Bullet train’s chief, board chairman quit
political pulse of the state,” said James Earp, a member of the California Transportation Commission and a union representative who played a key role in a successful 2008 ballot measure that partially funded the project.
Van Ark said he will leave in two months; Umberg will step down in February. Umberg said he would recommend that Dan Richard, who was recently appointed to the rail board by Brown, assume the leadership role. Richard said he intended to make the chairmanship a full-time commitment.
The rail board said it would begin a search for Van Ark’s replacement. Also announced Thursday was the departure of bullet train board member Matthew Toledo, who submitted his resignation to Brown on Jan. 4.
The changes came a week after an independent review panel issued a scathing critique of the project and refused to recommend that the state issue billions of dollars in bonds to help fund construction of an initial, 130-mile Central Valley section of track.
The expert panel, charged with safeguarding the public’s interest in the project, raised doubts about almost every aspect of the project and concluded that the current plan “is not financially feasible.” The original cost of the project has tripled, and two recent public opinion polls indicate that voters now would reject the project, which they had previously approved.
When Van Ark was hired in May 2010, agency officials declared the job ahead was mainly one of engineering and construction. He was heralded as the perfect candidate to deliver on the state’s long-frustrated goal of building the nation’s first bullet train network.
But Van Ark was frustrated by difficulties with the project, according to former high speed rail officials and state legislators. Rachel Wall, the rail agency’s press secretary, said Van Ark was not asked to leave and in fact may remain as a consultant.
It became apparent last year that the political and funding battles over keeping the project alive were far from over. A new, hostile GOP majority in the House of Representatives cast doubt on future federal funding.
Rather than focusing on engineering, Van Ark began spending more time on the acrimonious politics engulfing the project. Van Ark was called before the Legislature 15 times last year.
“I think he took over a totally dysfunctional organization,” said state Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-long Beach), one of those who summoned Van Ark. “The distrust by the Legislature was already there. He was always in a defensive posture, defending against this attack or that attack. I think it just wore him out. His skills did not match the situation that evolved.”
Others said Brown was unhappy with the project’s trajectory. He recently proposed creation of a new state transportation agency to oversee both highway and state rail projects.
“It’s not a coincidence that Van Ark and Umberg happened on the same day,” said state Sen. Joe Simitian (D-palo Alto), another lawmaker with oversight responsibility for the project. “This is clearly an effort by the administration to start fresh and push the reset button.”
Asked if Brown had a role in Van Ark’s departure or had given it his blessing, press secretary Gil Duran said, “There was common agreement that this was a good transition point.”
Van Ark had given rail authority staffers little indication in recent weeks that he was about to leave. But Richard said Van Ark wanted to depart as long as six months ago and the rail board persuaded him to stay on through at least the introduction of a new project business plan. A draft of that plan, which included the new $98.5-billion cost estimate, was released on Nov. 1.
Umberg said his home in Orange County and his fulltime law practice and family made it difficult for him to devote the necessary time. Umberg downplayed the effect of Van Ark’s departure, saying the project will probably have a number of chief executives and board chairs before it is completed.