Jim Costa Throws Cold Water on LAO Suggestion of Redirecting Federal Funds
One of the cornerstone arguments of the recent Legislative Analyst’s Office report was that California should make the same demand of the federal government that Scott Walker and Chris Christie made: that the state be able to use the HSR funds for other purposes entirely:
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.
Yeah, that’s not gonna happen. In another sign of how embarrassing the anti-HSR report has become for the once-respected LAO, Congressman Jim Costa explained how the federal government is in no mood to grant any such request:
And, he says, trying to renegotiate the terms of the $3.9 billion in federal grants made to the project so far would put the funds in jeopardy of being taken back.
Costa also explained that when he created the California High Speed Rail Authority in 1996, he intended it to be semi-independent so that it would not be subject to the kind of political influences that the LAO, Joe Simitian and Alan Lowenthal are trying to impose on the project.
The LAO report will be used by the usual suspects to attack the project. But it’s getting no traction at all among anyone else. It’s a shame the LAO chose to make such an uninformed attack on the project – they could have done something useful and provided more straightforward analysis that was not offered in an anti-HSR spirit. We need good oversight. We don’t need efforts to destroy the project. Next time I hope the LAO sees the difference.
The LAO failed the most basic test – their report was fundamentally ignorant of the terms of the ARRA award AND political reality. No previous state was able to redirect funds.
Fail on the politics and fail Understanding the ARRA terms.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
Indeed, the argument that they would get away with it is that they would still be asking for money for Express HSR, and the only state asking for money for Express HSR …
… despite the fact that the two main alternatives they set forward were not Express HSR segments, but rather set forward as being useful for supporting local commuter rail and HSR both.
And after laying such stress on the risk that the project would not go along at all, they set forward their third alternative the SJ/Merced alignment via Pacheco, despite costing more than the Valley and only having a hypothetical Amtrak-California service from the Bakersfield and Fresno via Pacheco as an independent utility. It seems quite as if the purpose of that was to try to play divide and conquer with Valley politicians by dangling the bait of getting Merced a station in the first segment to be built … though the logic of their “analysis” is that the bait would then be yanked away to raid the funds for commuter rail in the Bay and LA Basin.
Was hoping for an open thread this weekend, but here’s some off-topic fun.
LA Noire comes out this Tuesday and represented in it is LA Union Station and the Pacific Electric Red Cars.
First, here’s a map of the downtown area represented in the game. You can see where Union Station is on Alameda. http://www.vgarabia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/L.A-Noire-Map-3.jpg
And here’s the main character inside Union Station: http://lanoire.wikia.com/wiki/File:Union_Station.jpg
And here’s Pacific Electric in the game: http://www.jeupascher.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/thumbnail/600×500/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/j/e/jeu-pas-cher-la-noire-capture-tramway_1.jpg
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 9:32 pm
I’m no computer game hound, but I have to say I like the look of this one.
Seems to be based on mysteries and detective stories from the 40s, along the lines of “The Maltese Falcon,” “The Big Sleep,” and “He Walks by Night” (the latter had a supporting actor in it named Jack Webb, and would later be the inspiration for Webb for the radio and television show called “Dragnet.”)
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
That game looks awesome.
Dan Walters again:
http://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_18043941?nclick_check=1
Plenty to write about here Robert
Look Morris, there’s nothing here, nothing. It’s a comic book:
“On a whim, politicians and voters decided a few years ago that a bullet train connecting the northern and southern halves of the state would be a jim-dandy thing to have, even though nobody knew how much it would cost, whether it would generate enough riders to justify whatever the cost might be, or whether the money could be obtained. ”
We had an election and approved HSR. He class the election a “whim”. He pretends there were no costs estimates….I’m done right there – no respect for the voters or citizens of CA – no need to dissect his crayon scribble.
Jack Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
The legislature didn’t just willy-nilly approve an HSR ballot initiative because they thought it sounded “cool”. Per your oft sighted meeting just the other day California has been debating HSR since the 70′s!
We’ve hashed this out for over thirty years, when it was put to a vote California said a resounding “YES” This wasn’t a whim of political fancy.
It’s times like this I wish I was a better writer, I want to wipe the floor with these people and their sensationalist agenda. Whatever sells the papers right, screw the CV and our unemployment numbers.
VBobier Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
Yep, Support has grown over the Years, When I’d first heard of HSR, The time and conditions simply wasn’t right, But now It is time and the conditions are right, the price of gas will never be $3.00 a gallon again, let alone $1.00 a gallon, No matter how much We’d like It, To believe otherwise is sheer lunacy.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
Oddly enough, the cost of gas does not appear as a risk of not attempting to complete the HSR project, in a supposed risk analysis which ends up by proposing to substantially increase the risk of never completing the HSR project.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
Dan Walters refuses to acknowledge that the 20th century is over. He’s a great writer on many CA politics topics, but is VERY deeply wedded to the age of sprawl. So any move away from it is something he reflexively opposes, and no amount of evidence will ever change that.
A-men, about time people started realizing what Simitian/Lowenthal et al are after. They are terming out and looking for legacy work, they don’t want to be the ones remembered for the destruction of Cal-Train, they can’t find a source of funding so the want to steal from CAHSR.
It’s up to us to tell to back the hell off, it’s our train, we voted for it, were willing to pay for it, now lets turn some dirt and lay some track!!
VBobier Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
Aye, Lets the dirt fly and the track be laid, all 130 miles of It.
joe Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 9:10 am
CAHSRA tried to build in the Peninsula, tried to help Caltrain with joint development. The time to fix Caltrain was then.
The local Pols either were inattentive or misunderstood their leverage over the CAHSRA. Stiff NIMBY opposition combined with their rigid positions on trenching and delivering ultimatums about the design and etc drove the CAHSRA to the Central Valley.
It’s a lose – lose. The Peninsula NIMBYs will not stop HSR but in the meanwhile the local transit is at risk of collapse.
Jack Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 9:52 am
While we would like to think that the opposition on the peninsula played a factor in the route choice (and I am sure in a nebulous way it did delay the completion of EIR work) The CV segment is just simply easier to start in. It’s long, flat, and can sustain 220 MPH.
Starting the backbone work in the CV is really the smart choice and shows the the CHSRA made a smart choice in Van Ark. (Who played a large role in this decision)
Adina Levin Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
“Steal” – what is this “steal” ?
The HSRA and van Ark have said that they do not have enough money to fully build out their overall plan. The HSRA and Caltrain have been talking about potentially cooperating for years. Recently, the HSRA proposed a phased implementation, where the first phase would run over upgraded Caltrain tracks.
At a time where there isn’t enough money to go around, using the same project to start running high speed trains, and to upgrade the regional commuter train, seems like a prudent choice, not like theft.
What Simitian and van Ark were fighting about was *not* about whether it would makes sense for the next step on the Peninsula to run on upgraded Caltrain tracks. They agreed on that major point of substance.
They were fighting about whether the initial EIR would include the first phase, or whether the EIR would also specify the steps to get to the original plan. If something isn’t going to be built for another 15-20 years, the EIR would be badly out of date and need do be redone, so why do this now.
The reason IMO that van Ark and the HSRA were pushing back so hard, it seems to me, wasn’t about what to put on paper/pixels about what might be done in 2035. The reason they were pushing back is that Simitian was calling for more legislative oversight of HSRA. At the hearing, Simitian mentioned multiple times requests that his office and committee had made for information, that had been ignored by HSRA. Since HSRA is spending California dollars, and incurring bond debt that will need to be paid from the budget, it is reasonable for them to be accountable.
That was a key point Simitian made, a key point the LAO study made, and a key point that HSRA is resistant to.
Jack Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
It’s hard to respond to detailed requests that require man hours of research and reams of paper with 7 staff. I think Mr. Van Ark made that clear as well.
It’s hard to provide information when you have no Staff, just another result of the starvation budget CAHSR was put on.
Why don’t we give the project the funds it needs first before we call it a failure.
Adina Levin Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 10:41 pm
HSRA could fire Ogilvy and use the money to improve the business plan. That would go further to addressing concerns than any amount of messaging and pr.
Would they like to be blamed for making people pay $5 a gallon since they decided to continue funding roads?
Jack Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 10:41 pm
The thing is, it’s not an either/or proposition. Roads will be funded until of the end of time. Californians said they want roads and rail and we put up 10B in funds to get started.
This is the last gasp attempt to halt this project because once constructions begins it’s going to be infinitely harder to stop the project.
The train will have left the station. (HaHa!)
Tell Simitian/Lowenthal to get their hands out of our cookie jar!
Why did the LAO use the CARRD cost estimate anyway? I felt that the CARRD estimate was worth looking into, but why would we base any policy decisions on what was essentially an extrapolation?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 12:01 am
Because setting their hair on fire and screaming “OMG it’s going to cost a gazillion dollars” would have been unprofessional.
political_incorrectness Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 2:01 am
Again, it is why the credibility of the LAO in my opinion is in the toilet. If you are going to advise the legislature, you need to be professional. Citing that figure without any way to ask, how did you come up with this undermines the credibility.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 5:03 am
The LAO did not use our estimate. We did a segment by segment analysis. Some had big increases, some had little ones, we cut Anaheim. What we did was not really extrapolation in the sense that the LAO used a micro analysis on one segment (which by the way they undercounted as they did not add back in the cost of electrification and other items left out of ARRA requests).
At the end of the day, we got to similar places.
The point is not whether it is $59 or $66 or $71. The point is
(1) costs are significantly higher than the public number
(2) The Authority has been less than transparent. It is not obvious how adding additional staff changes this aspect of their culture.
(3) Scope will be cut unofficially if not officially (Transbay Terminal is still in the plan. It is just in phase ZZ. Yeah, right).
(4) Completion risk, high to begin with, is now even higher.
Spokker Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 7:55 am
Ah, someone is spreading a rumor then.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 8:08 am
Rumors?? Misinformation (“Joe Simitian says there should be only be one train a day”)??? Disinformation(“job-days”, “$43 billion”?????)
I’m just *shocked* to hear that on this project.
PS Robert, where is the correction on Simitian’s transbay stance (i.e. he is for it)?
Brian Stanke Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 8:22 am
Elizabeth you correctly called out for rumor mongering. Please a responsible adult and admit it instead of trying to deflect it through projection.
As for the merits of your baseless projection, Simitian tried to browbeat Van Ark into telling him that “one train a day” would be legally sufficient under Prop 1A. Both the “blended plan” and any no Transbay Terminal plan are not legal. Changing Prop 1A would require the same process as changing Prop 13, a new proposition to be voted on by the people.
So stop the rumor mongering please, unless you have some proposition language that has been introduced in the legislature to remove Transbay.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 8:46 am
Are you accusing me of telling people the LAO used our numbers? Cross my fingers hope to die, it’s not me.
Robert said on his blog that Joe Simitian did not support Transbay terminal. Robert gave the basis of the statement as an SF Chronicle article, not on any actual utterance by Senator Sitimian. We had conversations with the Senator’s office, the Chronicle reporter and the reporter of a Daily Post article that said Simitian told him that he did support Transbay.
Altogether, these conversations – all shared with Robert – debunked the rumor. Robert said he would post a correction, which he has not done.
As a matter of fact, the only people I’ve seen on the record expressing doubt about the need for Transbay are the Authority.
Don’t talk to me about rumors.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 8:49 am
And speaking of rumor mongering…
What Simitian said was about one train a day at the required times… not one train a day. This is consistent with the proposed schedules which have very few trains making the statuatory requirements so if Simitian’s interpretation is not correct, the project is dead.
This is a perfect exact of twisting words to try and smear someone.
If you see us doing this, call us out. Otherwise…
joe Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 9:55 am
“The point is
(1) costs are significantly higher than the public number”
The HSR estimate is not yet updated – there isn’t any attempt to misinform. The lower constructions costs (30% less for Bay Area projects) will offset cost increases. There isn’t a requirement to re-estimate on the fly – doing it right is expensive.
“(2) The Authority has been less than transparent. It is not obvious how adding additional staff changes this aspect of their culture.”
Less transparent than what? Not obvious to whom? The CAHSRA isn’t a club or a SIG. CAHSRA came to my town, my City is working with the CAHSRA and there is very good cooperation. Congressman Mike Honda lauded Gilroy’s proactive approach to HSR.
“(3) Scope will be cut unofficially if not officially (Transbay Terminal is still in the plan. It is just in phase ZZ. Yeah, right).”
Nancy Pelosi sez otherwise.
CARRD advocated “value engineering” Once implemented, the CV segment does not work against SF’s terminal.
Saying this negative stuff about the SF terminal iis just an attackon HSR. The reason to disparage the SF connection, try to weaken SF’s anchor for HSR and weaken the driving force to build HSR near your home. The NIMBY goal is to end HSR in San Jose.
“(4) Completion risk, high to begin with, is now even higher.”
Nope, you haven’t a clue what risk management is about. This is not risk, it is FUD.
When a running demonstration is built, the risk of failure to complete the full system decreases. Stakeholders will see an operational system running at full speed.
The Risk that HSR would not being built decreased the day CARRD NIMBYs drove HSR into the CV where CAHSRA began to design the first segment and received ARRA funding for Jobs in a devastated part of CA.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 10:10 am
The HSR cost has been updated, but not shared with the general public and maybe not even the board.
1) The Authority repeatedly releases alternative analysis spreadsheets that show the “relative costs” of different alignments. If you have relative costs, you have absolute costs.
My favorite example:
http://cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/assets/0/152/256/261/5d0bb204-156d-4b86-a270-410a6d21f732.pdf
This is Appendix C: Cost Estimates for LA – San Diego.
Look at page 2. There is thick line between the total miles column and the “Comparative Cost Estimate” column. I will bet someone 10 bucks (but only one person) that the thick line represents a hidden column – one with the actual cost estimates.
2) The ARRA segments (with the exception of Anaheim) had higher costs than those in the $43 billion figure.
3) Just compare the quantities in the RFEI (2011) with those in the $43 billion (2009). There are more, lots more, of all the expensive stuff (tunnels and aerials).
Elizabeth Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 10:16 am
And last but not least…
In the latest Peer Review missive (http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/PRG-Letter-to-Roelof-Van-Ark-May-2-2011.pdf) , they refer to some kind of document they received from the Authority that stated, “[o]verall capital costs are trending upwards”.
Trending upwards means higher, right??
Elizabeth Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 10:20 am
Actually I take back the part about the line indicating hidden column (it doesn’t go all the way up) but I don’t take back the part about the cost column existing on a spreadsheet somewhere. And if it doesn’t, that is even more disturbing.
joe Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 10:42 am
1) No is pretending the CAHSRA has an updated system cost. When it is recomputed, some factors will cost less. The horrible economy will help defray some construction costs.
2) The 4+ Billion of Federal ARRA funding is effectively price cut to the CA taxpayer. You always miss that.
A positive outcome of the CAHSRA being the first USA HSR project is winning awards for the project.
This federal support will continue – it is a benefit of being the first project – a demonstration project for the USA.
3) Adding requirements, adding features, added value and quality adds cost just as adding features to the price of a car add cost. You are asking for more and paying for more.
The cost of the basic HSR system and one with more aerials and tunnels is different but so is the end system – it is different.
Here’s how you can help. When HSR runs along the peninsula – you can lead the way to cut costs and put in the basic design rather than an expensive trench or tunnel.
joe Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 10:52 am
My town, Gilroy, has a choice for HSR:
1) HSR runs downtown with an at grade station and trains running a trench or
2) An elevated station outside of the city center.
(1) is what the majority of citizens want (and city council) but it will cost us to build it right. We’re going to have to decide if we’ll tax ourselves to co-pay for the trench or get a basic system elsewhere.
Since the City and CAHSRA are cooperating (we did hire our won consultants) on the design,Gilroy will have a better chance of getting infrastructure the City wants and will benefit the common good.
Gilroy’s trench might be co-paid with the CAHSR Authority – an added cost to the HSR project. Another example of HSR going over initial budget and of course being exactly what the citizens want.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 11:10 am
This federal support will continue
yeah yeah yeah. The High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965 promised two hour run times between Washington DC and New York City by the 80s. Closest they ever got was 2:30 in 1969.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Its certainly more likely to continue if California takes the money and breaks ground than if California hands the money back, as accepting the LAO report would imply.
Jack Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 8:51 am
I’m not exactly clear on your stance Elizabeth, do you want HSR or not. There’s no wrong answer, and I find your debate intelligent and engaging; however, sometimes it seems like you think the train is a good idea, and sometimes it feels like your out to destroy it.
Tony D. Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 10:03 am
I asked her the same question Jack, but she never replied. The silence is perhaps deafening?
Joey Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
She has answered that she herself is not sure.
Clem Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 10:35 am
Why does everyone have to be for the project or against the project? Is it possible to have nuanced opinions? Is one forced to take a strong stand?
synonymouse Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 11:26 am
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/05/15/EDMEYER.DTL
There is hardening of opinion on the issue and one of the main but mostly unspoken reasons is an unwillingness to admit to or alter an obviously flawed scheme. You have to give Van Ark credit for broaching the very idea of revision.
Getting one’s underwear all in a bunch about LAO, etc. critical analyses is just futile. These are bean-counters and their recognized job is to poke holes in voter initiatives which we all know were hyped to pass. The reason they came up with the concept of a legislative analyst was to counterbalance the natural tendency toward pie-in-the-sky.
Boehner and Barack are shortly going to mat over budget cutting. When that is all over the CHSRA will have a better idea of how much to expect from the feds. The notion of making federal funds flexible will be an absolute necessity to moving the project ahead somewhere that will not prove embarrassing. Get used to it.
The political scene evolves rapidly – now the crystal ball sees Barack back as prez but with a Republican congress. If so expect an emphasis on practicality and careful spending.
joe Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
The ballot for Prop 1A was Yes or No. There are times when you have to decide if you will support going forward or not.
The nuanced position, the position “Yes if” does eventually become a de facto No vote.
Jack Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
It would provide for clarity of her position on the project. Even though we have clashed before I find Elizabeth’s posts to be intellectually challenging, but her position has become muddled.
For example during the initial ARRA application it seems she was for the project when it centered in the CV; however, her implied endorsement of the flawed LAO report seems to indicate she’s against.
The LAO report is flawed because they are making judgments and assumptions based on “how things have always been done.” The most laughable being the changing of administration to Caltrans.
Mr. Van Ark clearly pointed out that Cal-trans currently needs to higher 50 skilled experts just to meet current transportation needs, how could Caltrans complete the project based on ARRA timelines if they don’t even have enough staff to complete their own projects…
The LAO agenda is clear renegotiate with the Fed to get more time to study SJ-SF and Anaheim-LA and spend the money there. Typical California politics, their premise is dump the CV for the north and south same old California politics…
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
I agree with you. Nuanced opinion is possible.
But it’s pretty damn rare. Most NIMBYs have decided that attacking the project itself is the best way to stop it from happening. HSR critics generally do not believe that Californians will ride trains. The LAO itself called for gutting the project and altering its basic intentions. If they didn’t want us to conclude they oppose the project, then they would be more careful about what they say and what they propose.
Brian Stanke Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 10:30 am
Claiming that the Authority has decided that:
“(3) Scope will be cut unofficially if not officially (Transbay Terminal is still in the plan. It is just in phase ZZ. Yeah, right)..”
Is baseless rumor mongering. The board voted 6-1 to go ahead with the Transbay design and Kopp is now gone. You have nothing to back up such a rumor. Besides dropping it would be illegal.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 11:10 am
This is based on Mr. van Ark’s comments over the last couple of weeks at the legislative hearings. He admitted that the Transbay was not in the plans even at the 2020 horizon. This is when Senator Simitian started asking him direct questions about whether van Ark could put the Transbay off for 100 years and still claim to be in compliance. That is when the discussion was put on hold, pending discussions with the lawyers.
There is definitely the possibility that the board’s wishes and van Ark’s diverge. This is again where we believe open discussion of the issues would resolve a lot of problems before they occur.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
“He admitted that the Transbay was not in the plans even at the 2020 horizon.”
What does “even” in that context mean?
As far as a direct question how far the DTX and TBT trainbox could be put off and be in compliance with Prop1a(2008) … heaven forbid that the CHSRA CEO when asked a question asked about the legal constraint seek legal advice rather than making shit up on the spot, as so many people who play lawyer online are happy to do.
The LAO try to smuggle in a change of policy that passed a majority vote to pursue a SF/LA HSR corridor, abandon the segment that will allow Express HSR rolling stock to actually be tested and approved to be put into service, and replace it by first building commuter rail projects that can be claimed to be progress toward some future HSR system someday … jump to their defense.
Yet when Smitian engages in that political posturing, it is supposed to be evidence of some kind of nefarious plotting by the CHSRA that the CEO does not have on hand legal advice on whether they are legally barred from pursuing a strategy that there is no reason to believe3 that the CHSRA has been pursuing, and no reason to believe that they have any intention to pursue?
Nadia Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
@Brian, did you actually watch all three hearings that Simitian had in the past 3 weeks? Specifically, did you watch the last one? If not, I encourage you to watch it before claiming this is rumor mongering. And
Brian Stanke Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Yes I have and nowhere did Van Ark say he didn’t want to go to Transbay. The phased implementation may or may not go to Tranbay, but Transbay and 4 tracks are required by Prop 1A and he was clear he takes his duty to deliver on those per 1A quite seriously.
If you are going to claim he is intending to break the law bring some evidence. Btw, “did you actually watch all three hearings that Simitian had in the past 3 weeks?” is not evidence.
Daniel Krause Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
If I recall, van Ark expressed that as part of an intial improvements, they would not go to Transbay, but I also don’t remember him ever saying he didn’t want to complete the line to Transbay. Quite the opposite, van Ark has continued to express to Simitian that the full built out remain on the table (which includes Transbay per Authority plans). I suspect the Peninsula interests may be angling for another legal argument here, that by not reaching Transbay in a timely fashion, that they are violating the law. Hence, Simitians focus on the 100-year time frame in the last hearing. I got suspicious when I hear that. This is ridiculous of course, because when the core of the sytem is built (i.e. Central Valley), we are not going to be waiting another 100 years to finish the project. Completion dates will vary due to politics, but nothing even remotely representing 100 years. But nonetheless, supporters should be prepared for another frivolous legal challenge.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Brian,
I never accused Mr. van Ark of lawbreaking. Indeed the hearing pointed out that the law seems somewhat flawed in that it makes precise requirements but then does not appear to have any timeframe in which they must be completed.
What I said is that if anyone is showing minimal enthusiasm about doing Transbay anytime soon it is Mr. van Ark.
Nadia Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
@Brian – I looked for the video footage and it isn’t up yet on CalChannel. Once it is up, we can find the minute markers – but Van Ark is clear that they have every intention of going to TransBay but that it is a question of money and that it may take several years to get there based on the priorities of the project.
Is it breaking the law if going to TransBay is the absolute last priority? That’s what I interpreted that Van Ark said – You decide if he’s breaking the law.
BTW, I just asked if you watched the meeting because it was in the middle of the day and the video isn’t up yet so I wanted to understand where your comments were coming from – I think sometimes watching a variety of different meetings offers a different perspective. It wasn’t intended to be the rebuttal to your comment – just an understanding of your perspective.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Since they have to finish through to TBT before starting on Sacramento and San Diego, there’s a strong incentive on CHSRA to not deliberately drag their feet on finishing through to TBT.
Of course, hand it off to a bunch of road builders, as one suggestion in the LAO report you are supporting, and they have every incentive to delay as long as possible: the longer they can deley building, the more chances they have to try to divert the operating surplus from the preliminary service into funding “urgently needed” roadworks.
Daniel Krause Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
As I understand it, it is legal to pursue phase 2 projects in lieu of phase 1 projects. This was discussed at the last board meeting and the possibility of starting LA-SD is now under consideration due to the mess on the Peninsula.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 10:54 am
Reading the Prop1a(2008) language, I don’t follow how that falls out, but sometimes you gotta have a lawyer to read this stuff.
Spokker Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 9:13 am
No, I meant someone is spreading a rumor about the LAO using CARRD’s estimate.
Spokker Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 9:14 am
Not Elizabeth. It was BruceMcF in the kitchen with the candlestick.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 9:28 am
So I’m off the hook for rumor mongering, although I’m being accused of murder in the Conservatory?
BruceMcF Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 1:06 pm
I think the charge is more bias in the study with a wrench.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 10:03 am
Looks more like it will be with FUD in the media room.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
I told you about the Simitian thing – if I heard from his office or from the Chronicle directly (or if they’ve posted a correction themselves) then I’d post a correction.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
You got an email from a journalist who spoke directly with Simitian. Seriously, what more do you need?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
Parchment.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
Just now saw that email. Correction made.
peninsula Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 8:01 am
all the crying by the foamers about the number the LAO came up with. The REAL point is the incompetence of the authority – that they haven’t published their own realistic updated number. 33B Prop 1A, 42B ‘year of expenditure’ (based on Prop 1A) = those are 2008 or earlier numbers. Yet everytime they publish a decision on an alignment or an elimination of an alignment from consideration, this implies they have significant new information, and they should be publishing that info. They keep claiming they have SIGNIFICANT investor interst, well that also implies they hvae some realistic cost information – they should be publishing their own numbers. If you don’t like LAO’s or Elizabeths your real beef should be with CHSRA for having no number of their own.
Donk Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 8:25 am
Yeah you are right. The Authority probably should publish updated numbers. But at the same time the whole thing is in flux – they are still debating eliminating Palmdale, the Peninsula is in limbo, and they are looking into cutting costs at many other areas.
So there are probably a number of combinations that have different cost estimates. They could release a matrix of different cost combinations, or they could just hold off until they have a better idea of what the whole thing will cost.
It seems to me that if they keep on announcing revised cost estimates though, it will hurt their credibility. Look at how much crap they took from revising the cost estimate to year of expenditure dollars. So in the best interest of the project’s survival, they are better off keeping any numbers in their pocket until they are confident about them.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 9:11 am
The only issue they with credibility is that the original numbers were lowballed, so all the adjustments would have been up.
Don’t you think board members should be told the additional cost/ savings when they look at major changes?
If the real increase in costs were made public about Fresno aerials and Palmdale, there would have been a big hullabaloo, but you would have probably changed direction then instead of blowing two years, public good will and a ton of cash on working out the details on things that weren’t affordable or even advisable.
This is why it is much better policy to give a realistic RANGE upfront and then you will have adjustments up and down within that range.
Donk Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 10:33 am
Your point makes complete sense. However. we all know that if they gave a range, say $30B-$100B, with the $100B number for a fully trenched system in urban areas, that all of the critics of the project would only use this number when making arguments against the project. So there is also the political and public relations reality to consider on the other side.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 11:14 am
Or be used by people who don’t want trenches to show why they are not feasible or need to be paid for by local communities.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Yet let the LAO try to get by with some real stinkers in a report trying to abandon the Valley alignment and sideline the California HSR Authority, and your skepticism switches off like a light switch.
joe Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Sorry but the obvious is the obvious. The cost to built the defined system to meet the requirements is the cost. It’s the go or no go decision. You do it and it will cost you this much – want more and it will cost more.
The additional costs, a trench or nicer station, are optional and one can find a wide range of optional enhancements which would triple the proejct costs if the goal were to spend excessive money on planning all the options and estimation all the possible enhancements.
These added enhancements have nothing to do with meeting the basic requirements for HSR BUT maybe very worthy and desirable when the project is in the implementation phase.
The project coud cost more than the initial estimate because the citizens of CA wanted more and would be very happy with the new features.
political_incorrectness Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 11:54 am
Then Elizabeth, how did you come up with your numbers? I could not find a document showing your cost analysis for each segment. Your total cost was $67 billion, their cost of $67 billion. If they got it from somewhere else, then they need to show where they got it from or they are pulling it out of thin air which is even worse.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Mine was $65.
Here is the write up: http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/CARRD_Capital_Cost_Estimates-v1-2.pdf
Here is a spreadsheet so you can make your own cuts/ estimates: http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/CARRD-Capital-Cost-Estimates-v1-2.xls
Here are the units in the project circa 2011: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=9651
Here are the units in the project circa 2009:
http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Phase_I_CapitalCost-2009Update.pdf
BruceMcF Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
They just coincidentally arrived at the same number.
You are proving that they did not use your number by arguing that they did not arrive at the number in the way that you did …
… but since so much else in the “analysis” in the Legislative Analysts report is clearly backfill to arrive at determined conclusions, how does that “prove” that they did not adopt your number and then work out a way to add up to it?
They seem to have liked your number, given the odds of arriving at the precise same value by two different approaches by pure coincidence is so low.
Nadia Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 12:33 pm
The LAO explains how they arrive at their number on page 12:
“For example, based on the state’s agreement with FRA, the cost of the initial construction segment between Fresno and Bakersfield alone is now estimated to be $4.5 billion, which is 57 percent greater than was assumed in the original plan. As shown in Figure 4, the costs for program management, final design, and construction are each significantly higher for the 100-mile Central Valley segment now planned for construction than compared to the full 120-mile segment originally proposed from Fresno to Bakersfield. (This initial construction segment estimate also does not include the cost of completing the line into Bakersfield, nor the $200 million station planned for that city.)
If the cost of building the entire Phase 1 system were to grow as much as the revised HSRA
estimate for the 100-mile segment discussed above, construction would cost about $67 billion. This extrapolation of costs, however, is based on the cost increase for a relatively straight-forward and uncomplicated segment of the proposed rail line. It is possible that some of the more urban segments could be even more significantly underestimated. The uncertainty surrounding the eventual cost of the system represents a significant challenge to the Legislature’s ability to make sound decisions about appropriation for the project.”
And as Elizabeth pointed out earlier, they under-counted as they did not add back in the cost of electrification and other items left out of ARRA requests.
It is amazing how much time is being spent arguing over everyone else’s numbers. Just ask the Authority to publish their own numbers and then we can end all the speculating.
If you want the project to succeed, publish the numbers so that everyone can see the hard choices and everyone can participate in the value engineering. This is a public project with public dollars and when there are choices to be made about what gets cut, where and why, then they should be held publicly.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
“And as Elizabeth pointed out earlier, they under-counted as they did not add back in the cost of electrification and other items left out of ARRA requests.”
Quite ~ when aiming at an answer known in advance, its easy to miss something like this.
As far as the LAO’s explanation of how they broke out cost increases on the original project corridor requirements, and the cost of meeting the additional independent utility requirement ~ where no other segment of the corridor will require support for Amtrak-California locomotives to meet the independent utility requirement, as extending the Valley in either direction results in an MOS ~ and only applied the cost increase on the original project requirements …
… *crickets* …
… since they made no effort to take that into account.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Neither set of extrapolations – which is itself an absurd exercise and no basis at all for making policy decisions – took into account “value engineering” or made any detailed analysis of other costs. It’s the same as sitting in 2006, looking into housing values from 1995 to 2005, and predicting that by 2010 prices would rise by 50-100%, because of what happened over the previous 10 years.
Extrapolation has no place whatsoever in making serious policy decisions. Both CARRD and the LAO should refrain from doing so. Come up with better, more informed analysis, and it’s a discussion I’d then be happy to have.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 10:56 am
Extrapolation has a role in arriving at indicative costs to determine whether to fund a serious engineering scoping and cost study … but the CA-HSR project is long past that point.
If the LAO is that far behind the curve, on an analysis that they claim they pursued on their own initiative, they ought to hold the analysis until they can get firmer numbers.
joe Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
“If the cost of building the entire Phase 1 system were to grow as much as the revised HSRA
estimate for the 100-mile segment discussed above”
Estimated by extrapolating, empirically extrapolating numbers, the LAO makes their estimate. No explanation if the ARRA award added new requirements to the construction (stand alone utility) or if the route was changed – just simple ratios and multipliers.
Can I have that job?
Alan Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
I’ve asked this question before: How many licensed, professional engineers does CAARD have on staff calculating these estimates? Does CAARD have anyone remotely qualified to do these “estimates”, or are they just something scribbled on the back of a cocktail napkin? So far, I don’t believe we’ve seen any evidence that CAARD’s number is based on anything other than hypothesis and hyperbole. It’s certainly nothing that any responsible decision-maker could use.
Peter Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
0
I think Elizabeth has a degree in mathematics (?), though.
Alan Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Wonderful. That doesn’t qualify her to do civil engineering work or estimating.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Nor does it really qualify her to do any work on transportation planning or construction management. Which isn’t to say she shouldn’t try, but such analysis needs to be viewed with those lack of qualifications in mind.
I’ll be the first to say I have even fewer qualifications than she does. But then you also don’t see me making analysis like that. What I write here is rooted in simply reading what people write and reflecting it against the evidence from HSR around the world that anyone can find.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 2:30 pm
Neither does it qualify her to do work out employment multipliers. Of more concern to me, when they do work that I am qualified to judge, it is egregiously badly done. So why should I trust them on civil engineering costings?
OT:
The presentations from a recent HSR conference have been posted:
http://gspp.berkeley.edu/programs/highspeedrail/HighSpeedRail_agenda-and-presentations_2011.html
A lot of food for thought!
Joseph E Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
Interesting statement in Van Arks’ presentation:
(http://gspp.berkeley.edu/programs/highspeedrail/2011pdfs/Panel%201_The%20Vision%20of%20HSR%20in%20California/Panel%201_Van%20Ark.pdf)
“Top EIR priority
• Fresno-Bakersfield
• Merced-Fresno”
“Next priority
• San Jose-Merced
• Bakersfield-Palmdale
• Palmdale-Los Angeles”
So, SF to SJ is on the third tier?
Living in Long Beach, I wouldn’t mind taking HSR and transferring to the Capitol Corridor to get to the East Bay or Caltrain to San Mateo, but I do hope the SF to SJ section EIR gets done soon, so we can have direct trips, at least under a shared corridor scenario.
GoGregorio Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
And if CAHSR isn’t going to be getting DTX up and running any time soon, can we have it for Caltrain, please?
BruceMcF Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Caltrain which cannot independently finance an electrification project is going to independently finance the DTX and TBT train station?
GoGregorio Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
I didn’t say it was going to happen, merely that I wanted it to happen.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 10:58 am
Fair enough. If I was focusing on what I wanted to happen in general, independent of what seems possible to achieve, instead of going grey I’d be going bald from tearing my hair out.
joe Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
“So, SF to SJ is on the third tier?”
That was the top tier until the Peninsula fought the project. What happens next depends on what happens.
The strategy is build something useful ASAP. The Central valley would run trains as max speed and there is the least resistance.
My father-in-law is in long beach and he woud love to ride up on the train – the coast amtrack line is slow.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
There is a good logic here. Start in the Valley, the easiest place to build and the best place to lay 220 mph track. Then go through the mountains and connect to the coastal metropolises, since those are the key connections (and they currently do not exist in the state passenger rail network). Then finish with the urban rail construction.
I see that as entirely sensible. And sure, it has some political utility too, and was probably influenced by the NIMBY uprising. But as tracks are built through Pacheco Pass and through Tejon or Tehachapi Pass, demand will soar to ensure those tracks and trains go all the way to downtown SF and LA. SF’s tolerance for Peninsula NIMBYism, already low, will evaporate entirely as the Pacheco link is made.
That’s one reason why the NIMBYs are fighting the project itself – they know that once those links are made, the project’s momentum will become unstoppable and their fellow Peninsula residents will lose whatever sympathy they might still have.
Donk Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 9:52 pm
This really shouldn’t be such a big deal, but it is because SF to SJ is all anyone ever talks and cares about. SJ to SF should be in the same tier as LA-Anaheim. Both are in Phase I, and both are urban extensions between what I would consider to be the minimum operating segment (LA-SJ).
So yeah, of course SJ-SF should be in Tier 3 with LA-Anaheim.
Joseph E Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Amtrak talked about their NEC plans for HSR from Boston to DC. I don’t understand why they think it will take over 110 billion (in 2010 dollars!), or “$172 million/km for infrastructure, stations, facilities.”
Most two-track subways with stations every mile cost less than that. HSR will need some tunnels and elevated sections in the North-East, but it should cost less than an urban subway simply due to the low number of stations. By comparison, Japan estimated the cost of blasting tunnels thru the Japan Alps for 300 mph Maglev at 5.1 trillion yen for 286 kilometers, which works out to $220 million per Km, or about he same as what Amtrak thinks it needs to upgrade the NEC.
By comparision, even the skeptics think CA HSR will cost less than $100 million per km (the CHSRA estimates less than 65 million per km), and even HSR in Britain including tunnels into London cost less than 90 million per kilometer (and the British are know for having almost as expensive construction costs as the USA).
political_incorrectness Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 2:33 pm
You have an entirely new alignment through the Northeast which probably would require propety accquistions and lots of them. I was sad for them not to use UPenn’s design of $98 billion with a new line from Boston-New Haven, over to Long Island via a triple track tunnel. Then high-speed down the current Long Island corridor to Penn Station. It would also follow nearly the exact same route to DC but bypassing Wilmington, to a new Charles Center station in downtown Baltimore, continuing to Washington D.C. While there are more engineering risks with building a tunnel to Long Island, it might be better than accquiring many private pieces of property.
Here is the URL http://studio.design.upenn.edu/hsr/sites/default/files/03%20-%20HSR%20Design.pdf
Joey Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
It looks like Amtrak pretty much followed that plan south of New York. Not that I really agree with either plan – both seem way too expensive considering the route-miles and potential benefits. A lot of speed (and capacity) could be gained from current alignments with some strategic improvements which wouldn’t cost nearly as much. Oh, and using less craptacular rolling stock, which, some estimates say, could save 30 minutes by itself over the current Acelas.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Subways are designed for smaller cross section ~ the high speed rail required bigger tunnels than custom designed subways do.
And they proposed a lot of tunneling along the way ~ if I recall correctly, new tunneling in NYC, Philadelphia, and Baltimore a least.
Also, they are year of expenditure figures, so they are using their projection of inflation to inflate the cost to 2020 through 2030 guestimated current year values. The cost stated in 2011 dollars would be substantially lower.
Joey Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Problem is, the overall cost of building HSR in the USA seems to be greater than or equal to the cost of subway tunnels elsewhere.
Joey Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
That is, the sum of all tunnels, viaducts, urban routes, tracts through farmland and desert, etc. The Spanish manage to do all this for closer to 1/4 of what we do it for.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
As far as the subways, the Spanish seem to do it for substantially less than most people do.
I wonder how much of it involves having people on the public payroll with the expertise to keep contractors under control. In the US, because of our refusal to actually staff these kinds projects, we contract out the oversight on the contractors, and just pretend there is not a big problem with doing it that way.
The LAO observed that problem, but because they were focused on undermining the policy choice of the California electorate with respect to setting out to build HSR from the Bay to the LA Basin, they bizarrely concluded that they way to fix the problem is to continue underfunding CHSRA staffing, and possibly plop the project in the hands of a bunch of highway builders ~ who would be almost as lost in all this as the LAO clearly is.
Joey Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
So you’re saying the planning disasters that are BART to SJ, the Central Subway, OAC, etc are just the product of understaffing?
BruceMcF Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 7:56 am
“just”?
If you rely on consultants, its necessary to have enough expertise in-house to ride herd on thr consultants. Obviously in a multi-factor problem, no single necessary factor is ever sufficient to solve the problem.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
If you think that grotesque US tunnel project cost disparities are due to the diameter of the tunnels … well, you really need some remedial economic analysis lessons.
30 ~ feet ~ : ~ it~s ~ three ~ times ~ as ~ expensive ~ as ~ 10 ~ metres!
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
Don’t forget that circumference of the US tunnels is 92-ish feet and the circumference of the European tunnels is just over 31 meters.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 8:12 am
I see you missed that show, Reading Is Fundamental, while growing up. Nothing I wrote suggests that I think that the high costs for either subways in the US or intercity rail in the US is due to a difference in tunnel diameters.
Would it be a fair reading to read what you wrote as claiming that the minimum tunnel radius for a third rail subway and the minimum tunnel radius for a catenary electric intercity train are identical? No, of course not. You engaged in the straw man argument logical fallacy, to be sure, but you were not in fact making that basic mistake, even though someone determined to pursue the same logical fallacy in return could easily pretend that is exactly what you were saying.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
If the comparison to subways offends you, then look at the $180 million/km Gotthard Base Tunnel.
And bear in mind, the Gotthard Base Tunnel is, well, a tunnel. Amtrak is proposing much less than 100% tunneling. Much more than what’s required – 10 kilometers of new tunnel in Connecticut is already too much – but much less than anything that could justify the cost.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 8:25 am
I’m not offended by the comparison, just pointing out that the argument that no km of the HSR system ought to ever be more than any km of a subway system because the subway system is all tunnels and frequent stations is not as cut and dried in fact as it sounds on first reading.
And of course the statement “$110b! In 2010 dollars!” is just a misrepresentation of the plan ~ $117b in Year of Expenditure dollars for a 2030-2040 project is ~$42b in 2010 dollars.
When taking aim at the gold plating and feather bedding which we expect is going on, and the inefficiencies that we can assume are imposed by unintended consequences of various regulatory regimes … careless exaggeration should be avoided.
OT: Big Map Blog has posted an 1867 map of the Union Pacific network and its eastern connections—feast your eyes:
http://www.bigmapblog.com/2011/union-pacific-r-r-and-its-eastern-connections-1867/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BigMapBlog+%28Big+Map+Blog%29
Donk Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 8:37 am
What I find most interesting is how different the geography was back then. I’ve never heard of Tulare Lake before – it was bigger than Lake Tahoe. The map was also pre-Salton Sea. There are many other rivers (wetlands in LA) and lakes (Owens Lake) on the map that don’t exist anymore
Elizabeth Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 9:06 am
The story of Tulare Lake which was drained to divert water for various things as well as to create incredibly rich farmland for the Boswells (“The King of California) is pretty crazy and pretty depressing.
The story of the Owens Lake which disappeared when LA “acquired” all the rights to water in the Owens Valley (“Cadillac Desert”) and made the San Fernando Valley happen is equally wild.
One of the reasons the route south of Corcoran was re-aligned was to avoid wetlands areas on the eastern side of the historic lake (overlay the areas in this study http://www.tularecog.org/reports/Mitigation%20and%20Conservation%20Bank%20Feasibility%20Study%20final%20complete%20version.pdf with the proposed rail corridor!)
There is some movement to restore the lake. http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/07/11/18607139.php I’m not sure if the new rail plans consider this.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 9:29 am
For those interested, check out PDF pages 29, 35,36 of the tulare cog doc.
Donk Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 12:22 pm
The Owens Lake story is probably more depressing, since the water was diverted for use hundreds of miles away. At least with Tulare Lake the water seems to mostly have been used for irrigation locally.
When I last drove up the 395, however, I was thinking how the a benefit to the drainage of the Owens Valley is that it effectively ended development of the region. So now it is still relatively untouched, and with the ongoing river restoration, will not look much different than it did 100 years ago. The Owens Valley is a beautiful, scenic part of CA that most people don’t know about.
Wad Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
Development wasn’t going to happen in the Owens Valley to begin with. It’s too remote from population centers and the meager infrastructure would not have made it industrially attractive.
Even if L.A. hadn’t stole Owens Valley’s water, the region would have likely sold off its water stocks anyway, if not to L.A. then to the broader water market. Water is its resource curse.
OT:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-metro-budget.eps-20110515,0,5172788.graphic
“Los Angeles County is poised to accelerate its rail projects
With financial support from Measure R, a voter-approved sales tax, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s proposed $4.15-billion budget could pay for planning or construction for roughly a dozen lines.
If all goes as anticipated, Metro in the next year would begin construction of a new rail line along Crenshaw Boulevard, complete the Expo Line to Culver City and continue work on an expansion of the Gold Line from Pasadena to Azusa.
It would be the first time L.A. would have three rail projects under construction at the same time.
The rail expansion has been mostly shielded from cutbacks related to the bad economy because a large portion of the funding comes from Measure R, the .5-cent sales tax voters approved in 2008.
The budget proposes more than $1 billion for Measure R projects that also include scores of highway efforts, including $11.5 million for planning of the High Desert Corridor that would connect the Antelope and Apple valleys and funds for an extension of the Valley busway, known as the Orange Line, from Canoga Park to Chatsworth.”
If you ask me. For a metropolitan area of that size, this system is long overdue. Even after it is finished, it will still be behind what you see in cities with a similar population density.
synonymouse Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
If there is a silver lining to LA’s being behind, it is at least that it didn’t get stuck with Indian broad gauge. The CHSRA could theoretically use all of Metrolink’s lines but can’t use any of BART’s under any circumstances. The SP and Bechtel sure knew how to **** up the Bay Area’s transit possibilities and options. But that’s exactly what the SP wanted.
Donk Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
LA is the city of the future.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
Only if it’s still 1950.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 10:59 am
There’s always the Mad Maxx style future. Being the “city of the future” doesn’t have to carry the local boosterism freight that it did in the 1950′s.
Now that the Peninsula doesn’t want HSR, it is time to rethink the alignment. One that is good, fast and cheap. Consider a southern terminus at LA Union Station, then an alignment going north on the I-5 corridor, a station near Bakersfield to pick up San Joaquin AMTRAK and stop or terminus in Livermore at the end of the BART line which intersects with the ACE Line from Sacramento and Stockton or a terminus at the BART Lake Merritt Station or 12th Street in Oakland. Future extensions of this backbone system would be to Sacramento, San Jose and San Francisco (via the Second Bay Crossing). Total time with two stops would be a little over an hour for 350 miles. HSR can travel at 350 miles per hour. It would be cheaper because less stations, shorter alignment= hence less maintenance and higher ridership, because it is faster and cheaper than air travel.
Jack Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
While pie in the sky, this is illegal under Prop 1A, the starter line goes from Anaheim to SF.
Joey Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
The second bay crossing is bust. There’s nowhere to end it that wouldn’t involve leveling a few skyscrapers.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
HSR travels at 350 when they soup up the train and juice the catenary. It runs at 200 in the real world and may creep up to 225 on new lines.
Joey Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
What happens in test runs and what happens in actual operation are two very different things. In test runs you don’t care about how much maintenance you will have to perform or how much electricity you are using. Both of those things make operating much over 200mph impractical in the real world.
William Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
I think there is some mix-up in kph and mph:
220 mph = 350 kph (Central Valley)
150 mph = 240 kph (Altamont Overlay)
125 mph = 200 kph (upgraded Caltrain line)
On newer lines such as THSR, its design speed was 350 kph, but operating speed is 300 kph.
Joey Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
I don’t think so.
What bg is probably referring to is the TGV world speed record, which achieved 574 km/h or 359 mph.
Adina Levin Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Strawman. The proposal from Eshoo, Simitian and Gordon was for a blended implementation with Caltrain – along the lines of what HSRA and Caltrain had been talking about for years, and what the HSRA was proposing recently. The dispute is about whether to complete an EIR about what to build 15, 20, or more years from now.
As a constituent, I think you are seriously misreading the Peninsula proposal. The Peninsula contingent was trying to move beyond some vocal local opposition by taking a position that moves HSR forward, and also improves regional infrastructure.
@Jack. Need to change the legislation of Prop 1A and the alignment and termini by initiative in order to make the plan cost effective. I am only talking about the first phase being from Livermore BART to Slymar or Burbank Metrolink with only one station at Bakersfield. If there is more money extend it SF and Anaheim.
synonymouse Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 12:18 am
This is the starter that I have advocated studying for quite some time. Perhaps the engineers can find a way to cheap-trick the overpasses. I guess they wanted to save money but they built them kinda low for the long term.
Politically it is requisite to serve Bakersfield and Fresno as promised via a very long curve wye and you should throw in Sacramento, which adds a magnet destination and many riders for a reasonable extra amount of money.
BART screwed up the inner Bay Area with its damn broad gauge that the CHSRA can’t use, so let BART carry the Bay Area passengers in from LIvermore for the time being. Just think of the possibilities if BART had built a European style suburban standard gauge electric railway with ocs.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 8:29 am
If a preliminary service is going to run from somewhere in the Bay short of SF to somewhere in the LA Basin short of LA-US, that makes it all the more critical that it runs through Fresno and Bakersfield, since the drop off versus a full fledged system in the well-served SF/LA transport market will be substantially greater than the drop off in the underserved Valley transport markets.
synonymouse Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 11:50 am
But adding Sac gives more value than running down the expensive 99 corridor north of Fresno.
Joey Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 11:55 am
Please LOOK AT A MAP. From Manteca north, the 99/UPRR corridor is really the only viable option. Not only does I-5 not really offer any benefit here anyway (cutting through Stockton and suburban Sacramento), but it’s alignments are ill-suited for getting high-speed trains into Sacramento.
synonymouse Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
Apparently there are various options to accessing Sacramento as you approach.
But there remain the issues of cost and controversy. Is the CHSRA really good to go on 99? Besides I would have to assume the engineers are looking at all the cheaper options as part of value engineering and certainly in the face of a much humbler construction budget.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
They also have to bear in mind the ridership. If they propose a part of the permanent route that sacrifices too many passenger-miles, they open themselves to another line of attack.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
that’s the method to the madness. Study everything. Propose Option A, get almost everybody to agree to it and then file a lawsuit claiming option B wasn’t studied enough. By the time option b is restudied then sue about option A claiming the studies are too old. Propose option C. Someplace in there tell everybody that autonomous electric cars will be the answer. Start building option A and then have the legislature defund it.
…. how long has Florida been building HSR? When did rational people look around and decide that Los Angeles to San Diego would make a great higher speed rail route?
Joey Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
If there are so many alternative routes PLEASE SUGGEST ONE, because I fail to see any viable alternatives.
@Joey-Optimum first phase Lake Merritt BART (or 12th Street) to LAUS. Otherwise Livermore to Burbank. Stations in Livermore to accomodate ACE transfers including SAC/Modesto ridership and a station in Bakersfield to accomodate Fresno transfers all via an I-5 alignment. Phase two extensions to include service to Sacramento/Fresno on the 99 Corridor via wye off I-5 south of Fresno and San Jose via a wye off the I-5 south of Gilroy and SF via a wye to the second crossing connecting I-580/238 and 380 and south to San Diego. More stations in the Central Valley will only increase sprawl there and should be avoided. Forget political support, our legislature is hopeless. This alignment will have to be implemented by an initiative. Remember the first phase had to be good (comfortable and convenient access via public transit and available cheap parking-competitive with airport parking), fast (less than 2 hours from OAK to LAUS) and cheap (less cosly than air travel).
Joey Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Wait which comment is this in response to?