AB 1290: California Transportation Commission reform for the right reasons

A state transportation bill awaits the Governor's signature which would affect a major state transportation agency. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) is responsible for the programming and allocating of state funds for the construction of highway, passenger rail and transit improvements throughout California.  According to the transportation advocacy group TransForm, the CTC is the only state transportation body that holds regular public hearings of where the state should allocate transportation funds. AB 1290 will restructure the CTC and add pedestrian and bicycle projects as transportation modes eligible for state funding.

We and many informed individuals understand that state public works infrastructure projects often have artificially inflated price tags, no thanks to bloated labor salaries which exceed the market rate. California's dismal highway conditions reflect that. Look at the chronic traffic congestion along the 91 Freeway into Orange County. Calculate how long it would take to get through West Los Angeles at 4 pm. Try to find a sidewalk or a bike lane and count the number of cracks along Highway 74 west of Hemet through Green Acres and Homeland. Let's not even mention the inflated price tags for the Oakland Bay Bridge eastern span and the California high speed rail project which have caused concerned citizens to come into the public arena and voice opposition. As mentioned, California's ongoing failure to deal with its transportation network and the artificially inflated infrastructure costs at a statewide level is a disgrace.

A first look into AB 1290

Let's take a first look at the proposed law. The important bill would modernize CTC. AB 1290 certainly is not the answer to the misspending of transportation money and won't necessarily make infrastructure projects more affordable, but will give CTC some more decision making power to allocate state transportation funding toward additional multi modal options including bicycle and pedestrian travel. Governor Brown has pushed for the CTC to have more control over such transportation options. The Coalition has noted locally that local pedestrians and cyclists utilize State Highway 74 west of Hemet, but the road lacks sidewalks and bike lanes. For a pedestrian to get between the Riverside Downtown train station and the downtown core, one has to undergo a circuitous journey around the 91 Freeway.

AB 1290 would modernize the CTC by adding new members with a focus on sustainability, and integrating new climate pollution reduction policies into its mission of official responsibilities. Sounds like the bill has a connection with the climate change debate. As mentioned, man-made global warming is still a hot debatable topic; there are valid facts on both sides of the issue from both scientists and meteorologists. However, it is no question that we have to continue to take a serious stand on pollution and traffic congestion.

Simply put: Breathing dirty air is destructive to life. Let's work together to make the planet cleaner.

Modernizing the California Transportation Commission

Having multi modal transportation options goes beyond climate change and cleaner air. The reasons are obvious. Having sidewalks and bicycle lanes to transverse locally along Highway 74 west of Hemet outside of the car is sound policy in the name of safety. Having an option of taking a train into downtown Riverside, being able to get off it and walk over the 91 Freeway into downtown core would eliminate the necessity of driving into this dense area, and thus cut down on traffic and parking lot congestion. How about extending the Colton Avenue bikeway over the I-215 freeway into downtown San Bernardino, again for the safety of bicycle commuters?

Although AB 1290 may have been written in the name of climate change, having options to get around other than a car is vital. Having the option to allocate state funds to the projects mentioned warrants its support.

Californians have to wait again

The 2013 state legislative session concluded last Friday with the Legislature scheduled to reconvene January 6, 2014. Generally, the state government has once again failed to pass legislation that will allow the private sector to improve the state's market economy and the state's spending spree under the will of labor groups continues. Between the state and local governments, Californians owe nearly $850 billion in debt, and that figure will likely top $1 trillion according to a report by The California Public Policy Center if the public wage and pension madness continues in the state.

That debt can never be paid off or controlled under the current economic and political climate no matter how high taxes are increased. In August, we've called for the state to take action on this spending fiasco problem by passing fair and sound legislation. Trivial regulations have sapped marketplace economic expansion. Government misspending and high public employee salaries have led to overpriced and delayed transportation infrastructure and operations. Both controversies place heavy obstructions on getting Southern California moving with a first-rate transit system. So what kinds of bills did the Legislature actually send to Governor Jerry Brown? How did the lawmakers fare in solving our transportation problems from the state level? Let's take a look at few:

CEQA Reform - Under current law, loopholes in the landmark legislation allow just about anybody with a lawyer to send any major development project to court whether or not such development would actually negate the environment. This undoubtedly inflates costs.

Guess what? Significant reform will have to wait until 2014. Instead, the state approved special favor legislation that would speed up the judicial review process of any lawsuits filed specifically against the replacement of an NBA sports arena in Sacramento. To be fair, the new arena will serve as a replacement venue from the existing Sleep Train Arena and the facility will be developed in the downtown area. We'll take a closer look at this project before making a judgment, but granting special favors and exemptions in general is certainly not fair public policy. By the way, local officials in Riverside County requested a similar favor when the Metrolink Perris Valley Line was stalled in court; that never became law. 

Wage Reform and California's Market Economy - We've called on the state to seriously reform public employee wages and pensions to match salaries offered in the marketplace. We've pushed for the state to support legislation that would allow the private sector to invest in the state's economy without directly dumping any public money into the marketplace. That would have increased the value of worker wages and benefits. A strong labor workforce fuels our transportation systems with the resources needed to operate. Such policy would be a win-win for both businesses and their workers. Did the state and unions propose productive legislation like that?

Nope. Instead, the state approved a bill that would hike California's minimum wage to $10 per hour by 2016 in a vain attempt to prop up the economy. Brown reported that he would sign the bill into law. To be fair, many working Californians will see an increase in take home pay and may be inclined to spend more. Although it looks fine on the surface, the value of the wage dollar will only go up under a robust economy and the abundance of marketplace jobs. Under the current political climate and job market, that's not going to happen. Instead, Californians are going to see the dollar further inflated and devalued if nothing is done to improve the state economy.

To make up for the losses, businesses are going to have to increase their prices or cut positions. That's a reality. Just wait and see how much you'll be paying for a Big Mac a few years from now. Also, with the devalued dollar in the state, fed up Californians and businesses may simply move out.

The state had better whip up some plans to make California a better place to do business and fast. The state needs to cut out trivial state regulations so that the wage hike doesn't worsen a soft state economy nor cause a cost hike of already overpriced transportation infrastructure projects. Specifically, California will need to get its economic level to match the robust economic times of 1968 where the value of a $2-per-hour federal minimum wage spiked over $10 in today's currency. This must be done without inducing pollution, urban sprawl, traffic congestion, or corporate corruption. You want a high minimum wage? That's how it's going to work for the economy. In fairness, the state did pass modest public pension reforms last year and is fighting to keep the legislation active in federal court. However, much more must be done to get California's economy back to a robust state. 

Clean Air - On the pollution front, things aren't so bad. China's top climate negotiator and Brown signed a Memorandum of Understanding on Friday to combat dirty Chinese air. The MOU does reference heavily on global warming, still a debatable topic, but the fact is that China's pollution remains at disastrous and unhealthful levels and must be controlled. The focus certainly should be about protecting the lives and the health of the Chinese with clean air, especially given that much of our consumables are manufactured there. We'll see if this MOU does anything to clean up China's disgraceful air quality.

We'll continue to analyze what's happening up in Sacramento and see how the proposed laws will impact the future of Inland Empire mass transit. However, it generally looks like fair and sound legislation to fix California's transportation system with a strong and productive marketplace labor workforce is going to have to wait again.

Transportation Tips: Question Authority

One of the countless blessings we have as United States citizens is the freedom to peacefully question authority under the 1st Amendment. The good folks in Moreno Valley are showing that being an informed individual pays off. Instead of going forth with their individual agendas, many in the valley "where dreams soar" have noted questionable special interest pandering in City Hall and responded by exposing it in the public arena. The controversy is the logistics development industry indirectly dictating city policy. Developers have donated to politicians in order to get them elected and, thus, attained a government that would say "yes" to whatever projects they applied for with total disregard to the people's will. Concerned citizens caught on to the madness and are peacefully fighting to take back their local republic called Moreno Valley. Residents are peacefully protesting in front of City Hall. Multiple Facebook pages have emerged opposing the runaway warehouse development. Residents are even organizing a campaign to put those sitting on the City Council out of power. The local press has been on board with detailed articles and sound editorial positions which echo the public's will.

This week's tip calls for you to question authority whenever you suspect the government or a special interest behaving badly. Besides Moreno Valley, we've pointed to several other controversies that have been obstructing both the market economy and the expansion of the Inland Empire's transit system. We've got a federal executive branch, the U.S. Department of Labor specifically, possibly overreaching its power to pander to the will of labor unions. Government labor groups are demanding higher wages without proposing realistic ways to improve the market economy and the value of the wage dollar that goes with it. Public infrastructure costs are artificially high because public workers are paid more than market value. The feds continue in a vain attempt to form a centrally controlled economy by pumping money into the marketplace which saps motivation, devalues the dollar and worsens the $17 trillion national debt. The State of California is one of the least business-friendly states in the nation. Trivial regulations are restricting the growth of jobs to part time or contract only.

With today's technology of blogs, social networking, and instant access to the news, getting legit and fact-based concerns into the public arena has never been easier. If you think that a special interest or a governing body is behaving badly by obstructing a robust transit system, clean air, and a first-rate market economy, question its authority.

Do California bullet train opponents actually want high speed rail done right?

Political Columnist Dan Walters for the Sacramento Bee has long been a critic of the California High Speed Rail Authority, stirring up debate in the public arena. His library of published op-ed commentaries and newspaper columns make some valid points and objections for the statewide high speed train project: Quoted costs are much higher than projected. Public support is down. State law is being spun to the point where legit lawsuits against the project are being filed. Judges are ordering the Brown administration not to bend or go around the rules of the game. Here's one of his latest pieces. The fact that public employee pensions are also above what is offered in the private marketplace certainly does not help; that contributes to inflated costs.

So it may appear that many informed Californians oppose high speed rail for the Golden State. Well, not exactly. While many rightly question the state-sponsored CHSRA bullet train project and voice legit objections toward its business plan, they may actually generally support the concept of having fast moving passenger trains as means to get from here to there. A better way to look at it is Californian's don't want high speed rail done wrong as the statewide bullet train is clearly demonstrating.

The evidence of such a notion continues to build and is becoming more clearer everyday. In Riverside, numerous grade separation projects are already in place for the BNSF rail line between downtown and the I-15 freeway which will allow for existing trains to travel faster. This is already demonstrated in South Orange County between Mission Viejo and Tustin. Similar projects are in place for eastern Orange County and the San Gabriel Valley. If officials finish this master plan and then electrify existing Metrolink, Coaster, and Amtrak trains without interfering with the freight trains, local high speed rail can be a reality without the bloated price tag.

Even Walters published this piece advocating for a high speed rail connection for the I-15 freeway corridor between San Diego and Ontario with direct airport connections. He believes such a connection will better distribute traffic flow between the two airports. Of course, the political madness with the Ontario Airport has to be resolved in order to entice airlines to land their flights there.

Just to refresh the public's memory, Walter's HSR idea is indeed already part of the statewide bullet train master plan that he appears to oppose. Therefore, it may be clear that he and other critics want high speed rail done right. By the way, the Riverside County Transportation Commission studied the feasibility for inland I-15 train service locally back in 2005 and 2008. Cost is a huge challenge and will require private investment mainly due to numerous hills, soft soil, and lack of dedicated right-of-way.  The private sector will need to be inclined to find ways to make tunnel boring more affordable or explore how electrified linear motors can be integrated for steel-wheel trains to better transverse steeper grades.

If the local public agencies can get together, plan this portion of the rail line the right way, establish additional commuter-oriented runs, and tie the endpoints into existing intercity rail corridors for corridor-based service, that could entice private investment for the remainder of the Southern California portions for statewide high speed rail and create a productive and profitable Los Angeles to San Diego high speed rail line via the Inland Empire. That's high speed rail done right.

For the record, as shown by comments left on Walter's op-ed, San Diego did undergo an airport expansion as reported here to address capacity issues and infrastructure for international flights.

What happens to transit when the U.S. Department of Labor bows to labor unions?

It is nearly a stone-cold fact that the U.S. Department of Labor is currently in full support of the will of special interest labor groups. The agency is spinning federal law in a way that penalizes our local transit agencies without due process just because California wants to--at least--begin to contain the out-of-control pension madness fire.

The federal government clearly has the power both from Congress and the White House to stop this political football game right now which is occurring in the Labor Department. Here's what's at stake: The 1964 Urban Mass Transportation Act gave Labor Secretary Tomas Perez authority to hold federal transit grants as a means to hold transit agencies responsible for respecting their worker's rights to bargain collectively. In this day in age, that clause is questionable; a more sensible approach is to hold those in power directly accountable for respecting the basic rights of workers. If an agency manager unlawfully retaliates a group of employees for organizing or bargaining, fine him or lock him up. Don't subject innocent citizens to public service disruptions.

The Rights of...Job Applicants?

When the labor unions cited the 1964 law and complained to the feds, they relied on the rights of non-hired future employees to back up their claim. Perez' unwillingness to take exception to this notion clearly overreaches the power of his office. Many fair-minded individuals and several newspapers conclude that California's Public Employee Pension Reform Act actually does not wipe out a worker's right to assemble, organize and to bargain collectively. What the law did was close up loopholes to stop unjustified and unfunded hikes to pensions for future workers who apply for the job.

In other words, what the special interests object to--and what Perez is bowing toward--is taking bargaining and benefit rights away from those who are not even on the payrolls of California transit agencies. Since when does a non-employee of a transit agency have the same rights of those on the payroll? This misguided madness is now placing the budgets of our transit agencies in limbo.

Any fair-minded individual knows that a job applicant who has yet to be hired has no business to get directly involved in labor negotiations. It's true members of the public can voice support or objections toward labor unions by writing letters and choosing whether or not to patronize businesses or cross picket lines during a strike. However, since when do outside individuals have a right toward any benefits designated to transit workers? We'd like Perez and President Obama to address that. If this madness continues, we might see this situation end up in federal court with transit agencies spending precious resources preparing for the worst. The public arena must hold the special interests, Perez, and the feds accountable.

No Excuses: Getting real about transit worker labor rights

The labor unions need to look at real solutions to protect the rights of their workers and ways to improve the marketplace economy which in turn increases marketplace wages and benefits. The President needs to order Perez to release the transit funds and take exception to the frivolous objections. Congress needs to explore amending the Urban Mass Transportation Act and close up its loopholes. Heaven forbid, should a transit agency or the state actually abuse its public workers through unsafe working conditions, unjustified labor, paying workers below minimum wage, or preventing them from bargaining collectively, and the labor department and the feds have evidence of such abuse, that would be probable cause to have the feds look into criminal charges against the offending officials with mandatory fines and/or jail time. If a boss unlawfully abuses an employee, fine him or lock him up. Don't obstruct transit operations like a NIMBY. Have the special interests proposed fair legislation like that?

Today, there is absolutely no logical reason to hold federal transit funding--let alone transit riders--hostage in the name of worker's rights. It's time for Congress and President Obama to lead us out of this federal fiscal fiasco.

Friday Tips: Demand your elected officials to release federal transit money

U.S. Department of Labor officials seem to be unwilling to release federal transit funds that Inland Empire taxpayers paid into in the name of bargaining rights, when in reality, the dispute between labor unions and the transit agencies is over trivial issues in relationship to California's pension reform. Special interests are demanding exemptions of the reformed law and are relying on the labor department and legal loopholes to freeze transit funding from RTA and Omnitrans without due process. U.S. Labor Secretary Thomas Perez appears to be bowing to the special interest's requests. To be fair, Perez cannot go above the law, but there is little evidence that he is even willing to work with the White House or Congress to close up the loopholes for the general public's good.

Granting transit labor groups exemptions of California's pension reform law is not a practicable option as any fair-minded individual well knows. Bloated salaries and unfunded benefits contributes to government waste and a substandard transit system--just look at the 91 Freeway. If the state gives one group an exemption, other special interests are going to pressure the state for the same. California will then be on the road to bankruptcy. This whole situation is also clearly not a labor rights issue; otherwise why would the special interests place numerous transit jobs and private sector employees who take transit into limbo? That's not defending worker's rights. That's abuse. We simply cannot afford the status quo.

It's time for Gov. Brown, Congress, and President Obama to take control of the situation. This week's tip: Ask your elected representative, the Governor and the White House to work together to do whatever they can in their power to get the funds released without permitting exceptions to California's pension reforms, close up the loopholes so that the states can freely decide on pension policy, and amend federal labor law where labor groups can continue to have the freedom to assemble, organize and bargain, but not have the freedom to garnish transit agencies' funds without constitutional due process.

California State Transit Funding

As most are aware, local public transit is a vital government service, similar to defense, emergency, and public school services. Transit entities such as the Riverside Transit Agency and Omnitrans rely on a mix of various funding sources from the local level all the way to the federal government in order to provide us with the means to get around. These taxpayer resources pay for both transportation infrastructure and operations, a service that benefits the general public.

Recently, public transportation budgets have tightened due to continued spending toward special interest groups and the failure to police government expenses. Transportation funding has long been an issue despite the fact that Californians are paying the highest gas taxes in the country. While its true that funding reductions can be attributed toward the Great Recession, both the state and the feds continue to displace such resources into programs which too often benefit special interests and not the general public. Local agencies have therefore had to come up with other ways to pay for our transportation infrastructure and operations: service reductions, fare increases, delayed capital improvement projects, and mandatory tolls and transponders for private carpools to use the high occupancy lanes.

The Transit Coalition coordinates with other transportation advocacy organizations to fight for and protect critical state funding and to make sure such resources actually make it to the streets and rails as it should.

Friday tips: Demand the State of California for a business-friendly tax code

As the Riverside Transit Agency finalizes an updated Short Range Transit Plan, the county itself could be experiencing unprecedented present-day transportation circumstances. Citizens have long been willing to tax themselves for better transportation infrastructure and improved transit service; we're beginning to see some fruits of it. However, despite the fact that we are paying some of the highest taxes around, improvement projects still appear to be moving along at a snail's pace.

To be fair, we have seen some robust progress over the last decade. RTA bus patrons who have long demanded for late night bus service and better inter-regional connections will finally see these requests put into action within the next few years. LA's Metro Rail and Metro Rapid network has blossomed. Downtown San Bernardino will soon have a north/south BRT line. Down south, the once car-centric I-15 freeway through San Diego County is now a multi-modal corridor with HOT lanes that support free non-transponder carpooling, numerous HOV park & ride facilities, improved traffic flow, and a soon-to-be all-day express BRT line between Escondido and Downtown San Diego. However, with the amount of taxes we're paying, we really should have this type of first-rate infrastructure already in operations in the Inland Empire and throughout the state.

The 91 Freeway corridor between the Inland Empire and Orange County has long been the miserable car-oriented Corona Crawl. Traffic is jammed during peak hours and weekends. HOV demands are high; transit services remain rush-hour oriented. Non-FasTrak 3+ HOV's including private buses and motorcycles cannot use the high occupancy express lanes. The county is going into nearly a half billion dollars in debt to address this because not enough money is coming from the state. Even though the 91 corridor will see transit and highway improvements down the road, RCTC must wait out on fixing another serious traffic bottleneck along the I-15 through El Cerrito and Dos Lagos. Expect the Corona Crawl to merely shift to the east for now.

Getting many of The Transit Coalition's campaigns and future visions from concept to reality in a timely manner are beyond the power of local transportation agencies. The state certainly has some work to do. Here are some facts:

• Californians are paying some of the highest taxes in the nation.
• Motorists pay the most state taxes at the gas pump, scheduled to go up again this July, 2013.
• Even with these high taxes, much of our transportation infrastructure remains substandard and many corridors car oriented.
• The high cost of doing business in California has encouraged businesses to move out of the state which seriously negates the private job market and local tax revenue which would normally pay for transportation.

Marketplace job creation is a key to a healthy economy and a funded robust transportation network. The state must get the private sector back to growing the economy of the state and ensure our tax money is making it to our transportation infrastructure.

Here is today's tip:

• Demand the state to support laws that create private sector jobs and marketplace investments. Any proposals that drive out businesses elsewhere needs to be questioned and/or opposed.
• Continue to hold the state accountable for its spending actions. Demand that a fair portion of the state money makes it to the rails and highways as it should.

Overseeing California High Speed Rail

(3/28/13) – IE Transit Talking Points Short

A poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California shows that California voters object to spending $68 billion in public funding on high-speed rail by a margin of 54 to 43 percent. The reasons behind the dissents are very clear. The plans from the California High Speed Rail Authority don’t match financial reality, its ridership projections are suspected to be spun, and the risks of having billions in taxpayer money spent on the project without an efficient business plan is drastic.

The latest 2012 CHSRA Business Plan calls for a $68 billion project cost. The rail agency has proposed what is essentially a second rail system for the central valley, duplicating existing usable infrastructure and potentially disrupting the robust farming sector in the marketplace. Earlier this year, CHSRA was found to dole out $8 million to rail contractors...to simply submit losing bids to the project. And now, Fox News reported that 10% of the high speed train's labor force must come from the "disadvantaged", which would potentially include ex-convicts, high school dropouts, foster children, and union apprentices--Forget having a fair screening process should a better qualified applicant apply for an affected position. To be fair, assisting disadvantaged workers is noble, but aren't there already non-profit organizations out there like iSeek which assist ex-cons in seeking honest work?

The Transit Coalition believes that public transportation projects need to be both cost-effective and non-disruptive to the communities they serve. For starters, a cost-efficient hybrid blended system through already-developed areas could allow high-speed rail to use existing upgraded commuter and intercity rail corridors--using a combination of electrification, separated grade crossings, positive train control, and/or upgraded rail cars--while improving speeds and travel time for existing train routes. The $9.95 billion in public seed money is more than enough separate several grade crossings along the existing passenger train routes throughout the urban areas of the state to speed them up, or perhaps that seed money can be used to close the Los Angeles-to-Bakersfield rail gap for a potentially profitable intercity rail corridor between the Bay Area, Los Angeles, and San Diego. That would bring in private investment for the remainder of the high speed train project, would it not?

And if there's some "law" that panders to the interests of special labor groups like the "disadvantaged" which unfairly displaces better qualified applicants from the job, the state legislature must repeal it immediately.

More unbelievable spending proposals from the state government

State transportation spending declines over 30% while government employee retirement benefits increase 25%. It's time to reverse this pattern.

A new report released by nonprofit California Common Sense shows that larger portions of the California state budget have increasingly been going toward state employee salaries, retirement benefits, and healthcare while state transportation spending has decreased a whopping 31% since FY 2007-2008. Ever wonder why those potholes take so long to get fixed? Other state services had similar cuts. Looks like services at the DMV won't improve anytime soon nor will recently cut school bus service be making a comeback through the near future. When Gov. Jerry Brown unveiled his proposed FY 2013-2014 budget, he indicated that more money would be directed toward education, but the report shows the opposite.

The state is projected to take in over $10 billion more in additional revenue than from the 2007-08 fiscal year mainly due to the increased taxes, but state funding for many government programs will actually be lower due to increasing costs of health care and employee benefits. To be fair, the governor is credited for submitting a balanced budget and a special Legislative session will take place to debate the rising health care costs.

Robust debate is welcome, but the state must address this serious problematic spending trend head-on. According to the report, state spending on health care is up 62%. Employee compensation, up 16%. Employee retirement, up 25%. Debt obligations, up 24%. The most shocking increase is unfunded employee retirement benefits, up over 90% from $111.5 billion in FY 2007-08 to $211.4 billion in FY 2013-14. Even more alarming, to fund these employee accommodations, transportation spending is cut and taxes have risen. We are seeing a discouraging trend where the state government is spending less to serve the people of California and more on state employees, paid for by increased taxes. It's yet another reason why The Transit Coalition continues to question budget-related fare increases and object to transit cuts and tolls for carpools to use a high occupancy lane.

Speaking of HOT lanes, LA Metro is now permitting motorcycles to use the Metro ExpressLanes for free and without mandatory transponders. Metro's move is smart since motorcycles have long been considered an HOV for a variety of safety reasons. With non-registered motorcycles out of the congested general purpose lanes and into the HOT lanes, the freeways will have fewer instances of motorcycle lane splitting and will thus be safer to travel. Now, would OCTA and RCTC consider the same idea for the 91 Express Lanes? What about the other HOV's?

In related news, Metro opened the new I-10 HOT lanes last Saturday. The facility forms the culmination of a $210 million project funded by the federal government that also included the I-110 HOT lanes, which opened in November. Tolls for using the entire length of the lanes range from $4 to $7 depending on the time of day. Metro expects to spend $7 to $10 million to operate the lanes while gaining $18 to $20 million in revenue during the year-long demonstration. LA Streetsblog dissected one particular article that discusses the new lanes in a less-than-favorable light.

$8 million paid to rail contractors...for nothing!

(2/6/13) – IE Transit Talking Points Short

A Better Inland Empire was shocked to hear that four construction firms who submitted losing bids to the California High Speed Rail Authority received a total of $8 million in taxpayer high speed rail transit money...for nothing! HSR officials argued that this “stipend” of $2 million each was necessary to attract bidders, but such a wasteful payout is virtually unheard of according to those who work in the construction marketplace. This example of government waste shows why support for high speed rail continues to fall.

The Transit Coalition supports high speed rail, but it must be done right. The Coalition’s vision is a cost-efficient hybrid blended rail system that would allow the first of high-speed trains to use existing upgraded commuter and intercity rail corridors--using a combination of electrification, separated grade crossings, positive train control, and/or upgraded rail cars--while improving speeds and travel time for existing train routes. The approved $9.95 billion in public seed money combined with awarded federal funds is more than enough to design and build these upgrades throughout the state which would have allowed private capital to invest in the remainder of the project. However, CHSRA has proposed what is essentially a second rail system for the Central Valley, duplicating existing usable infrastructure and potentially disrupting the agricultural sector. To make matters worse, the agency isn’t prepared to break ground later in July.

According to various sources, CHSRA has yet to acquire ownership of any of the land it needs to build the starting segment in the Central Valley which is very discouraging. Why would any private contractor want to bid on this project when the public agency has yet to purchase the land? Without the $2 million in government "runner-up" giveaways, the risk would be too great in the marketplace.

Moving forward, the state must accept the fact that high speed rail transportation projects need to be both cost-effective and non-disruptive to the communities they serve. There are plenty of opportunities to solicit market bids without handing out stipends: Upgrade the existing San Joaquin Rail Corridor. Connect Los Angeles and Bakersfield with a direct rail line. Separate the grade crossings for the LOSSAN Rail Corridor between LA and Anaheim. Amend the law so high speed rail can be done right. Stop handing out $8 million worth of stipends for nothing.