rail nationally, California received $2.3 billion, $400 million of that for the Transbay Transit Center.

"People who come back from Europe or Asia and have ridden high-speed rail, like many of you have, come back to America and ask why we don't have high-speed rail in America? Because we've never made the investment, that's why," said LaHood. "This year we had 8 billion times more money for high-speed rail given President Obama's vision to connect America with high-speed, inter-city rail."

Read more...

Peninsula communities have made all the news with their public outcry against the alignment of the California High Speed Rail train, but today some San Franciscans got into the mix. Now that details have emerged about a possible alignment choice through the eastern portion of Potrero, some community members aren't so thrilled with the prospect.

A number of residents in the Potrero, Dogpatch, and Showplace triangle neighborhoods addressed representatives of the High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) today during an informational briefing of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA), decrying an option under consideration that would keep the trains at grade and would depress 16th street in a short tunnel under the tracks.

District 10 Supervisor Sophie Maxwell started off by saying she was concerned that dropping 16th under the tracks would "essentially create a freeway, creating unsafe conditions for cyclists and pedestrians and creating a breeding ground for graffiti." She said 16th Street was the only significant connection linking the Mission, Potrero and Showplace Triangle neighborhoods with the eastern waterfront.

She clarified she didn't want her comments to be construed as obstructionist or hindering "this huge, wonderful project," but she asked the authority to consider options that wouldn't divide neighborhoods further.

Dick Millet, Vice President of the Potrero Boosters neighborhood group, started a wave of public comment voicing similar concerns as Maxwell, arguing the HSRA hadn't brought detailed drawings to the limited meetings with the neighborhood, nor had they seriously considered the detrimental impact of the at-grade option.

"We're concerned about the rail crossing at 16th Street, the only major road for two and a half miles to get to the east side," he said. "We're separated by the 101, the 280, and now we're going to create another one."

Read more...

The California State Auditor released an unflattering report yesterday that accuses the California High Speed Rail Authority (CAHSRA) of mismanagement of the nation's largest high speed rail project, a move that put the CAHSRA and other supporters on the defensive yet again.

Bay Area news outlets have long given a large soap box to Peninsula residents and policy makers who don't want the rail alignment to go through their cities unless it is built into deep, expensive tunnels. The new report will likely arm opponents to high speed rail in California and beyond with new ammunition they hope will ultimately kill the project before it goes to construction.

Among the findings of the report, the State Auditor argued:

• The CAHSRA's 2009 business plan estimates it needs $17 billion to $19 billion in federal funds. However, the Authority has no federal commitments beyond $2.25 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), and other potential federal programs are small.
• The CAHSRA's plan for spending includes almost $12 billion in federal and state funds through 2013, more than 2.5 times what is now available.
• The CAHSRA does not have a system in place to track expenditures according to categories established by the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century, its largest source of committed funding.
• The CAHSRA has not completed some systems needed to administer Recovery Act funds, for example, a system to track jobs created and saved.
• Some monthly progress reports, issued by the CAHSRA's contracted Program Manager to provide a summary of program status, contain inconsistent and inaccurate information.
• CAHSRA staff paid at least $4 million of invoices from regional contractors received after December 2008, without having documented written notification that the Program Manager had reviewed and approved the invoices for payment.
• The CAHSRA paid contractors more than $268,000 for services performed outside of the contractors' work plans and purchased $46,000 in furniture for one of its contractor's use, based on an oral agreement contradicted by a later written contract.

Read more...