HIGH SPEED RAIL NEEDS CREDIBILITY

California’s high speed rail system will either be an amazing success, or an amazing failure. Dueling ridership predictions revealed this month paint both pictures. In early February, some transportation analysts predicted relatively few people will ride the high speed train, making the system a money loser. But later in the month, Bay Area handwringers, armed with another consultant’s study, predicted high speed rail would be so popular it would pull 6 million passengers a year away from their local airports.


The bottom line: No one knows for sure how many people will ride the high speed rail system if California can get it built. It all depends. On what? On such factors as the cost of a ticket, on where people want to go, on alternative transportation. We are talking 20 or 30 years into the future. You can guess. But no one knows for sure.

And that’s what transportation modeling is all about. That’s why communities can have plans for projects, such as subdivisions, and studies that predict their impacts, such as traffic studies. But when the project is built and occupied, the impacts may be better or worse than predicted.

Modeling is just a structured way of guessing how people might behave under specified conditions. Factors and assumptions are placed in these models by fallible human beings, who may be influenced by their preferences. Since most of us are not experts in modeling, we usually look at the predicted results through our own lenses and decide if they make sense. That often depends on what we would like to believe. We might even look deeper into the assumptions knowing that those who are making the models control the outcome.

To have credibility, those making the models that predict ridership on a future California high speed rail system must clearly lay out for a skeptical public the assumptions and methods they are using.

Why does this matter? Because the $10 billion voters approved in 2008 to help build the system and the $2.6 billion in federal stimulus money that now has been provided by the Obama administration is just a fraction of what it will cost to build the $42 billion-plus San Francisco to Los Angeles route. Taxpayers and private investors still must be convinced to keep investing in the system. That’s going to require a whole lot of credibility and honesty from the California High Speed Rail Authority.

Written by John Hardisty, Bakersfield  http://www.svs2help.com/

DIGITAL SIGNS: BLIGHT, OR BEAUTY

Are they blight, or beauty? Are they hazardous, or no big deal?


Those flashy digital outdoor advertising billboards are triggering political and legal battles throughout the nation. The most recent battlefield is in Denver, Colo., where the city’s zoning committee is asking the city council to impose a moratorium until the safety and appearance of the signs can be given more study. A hearing on the proposed moratorium is expected to be held next month.

In Los Angeles, a battle between outdoor advertisers, city officials, highway beautification activists and city residents has spilled over into the state Legislature and state courts. A proposal last year by Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles, for a two-year statewide moratorium on converting existing billboards to digital, and erecting new ones has stalled. But that hasn’t doused the fire burning in Los Angeles over a deal the city council struck in 2002 with selected billboard companies to convert existing billboards to digital in return for removing others altogether.

Residents of some Los Angeles neighborhoods now are in a roar over the conversions. Where once they had static, fairly non-intrusive signs near their homes, residents now complain they have flashing lights from “giant outdoor television sets” illuminating their homes and ruining their views.

The Federal Highway Administration has launched an extensive study, which is expected to be completed this year, to determine if these signs distract drivers and cause accidents.

What do you think about the digital outdoor advertising signs that have sprouted around your community?

Tell me about the best and the worst you have seen. As a driver, do they distract you? Or do they look a heck of a lot better than some of the tattered old billboards that have been left out in the sun way too long?

Post your responses here, or send me an e-mail (John Hardisty (Jack) planningbeat@yahoo.com) Thanks. I will be writing about this in the coming weeks.

The photo posted here is of a digital sign at L and 24st streets in downtown Bakersfield, Calif. While you order coffee in the Starbucks drive-thru, you can watch the sign flip through various advertising scenes on an electronic board that looms over the Chevron station.

VALLEY CITIES COMPETE FOR RAIL PRIZE

A recent Fresno Bee editorial demanded leaders in its city get their “act together.” The same goes for their counterparts in Kern County as the scramble for federal stimulus funds to build a high speed rail system shifts into high gear.


President Obama last week announced that California will receive $2.3 billion, the largest share of an $8 billion allocation to build high speed rail systems in 13 of the nation’s transportation corridors.

Californians are a long way from buying a ticket to ride a high-speed train in this state. A debate still rages over the system’s $42.6 billion construction price tag, ongoing operating costs and its disputed business plan.

But with voters approving $9 billion in bonds in 2008 to help finance the system and now with $2.3 billion in federal job-creation funds promised, it appears some aspects of the project will become a reality.

The big “prize” for the Central Valley is the construction of a test track and heavy maintenance facility.

Fresno leaders want the facility, which will employ 1,500 people, including train operators, engineers and rolling stock maintenance staff, built in Fresno. Kern County leaders want it built on one of two local sites – one in Shafter, the other in Wasco.

By the Jan. 15 deadline, the California High Speed Rail Authority had received 15 “expressions of interest” from valley communities, including Fresno’s and Kern’s.

The Fresno Bee called the heavy maintenance facility “the most important economic development project that Fresno County could hope to lure to our community. … That’s why the competition will be stiff, and Fresno County must have a first-class proposal every step of the way. No internal bickering. No local turf battles. We don’t need a repeat of Merced getting the University of California campus because Fresno did not have its act together.”

Funny thing: In news reports coming out of Merced are chest-thumping vows to “do it again” to Fresno and the rest of the valley. Merced community leaders are dragging out the game plan they used to snatch the UC campus away from competitors years ago. Now they are promoting the former Castle Air Force Base for a heavy maintenance facility.

The Central Valley is critical to high speed rail’s development. The valley’s flat, open and rural stretches allow the 220 mph trains to be tested and certified for use in other parts of the United States. The test track will become part of California’s high speed rail system that will take passengers from Los Angeles to San Francisco.

To be in the running, a site must meet minimum criteria, including being near a proposed HSR route; having a parcel shaped and sized to accommodate the facility; and having other transportation linkages, access to utilities, appropriate zoning and an available labor force. The site also should not be encumbered with environmental problems.

Kern’s Shafter site is 640 acres located on the east side of existing railroad tracks, north of 7th Standard Road, adjacent to the International Trade and Transportation Center, and near Kern County’s Meadows Field Airport.

The Wasco site is 421 acres located south of Highway 46, near J Street, in an undeveloped industrial area, with existing railroad tracks nearby.

A final selection, which will be made by HSRA directors in about 15 months, will be based on more than basic criteria, and environmental and economic considerations. It also will be based on politics and salesmanship.

Fresno already is guaranteeing it will “sweeten” the deal by scraping together $25 million to buy and donate the land. Clearly all the competitors will have to come up with “sweeteners,” requiring contributions from private investors and local public agencies.

A campaign to promote the Shafter and Wasco sites to HSRA directors, private investors and local taxpayers is needed.

Ray Watson, chairman of the Kern County Board of Supervisors and a Kern Economic Development Corp. director, has wisely called for the creation of a blue ribbon committee to get our community’s “act together.”

The “prize” Kern County, Shafter, Wasco and all of metropolitan Bakersfield stands to win: 1,500 high-paying permanent jobs, many more construction jobs, increased tax revenues to support public services, and increased business for support services and related industries.

This is a multi-million dollar prize worth fighting for.

This article by John Hardisty (Jack) appeared first in The Bakersfield Californian on Feb. 3, 2010. Hardisty is a Bakersfield, Calif., mediator and land-use planning consultant. He can be contacted through his Website www.svs2help.com/

HIGH SPEED RAIL 'PRIZE' AWAITS

A recent Fresno Bee editorial demanded leaders in its city get their “act together.” The same goes for their counterparts in Kern County as the scramble for federal stimulus funds to build a high speed rail system shifts into high gear.

President Obama last week announced that California will receive $2.3 billion, the largest share of an $8 billion allocation to build high speed rail systems in 13 of the nation’s transportation corridors.

Californians are a long way from buying a ticket to ride a high-speed train in this state. A debate still rages over the system’s $42.6 billion construction price tag, ongoing operating costs and its disputed business plan.

But with voters approving $9 billion in bonds in 2008 to help finance the system and now with $2.3 billion in federal job-creation funds promised, it appears some aspects of the project will become a reality.

The big “prize” for the Central Valley is the construction of a test track and heavy maintenance facility.

Fresno leaders want the facility, which will employ 1,500 people, including train operators, engineers and rolling stock maintenance staff, built in Fresno. Kern County leaders want it built on one of two local sites – one in Shafter, the other in Wasco.

By the Jan. 15 deadline, the California High Speed Rail Authority had received 15 “expressions of interest” from valley communities, including Fresno’s and Kern’s.

The Fresno Bee called the heavy maintenance facility “the most important economic development project that Fresno County could hope to lure to our community. … That’s why the competition will be stiff, and Fresno County must have a first-class proposal every step of the way. No internal bickering. No local turf battles. We don’t need a repeat of Merced getting the University of California campus because Fresno did not have its act together.”

Funny thing: In news reports coming out of Merced are chest-thumping vows to “do it again” to Fresno and the rest of the valley. Merced community leaders are dragging out the game plan they used to snatch the UC campus away from competitors years ago. Now they are promoting the former Castle Air Force Base for a heavy maintenance facility.

The Central Valley is critical to high speed rail’s development. The valley’s flat, open and rural stretches allow the 220 mph trains to be tested and certified for use in other parts of the United States. The test track will become part of California’s high speed rail system that will take passengers from Los Angeles to San Francisco.

To be in the running, a site must meet minimum criteria, including being near a proposed HSR route; having a parcel shaped and sized to accommodate the facility; and having other transportation linkages, access to utilities, appropriate zoning and an available labor force. The site also should not be encumbered with environmental problems.

Kern’s Shafter site is 640 acres located on the east side of existing railroad tracks, north of 7th Standard Road, adjacent to the International Trade and Transportation Center, and near Kern County’s Meadows Field Airport.

The Wasco site is 421 acres located south of Highway 46, near J Street, in an undeveloped industrial area, with existing railroad tracks nearby.

A final selection, which will be made by HSRA directors in about 15 months, will be based on more than basic criteria, and environmental and economic considerations. It also will be based on politics and salesmanship.

Fresno already is guaranteeing it will “sweeten” the deal by scraping together $25 million to buy and donate the land. Clearly all the competitors will have to come up with “sweeteners,” requiring contributions from private investors and local public agencies.

A campaign to promote the Shafter and Wasco sites to HSRA directors, private investors and local taxpayers is needed.

Ray Watson, chairman of the Kern County Board of Supervisors and a Kern Economic Development Corp. director, has wisely called for the creation of a blue ribbon committee to get our community’s “act together.”

The “prize” Kern County, Shafter, Wasco and all of metropolitan Bakersfield stands to win: 1,500 high-paying permanent jobs, many more construction jobs, increased tax revenues to support public services, and increased business for support services and related industries.

This is a multi-million dollar prize worth fighting for.

John Hardisty (Jack) of Bakersfield is a mediator and land-use planning consultant. He can be contacted through his Website www.svs2help.com/

This article appeared first in The Bakersfield Californian on Feb. 3, 2010.

CHARRETTE: CITIZENS AID PLANNERS

Every now and then, government and the people can put aside differences to join forces for the betterment of the community. It’s “magic” when that happens. One of those magic moments occurred nearly a decade ago, when City of Bakersfield, Calif., officials, design professionals and everyday citizens joined together for a charrette to brainstorm the future of downtown.

Bakersfield Californian reporter James Burger took a rare look back at what the charrette accompanished in a story that appeared in the Jan. 17, 2010 Californian. The article can be read at http://tinyurl.com/DowntownCharrette

This was the first of three planning charrettes conducted by the City of Bakersfield and its residents. Conducting a charrette to create ideas and enthusiasm for revitalizing sections of Bakersfield, including Baker Street and southeast Bakersfield, was former City Councilman Randy Rowles’ idea. Rowles helped raise private funds to hire a consultant and help pay for other project costs. Tax dollars also were used. But before the charrette could become a reality, Rowles left the City Council. Newly elected Ward 2 Councilwoman Sue Benham, whose ward includes downtown, stepped in, providing her leadership to make the charrette a success.

Deserving a great deal of credit, however, are local private architects and engineers, who helped facilitate discussion groups and transform citizens’ ideas into practical drawings.

Over the years, we have seen many of these drawings poured into concrete. First came Wall Street Alley’s conversion to a mini-plaza. Following was the planting of trees and streetscape improvements. Pedestrian-friendly amenities built at the intersection of 19th and Eye streets compliment theater and art districts that have been created. A rundown central city park, which was used mainly by the homeless, now is the highlight of the Mill Creek redevelopment project. Soon a federal court house will be built next to the park.

Has everything been accomplished that charrette participants envisioned? No, but much has been done. And still more will be done in the years ahead.

The charrette is a testimonial to what can be accomplished when government and citizens work together.

John Hardisty
Retired Bakersfield Development Services Director
www.svs2help.com

MEDIATE WEDDINGS FROM HELL

A "dream" wedding can turn into a "nightmare" that marches its way down the aisle, straight into a courtroom.

Local small claims judges and court mediators have unsnarled disputes over things ranging from broken promises to rancid potato salad.

The messages from these cases:

* Many problems can be avoided in the first place with foresight.

* Most of these disputes are better resolved through negotiation rather than lawsuits.

As one of several mediators working in small claims court, I have been caught in the crossfire of warring brides, grooms, mothers-of-the-bride, caterers, wedding planners, you name it.

Two cases mediated in California demonstrate how some problems can be headed off. Because mediations are confidential, identities and details are omitted.

Idyllic setting not 'ideal'

For her special day, the bride planned her spring wedding to be held on a gently rolling, oak-studded hillside about an hour's drive east of San Diego.

The caterer advised that the site posed logistical problems. He also warned the weather would be sunny and hot and urged umbrellas or tents be provided for the guests and to help preserve the food. But the bride insisted the wedding party and guests would celebrate in the magnificent outdoor setting without restrictions. No umbrellas. No tents.

The big day came. Wedding guests and support staff got lost, arriving at the location later than expected. The ceremony was delayed. And, yes, it was hot.
For some, the "reception" began before the wedding took place. Thirsty, early arrivers started drinking. By the time the "I do's" were recited, some were already toasted and the cold cuts weren't cold.

Weeks later, the bride, mother-of-the bride and wedding planner faced off with the caterer in a mediation session. The angriest was the wedding planner, whose reputation was on the line. The mother complained that for all of her family's expense, she had few memorable photographs. The most memorable was of her underaged daughter face-down drunk in her plate of food.

The food was spoiled, the trio argued. They refused to pay the caterer, who noted they had refused to heed his warnings. He also pointed out that all the alcohol he provided was consumed, even if most of the food was not eaten.

Resolved: The family paid for the alcohol and other beverages. The caterer "ate" his bill for the food.

Lessons: Be realistic when planning a wedding. Head off problems by listening to professionals' advice.

Groom backs out three times

The bride and groom were in their early 20s. They had a rocky relationship, with the groom backing out of a planned wedding a year earlier. But he talked his way back into the young woman's heart and a wedding again was scheduled.

While other details of this case were disputed, everyone agreed that the bride's mother took charge of the wedding plans. It was going to be a large, elegant affair. Invitations were ordered. The bridal gown and dresses for the bridesmaids and the mother-of-the-bride were bought. The reception was booked. Money was being spent.

But as he had done a year earlier, the groom backed out. The bride's family sued, demanding the reluctant young man repay them for the thousands of dollars they had spent. Before a judge heard the case, the parties were sent off to mediation in hopes they would reach a settlement.

The groom argued that a big wedding was the bride's mother's idea. He wanted something smaller. The mother countered that the groom's unacceptable idea of a smaller wedding was a keg of beer in his backyard.

The groom also said he did not want to marry into the bride's family. He reasoned if his desires were pushed aside in wedding planning, likely that would be his experience in other family matters.

After hours of negotiating, a tentative settlement was reached, with the groom agreeing to pay a small portion of what had been spent. But before the parties could return to court to have the agreement blessed by the judge, the groom again backed out. He declared he would not pay one dime.

Resolved: After hearing the case, the judge decided the young man owed nothing.

Lessons: The size and scope of a wedding should be decided by the bride and groom, not just the bride's family. A wedding begins a marriage that should be an equal partnership. And when someone has a history of broken promises, it also is likely to be his or her future.

To find a mediator to help resolve a dispute, go to your local court's website, where you likely will find a court-approved mediator panel list, or to the website of a Better Business Bureau in your area, where you will find information about its mediation services.

A version of this article written by JOHN HARDISTY, a Bakersfield mediator, appeared first in The Bakersfield Californian on Jan. 7, 2010.

NIMBY WARS: POLITICS OF LAND USE

There are many "ah-ha moments" in author P. Michael Saint’s "Nimby Wars." Whether you are a developer trying to push a controversial project through the permitting and construction process, or neighbors trying to stop it, "Nimby Wars" provides invaluable insights and strategies. And for the regulators caught in the middle, the book is a "must read" that takes some of the mystery out of what seems to be the "surprise attacks."

For more than three decades, I headed government planning agencies in California. I can recognize many of the controversies and scenarios the authors included in "Nimby Wars." It is a good, entertaining read. It also can serve as a "manual" for what is likely to occur as proponents and opponents bash each other with the environmental laws that "govern" most states', counties' and cities' land-use decisions.

This review of “Nimby Wars” was written for Amazon.com by John Hardisty of Bakersfield. To read more about this book, go to www.amazon.com