Assembly Transportation Committee to Hold HSR Hearing Today
At 1:30 PM the Assembly Transportation Committee will hold a hearing on the 2009 Business Plan. The agenda and background paper are here, and you can watch the hearing live here or on the Cal Channel if you get it on your cable or satellite service (I do, but I’ll be on the road at that time).
Curt Pringle and Mehdi Morshed from the CHSRA are slated to speak, as is a representative from the Legislative Analyst’s Office. The LAO will be giving their first official comments on this business plan, which ought to be interesting.
A legislative analyst has deemed the business plan to be flawed.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/highspeed-rail-plan-flawed-says-legislatures-financial-analyst.html
Truth be Told Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
C’mon Cruikshank! What’s the matter with the spin machine?? Wheels fall off?? This liberal rag much be lying!
Peter Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Or maybe he has a life and a job and things to do?
spokker Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Our spin machine is in the shop. Damn these American made spin machines.
Peter Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Is it an exercise bike for spinning yarns?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Some of us have to work for a living.
Don’t worry, the spin machine is currently working on something I know you’ll love.
Pringle used to be well regarded. After watching him tap dance today, I wonder what turned him into a lying whore?
Alon Levy Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
That’s easy.
Truth be Told Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
He needs HSR to slice through Orange County and justify his new Anaheim train station since he couldn’t sign up any private investment to build it.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
How much private investment did I-5 attract?
spokker Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
IT’S A PUBLIC GOOD LOL YOUR PLAYSTTAIONS AND JUKEBOXSE COME ON TRUCKS DELIVERED VIA FREEWAYZ SO EVERYBODY SHOULD DRIVE ON THEM AS MUSH AS POSSIBLE OKAY???///
Joey Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
I missed it. What exactly did he say?
@Truth be Told As in the nimbys of MenloPark/Palo Alto??
I think it would have helped our cause if more pro-HSR people came to comment publicly. The only thing I remember from the commentary is the string of anti-HSR people from Menlo Park, Atherton, and Burlingame. (I did leave around 4:10, so maybe there were some pro-HSR people afterwards). I would speak in favor of HSR, but I’d probably get nervous and mix up my words…
Also, I would have to agree with the LAO’s interpretation of the Business Plan where the guy mentions the lack of risk mitigation analysis within the BP’s findings. I haven’t read all 145 pages of it, but I trust the LAO as being objective here. I believe he said – if we do not meet the ridership levels or the private financing for the project, then what will CAHSR do? For such a big capital project undetaking, it is imperative that the risk and mitigation strategies are researched. Hopefully, these and other details will be addressed in later business plans. I really want HSR done fast, but we have to answer these questions in order to silence the naysayers. Here is a link of the LAO’s analysis of the 2009 BP: http://tinyurl.com/cahsr011110mtg
Clem Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 8:37 am
Are you sure that isn’t the analysis of the old 2008 business plan?
Reality Check Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 9:54 am
Clem looks to be right … the document the link Stephen provided states:
“The authority released the business plan on November 7, 2008. Our review shows that …”
hey for the nimbys worried about noise, you know we could not build hsr, and just keep expanding air travel as long as they don’t mind this
Here is a scanned copy of the NEW one. http://www.scribd.com/doc/25106530/LAO-Jan-2009-Review
@Elizabeth
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25106741/LAO-Jan-2009-Review Try this one!
No, the LOA review yesterday was speaking to the business plan realeased in December 2009. Try this link for yesterdays’ discussion.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts/transportation/2010/2009_High_Speed_Rail_01_12_10.pdf
The Japanese have a sound limit in residential areas for HSR of 70db and industrial areas of 75db.
This is for there Shinkansen, so I do feel the noise problem is blown way out of scale.
synonymouse Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
BART is way noisier than that and the hsr-Caltrain will have twice as many tracks. Indeed the roar of the four.
They won’t use resilient wheels out of safety fears and electric railways are prone to corrugation. Once the hsr sinks into subsidized mode maintenance will be reduced, as it is in real world transit systems in California, and the noise and vibration will be even worse.
If you are so sure of 70db how about a daily fine for every db over that limit?
Joey Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Indeed. The “roar” of electric trains on well-maintained tracks.
“Once the hsr sinks into subsidized mode”
Okay, do you really have any reason to think that will be the case when ALL current HSR systems, even the Acela, for all of its issues, run a profit. And please don’t say Tehachapi again unless you have some actual numbers to back up your assertion that that would degrade the system to the point of being unprofitable. Seriously!
Peter Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
Yes, BART is noisier than Shinkansen. And BART is the noisiest electric train I’ve ever been on. With the exception of the West Berlin S-Bahn, which was running trains built in the 1920s and 1930s. There is no reason to think that CAHSR is going to be anything as loud as BART. It will more likely be similar to the Acela. Which is pretty darn quiet (from my personal experience less than a block from the NEC this past month). If I hadn’t been listening for it, I wouldn’t have noticed it, like my in-laws who live less than a block from it and only complain about the freight trains.
The noise issue is a simply a major proxy in the FUD against HSR on the Peninsula. You (I’m speaking to all rabid opponents) know this argument is bogus.
synonymouse Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
BART is what Bechtel aka Balfour-Beatty builds. The aesthetic is known as brutalism and very high noise levels are an important part of what we shall charitably refer to as the Bechtel experience. This is California, not Japan, and our hsr will assuredly be noisy. The recipe is simple, take a lot of prestressed concrete, solid wheels, corrugated rails, add some elevateds and berms et voila – le Grand BART.
HSRforCali Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Obviously we’re not in Japan, yet we still have the quiet ACELA EXPRESS. Those are heavy trains on outdated tracks, the complete opposite of what the CAHSR system will be. Stop using BART as an excuse! Yes BART has a noise problem, but you can’t compare rapid transit to high-speed rail. They’re two completely different animals. Don’t turn this into another one of your Tehachapi excuses.
Peter Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
Synonorodent will argue whatever he wants. Accusations don’t need to be based on facts. Just look at Sarah Palin.
I’m really curious now how many Anon comments on the previous blog were made by him. A fair amount, I’m guessing.
synonymouse Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 10:46 am
Ok, a challenge to hsr foamers: Build your test track wherever you want in California – let Bechtel design it to their tastes and using local materials and contractors. Of course the test track has to include elevateds, berms and solid roadbeds as variables. If you can achieve consistent and sustained noise levels of 70 db or less you have won your point.
BART is a concrete example of what Bechtel produces – if you want better then bring in the Europeans or Japanese at the design level.
jimsf Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 11:04 am
I rode bart whn it opened. it wasn’t noisy. inside or out. its noisy now because its been operating for 35 years.
Peter Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 11:05 am
And they’re still running the same cars from 20 years ago (and older).
synonymouse Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 11:27 am
And the hsr will be exempt from depreciation? BART was always noisy and the newest sections, especially the extension from Daly City is the worst. Bechtel continues to outdo itself.
Peter Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 11:31 am
Why are we looking for 70? We’re not Japan. We currently have requirements that locomotives be no louder than 90 db while in motion. Which the Acela meets at 150 mph. Why do you think that CAHSR will be anything close to that loud at its 125 mph max speed on the Peninsula?
synonymouse Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Noise pollution is a health problem, just like air pollution. The Peninsula has every right to impose environmentally correct noise limitations on the CHSRA. Otherwise you have to lay off the airlines and their noise. What is green about 90 decibels?
Peter Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Acela was limited to a max of 90 db at 150 mph. Obviously, they met that standard, otherwise they would not be operating. I’m still trying to find noise ratings for the Acela at lower speeds, but if they met 90 db at 150 mph, it should be obvious to anyone THAT IT WOULD BE QUIETER THAN THAT AT LOWER SPEEDS, such as the 125 mph max on the Peninsula. I can’t claim that it meets the Japanese standard of 70 db for residential areas at 125 mph (as I constrain myself to posting what I can back up with facts, unlike certain others on this blog), but it would not surprise me.
Anyway, from what I gather, those standards are being reviewed by the appropriate authorities, namely the FRA and the EPA. The new standards will be based on ambient noise levels, I believe.
Note: “Appropriate authorities” does not include NIMBYs and their local governments, i.e. the Peninsula.
Peter Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
And note, that’s 90 db at 30 meters (if I read the chart correctly).
My source, since I, unlike some others, prefer to argue based on verifiable facts, is 49 CFR 210.
synonymouse Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
The Bay Area Air Pollution Control District has already demonstrated that it can legally impose stricter environmental limitations on localities.That includes stricter smog tests on automobiles and a draconian banning on fire places even on the coldest nights of the year.
Nationwide the railroads are already being challenged on noise issues. Clearly the tide is running toward lower noise limits. You foamers are out of touch on the noise issue and sound ever sio much like whining nimbys demanding special treatment on a well-known health hazard.
Peter Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Once again, Synonymouse is being tripped up by facts.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District does not deal with noise. They deal with other types of air pollution. They only impose those environmental regulations for those pollutants that they are permitted to regulate under the Clean Air Act (ozone, etc). Their regulations are meant to help the District come in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. California does have some stricter standards, but for the most part they are actually the same as the NAAQS. The authority to impose such stricter standards is granted to California by the Clean Air Act. That does not mean that CA has the authority to regulate train noise, an area that clearly falls under the Commerce Clause, and has been regulated by the federal government, which most likely preempts state regulation of the same.
While the Clean Air Act does have a section on noise pollution, that area fell off the legislative agenda and has become irrelevant.
Also, like I stated earlier, the noise standards are in the process of being reviewed and revised, by the proper authorities. The regulated entities (the railroads and the manufacturers) expect revised and stricter regulation. So your comment is not adding anything to the discussion, except to fling further unsubstantiated froth.
And also like I said, there is no reason to expect that the Acela actually runs at 90 db. This is the max that it is allowed to do by regulation. This is something that you apparently ignore.
Peter Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
I’m curious. Does anyone know the db rating of the horns on Caltrain?
AndyDuncan Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
They’re a federally mandated 110 DB at 100ft far louder than any numbers I’ve been able to find for HSR trains operating at 200 mph.
Peter Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
So… in essence, running HSR on the Peninsula will be a lot quieter than Caltrain. Does Synonymouse have any FACTS to counter that?
AndyDuncan Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Typically the NIMBY response to the information that diesel caltrain trains, even without their horns, are louder than the HSR trains will be is some sort of blabbering response about how they could set up quiet zones, or how they could electrify caltrain without bothering to explain why they haven’t done so yet, where they plan on getting the money from, or why a two-track elevated structure or two-track undercrossing is somehow magically ok, but a slightly wider four-track version is not.
I’ve mentioned many times before, but I have friends who live near and next to (literally backing up to the ROW) the LOSSAN corridor. They are adamant that the only thing they care about is getting rid of the (apologies robert) “F*cking horns”. They don’t even care about the heavy freight trains that rumble through, they just care about the horns. I’ve had the pleasure of spending the night near the tracks on several occasions, you can hear those damn horns coming from miles away, and those diesel locomotives are quite loud. The horns have gotten even worse recently, as Metrolink was trying to make nice by putting them lower on the locomotives so that the sound wouldn’t carry as far, but the FRA made them put them up higher. This makes the difference between a 110DB horn at 15-foot off the rails versus the 70-ish DB noise coming predominantly off the bogies of an electric trainset much greater and makes the horn noise much more difficult to mitigate.
If the Peninsula isn’t blighted by Caltrain, it won’t be blighted by HSR.
AndyDuncan Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
And it’s only going to get worse.
Peter Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
No reason to expect unreasonable people to be reasonable, suddenly.
Here is a copy of the LAO PRELIMINARY report on the Business Plan released Dec 2009:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25116533
A full report is due out soon.
Sorry for the delayed comment approvals. Been offline in meetings all day. You know, to make sure the spin machine is working properly.
wu ming Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
whoa, robert’s gone yellow alert again!
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Only extra-special messages get yellowed.
Or maybe it’s some bizarro bug in the WP system I still haven’t figured out.
Here is a report by latimes.com and how its needed here in Cali.
http://travel.latimes.com/articles/la-tr-spaintrain17-2010jan17
The video for the Assembly meeting is now available at:
http://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewvideo/932
HSR begins at 42:00 minutes
Huge difference between what actually happened at the hearing and what was the CHSRA portrays in their press release here:
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20100112122203_LegHearings-QuoteSheet1-12-10.pdf
Especially note the quote attributed to Assmb. Buchanan. You can hear her begin speaking at the 1:11:00 minute mark.
Note the press release has ABSOLUTELY no reference to the LAO’s testimony. The link to the LAO report is in my comment above.
It is disconcerting that the PR team for HSR is ignoring the constructive criticism being given by the LAO. By putting out press releases like this, the Authority undermines their own “outreach” by portraying a completely rosy picture when clearly, that is not an accurate summation of the meeting.
This breeds mistrust with the public and doesn’t help further the project. At a minimum they should acknowledge that the LAO offered some criticism, but that they will continue to improve and try to improve the project.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
Talk about spinning.
The legislature offered tough questions. Some of them seemed a bit naive, especially Joan Buchanan’s. She just takes the LAO’s arguments whole and doesn’t seem to question what they’ve written. She repeats the “all transit requires subsidies” without realizing that HSR around the world doesn’t require subsidies. Curt Pringle answered that effectively. Aside from that she doesn’t really have much else to say.
Morshed’s comments right before that, about the fact that if the state can’t pay its bills, more than HSR is in jeopardy, is absolutely right. As I’ve said before, it is totally hypocritical for this legislature to lecture anyone about fiscal responsibility. If the legislature wants HSR to be viable, well, they hold the power in their own hands.
Nadia Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 11:05 pm
What spin? Not me, my comment is totally fair – clearly you must mean the HSR people.
I highlighted Buchanan because according the Press release she says:
“I’d like nothing better than to be able to hop on a high-speed train and be in L.A.
in under 2 hours and 40 minutes… I think it’s – I’d probably stop taking airplanes altogether.”
but as you just wrote “She just takes the LAO ’s arguments whole and doesn’t seem to question what they’ve written.” You went on to post an entire new article on the LAO’s “expected” negative piece – so clearly you also interpreted her remarks as negative, and yet if you go by the quote on the Press Release, it paints a totally different picture.
You then write in your newest blog entry: “So has the LAO found some faults with the 2009 Business Plan? Absolutely. Should those flaws be addressed? Of course. Are those flaws surprising? Not really, not for a project still in evolution. Should we be scared? I don’t see why we should be.”
And that is my point – don’t be scared – be honest and say what happened – the LAO had some concerns – they should be addressed, but we are moving forward.
Inaccurate press releases like that make it all too easy for detractors to say – “Look, they are spending $9 mil to spin their lies!”
And so, I stand by what I wrote: “This breeds mistrust with the public and doesn’t help further the project. At a minimum they should acknowledge that the LAO offered some criticism, but that they will continue to listen and try to improve the project.”
(by the way I had sent in a second comment correcting this last sentence and it doesn’t seem to have made its way in, so I just corrected “improve and try to improve the project” to “listen and try to improve the project.” in my quote of my original post) – I know how careful you guys are about this kind of stuff. :-)
cities are noisy. hello stupidity. if you need quiet you need to move to the country.
@Truth be Told
While I was unable to attend this in person, I did get to see it online, and i was floored at the misinformation being thrown out by HSR. Sacramento seems to have been left with the impression that the Anaheim to Los Angeles section is ready to go and the public is on board for this. The expert from the private sector even said that he was impressed by the level of public outreach, as the private sector does not like surprises coming up later in the Enviro work. Well surprise! As of this date, the Anaheim City Council has not been made aware of the existence nor of the contents of the Alternatives Analysis regarding Anaheim to Los Angeles! Councilmember Lucille Kring, during a meeting where she and City Staff presented a power point on ARTIC to the WAND group, stated that HSR would carry passengers to the Ontario Airport, and then out to Las Vegas, but that is many years out into the future! The staff that supported her was the City staff that worked on ARTIC, staff from Traffic Engineering and Transportation were there. Councilwoman Kring had to admit she had no knowledge of property takings by eminent domain, no knowledge of the timeline for the project, and no knowledge of the Alternatives Analysis, because CHSRA has done NO workshop or presentation to Council, or for the public, regarding the AA. Kring even said, “Cynthia knows more about this than I do.” Well Cynthia had to go get her own informationm since HSR has not even answered my email inquiries. The presentation on January 20th will be the FIRST disclosure to anyone in Anaheim regarding the Alternatives Analysis! So Spokker, go ahead and jump all over me for being a NIMBY who is simply out of touch with what is happening in the City, but you will have to lump our own Anaheim City Council into the mix of those who are ignorant and out of the political loop!
If Sacramento and the private sector are under the impression that the people along the LOSSAN are OK with this, they are in for a shock. After the presentation, where I was invited to correct the misinformation presented by Council and staff, many members of the community spoke to me, asking about how to register their opposition to the Alt Analysis, and the word “lawsuit” came up repeatedly. When the citizens in the city governed by the CHSRA Chairman have not been notified of the existence and contents of the Alternatives Analysis yet, we have a problem!
AndyDuncan Reply:
January 14th, 2010 at 9:34 am
you will have to lump our own Anaheim City Council into the mix of those who are ignorant and out of the political loop!
No argument there. In fact in a representative democracy, those are precisely the people who are tasked with keeping themselves in the loop about such things.
“Nobody told me” is not a justifiable excuse when it’s your job to keep yourself informed.