Feds Slap Down LAO, Refuse to Budge on 2012 Deadline
Two quick things first before getting to the headline: Californians For High Speed Rail Executive Director Daniel Krause has an op-ed in today’s Sacramento Bee pushing back against the Legislative Analyst’s Office’s flawed report attacking HSR. Go read it!
Second, the Sac Bee had an excellent editorial defending the project over the weekend, including a fantastic graphic showing how the SF-LA route compares favorably to the LGV Sud-Est in France. Go look at it!
Of course, one core piece of the LAO’s attack on HSR was their suggestion that California follow the lead of Scott Walker and Chris Christie and demand that we be allowed to use federal rail funds for other purposes, including delaying their expenditure. I predicted that the feds would not go along with this, and that the LAO would have known this if anyone on their staff actually had a clue about HSR.
Today we learn that I was right and the LAO was wrong:
Federal officials say that a 2012 deadline to start construction of a multibillion-dollar high-speed rail system in California is firm and can’t be postponed.
The U.S. Transportation Department said in a letter Wednesday to the California High-Speed Rail Authority that regulators have no authority to change the deadline. The department also says it won’t allow the state to move the first stretch of track from the Central Valley to a coastal city.
The LAO ought to toss out their report and start from scratch, this time with people who actually know a thing or two about HSR, interview people who have worked on HSR, gather stats from other countries (and from the Acela) on HSR, assess the benefits of HSR as well as the costs of not building HSR, and produce a report that actually provides some informed discussion and recommendations that are based in reality and respect what the people of California voted to do.
The report has made the LAO look foolish and uninformed. For the sake of their own credibility, they would be wise to start over. California deserves a well-informed assessment of the HSR project, not an uninformed hit job that is so easily dismissed.
UPDATE: Here’s the full text of the letter from the US Department of Transportation. It leaves no doubt that they are definitively smacking down the LAO. Mac Taylor and Eric Thronson come off looking like chumps.
Now would be a good time for the LAO to admit their error and get this right. Instead they appear to be doubling down on their mistakes:
“The letter doesn’t say anything we didn’t know and I don’t think it changes our recommendations at all,” said Eric Thronson, the fiscal and policy analyst who wrote the LAO report. The letter doesn’t rule out changing the starting point for construction if the federal agency was given a compelling reason, and “we don’t think they’ve been asked to do so,” he said.
Thronson is simply wrong here – the LAO explicitly said they were sure that the feds would let the state mess around with the funding:
Seek Flexibility on Use of Federal Funds. We propose that the Legislature direct HSRA to renegotiate the terms of the federal funding awarded to the state by the Federal Rail Administration (FRA). We believe the state must obtain relief from the current federal restrictions on the project if it is to be developed successfully, and therefore that the Legislature should proceed with the project only if this flexibility is obtained from the federal government…
However, we believe it is likely that the federal government would ultimately work with the state to grant more flexibility, for the following reasons.
Eric Thronson and Mac Taylor, the Legislative Analyst, actually believed the feds would grant more flexibility, even though they had steadfastly refused to do that with all other states that had requested it. If I were a state legislator, I’d be pretty pissed off that the LAO, whose job it is to provide informed analysis, fucked up this badly, this obviously.
The LAO wanted the legislature to abandon the project if the feds wouldn’t grant flexibility. Everyone who believes that a Democratic legislature and a Democratic governor – who brought the concept of HSR to California 30 years ago when he was governor – would side with the LAO, Alan Lowenthal and Joe Simitian over Barack Obama, raise your hands. Keep them high where I can see them.
The LAO is facing a serious crisis. Their hard-earned credibility is ebbing away every day they refuse to repudiate their flawed and ridiculous HSR report. They would do well to stop defending their failures, admit their error, and set things right by producing a new, informed study that helps show Californians how to get this project done.
Robert, the link to the “excellent editorial” goes to Daniel’s op-ed.
Walter Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/22/3642782/pull-plug-on-high-speed-rail-why.html
Brian Stanke Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Thanks for catching that. I fixed it now.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:04 pm
After finally getting to look at the editorial and the graphic, I have to say this is something that is well done. The numbers look even better when presented like this. The only excuse the opposition can really come up with now–and a lame excuse it is–is that nobody will ride these trains because we are Real Americans(tm) and we like our cars, cars are Real America(tm).
I also like the idea that the Feds are holding California to the Central Valley routing. Despite some comments here, I do not believe Federal DOT people are totally incompetent (maybe more than they should be, but not totally so). They very likely studied this thing closely before approving it; remember, there was a lot of competition for that money, from the NEC crowd and the Chicago proponents, too. That you won out multiple times speaks highly for the CHSRA’s current management.
Clem Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
From a Tuftian point of view, this graphic is actually misleading because the bubble area increases with the square of population. The bubble area should be directly proportional to population in order to visually display this quantitative information.
You don’t shoot at something and miss. That’s very dangerous for an Org like the LAO.
LAO took a shot at the HSR and blew their credibility. It is a massive failure to have the Feds rebuke their core findings and do so quickly and consistently with other high profile rebukes. This was totally predictable.
What the LAO did was a issue a political attack report to halt the project at a critical point in the project – the LAO Lead must resign for making this clumsy, blatant political move against HSR. There’s no reason to believe their next report.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
The SJ Merc has a more in depth story and FRA clearly states that California must not only begin with the main core of the system it also must use its promised matching funds for the section
StevieB Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
The LAO stands by its ridiculous recommendation according to the Merc News.
Eric Thronson should be asked to resign.
Spokker Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
A guy shouldn’t resign because he said mean things about HSR. Christ. Unfortunately in this day and age, people lose their jobs for even stupider reasons.
Joe Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
His analysis was inept and political
spokker Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
As are your posts, but we can’t fire you from the Internet, unfortunately.
StevieB Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
The Legislative Anylists Office is charged with providing nonpartisan fiscal and policy advice. The report by Eric Thronson is highly partisan. He should resign for failure to execute his duty.
Spokker Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
What makes it partisan? They made the recommendation to begin in more populous areas rather than the Central Valley, and both have their pros and cons.
Peter Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
The LAO report may not be partisan on its face, but the arguments it makes and the methodology to back up it smell very libertarian/Reason Foundationish. I don’t know many liberals who use any arguments like that…
joe Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
What makes it partisan? Its one sided. It’s definitional.
Their partisan report can’t stand a day’s scrutiny or even a preliminary brush with reality.
Anyone vaguely familiar with the ARRA would know what they recommended was impossible.
Nathanael Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
It uses bogus, hackish, faked numbers and concludes with a “do nothing and pretend the cost of doing nothing is zero” argument. It’s a hack job. The author of such a hack job report should resign.
Spokker Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
Right. It’s all a big conspiracy.
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
Firing a guy like Eric Thronson is not the answer. I can’t remember a time that an analyst there has been as visible in a recommendation as he. (This is coming from a guy who has known people who have worked and still work there.) His suggestion isn’t necessarily wrong, as it is objective, and not politically feasible.
It’s also important to understand that he’s going to take certain assumptions at face value, which many of us on this blog don’t. The bigger loss is to the LAO and the analysts that have nothing to do with this.
joe Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
If he cared about the office he holds, he should step down now. He failed. There’s no way his Legislative allies will get that ARRA money reprogrammed for their local interests. Bye. Thanks for playing politics 101.
I suppose Govs Scott, Walker and others were so successful renegotiating their HSR awards, the LAO thought to give it try too.
joe Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:21 pm
LOL Spokker.
I knew the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act better than the State’s LAO.
The LAO’s professional advise to our Legislature is a reckless political opinion that the State should overturn the CA HSRA’s ARRA plan and renegotiate over 3 Billion in time critical funding.
It took what? A week for the feds to say NO WAY. LAO report’s core recommentation is now non-operational. Fail
Fire him. Now.
Spokker Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
So the end goal is to secure federal funding regardless of the project’s merit?
So they try to negotiate and fail and the money is rescinded. From their point of view, this would be a benefit because money would not be wasted on a bad project.
This was the rationale in Florida. I disagree with it, but the voters of that state got what they wanted when they voted in the governor and when he rejected the money.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
they did not analyze the merits of proceeding with vs not proceeding with the project, they presented the funded Valley alignment as higher risk of not completing than several unfunded alternatives which they argued could likely win funding because the Federal government wanted the Express high speed rail system. They ignored that this implied thatt the Federal government would not want to have the money shifted from an Express high speed rail corridor to the slower segments.
now what they ignored is in evidence: the risk of failing to get further funding versus teh risk of not getting funding at all and losing the prospect of further funding.
Spokker Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
In other words, I didn’t know it was the LAO’s job to bend over and take federal dick in the ass at every opportunity.
If there are enough people who feel the LAO was wrong in this case, then they’ll disregard it and life will go on.
I respect the LAO more for not backing down on their recommendation. I ultimately disagree with it, but I am glad they did not kowtow to anyone.
VBobier Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 10:43 pm
Most of the Legislature & the Governor are against the dribble that the LAO put out, As are the people of California, The ones at least Who voted Yes in 2008 & Who remain true to HSR to the present day.
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Well I think that’s just it. If this is seriously Thronson’s own ideas then I agree with you. I suspect however, that such is not the case.
Alan Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
No, he should resign because his report was incompetent and unsupported by the facts, and because he failed to talk to anyone who actually knows something about railway engineering.
Spokker Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 6:09 pm
Any report critical of HSR would be incompetent and unsupported by facts, though.
And I don’t see any HSR supporters calling for anyone to resign over completely unrealistic service levels that were used to justify the proposed levels of concrete to be poured.
So I guess everyone gets to keep their jobs despite all of our incompetence.
synonymouse Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
The budget wars are just getting started. The situation is grim to the point the Democrats worry that if the Repubs get slaughtered over cutting grandpa’s medicare it will fall to them(ie. the liberals to figure what to chop).
Greece is ready for a real denouement and apparently the Germans have quietly threatened to drop out of the EC if they have to baksheesh any more PIIG’s. What’s-his-name has re-scheduleds he rapture for, what, October 21. But my Krazy Krystal Ball see the stock market doing the crapture about then.
So the skeleton of Borden to Corcoran may be all the hsr you get.
Peter Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
…
Gone off your meds again?
Nathanael Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:01 pm
Oh, Syn, you still don’t understand economics, I see.
If the Germans drop out of the Euro, then the rest of the Eurozone is golden, because it can print money to eliminate deficits, and devalue the currency to boost exports; the “new Deutschmark” will shoot through the roof, crushing German exports and boosting everyone else in Europe at their expense. It would be *great* for the rest of the EU if Germany left the Euro.
You’re right that stupid Democrats may argue about cutting budgets when they OUGHT to be raising taxes on the obscenely rich (just take the Koch Brothers money and that’ll help, for starters), or actually printing money and handing it to working class people, or any of several other sane policies — but anyone who actually has a clue about money knows that the “budget crisis” is just a big phony invented by Republicans for the purpose of giving money to the rich (more tax cuts!) while hurting everyone else (more spending cuts!).
Emma Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 10:34 pm
It’s more likely that everyone else leaves the euro before Germany does.
So, please re-phrase your argument: If the rest of the EU dropped out of the Euro, Germany would be a lot better. After all, the Euro got its strength from the Deutsche Mark.
VBobier Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 10:55 pm
Agreed, Sounds very plausible, But not desirable for Europe or Germany. And on the Phony Crisis, I tend to believe It’s a plot made by Republicans as a raw power grab, A Democrat got elected to Congress in New York on protecting Medicare, Medicaid(Medi-Cal in CA) and Social Security in a special election against a Republican and It was a Safe Red state, Not anymore, It’s turned a bit Blue.
J. Wong Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
It was a Red district in a Blue state. New York has been Blue for a long time now.
VBobier Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 11:23 pm
Well then please pardon Me J. Wong, I meant well. That District can’t be all that Red anymore, but We’ll see in 2012 and I’m hoping for stupidity from Republican campaigns and Democrats that run with It in mind.
joe Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
I don’t see any Federal DOT official tell the State their ridership estimates or ARRA proposal was incompetent. In fact the CAHSRA won a disproportionate share of the money.
I see the DOT sixpack the LAO’s report in a simple, consistent reply. Were they even paying attention to the terms of the funding competition
Spokker Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:00 pm
If Obama fails to win a second term, expect to see the Federal DOT start questioning ridership estimates.
As it stands, Mica things our project is a dog. The White House cannot change hands if HSR is to be a reality without possibly eight years of delay.
StevieB Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:17 pm
Sen. Mica thinks High Speed Rail should be privately financed. That did not work in Taiwan because public corporations have to pay a higher borrowing cost than the government and it borrowing costs would be higher here too.
Peter Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Mica is in the House, not the Senate.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
Thronson is unfit to be writing these reports, but the ultimate responsibility lies with the Legislative Analyst himself, Mac Taylor.
datacruncher Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
It sounds to me like Thronson is trying to parse his words a little now.
“Thronson noted that his report never called on the California High-Speed Rail Authority to ask for funding flexibility, which is what prompted Wednesday’s rejection letter. Instead, he said, the report recommended that the state Legislature make state money contingent upon the rail authority’s successful renegotiation of funding terms.”
http://www.bakersfield.com/news/business/economy/x504581248/Feds-wont-budget-on-bullet-train-funding-stipulations
But his report recommended the Legislature in the budget bill to tell CAHSRA to renegotiate terms.
joe Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
He’s sounds like Newt.
Members of our Legislature will enjoy being corrected; that what his report recommended was indeed correct but sadly misunderstood by the Feds and critics – some of whom are members of the Legislature.
What I see is a distinction without a difference.
The LAO start over? That would be a miracle and one I’d enjoy watching as I predicted the same response, The DOT did It before and If the dumbos in the LAO had their way the billions for CA would’ve gone elsewhere and that would be out of this state and that would be real Jobs lost, Not some imaginary boogeymen either.
But then It’s not a Train to Nowhere, Not with 4 million people living in the Central Valley and growth predicted to make It higher still, Can You say 8 million? I can and since there’s No room around the capital and None on the Peninsula by decree, Where else are people going to live that has lots of room? Answer: the Central Valley… In any case the population in the CV is already 2nd to Southern California in size.
Nice Article in the Bee, Robert…
synonymouse Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 6:48 pm
re: Central Valley
Can you say Detroit?
Nathanael Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
Detroit is a massive source of train riders. And yes, they can afford train rides (it’s one of the less expensive luxuries).
Jack Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
Do we have massive take backs of developed land, do we have an entire industry that was a foundation to our economy pack up and leave town??
I respected some of your opinions before but now your just another resident that thinks were nothing.
We are real people here, 4 millions of us, and much to your chagrin we are Californian’s too!
Wad Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 10:50 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas
The first number is the 2010 population. The second is the 2000 population, and the percentages are growth or decline.
12 Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI 4,296,250 4,452,557 −3.51%
24 Sacramento–Arden-Arcade–Roseville, CA 2,149,127 1,796,857 +19.60%
55 Fresno, CA MSA 930,450 799,407 +16.39%
62 Bakersfield-Delano, CA MSA 839,631 661,645 +26.90%
77 Stockton, CA MSA 685,306 563,598 +21.59%
100 Modesto, CA MSA 514,453 446,997 +15.09%
111 Visalia-Porterville, CA MSA 442,179 368,021 +20.15%
177 Merced, CA MSA 255,793 210,554 +21.49%
259 Hanford-Corcoran, CA MSA 152,982 129,461 +18.17%
Add these metropolitan areas together, and you have the same population as the Detroit metro area. Detroit is the only one posting a population decline.
It’s highly unlikely the Central Valley communities are going to reverse like Detroit. The Central Valley’s economic problems have to do with its poorer populations, low educational attainment and fewer economic opportunities.
Michael Mahoney Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
It seems to me that adding in Stockton, Modesto, and Sacramento is salting the mine. The line is planned to run there eventually, but the basic system will serve Fresno, Bakersfield, Hanford, and Merced, plus we will stretch a point and let Tulare County aboard because the Hanford station is supposed to be their connector. Total of the SMSAs: 2,621.035.
Now let’s look at Los Angeles (rank 2), 12,828,837; San Francisco (rank 11), 4,335,391; and San Jose (rank 31), 1,836,911. Total 19,001,139.
Conclusion: Run the line down the west side of the Valley, skipping all the east side cities, and you connect 87 per cent of the population. In order to get that other 13 per cent you have to build it longer, much more expensive, and much more complicated. Sooner or later someone is going to notice this.
Wad Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 10:19 pm
Michael, you can’t run a ground-level transportation that connects Northern and Southern California and skip what’s in between. You don’t magically reduce the space between L.A. and the Bay Area by avoiding the Central Valley.
Plus the 87 percent of the population won’t ride enough in volume to make up for the 13 percent who’ll be locked out of a train they had paid for.
It’s much more expensive to build track that’s not picking up passengers.
joe Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
With HSR, CA can have their Corporate HQ and RD in costal CA cities and base the manufacturing in the Central Valley.
Today they build in Oregon and fly to/from.
synonymouse Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 10:39 pm
You are correct in suggesting the west side line but you can still tap Bakersfield and Fresno with a branch.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 10:42 pm
How much does it cost to build those branch lines?
synonymouse Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 11:05 pm
The concept revolves on such a substantial savings on the I-5 that would cover the cost of the wye to Bakersfield. And perhaps enough to underwrite the extension to Sac. from the Tracy area, if 99 corridor hsr ended at Fresno.
But here’s another proposal, thoroughly outlandish, that would be a primarily diesel operation, even on the I-5 line, at least initially. There would be 2 lines, one a sort of super-ACE from the Bay Area thru Livermore and then thru Altamont, thence south over I-5 and Tejon to LA. The other would be a super-San Joaquin from Sac over the 99 corridor trackage, thence south from Bakersfield and Tejon to LA. No transfer at Fresno, thru running with Amtrak equipment.
Perhaps dual-fuel locomotives, as catenary over Tejon would be highly desirable.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 27th, 2011 at 10:30 am
13% of the population that is closer to either end than the ends are to each other ~ and two hours to three hours are a fairly elastic part of the ridership with respect to transit time relationship for intercity transport, that time saving has substantial impact on capture of the total transport market. So quite reasonably on the order of 20% of total ridership.
Why would you ditch 20% of total ridership to get a marginally shorter route in the terrain where the trains are going the fastest?
thatbruce Reply:
May 27th, 2011 at 11:59 am
@Michael Mahoney, synonymouse and any others who believe without think the words of Richard Tolmach:
Skipping the cities in the Central Valley, which any proposal to utilize I-5 does, is contrary to AB3034, specifically:
2704.04. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature by enacting this chapter and of the people of California by approving the bond measure pursuant to this chapter to initiate the construction of a
high-speed train system that connects the San Francisco Transbay Terminal to Los Angeles Union Station and Anaheim, and links the state’s major population centers, including Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego consistent with the authority’s certified environmental impact reports of November 2005 and July 9, 2008.
Trying to ‘fix’ any I-5 proposal with spur lines and/or improvements to existing Central Valley track which do not permit the same HSR trainsets to operate over them is contrary to the language and intent of AB3034. Sooner or later those against the project are going to notice this.
datacruncher Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 10:00 am
Michael Porter’s Strategy Institute at Harvard just listed Fresno as an emerging tech center. Wired magazine’s June issue has a map showing the top job growth areas in 11 industries, Fresno was listed as an emerging industry center for analytical instruments.
http://fresnobeehive.com/assets_c/2011/05/Wired_Fresno-47699.html
Here’s the right link:
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/22/3642782/pull-plug-on-high-speed-rail-why.html
Jeff Barker furnished a copy of the letter from the DOT. It can now be found and read by everyone at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/56275077/Kienitz-Letter-to-CHSRA-5-11
This letter hardly proves the LAO wrong. Not at all. What it does prove is the Feds are controlling the project.
They are unwilling to accept further delay.
They are unwilling to accept starting somewhere else
They are unwilling to change funding such that Prop 1A funds might not be used.
So how will our state legislators react? That indeed is the big question.
Peter Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
The feds aren’t controlling the project. They just put strings on their award of billions of dollars. Wouldn’t you put some sort of strings on billions of dollars that YOU gave to someone? All they’re saying is that California has a use-it-or-lose-it time limit on the funds, and that California can’t use the funds to simply upgrade existing commuter lines (which would defeat the purpose of the H and the S in HSR).
I think the real issue is more like some elements in the Legislature are peeved that THEY are not controlling the project.
joe Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
The LAO was incompetently wrong. They were not even paying attention to the terms of the Federal funding terms and wished away reality and the failures of several other governors to reprogram their money.
How will CA Legislature react? In the Great Recession with 20% unemployment in the Central Valley – They’ll take the funding and build the nation’s first HSR compatible segment.
And a clue to Morris: Federal Money is year sensitive. You don’t have a bank where they put the funds. It’s use it or lose it.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
Since the Leg. Analyst argued that the Fed’s would likely be willing to accept starting somewhere else and would be willing to accept delay, how can it be said that “this letter hardly proves the LAO wrong. Not at all.”
It debunks a core premise of the analysis, that the Federal high speed rail money could be diverted to glorified commuter rail projects instead.
peninsula Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 4:35 pm
The Leg analyst didn’t argue the Feds WOULD, LAO argued that the Feds COULD (might) provide flexibility on timing and location, and they argued that IF they did not, then the project isn’t viable. There is no “debunking’ of a core premise of the LOA analysis in the Fed’s response – to the contrary, in fact the core premise of the analysis has gotten even stronger – that the feds have put unrealistic parameters on the project, and now we learn for a fact that the fed’s parameters are inflexible. I think this is great news because it provides quite a bit of clarity to legislators who now have a leg to stand on when they say – the feds painted us in to a corner – the program the Feds are requiring doesn’t meet our law, and so we have to turn it down.
This now is perfect air cover for many legislators (republicans who have been bucking their party in supporting HSR, and perhaps some democrats who have had to buck their party to fight CHSRA’s BS) and perhaps even Gov Brown who may now say, “Gee we would have LOVED to do that, but our voters have mandated the parameters we have to meet to build HSR with crystal clarity – and this just doesn’t qualify under our state law.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
As if there are no lawyers at the FRA who didn’t discuss this at length before the grant was approved. If California wants to shoot itself in the foot there’s projects all over the Northeast and Midwest ready to turn dirt.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
The Leg. Analyst presented that as a conclusion rather than as a premise. However, if you insist that they assumed their conclusion in at the outset, I’ll go along with that.
As far as the balance, lots of people play lawyer on the internet, normally explaining why the interpretation most favorable to their preferred policy is clearly and unambiguously the only possible interpretation. I’ll believe your interpretation when it passes muster with a judge.
Peter Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Heh, you REALLY think Gov. BROWN is going to stop supporting HSR? After having supported it for decades? Seriously?
joe Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
“The Leg analyst didn’t argue the Feds WOULD, LAO argued that the Feds COULD (might) provide flexibility on timing and location, ”
You mean “Could” as in, “We could fly if we had wings.” Qwll we don’t have wings and ARRA money is reprogrammable.
The LAO don’t pay any attention to the ARR Act. The core premise is the federal awards were reprogrammable. FAIL.
Now maybe we could argue the ALO was aware it would lose Billions n Federal Funding but thought that was okay.
Spokker Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
You’ve made no argument as to why the LAO should consider the ARRA rules at all, unless you feel the end goal is to accept federal money for the sake of accepting federal money.
If the feds were fronting the money to build another marginally beneficial freeway with ARRA funds, I’d say that we don’t need this brand new freeway but we need transit, reject the money and screw the ARRA if they didn’t give us transit.
joe Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:19 pm
“You’ve made no argument as to why the LAO should consider the ARRA rules at all, unless you feel the end goal is to accept federal money for the sake of accepting federal money.”
We accepted federal funding for HSR and after a successful proposal. That proposal is consistent with the HSR Plan for CA.
We have billions to build that segment now. WTF else is there?
BruceMcF Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
It was the decision of the LAO to include the prospect of reprogramming the federal funding as part of its analysis. That suggests that it was understood that the policy being pushed of raising high speed rail funds for commuter rail does not work if there are no funds to raid.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
How will they react? You have a bunch of Democrats in the legislature and a Democratic governor and a project that is strongly backed by a Democratic president.
Anyone who thinks those California Democrats would agree to undermine the Democratic president on this is nuts.
Sacramento will not side with Joe Simitian and Alan Lowenthal over Barack Obama.
joe Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:26 pm
Joe Simitian and Alan Lowenthal with the LAO Report FTW! ha ha ha.
Rep. Mike Honda is also strongly behind HSR and Nancy What’s-Her-Name-Again too.
She’s the former Speaker of the House and current Minority Leader for the Dems which, after NY-26′s historic upset might be in control by late 2012, the time HSR begins construction.
Obviously, it’s time to quit HSR because there’s no hope for future funding ever.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
I said it a few days ago but it is worth repeating: Nancy Pelosi could be speaker again as soon as January 2013. Polling shows Dems lead the generic Congressional ballot and the NY-26 special election indicates the gains could be big.
J. Wong Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Well, we can hope, but don’t count your chickens.
VBobier Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 11:35 pm
How true, It’s too soon, But We can wish and hope for the best to happen.
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Nancy won’t make a comeback in 2013, but that’s because redistricting is going to pit a lot of established Democrats against each other. Urban centers lost so much population in the census that districts are going to stretch out. In Eshoo’s case, you have to figure that she knows Honda and Pelosi want pieces of her district, so by railing against HSR and for Cal Train she’s trying to fend them off.
wu ming Reply:
May 27th, 2011 at 10:19 am
urban districts are so packed with democrats that expanding them out will quite likely help dems, not hurt them.
The comments on Daniel Krause’s editorial are maddening:
“The Redneck Express (between Bakersfield and Madera) looks the be just what the Central Valley needs to create some construction jobs.
I just hope the train does not blow the skirts off all those trailers out there as it zooms by.”
“If this project was sooooo good, where are all the private investors?”
“When its built, the trains and ticket sellers will not total that many. After all the depot stops get added, I seriously doubt the train could make the projected 3 hour run to LA from SF. I’ve ridden the bullet train in England…”
“You can’t get from L.A. to frisco in 3 hours by going through the valley. If someone wants to “slow down and continue past Madera to the Bay Area” they should take Amtrak or Greyhound.”
“The voters approved the $9 billion boondoggle because California voters are often very stupid.”
And my personal favorite:
“There will never be a need to have high speed rail in the valley for the next century. There are already 100,000 jobs being produced in the valley right now and most of them are being worked by illegals.”
Ugh.
Peter Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
You need to read the comments on yahoo news articles if you really want to cry.
Spokker Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
They think that once you get rid of the Mexicans, white people will be able to pick beans for $40 an hour.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
They are going to shocked when the Mexicans like the Irish, Italians and Poles .. and Okies… before them become “white”.. whatever that means.
political_incorrectness Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Misinformation and FUD, if they got the money, they should go to Spain, Japan, China, etc. That is really the only way you can see if you want a high-speed train, actually experience it.
Starting in the Central Valley is one of the high points right now. Good to see the Feds not budging on this.
VBobier Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
A line has been drawn in the sand by the DOT, Nimbys cross It at their peril…
Spokker Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
Yup. The feds couldn’t care less about NIMBY problems on the Peninsula. They are already heavily subsidize the agriculture industry, so it’s not like farmers can start whining about being treated poorly.
VBobier Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
I never said anything about the Peninsula…
Great news.
I had a letter published in Sunday’s Fresno Bee that made points similar to Daniel’s but I’m too much of a Luddite tard to figure out the link.
Arthur Dent Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Roger’s Letter.
Matthew Melzer Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Great letter, Roger! Here it is: http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/05/22/2396004/start-rail-in-valley.html
The letter from the Feds is great news for opponents of CHSR and Nimby’s. It puts to rest any half baked idea that starting the project somewhere else might make it a viable project. And so it shuts down the CHSRA from keeping any doors cracked open that would allow them to prolong the entire process on this premise, while they scheme and bilk.
It also plays quite neatly and perfectly (very timely actually), into backup for the decision that the California State legislators will ultimately be required to make – that the CV is not qualified for the AB3034 bond funding, under the very specific parameters of AB3034, and so they can not under law appropriate those bond funds for this segment – even if they wanted to. AND, now there’s no outstanding questions left about whether those federal funds can be applied elsewhere. It makes quite clear that the State legislators are left with no choice, and as such really don’t even have to waste another dime on the development of that CV segment.
thatbruce Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Ok, I’ll bite. How does the CV section of the CAHSR line, the section which Federal money is being put into, not meet the criteria of AB3034 funding?
peninsula Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Ok. Ill copy and paste it again, but really you ought to go get yourself a bookmark on the AB3034 legislation
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_3001-3050/ab_3034_bill_20080826_chaptered.pdf
In a nutshell, the CV segment proposed by CHSRA/Van Arks own words is not going to be (not even intended to be) a fully funded completed usable segment, suitable and ready for HSR revenue service that can operate without state, federal or local subsidy. One of many examples of where it fails the AB3034 criteria – doesn’t include electrification.
2704.08….
…(c) (1) No later than 90 days prior to the submittal to the Legislature and the Governor of the initial request for appropriation of proceeds of bonds authorized by this chapter for any eligible capital costs on each corridor, or usable segment thereof, identified in subdivision (b) of Section 2704.04, other than costs described in subdivision (g), the authority shall have approved and submitted to the Director of Finance, the peer review group established pursuant to Section 185035 of the Public Utilities Code, and the policy committees with jurisdiction over transportation matters and the fiscal committees in both houses of the Legislature, a detailed funding plan for that corridor or a usable segment thereof.
(2) The plan shall include, identify, or certify to all of the following:
(A) The corridor, or usable segment thereof, in which the authority is proposing to invest bond proceeds.
(B) A description of the expected terms and conditions associated with any lease agreement or franchise agreement proposed to be entered into by the authority and any other party for the construction or operation of passenger train service along the corridor or usable segment thereof.
(C) The estimated full cost of constructing the corridor or usable segment thereof, including an estimate of cost escalation during construction and appropriate reserves for contingencies.
91
Ch. 267 — 8 —
(D) The sources of all funds to be invested in the corridor, or usable segment thereof, and the anticipated time of receipt of those funds based on expected commitments, authorizations, agreements, allocations, or other means.
(E) The projected ridership and operating revenue estimate based on projected high-speed passenger train operations on the corridor or usable segment.
(F) All known or foreseeable risks associated with the construction and operation of high-speed passenger train service along the corridor or usable segment thereof and the process and actions the authority will undertake to manage those risks.
(G) Construction of the corridor or usable segment thereof can be completed as proposed in the plan.
(H) The corridor or usable segment thereof would be suitable and ready for high-speed train operation.
(I) One or more passenger service providers can begin using the tracks or stations for passenger train service.
(J) The planned passenger service by the authority in the corridor or usable segment thereof will not require a local, state, or federal operating subsidy.
(K) Theauthorityhascompletedallnecessaryprojectlevelenvironmental clearances necessary to proceed to construction.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Reducing your argument to the absurd: HSR has to instantaneously spring full blown from the bosom of the earth before the Legislature can release funding.
peninsula Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
First of all – its not MY argument. Its the law.
Second of all – that’s the argument. The argument (the law) says they have to be prepared to build in complete usable segments of HSR that can operate without subsidy. The legislature is allowed to release bond funding when the CHSRA brings to them fully funded plans for complete usable segments that can operate without subsidy.
peninsula Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
s/b that’s not the argument…
Alan Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
So the CHSRA, the FRA, and the legislature have been moving forward this whole time in blissful ignorance of the requirements of AB3034? That’s a load of crap. AB3034 is the whole reason they’re planning the connections to the BNSF at either end. Without that requirement, the first sections could just sit there enjoying the sunshine until everything else is ready. But that’s not the case.
Peter Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
I thought ARRA’s “independent utility” requirements were why they’re planning the links to BNSF. They wouldn’t even be bothering with planning those connections if it weren’t for ARRA. They would just focus on the remaining sections that need to be built.
peninsula Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
The Federal stipulation for independent utility is the reason they’re planning to connect to BNSF at either end. That is NOT a completed usable segment of HSR. Why they are going ahead with their planning in defiance of AB3034 compliance? – that’s a GREAT question. Let me know when you get an answer.
ARRA’s independent utility requirement is not in lieu of AB3034, but CHSRA keeps spouting off as such. The real answer here is that they assume that once $3B shows up the minor issue of being out of compliance with AB3034 will be swept under the rug. Well, they stirred up just the right mix of organized and committed opponents in the Peninsula, and in the CV farm belt – I can guarantee AB3034 will come to great use shortly.
joe Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
The entities charged within the law to carry out their duties are going to approve the useable segment. It is silly to suggest otherwise.
J. Wong Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
@peninsula, I believe that the Authority doesn’t believe that what they are planning will be out-of-compliance with AB3034. Since I trust that they have paid lawyers to validate this interpretation, I think that answers your question. They are certainly (my opinion) more likely to be on solid legal footing than you and your opinions.
thatbruce Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 10:08 am
The Federal stipulation for independent utility is the reason they’re planning to connect to BNSF at either end. That is NOT a completed usable segment of HSR.
You’re still stuck on ‘at the conclusion of the expenditure of the Federal funding, it must be ready for HSR service’. None of the Federal grants, AB3034 and the CAHSRA make that assertion. When a given segment of track is deemed ready for HSR service, it then becomes a ‘usable segment’ and so forth.
The ‘independent utility’ section is a superset of the AB3034 ‘usable segment’ and the required connecting tracks to meet the conditions of the Federal money. In graphical terms:
|—- length of ‘independent utility’ section —-|
|—- length of ‘usable segment’ section —–|
The difference in length is the connecting tracks at each end, which incidentally can be constructed using AB3034 funding (under ‘acquisition of interests in real property and right-of-way and improvement thereof ‘ in case you wanted to argue that point).
Your tactics at the moment can be reduced to one of continual (and dare I say, pointless) delay in the hope that the deadlines for the Federal funding will be missed.
peninsula Reply:
May 27th, 2011 at 10:19 am
your making shit up that I’m not saying – but go right ahead on – stay in your little bubble of denial. You’re either being deliberately obtuse. Or you’re just obtuse. I’m saying that the authority must bring a 100% plan for a complete usable segment of HSR, that will be ready for HSR service upon completion of that plan, and they need to show the source for 100% of the funding for that plan. All sources of funding must be shown for a usable completable HSR ready segment – Before they can get ab3034 bonds appropriated. They currently have a plan for a segment that will not be hsr ready upon completion of that plan. For one, it will not be electrified. If they were to bring that plan to a level that will be an HSR ready complete usable segment, then the current federal funding + assumed bond matching won’t be enough. In ANY case (even if they created that complete usable segment plan, and found 100% of the funding) – that ‘usable segment” will STILL not qualify under AB3034, because it DOES NOT have the ridership as a complete usable segment, to support that it could run as a non-subsidized complete usable segment of HSR.
Independent utility – as required by the FEDs, by the way is only whether it can connect to some other type of rail service (or even other kinds of improvements to existing rail) Independent Utility has nothing to do with length.
Usable segment of HSR has nothing to do with length. A Usable segment is defined by AB3034, and includes at least two stations, includes electrification, can run HST (etc). The feds require independent utility – which is NOT ENOUGH to satisfy AB3034. AB3034 doesn’t just require that it be built to connect to any kind of rail. AB3034 voters mandated that bonds can ONLY BE USED FOR HSR – built in complete usable segments.
By the way, in order to have a usable segment of HSR… Does high speed rail need to be maintained? Does a usable, ready, completed segment of HSR require some maintenance facility? Food for thought.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 27th, 2011 at 10:35 am
Except that “ready for HSR service upon completion of any usable segment” is being added by you. What is built must be ready and able for HSR service, and the usable segment must be usable by one or more passenger rail operators when it is completed, but nowhere does it specify that the passenger rail in the second part of that has to be an HSR service.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 27th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Bruce, they want it to erupt from the bosom of the earth instantaneously from San Francisco or Anaheim. Even without that reductio ad absurdum if you follow the logic of the people claiming it’s not eligible for AB204 funding the Authority can’t plan to install tracks in 2015, signals in 2016 and catenary in 2017. Or alternately that they can’t do out and grade the ROW until after the catenary is installed. But they can’t install catenary until the ROW is graded. If someone decides to file a lawsuit the judge is going to slap them silly.
thatbruce Reply:
May 27th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
your making shit up that I’m not saying – but go right ahead on – stay in your little bubble of denial. You’re either being deliberately obtuse. Or you’re just obtuse.
Oh, fun. Sounds like the common ‘No, YOU!’ that one hears on the playground.
I’m saying that the authority must bring a 100% plan for a complete usable segment of HSR, that will be ready for HSR service upon completion of that plan, and they need to show the source for 100% of the funding for that plan. All sources of funding must be shown for a usable completable HSR ready segment – Before they can get ab3034 bonds appropriated.
You’re saying a lot of words, but in a fashion designed to delay the project. Which specific clause in AB3034 says that any request for funding must, together with matching (or more) funding from other sources, result in a completed usable segment? The section in AB3034 covering the procedure for making requests for funding does not rule out the possibility of making a number of requests for the same corridor or usable segment, eg, one request for track (with the existing Federal money), another request for electrification/signaling, yet another for stations etc.
Let’s go through the requirements of 2704.08(c) again. I’ve paraphrased some of them in the interests of brevity.
(1) Within the previous 30 months before a request for AB3034 funding, a detailed plan is to be submitted.
This is the deadline for submission of the plan. It could be submitted the day before the actual request.
(2) The plan shall cover:
(A) The corridor or usable segment which the funds requested will be used on.
We want to build here, and it will be part of this larger corridor.
(B) Expected Terms and Conditions for any possible passenger train operation along the corridor or usable segment thereof.
We will charge an access fee of $X per mile and/or passenger carried, and the operator shall adhere to these on-time requirements. But these terms might change later, as these are only the expected terms, and the operator may have other requirements.
(C) The estimated full cost of constructing the corridor or usable segment thereof.
$Lots.
The request for AB3034 funding cannot be more than 50% of this amount. Note that multiple requests can be made over time for the same corridor or usable segments, as AB3034 does not say that each request (plus up to the same amount of the request from non-AB3034 sources) must result in a completed usable segment.
(D) The sources of all funds to be invested in the corridor, or usable segment thereof, and the anticipated time of receipt of those funds based on expected commitments, authorizations, agreements, allocations, or other means.
This point, which I’ve quoted in full rather than paraphrasing, seems to be your biggest issue. In noting the word ‘expected’ in there, what I suspect the CAHSRA will do for this initial request is provide an itemized list of:
ROW, Grading, Track: Federal Funding (‘independent utility’) and AB3034 equal match (this request).
Electrification, Signaling: Future Federal Funding, AB3034 matching (future request), to be identified private investment.
Stations: Future Federal Funding, AB3034 matching (future request), local cities, to be identified private investment.
Maintenance Facility: Future Federal Funding, AB3034 matching (future request), to be identified private investment (HST manufacturer, local business),
with various dates added in based on their expectations.
Of course, the CAHSRA cannot make any request until the environmental clearances have been completed, so my speculative comments about what might be in the request are, like your own, merely speculation.
(E) The projected ridership and operating revenue estimate based
on projected high-speed passenger train operations on the corridor or
usable segment.
I’ve mentioned this before. The CAHSRA does not have to generate or show ridership studies for an individual ‘usable segment’. There is the option of showing the ridership studies, which they already have, for the corridor(s) that will be using that ‘usable segment’.
(F) All known or foreseeable risks associated with the construction and operation of high-speed passenger train service along the corridor or usable segment thereof and the process and actions the authority will undertake to manage those risks.
We expect that there will be a few unforseen ground subsidences, and one of the trains will fail to stop where it should during testing. Some idiot will intentionally get jammed in a door delaying a train’s departure, and various people will spread FUD about the project.
(G) Construction of the corridor or usable segment thereof can be completed as proposed in the plan.
Yes, we can construct this according to the plan proposed, with this request for track, and future requests for other stuff.
(H) The corridor or usable segment thereof would be suitable and ready for high-speed train operation.
(I) One or more passenger service providers can begin using the tracks or stations for passenger train service.
(J) The planned passenger service by the authority in the corridor or usable segment thereof will not require a local, state, or federal operating subsidy.
After the completion of all steps, including the aforementioned future steps, are completed, the usable segment will be ready for HSR operation, and passenger operators can safely begin operation without a governmental subsidy.
(K) The authority has completed all necessary project level environmental clearances necessary to proceed to construction.
Yes, here are the required clearances for this particular request, just the track construction.
In ANY case (even if they created that complete usable segment plan, and found 100% of the funding) – that ‘usable segment” will STILL not qualify under AB3034, because it DOES NOT have the ridership as a complete usable segment, to support that it could run as a non-subsidized complete usable segment of HSR.
You did note my comment earlier (May 26th, 2011 at 10:23 am) where I pointed out, from your quote, that the CAHSRA does not need to show ridership for an individual segment, as they have the option of showing ridership for the corridor(s) which the segment is part of? That little clause negates the ridership studies part of your argument.
Usable segment of HSR has nothing to do with length. A Usable segment is defined by AB3034, and includes at least two stations, includes electrification, can run HST (etc). The feds require independent utility – which is NOT ENOUGH to satisfy AB3034. AB3034 doesn’t just require that it be built to connect to any kind of rail. AB3034 voters mandated that bonds can ONLY BE USED FOR HSR – built in complete usable segments.
Here we go again.
The illustration regarding length is to demonstrate that the same section of track can be both the Federal ‘independent utility’ and AB3034 ‘usable segment’. One is a subset, that is, shorter, than the other, as the connecting tracks wouldn’t be considered part of the ‘usable segment’, but those same connecting tracks would be considered part of the ‘independent utility’ section.
Note that this treatment of the same length of track as two slightly different usage type might permit a governmental subsidized service (such as the San Joaquins) to use the ‘independent utility’ portion of the corridor, modulus details such as compatible signaling, load limits etc.
By the way, in order to have a usable segment of HSR… Does high speed rail need to be maintained? Does a usable, ready, completed segment of HSR require some maintenance facility?
You seem to be leading towards usage of the clause ‘Proceeds of bonds authorized pursuant to this chapter shall not be used for any operating or maintenance costs of trains or facilities’ to illustrate why AB3034 funding cannot be used to construct any part of a maintenance facility. The preceding paragraph does cover that explicitly, in particular ‘Capital costs payable or reimbursable from proceeds of bonds … include, with respect to the high-speed train system or any portion thereof, … other related capital facilities and equipment’ .
Having expended this effort towards refuting your arguments, I must admit that I have no ‘in’ with the CAHSRA. I do not know what they are going to request, how many requests they are going to make for this segment or what flavor of icecream is preferred. Like yourself, I am not a lawyer, and also like yourself, do not precisely know the legality of any proposed action against possible interpretations of AB3034. All of us can selectively quote AB3034 to match our preferred viewpoints (we’re right and you’re wrong incidentally ;) ), but we are not the ones who will be making the ultimate decisions.
For all we know, the CAHSRA might make a valid request invoking a separate section of AB3034 for this initial segment, without needing to supply a plan or your requirement for a completed ‘usable segment’.
Peter Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
No, it IS an argument, namely a legal argument. Claiming the law is, or should be interpreted in, a certain way is in fact the very essence of a legal argument. Quoting from AB3034 doesn’t change the fact that you are in fact making a legal argument.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
If Amtrak runs subsidized diesel trains over it while they are specing out catenary for a few years why should the Legislature care? The High Speed Rail Authority won’t be writing the subsidy checks. They will be busy specing out the catenary.
Winston Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
It doesn’t say that. It says that the Authority cannot run subsidized trains and that it must build segments that someone can operate a train over.
peninsula Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
No, its says segments that someone can run HSR over.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 7:31 pm
It doesn’t define when though. If they lay track in 2015 they don’t have to simultaneously erct catenary and a sophisticated signal system. They could if they wanted to run a steam train, one, without any signals at all, for a decade. ( If there’s only one train you don’t need signals, it cannot run into another train if there are no other trains. ) Or HiRail pickup trucks. Or just let bask in the sun rusting quietly.
peninsula Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 7:55 pm
It says they have to bring to the legislature a fully funded plan for a completed usable segment, that can be completed with that plan, that identifies the source of the funds and the terms of the agreements for those funds.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
Sez you. A judge might disagree.
morris brown Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
Sorry adrondacker1280 you are wrong. AB-3034 clearly states that funding must
be in place to build a “usage segment”, before construction can start.
You should note, vanArk doesn’t use the words “usable segment”, but “initial
construction segment.” Twice in Authority board meetings, the legality of this was
raised, once by Diridon, and once by Umberg. The Attorney General office begged
off on giving an answer. If vanArk continues to try and lay down
as much tracks as possible and does not include a “usable segment”, funding from Prop 1A bonds would be illegal, and would be challenged in court.
vanArk is trying to stretch the limited funding as far as possible so as to claim
what he is building and what may very well build the only thing he could ever build,
is not a “train to nowhere?
The difference in cost between completing a usable segment, which wold include the electrical, PTC, signaling etc, is about 26 – 30% extra in cost.
Nathanael Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
Your percentages are way off. As usual, because you’re usually lying, Morris.
The additional cost for a usable segment (electrical, PTC, signalling) is simply not a percentage of the cost, because unlike the ROW construction, *large portions of it are not proportional to distance*. It’s one big lump of fixed cost for the signalling, basically; the wire laying is the smallest part of the cost, with expertise being the largest part. Electrification is a bit more proportional to distance.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 27th, 2011 at 10:37 am
But when it specifies that the usable segment must be able to be used by one or more passenger rail operators on completion, that condition does not specify HSR.
J. Wong Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Yes, well then it will hinge on whether that means it must have catenary or if it is sufficient to have grade separation and alignment so that HSR can run over it (at full speed).
As for subsidized trains, I believe that only applies to what the Authority is planning to run, which is HSR. If subsidized California Amtrak (California subsidized) can be run on it and is allowed to, then so be it, the Authority never planned to run those trains on the segment.
peninsula Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
Wong – “only applies to what the authority is planning to run which is HSR” – I don’t disagree, however in order to get the bonds appropriated they do have to show the legislature that HSR on this usable segment has a ridership study that supports it as a usable segment that COULD operate without subsidy. They don’t even pretend to claim this for this CV segment.
J. Wong Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
So all this means is that they will have to have a ridership study when they ask for the money, which I’m sure you’re thinking they couldn’t possibly do. But they haven’t asked for the money yet, and I bet that a study is being undertaken even as we write (metaphorically since it is outside of working hours right now). And the study will show that ridership for the CV segment as part of the full build-out will not require a subsidy.
peninsula Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
No, its not ridership as part of the full buildout that AB3034 requires. Its ridership for this usable segment.
-The projected ridership and operating revenue estimate based on projected high-speed passenger train operations on the corridor or usable segment.
and
-The planned passenger service by the authority in the corridor or usable segment thereof will not require a local, state, or federal operating subsidy.
J. Wong Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:26 pm
@peninsula, it’s just your opinion that they won’t be able to show non-subsidized service in the study. Other than what you believe, do you have any evidence of this?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:38 pm
If Amtrak California is running the service the Authority won’t be cutting or receiving subsidy checks .
Joey Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:44 pm
The authority would never be receiving subsidy checks. They were never intended to be the operator of the trackage they built.
thatbruce Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 10:23 am
@peninsula:
No, its not ridership as part of the full buildout that AB3034 requires. Its ridership for this usable segment.
you then quoted AB3034 2704.08(c)(2)(E) as your source for this assertion:
The projected ridership and operating revenue estimate based on projected high-speed passenger train operations on the corridor or usable segment.
Please note the word ‘or’ that I’ve highlighted from your quote. That means that the existing ridership studies for the phase 1 corridor, San Francisco to Los Angeles, can be used to generate the required ridership and revenue estimates over this, initial, Central Valley ‘usable segment’.
( One could also use ridership studies for phase 2 corridors that also use this segment. That might be stretching it for this initial segment however )
Note also that AB3034 is silent on the possible issue of ridership studies being required for any service operated over the track under the ‘independent utility’ clause, but that’s separate from this discussion.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
No, they have to show that the HSR services they plan to operate.
(1) They do have to have a plan to operate a subsidy-free HSR service using the usable segment
(2) The usable segment does have to be able to host one or more passenger services
But (1) and (2) do not have to be the same service. (2) can be subsidized Amtrak, and (1) can be either a preliminary unsubsidized HSR service or the full Stage 1 service.
You are merging two distinct parts in your head, but in the text of Prop1a(2008), they remain two distinct parts.
Clem Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
That’s a ridiculous interpretation of the law. Egg may not hatch until a fully grown chicken comes out. Good luck not getting laughed out of court, which is where this little matter will be settled.
J. Wong Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:52 pm
I expect that the Attorney General (Kamala Harris, a San Francisco Democrat) will weigh in on compliance with AB3404. If she signs off on it, and the Legislature releases the funds, then it will never see a judge. They’ll be thrown out of court over a little matter of standing.
Spokker Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
Is the intent of the law to get an HSR line built or is the intent of the law to block HSR forever with unrealistic goals?
I predict the law will be interpreted as the former.
thatbruce Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Ah, you want to play the “it won’t have revenue service from day 1, therefore it shouldn’t be constructed at all” game.
There are two completion dates here. One is for the construction of the section utilizing the Federal funding. This funding comes with the proviso that the section has ‘independent utility’, meaning that it can be used separate from any conditionals present in AB3034. The common interpretation of this is that the newly constructed tracks can be hooked up at either end to existing tracks, and services using FRA-like equipment can be run over it, for instance the state-subsidized San Joaquins. This completion date is set by the Federal Government, and only has to include things such as the track and basic signaling.
The second completion date is for the augmentation of the same section using AB3034 funding. This date, which will be after the first date, is when the electrification, advanced signaling, stations and so forth are considered ‘ready’ to be used for revenue CAHSR service. Note that the amount of AB3034 funding expended on this section can only be up to the amount of the Federal money expended (2704.08(a) ).
After the second date, you are correct in that any local, state or federally-subsidized service cannot be operated over that segment. Between the first and second dates however, there is ample opportunity for state-subsidized services to be operated over it, HSR trainsets to be tested and so forth.
Note that 2704.08(b)(2)(J) rejects services requiring an operating subsidy, but does not place any onus towards services paying back the construction cost. In the absence of any connecting segments, the ticket prices for HSR service on just the CV segment will be higher than they would with the CV segment being part of a larger system, but still affordable. Add in the connecting segments, and the ticket prices start to go down.
Since you haven’t answered it, I’ll repeat my question: How does the CV section of the CAHSR line, the section which Federal money is being put into, not meet the criteria of AB3034 funding?
thatbruce Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
That’s 2704.08(c)(2)(J).
thatbruce Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
All a bit moot actually, 2704.08(i) reads:
No failure to comply with this section shall affect the validity of the bonds issued under this chapter.
Which can be taken as meaning “if the trains don’t make a profit on day 1, that’s ok”.
Peter Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
So, a valid argument (yes, peninsula, it is a legal argument, the same as your’s) can be made that the “requirements” of AB3034 that project opponents love to quote are in fact guidelines that the Authority should meet, but are not required to in order for bonds funds to be released.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:44 pm
It may be that means that once bonds are approved, there are no take-backs because of then falling short on one of the terms. Another thing to ask a lawyer, whether that means anything wrt first issuing the bonds.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
you are correct in that any local, state or federally-subsidized service cannot be operated over that segment.
Yeah un huh sure. Like anyone is going to pay attention to the provisions of the bond funding once the bonds are paid off. For that matter pay attention to them once all the bond money is spent. THe provision is there, like the limit on the amount of stations, to prevent politicians from demanding that their little itty bitty town get a station.
J. Wong Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
Actually, my reading is that subsidized service can be operated over that segment as long as it isn’t part of what the Authority planned, which means the San Joaquin’s can operate on it for as long as the Authority wants to let them [i.e., until HSR service starts].
peninsula Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:10 pm
That Bruce – No, read the Feds letter today. They said you don’t get the fed funds without showing up with the matching – up front.
California Legislature is not allowed to appropriate AB3034 without a fully fund plan for a complete usable segment. As far as I understand it the plan they have now (submitted for ARRA) requires about $5B or more – and that includes BOTH Fed and State matching. So they don’t even have an independent utility segment without some California matching.
That Bruce and Peter – there is no appropriation for the bond funds to begin with, without compliance to AB3034. And if they try, welcome to the courts, and pretty sure there won’t be any decisions in time for 2012. Im sure you will both continue to stick your head in the sand and argue these are ‘guidelines’. Go right on ahead. Because that’s CHSRA’s approach, and we’ll see soon how that works out for them.
Peter Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
“there is no appropriation for the bond funds to begin with, without compliance to AB3034″
Umm, unless I’m very mistaken, the Legislature controls the appropriation of state bonds. And, as stated elsewhere in this thread, section 2704.08(i) of AB3034 reads:
“No failure to comply with this section shall affect the validity of the bonds issued under this chapter.”
So, in other words, the Legislature is still authorized to appropriate the bonds, even if the first segment to be built does not meet all the requirements of AB3034 prior to the issuance of the bonds!!!
Have fun telling a court that 2704.08(i) doesn’t apply, but the remainder does. There’s a reason why there are Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief can be Granted (there’s a mouthful, and I forget what the equivalent motion in CA court is called).
peninsula Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:21 pm
No Bruce – I’m NOT talking about revenue service from day one. They don’t have to run ANY service on it.
I’m talking about the requirement that they show up with a FULLY FUNDED PLAN, to build a COMPLETED USABLE SEGMENT of HSR, that is READY to run HSR revenue service, on a segment that has the capability to run HSR without subsidy.
CV fails on the following points:
They are NOT proposing a completed usable segment of HSR
They are NOT proposing a segment that will be READY for HSR revenue operation with the plan proposed.
They are NOT proposing a segment that can run HSR without subsidy
They are NOT bringing a FULLY FUNDED plan for a completed usable segment of HSR.
They do not/will not have a ridership study that supports this segment as a non-subsidy viable HSR segment.
Nathanael Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:52 pm
There is only one problem which prevents it from being:
(1) a completed usable segment of HSR
(2) a segment that will be ready for HSR revenue operation with the plan proposed
(3) a segment that can run HSR without subsidy
(4) a fully funded plan for a completed usable segment of HSR
That problem is that they haven’t funded the electrification. I guess they need funding for a couple of high speed diesels to make the difference.
Now, if they started by building on the peninsula, they would fail because the segment wouldn’t be HSR at all (not high speed), and certainly not subsidy-free. If they started in LA, it wouldn’t be HSR and it wouldn’t be electrified. So both are WORSE options. So you seem confused.
Fresno-Bakersfield electrified high-speed is a usable segment, whatever some on the peninsula may think.
Spokker Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
And the gas tax was supposed to pay for maintenance and construction of freeways.
There are loopholes and they will be exploited and promises will be broken. It’s not really a big deal.
J. Wong Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:16 pm
@peninsula, You have not provided any evidence that supports your claims, just your opinion.
“They are NOT proposing a completed usable segment of HSR”: Yes, they are, but I grant you that this one hinges on what “suitable and ready” means. It will be “completed” in that the planned work for constructing the segment will be finished.
“They are NOT proposing a segment that will be READY for HSR revenue operation with the plan proposed.”: It doesn’t say anything about revenue operation.
“They are NOT proposing a segment that can run HSR without subsidy”: And your evidence is?
“They are NOT bringing a FULLY FUNDED plan for a completed usable segment of HSR.”: I think the ARRA response from the DOT qualifies as “fully funded”, but again the argument is whether no electrification qualifies as “suitable and ready” not “completed”. (“completed” just means they have to finish what they’re proposing for the segment for which they are to receive funds, which I believe need not include electrification.)
“They do not/will not have a ridership study that supports this segment as a non-subsidy viable HSR segment.” Wishful thinking here. They will have a ridership study by the time that they ask for the money.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
How do you know? I see claims, repetitions of the same Prop1a(2008) text we’ve seen before, and claims that the terms are violated by a plan. Which plan are you going on, the federal funds application? That has to meet the terms on the federal funding.
The plan submitted to the state? to release the bonding authority? Link?
A no-subsidy service on the valley corridor alone is no insurmountable barrier, but gaining it to your satisfaction could limit flexibility in negotiating private participation when Stage 1 is finished, and they ought to prefer retaining as much flexibility as possible, so I expect they will target satisfying legal opinions that they have received from people who are not dedicated to the proposition that it must be stopped at all costs.
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Note the language of the bill:
(2) The plan shall include, identify, or certify to all of the following:
(A) The corridor, or usable segment thereof, in which the authority is
proposing to invest bond proceeds.
(B) A description of the expected terms and conditions associated with
any lease agreement or franchise agreement proposed to be entered into by
the authority and any other party for the construction or operation of
passenger train service along the corridor or usable segment thereof.
(E) The projected ridership and operating revenue estimate based on
projected high-speed passenger train operations on the corridor or usable
segment.
(F) All known or foreseeable risks associated with the construction and
operation of high-speed passenger train service along the corridor or usable
segment thereof and the process and actions the authority will undertake to
manage those risks.
(G) Construction of the corridor or usable segment thereof can be
completed as proposed in the plan.
(H) The corridor or usable segment thereof would be suitable and ready
for high-speed train operation.
(I) One or more passenger service providers can begin using the tracks
or stations for passenger train service.
(J) The planned passenger service by the authority in the corridor or
usable segment thereof will not require a local, state, or federal operating
subsidy.
I think at the heart of the matter is Amtrak, actually. Section (I) gives them enormous leverage because by starting the CV there’s no one but them to run passenger service. However, since the Act defines high speed train and something that can go 220mph under certain conditions, then Amtrak lacks the sort of train that could do that. So that opens the door to the Authority waiting on things such as catenary.
Ultimately, I think it comes to the terms of the franchises signed. The electrification must be ready as soon as the franchiser is…..
BruceMcF Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
There may be a tendency here to smoosh together distinct points:
H, I, and J are distinct points, and do not have to each can be satisfied by the same service. That is:
(H) “suitable and ready” is certifying a capacity. (I) is a capacity, (J) is a constraint on what the Authority does.
If the Authority does not plan to run service on the segment until additional segments are completed, the constraint on subsidies is whether that service, call it “HS1″, could be subsidy free. That is a possibility with a second segment connecting to either the Caltrain or the Antelope Valley rail corridors, plus complementary work on the line connected to.
That only satisfies (I) if there is some other operator that can immediate operate services on the segment. That there would be Amtrak, if the second segment above is not completed, and whomever the HSR operator is, if the second segment above is completed.
The whole power issue boils down to whether “portion of” in the chain of definitions standing behind “usable segment” is restricted to extensive apportionment, or also includes intensive apportionment. If intensive apportionment is allowed, then the track and two stations would be a “portion”, and the fact that an operator can (capacity, mind, not “will”) use it is what “usable” in “usable segment” means.
Obviously opponents will argue that “suitable and ready” implies you can plop a HST on it and it can run … and are indeed likely to believe that even if some will argue it irrespective of whether they believe it. However, the contrasting argument will be that the definition of a suitable and ready track portion is whether it can support a HSR without requiring later modification. Similarly, that a suitable and ready power portion must be able to power the HST at the required headways, a suitable and ready signal portion must be able to provide signal control to the HST at the required headways, and so on.
As to whether or not intensive apportionment is permitted under that language ~ well, cite the precedents, on the one hand, for allowing it, or on the other hand, for excluding it. The reason a lawyer’s advise is needed is because the implication of language when it is contested is first and foremost decided by reference to legal decisions that some judge or group of judges somewhere have already made, and its the lawyers job to sort out what are the relevant precedents for the jurisdiction at hand.
There is, IOW, only ever so far that logic and parsing the text can take you, and always the point were you have to know the history of the jurisprudence to know which of several competing interpretations will stand up in court.
Which is why, when someone who is not a lawyer “knows” something like that, and what they “know” happens to be what would be most convenient to their side of the issue, that’s a brown flag that the someone “knowing” that may just be BS’ing to spread FUD among what they perceive as the opposition ranks.
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 4:12 pm
I don’t disagree. But what is Amtrak going to want in return for satisfying (I)? Probably some sort of right to negotiate for its people to be used on the high speed rail service. Now that’s Kryptonite to foreign companies because they don’t want union rules. (See Metrolink, re: Chatsworth crash) So that requires the foreign firm to run a … scenic train… between Fresno and Bakersfield that will lose money because Amtrak California IS subsidized until electrification is complete.
Thus, it’s likely that no foreign operators comes in until after the business plan is submitted. That way, Amtrak will have no choice but to use the route to keep its options open and the Authority can negotiate with foreign firms anew.
J. Wong Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Amtrak? Amtrak is only the operator of the service under contract to Caltrans.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
More services with the same rolling stock and employees because several hours are taken off a San Joaquin return service?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Lolwut
BruceMcF Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
BTW, you really figure SNCF is unwilling to operate rail services if the workers are unionized?
Really?
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
@Wong: Yes, but what if Amtrak refuses to take the San Joaquin contract from Cal Trans
@Paulus & Bruce: It is my experience that foreign companies who are operate on a contract basis, transportation or not are among the worst offenders for exploiting labor rules. (They are also, in developing countries really good at flaunting environmental laws too.)
Bottom line, the franchiser will not want to hire union workers. Look at Jet Blue.
J. Wong Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
@Risenmessiah Amtrak already has the contract for the San Joaquin. If CalTrans says now run it down this other track here, I don’t see why Amtrak would even care.
synonymouse Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
There is no way in hell the Pelosi patronage machine, the prime mover behind the CHSRA, will permit a non-union operation. Its judges will rule in favor of the unions every time.
As it is the TWU in San Francisco is trying to get the Feds to pull the funding for the myasmal Roswe Pak Memorial Central Subway because the City is finally trying to get a handle on work rules.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 27th, 2011 at 10:41 am
@Rissenmessiah ~ whether they would hire unionized workers given a choice is a quite different thing than whether they would be uninterested in bidding if they have to hire unionized workers.
They are unlikely to have to hire Amtrak workers in order to ensure that Caltrans certifies that the segment “is usable” for the San Joaquin, but they are quite likely to have to hire unionized workers, and there’ll be more than one consortium bidding who will be willing to live with that.
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 27th, 2011 at 12:03 pm
Right, but here is the thing everyone is missing:
CalTrans can run passenger service on the new track as the San Joaquin. Where the law is uncertain is if the franchise agreement is then doled out to Amtrak in DC, because they don’t have anything that can run 220mph per hour… it’s hard to argue that electrification has to be ready. BUT let’s say for sake of argument, that SNCF wins the contract. Since they have at their disposal trains that can run 220 mph, then the law would imply the route would need to include the catenary for example.
Now, that gives van Ark incentive to not award a contract yet and play everyone for fools. But because the deadline for the business plan is October, he has to either a) confront this problem b) award the franchise agreement to Amtrak or c) come up with some incredibly complicated legal partnership arrangement with someone who will very likely partner with the person we want to franchise with but is not legally obligated to do so.
In order for firms to put up with such bullshit as found in option c) they will want some sort of concession on work rules. Amtrak, not being stupid, can force the Authority’s hand by not accepting the contract to run the San Joaquins any more without some sort of quid pro quo on labor rules which will give them the upper hand in the franchise negotiations.
J. Wong Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
@peninsula Are you a lawyer? If not, what are your qualifications for your analysis?
thatbruce Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
I’m not one but find the argument easy to take apart ;)
Spokker Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:20 pm
If everyone needed qualifications to post, 99% of all Internet posts would be gone.
This is a place for people with various skill sets to speculate. You don’t need to be a lawyer to enjoy posting here or anywhere about legal matters. Nothing productive gets done on Internet forums anyway, so it doesn’t matter if people with no expertise or experience comment on anything.
J. Wong Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
I just wanted to know so I could evaluate how competent @peninsula’s legal argument is, and hence, how likely that it could hold up HSR. Not likely, I’m guessing.
Spokker Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:05 pm
What are your legal credentials? What engineering school did you go to? What is the highest level of economics class that you have taken? Is your major in political science?
You support HSR. Well, let’s see your credentials. How does it pencil out from a economic, political, engineering and legal point of view?
My partner is an attorney. Maybe I’ll ask her to give her two cents on the law.
jay taylor Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
But I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so I know what Im talking about…
J. Wong Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
@Spokker, I never claimed that I have any legal credentials, but if I’m going to trust someone’s legal opinion, I’d like to believe that they do have legal credentials. I’d love to have your partner look over the law and give her informed opinion, if she would be so kind. Thank you.
By the way, my major was Mathematics-Physics.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 8:37 am
ooh, ooh, if we are credentialing up, my doctorate is in econ, with fields in regional and development economics.
poli sci more scattered undergrad level, as part of my latin american studies major in my interdisciplinary studies degree. I also did a second degee in math. pure layman in legal and engineering, though the math helps a bit in following along the engineering.
Spokker Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Well I can play While My Guitar Gently Weeps on piano so screw ALL of you!
BruceMcF Reply:
May 27th, 2011 at 10:42 am
How about “Here comes the Sun”? That’s what we need in this part of the country right now.
J. Wong Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
It’s going to hinge on 2704.08 (c)H and the interpretation of “suitable and ready for HSR service”. I’m kind of thinking the CAHSR knows that not having catenary meets that. Note that it doesn’t say that they have to start HSR upon completion so they don’t have to have any train sets either.
Also per 2704.08 (c)H they can start running the San Joaquin’s on it, which are subsidized California Amtrak trains. The only requirement for non-subsidized service is HSR, itself.
joe Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
“The letter from the Feds is great news for opponents of CHSR and Nimby’s.”
And the loss in NY-26 is great news for Republicans.
“there is no appropriation for the bond funds to begin with, without compliance to AB3034. And if they try, welcome to the courts, and pretty sure there won’t be any decisions in time for 2012.”
Sure. Our Legislature will approve issuing bonds and they’ll crow about the billions in funding and jobs created.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
That dynamic may be why the LAO report strategy focused on trying to raid funds for commuter rail. Now that LAO strategy is off the table.
Off topic but wanted to share.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/05/high-speed_trains_0?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/thedifferenceenginefasttracktnowhere
Another short-sighted, uninformed article about high speed rail in the Economist. They act like fuel prices will never go up and oil will be plentiful for decades to come.
Peter Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Fuel prices will never go up.. Right.
Andre Peretti Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Sources mentioned in the article:
“A study carried out in 2008 by the Reason Foundation, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Citizens Against Government Waste”.
I’ve already read a similar article a dozen times under different signatures. It has nothing to do with the style of the Economist’s paper version. It could have been (and probably has been) written by Randal O’Toole or Wendel Cox. They now seem to open their blog to dubious “correspondants”, without any editorial control. A few years ago, the editors would never have allowed the magazine’s name to be associated with such rubbish. They probably need money to keep the paper edition alive.
I love it: “The Paris-Lyon-Marseille line, roughly equivalent in distance and travel time to the proposed Bay Area-to-Los Angeles basin line, operates competitively with air travel and at a profit with less population density than along the proposed California line.” We will ride trains.
J. Wong Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
It ate my link: (graphic)
Dan Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 10:36 pm
HEY!!!
How come San Diego’s 6.4million circle is so much smaller than San Francisco’s 6.4million circle ….
Wad Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 3:30 am
The circles probably represent metropolitan area commute sheds. The Bay Area’s is much larger, but I doubt San Diego has 6.4 million unless counting Imperial County and Mexico’s border cities. The MSA population is 3 million, and the U.S. does not count Mexican or Canadian border cities in its estimates for MSAs.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 11:05 am
its projected, not current ~ they may be projecting more rapid growth for San Diego.
Andre Peretti Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
It would really take mismanagement of unprecedented magnitude to make such a corridor unprofitable.
LA Times on the DOT letter:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-high-speed-rail-20110526,0,2238562.story
Note the last two paragraphs from Senator Lowenthal.
State Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), who chairs the select committee, said the project needs flexibility on the route selection and construction schedule because the projected cost already has risen from $33 billion to $43 billion and there is no long-term funding commitment from the federal government. The legislative analyst contends that the cost could rise as high as $65 billion.
“There is nothing in the letter saying the federal government would commit $17 billion to $19 billion for the project,” Lowenthal said. “If it had, we would build the Central Valley segment right now. But the state needs to be financially and fiscally responsible.”
J. Wong Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
The interesting question is whether the Legislature always follows the advice of the LAO, or how often it ignores its advice.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:38 pm
They have been known to ignore the LAO. Especially when the LAO shows they have no clue what the fuck they are talking about.
Jack Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
It’s just advice, the legislature is not going to turn down 3.9 billions dollars of federal funding that will help create much needed jobs in the most economically depressed area of the state. The PAMPA deniers couldn’t even get CV support for their FUD campaign and had to fund it themselves.
The future is bright for HSR in California.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:37 pm
Lowenthal knows the game’s up. If you have a bunch of Democrats facing an uncertain 2012 – uncertain because nobody knows what the districts will look like or what the impact of Prop 14 will be – do you think they will A) run as fast as they can into Obama’s arms or B) scorn Obama for a termed-out has-been State Senator from Long Beach?
joe Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
The uncertain districts re-enforce the fact Prop1A passed 60-40 in the three counties that contain the Peninsula NIMBYs. 60-40 favor HSR.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:42 pm
<em.But the state needs to be financially and fiscally responsible.
If he’s serious about that he should be sponsoring the legislation to repeal “Give money to old people and corporations” otherwise known as Prop 13 and repealing the 2/3rds majority rule for new taxes.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:52 pm
Yes, a switch from constant dollars to current Year of Expenditure dollars is a “projected cost increase”. It seems that the state needs to be financially and fiscally responsible but the State Senator reserves the right to present grossly irresponsible arguments aimed to mislead his constituents.
Clem Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
To be fair, the bonds are spent in YOE. $9 billion in 2008 is more money than $9 billion in 2015.
Joey Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 10:18 pm
It’s not an increase, but it begs the question of why YOE dollars aren’t used from the start, for the reason Clem said just above.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 8:31 am
You have to do the budgeting in constant dollars if you are doing the cost benefit analysis in constant dollars ~ and you have to do the cost benefit analysis as part of the EIR/EIS.
And of course, the underlying analysis will still be in constant dollars, its just that now they add a YOE conversion to each year’s figures.
The people who are comfortable with the meaning of those kinds of terms and the conversions between them are probably who you want doing the analysis, but they often lose sight of the fact that the majority of people are not comfortable with the meaning of those terms. I wonder how much technical writing was being done by people doing the analysis that in a properly staffed operation would have been done by a technical writer.
This is great. It’s going to be an interesting couple of days. The deniers know once construction starts it’s all over for their hopes of killing this project. The LAO had their faces smacked by the Fed for the petty politics they were trying to play with this project.
Good news all around for HSR! Can’t wait for the response from Lowenthal and Simitian.
Donk Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:57 pm
BUILD BABY BUILD!!!
VBobier Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 9:43 am
Oh Yeah! Let the dirt fly and the tracks laid… HSR here We come.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 10:49 pm
Their strategy, of having the LAO deliver the coup de grâce by lending legitimacy to their idea of redirecting federal funds to commuter rail projects that could never be linked together and therefore never produce true high speed rail, is now in tatters. It’s too early to declare complete victory, of course. Lots of work remains to be done. But the chances of getting the money moved from the Central Valley have now dwindled to zero. Lowenthal and Simitian now only have the Scott Walker option of rejecting the funds entirely. I can guarantee everyone – I will put money on it – that Jerry Brown, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, and many others will not allow that to happen.
Lowenthal could still succeed with his effort to blow up the CHSRA board. At this point though, that’d be a consolation prize for him. He really needed the Central Valley segment to die if his overall plan was to succeed.
VBobier Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 9:46 am
It would be nice if the legislature could preempt Lowenthal and remove Him from that position.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 12:22 pm
Lowenthal is termed out next year, thank god.
VBobier Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Still I think He needs to be removed for the sake of the project, Him and Simitian both are threats to HSR in CA and both must be removed.
joe Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 7:02 pm
He’s been removed as in let him try to run for a state wide office.
datacruncher Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
One of Lowenthal’s problems is he relies on union support. His largest contributors are mainly construction worker unions.
http://maplight.org/california/legislator/1317-alan-lowenthal
Plus, SB517 was amended to say 2 (not just 1) HSRA board members would have to represent labor unions.
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0501-0550/sb_517_bill_20110425_amended_sen_v98.html
Lowenthal may be backed into a corner over any future political career now.
If he can’t shift the money to SoCal and HSR dies the unions (especially the construction unions) will not be happy. If he wants to run again he has to keep the project alive.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
His actions towards high-speed rail are bizzare for his political background .. prior to this project.. he even sponsored an initiative in Los Angeles to limit parking spaces and carpooling, electric cars ect ect And now he comes off as anti-high-speed rail ..and no matter what he says his actions could destroy this project.. though I don’t think he wants that hung around his head.. he will just have to figure out a way to post the blame on someone else. I really think he hates Pringle and that is one of his big dislikes about high-speed rail and trying to dismantle the high-speed rail board
YesonHSR Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 9:53 am
Boxer has some kind of transportaion bill in the final works so lets see what it has for the HSR projects..Lowenthal is the worst person we could have in this positon…might as well be the woman from Dana point, He is two faced acts like he wants HSR knows fully well projects are never given all the funds up front ..yet that is now his mandate for building the valley section?…and to think he is a Democrate..and the terrible outcome if he stalls this and the money is taken back
BruceMcF Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 10:02 am
And blowing up the CHSRA board might backfire if the result is the establishment of a California Rail Development Commission, and the transfer of redundant Caltain staff into the CRDC rather than putting the CHSRA inside an organization that builds roads as a means of bureaucratic empire building.
The DOT letter clearly states the remaining existing deadlines must be met. Of course, they previously removed the deadline of September 2011 where the EIR for this section was to have been completed and certified.
The Authority still has that barrier to achieve. In addition, there will be lawsuits, on the EIR, on the legality of what they are proposing to build, and there is the major opposition in the Central Valley, that is just starting.
So if you believe construction will start next year is a done deal, you better think again.
The next test will be to see what the budget language will contain; whether the LAO’s recommendation will be used, which would for a period of time, stop the spending. Right now, they are blowing about $1 million per day.
At sometime the Governor will step in; I fully expect him to say go ahead.
LaHood is running around the country, promoting HSR everywhere. Yet the Republican controlled house is certainly not going to approve any 6 year spending plan for HSR that will come anywhere near the needed $3 billion per year this project will demand, even using the false and outdated $43 billion price tag for phase one.
And private equity won’t be forthcoming because the Feds won’t make a commitment for what is needed from them.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 7:24 am
The federal issues are real, but Republicans may not control the House for long. And besides, with Obama still providing strong support, there is little reason to believe Jerry Brown or Sacramento Democrats will side with Alan Lowenthal over their governor and their president.
joe Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 11:04 am
It’s important to recognize that congress authorizes yearly budgets.
There is no authorized “6 year spending plan for HSR” that is binding to the 2012 or 2013 budget.
Its also possible the DOT will execute it’s constitutionally protected independence and dedicate 2012 transportation funding to the CA HSR project at the request of the Chief Executive, Obama with the support of the CA Governor.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
No, while they appropriate annually, Congress normally authorizes for longer periods. We are presently running over a year past the end of the last six year transport authorization based on extending the previous authorization and tinkering around the edges.
Since there’s a lot in it for a lot of districts, and cutting “someone else’s” funds risks getting “you” funds cut in retaliation (especially with the chambers in the hands of different parties), authorized in the transport authorization are more likely to be appropriated than your random annual Presidential budget line item.
joe Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 7:01 pm
No plan or authorization is binding. Money is a year by year process. The funds are conditional each fiscal year. The fine print in any federal agreement is the availability of funds. The Feds can even take back funds within a fiscal year.
My point is the FUD we don;t have multi year money is stating the obvious – no one has multi year money.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 27th, 2011 at 10:47 am
Authorization is not funding ~ appropriation is funding. But it can’t be appropriated unless its been authorized, and the transport authorization is one of the ones that is comes closest to being fully funded in almost all years.
The question is not whether its guaranteed but whether its likely. Its far more likely to be available if its in a new six year transport authorization than if its not. But then again, odds are even or better that won’t be until 2013, and so predictions about what will or will not be in the six year authorization bill are dubious ~ and if a transport authorization does pass, it will not be dictated by the House but negotiated between the House, Senate and White House, so predictions on what will or will not be in the transport authorization are doubly dubious.
Jack Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 9:35 am
If your example of major opposition is two trailers with canvas covering on the 99, that was funded by your friends in Burlingame you have a tough row to hoe ahead of you….
The people here know the benefits of HSR. Most of your so called opposition is just posturing so land owners can get the highest price. They use the same stratagem when any development could result in land purchase/takings.
I suspect your trumped up opposition has to do with your massive fears that if HSR can be built in the mostly Republican Central Valley with key Republican leaders leading the charge, what hope does PAMPA have…
Good luck we know our game, I’ll see you at the groundbreaking in 2012!
VBobier Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 9:42 am
What hope does PAMPA have? Umm, None. PAMPA better prepare to be bulldozed, Cause the opposition looks pretty weak.
VBobier Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 9:38 am
Well now, that You’ve detailed your Fantasy, Reality may bite You, It tends to do what It wants and Reality says Repubs may be locked into a fatal crash dive cause of the Ryan plan and Democrats are aware of It, So We shall see, As people like their Government Benefits, A lot and Repubs in power are in serious denial on this and It’s most likely terminal…
Who does Eric Thronson think he is? Does he think he can defy the federal government?
BruceMcF Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 11:04 am
Well, he argued that the State of California could dictate abandoning an Express HSR segment in favor of slower segment because the Federal government wants the Express HSR so much. So it may be that he had talked himself into believe that (a) it wasn’t really defying the Federal government and (ii) that, yes, he could in fact tell the Federal government “its a nice little HSR system you were funding here, shame if something would happen to it.”
joe Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
Eric is a useful tool. He provided political cover for a grab at HSR’s successful ARRA proposal.
This is not an uncommon tactic. If successful, it undermines an organization.
Savvy “political” players poach on the resources of successful individuals or groups.
My advice is to always resist and force the savvy individual/group to appeal to authority and act on transferring the resources.
Often it’s a bluff.
Robert,
Part of my concern in all of this, about defending the Central Valley, is that you can show the MSA statistics day and night but, to folks in the Bay Area or LA-OC-SD, the Central Valley is still the middle of nowhere. I know when I think about it intellectually that it’s not the middle of nowhere, but I’ve been in the Central Valley only for a potty break on LA-SF trips. (“potty break” being the technical term here). I know the Central Valley as either the McDonalds on the 5 that we always seem to stop at, or the Denny’s that refused to seat our family because of my wheelchair (seriously). You are not going to convince people that a Central Valley-based HSR project is a good idea, and I fear that by beating the “Central Valley isn’t nowhere” point to death, you may actually distract people from the reality that you have to start building somewhere and that building in the Central Valley first allows CAHSR to put out RFPs for trainsets and test station configurations prior to the somewhat-more-complex end stages are completed.
CAHSRA isn’t going to change the world here – mightn’t it be be better to focus appeals to Coastal voters on instead describing this as merely the first step, that to build an 85-story building you still have to start with a basement and a foundation?
Anyhow, I’ve just been disappointed in all of this. I don’t exactly hold an LAO frequent reader card but in general I had thought that Mac Taylor was on the up-and-up. His reports, when they come to policy, sometimes attempt to metaphorically split the baby but, at least when discussing pure financial matters, he seemed to be pretty respectable about describing reality in plain English as opposed to pushing one faction’s views. Is this a report that slipped out without his editing or is there another story here? I know that CA4HSR seems to be piling onto the LAO on the whole but the reality is that this report, particularly its foray into attempting to dictate policy, is highly unusual. The reports I’ve seen from them prior to this seemed to instead let the facts speak for themselves – “If you do (A), the California fiscal picture will likely be (X), but if you do (B), then (Y) will happen” – and then letting those fiscal projections speak for themselves. It strikes me as unusual for the LAO to instead advocate for a certain policy as opposed to simply describing the possibilities and their potential repercussions. The report is probably wrong, yes, but it’s also highly unusual.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
What gall you have to come here when your pulling little stunts like this…http://www.hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/article_17d963cc-87b1-11e0-8813-001cc4c002e0.html...
You and the Burlingame NIMBY that comes here and acts nice and polite..then spreads BS fear stories
YesonHSR Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Unless of course your not that one..
YesonHSR Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Sorry this person is not you.. thou he has been here and uses the same name
wu ming Reply:
May 27th, 2011 at 10:27 am
shorter aaron: the 4 million people in the central valley are nobodies. gotcha.
OT: Seeking private HSR, Mica aims to take NEC away from Amtrak
jim Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Maryland (for MARC), Pennsylvania (for SEPTA), New Jersey (for NJT), New York (for LIRR and MetroNorth) and Massachusetts (for MBTA) would strongly oppose some entity they couldn’t push around owning the tracks their commuter railroads run on.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
To be fair, a rather reasonable means of acquiring HSR along that corridor. Amtrak’s proposals have been rather less than inspiring and selling a franchise would gain quite a large amount of private investment that Amtrak could not itself garner.
Clem Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Nice way to privatize the profitable bits and then kill off what’s left over because it hemorrhages red ink…
Simple question: when did the LAO start thinking they represented the voters of this state? Someone needs to remind them of Prop. 1A and November 2008. Shame on them for their utter arrogance!