High Speed Rail Authority Board Votes to Save At Least $500 Million
You might not know it from the TV and newspaper reports, but the California High Speed Rail project is actually saving money the closer it gets to construction. Take, for example, today’s vote by the California High Speed Rail Authority to save at least $500 million – and perhaps as much as $1 billion – by selecting the “hybrid alternative” between Merced and Fresno. From a CHSRA press release:
The Authority studied potential routes for the Merced to Fresno Section, a corridor of approximately 65 miles, from 2001 to 2005. Based on this analysis, five alternative north-south alignment routes were identified in 2010. In August, that list was narrowed to three routes, which were included in the Authority’s draft EIR/EIS.
Based on community feedback and further analysis, the Authority identified the hybrid alternative route, which combines elements of the other two routes identified in the draft EIR/EIS. It is estimated that the Union Pacific Railroad / State Route 99 would have cost $1 billion more than the Hybrid Alternative and the BNSF route would have cost $500 million more.
In addition to representing a significant cost savings, the “hybrid alternative” also reflects input from communities along the route. If you went only by what the media chose to report you might think the Authority is a kind of Death Star determined to run roughshod over local communities. But here again we see that reality is different, showing that HSR planners are not only listening, they are responsive, and are doing so in a way that saves taxpayers money as well.
HSR critics don’t really want to discuss either of these points. But they matter. The state legislature and Congress ought to take note as well – the CHSRA is listening the public and is finding ways to build the project affordably. That’s exactly what we need in 21st century infrastructure projects, and both the legislature and Congress should help encourage this by providing more funding to help expand the project’s construction segment, rather than fight it in the vain hopes of prolonging a failed 20th century model of transportation.
Ric Barreto
I am so proud of Merced! UC Merced, Gateway to Yosemite, High-Speed Rail; small town charm with realistic look to the future. May Merced continue to grow into a welcoming, warm, vibrant, solution orientated, community who leans forward to progress for the vast majority, but still protect our precious ag land(heritage). Here, here to a brighter future!
Merced Sun-Star
Ric Barreto
I am so proud of Merced! UC Merced, Gateway to Yosemite, High-Speed Rail; small town charm with realistic look to the future. May Merced continue to grow into a welcoming, warm, vibrant, solution orientated, community who leans forward to progress for the vast majority, but still protect our precious ag land(heritage). Here, here to a brighter future!
Merced Sun-Star
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 8:52 am
Merced is a dump. HSR should bypass it and save a billion in routing and station costs.
Moving on.
thatbruce Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 10:00 am
Damm students. None of them should ever be there, and damm Merced for being a gateway to a number of tourist destination.
VBobier Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Don’t be an idiot, It’s not likely to be bypassed, Riders going to and from there will generate revenue, so It’s an opportunity to make money for the system that should not be ignored or bypassed like an idiot.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:18 am
Its not a quesiton of if they will generate revenue, its will they generate enough revenue to offset the cost of a station in the city center and all of the infrastructure modifications required to make it happen.
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
It will. For one thing, Merced’s going to be right in there helping with the project.
$500 million. Well then I guess we can forgive the Authority for that massive viaduct and “signature bridge” in San Jose and that tunnel in Millbrae and miles upon miles of tall aerials to blast through CV cities at 220 mph and overall costs at least THREE TIMES what they should be.
Donk Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 1:04 am
Lets see what happens. It seems that ever since Van Ark came around and some of the knuckleheads have been let go, there has been slow but gradual progress on this project.
Before they were doing nothing right. Now you can sort start connecting the dots to something that might eventually make sense. Maybe one day there will be a three-way high-five between Elizabeth, Clem, and Richard.
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
We can hope. Clem and Richard are technocratic types… Elizabeth I’m not so sure about, we’ll have to see if she’s a hypocrite or not.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 3:40 am
Clem and Richard aren’t really technocratic. They (we) are technical; it’s not the same as supporting the kind of governance that’s in vogue in Southern Europe today. The Swiss don’t have a dictatorship of the engineers or anything like that – they have direct democracy with all major projects done by popular consent. The reason they get things done well is that their political system encourages high-quality government, which people then trust enough to let spend many billions on infrastructure.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 8:51 am
LOL. Awesome post. Cheering for $500 million in cost savings at this point is just laughable. They’ll end up dumping that much on something else they forgot to account for.
This thing has become a laugh a minute.
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
All of the things being complained about are *things which are not final*.
All of the things being cheered *are final*.
Notice the difference?
Now of only they’d vote to save several billion by going back to Altamont, Grapevine, and doing the polar opposite of anything that San Jose wants.
neville snark Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 7:52 am
Forgive my ignorance, but why does SJ exert so much pressure?
Alon Levy Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 8:23 am
Special interests are concentrated, the general interest is diffuse.
synonymouse Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 10:37 am
Kopp and Diridon were instrumental in shifting the emphasis from the central Bay Area to San Jose.
neville snark Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 10:51 am
If Kopp’s is like an atavistic misinformed voice from the deep past (as shown by his latest comments), then is it just Diridon’s than matters?
Reality Check Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Carl “SJ-BART-über-alles” Guardino’s Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Rod “they-named-a-train-station-after-me” Diridon (head of the Mineta Transportation Institute at SJSU) are some reasons. Carl got himself appointed to the California Transportation Commission, too. Oh, and did we mention SJ’s longtime $8b BART dreams?
William Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Please remember that cities along the Altamont corridor also oppose to have any new rail ROW going through their cities, and their support of CAHSR is much weaker than San Jose.
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:26 pm
Ping ping ping. We have a winner. Altamont is, by all polls, a NIMBY heaven. And the Altamont route doesn’t eliminate the PAMPA NIMBYs either — unless you take the Second Transbay Tunnel route.
One of the reasons I think the Second Transbay Tunnel was the right choice all along is the political alignment. SF: supports strongly. Oakland: supports strongly. Northern part of East Bay: by all accounts would support strongly. This reduces the NIMBY problem, and the added pressure from Oakland and Berkeley would probably help get things done.
So the Board having saved $500M, has the bottom line figure been reduced to $97.5B or is it still $98B?
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
What does it matter. When all is said and done it will be $120 billion anyway.
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
The bottom line is now $64.5 billion, I believe, down from $65 billion. The $98B number was a fabrication based on fake inflation rates.
The Authority’s change of tack is pretty interesting. This alignment assures that the initial construction segment is wholly incompatible with Amtrak California. That seems to assure that IOS will require purchasing new rolling stock and create a Merced to Bakersfield service before construction is complete anywhere else.
That gives me a hunch that Talgo isn’t going to be involved as it is close to Amtrak. But Taiwan might be. They might be willing to inject some capital if we use their technology. I could see Taipei building their own HSR factory in Malaysia and then trading it for LNG if we build a terminal on our coastline. That’s probably the deal Schwarzenegger struck and it died a horrible death at the hands of the Coastal Comm’n.
The question is, if Brown can’t give Taiwan LNG, what else might it be able to convince them to buy?
Alon Levy Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 11:53 am
Taiwan doesn’t even make its own trains. The 700T is Japanese. It has Japanese transplant factories, but I’m not sure if they make trains.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Kawasaki made the 700T, but apparently modified their design to meet what Taiwan wanted, European size seats and stronger HVAC. What’s so interesting is that because the 700 is exactly what Japan proposed selling to CHSRA, they can parachute in and sell their design. Then, what they can offer is to have a FoxConn like entity build the rolling stock for cheap in a third country. Taiwan, looking for exposure to its “brand” would be happy to pay for some portion of construction if we buy enough rolling stock.
William Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Nippon Sharyo does have a joint-venture rolling-stock company called Taiwan Rolling Stock Company, currently responsible for assembly and maintenance of Taiwan Railway Administration’s orders and rolling stocks. So a “made in Taiwan” Shinkansen is not completely out of the possibility.
But no Shinkansen trains were made outside of Japan…
synonymouse Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
No tail tracks to Amtrak would mean the CHSRA would need to have enough money for the entire segment. The bids would have to come in low. And of course if they could quality with no electrification.
Perhaps the CHSRA is simply taking a “I dare you to stop me” approach. Just spend as much money as possible on whatever and see if you can get away with it. I mean wasn’t that the upshot from the get-go?
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
No.
If that had been the upshot, we’d have stuff like they have in Southeast Asia, with the support pillars for elevated railways constructed, but no actual bridges between them.
J. Wong Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
“wholly incompatible with Amtrak California”? What does that mean? Isn’t a requirement for the Federal funds that the ICS be usable by something else if necessary (that is, they don’t get additional funding for an IOS)? And aren’t part of the funds from the Fed’s to be held in reserve to construct the connectors between existing track and the ICS if this is the case?
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Take a deep breath and remember what the Board has said:
They don’t expect to get private investment until there is HSR service. Therefore, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if they began service as soon as Merced to Fresno was complete. The key point is that the Authority approved a station location in Merced that does not allow a transfer from the San Joaquins to HSR. That’s critical, because it opens the door to a scenario where the Altamont Corridor Express would. That would conveniently feed passengers onto BART until Diridion Intergalactic is complete.
And if Bay to Basin takes another ten or fifteen years, that gives BART plenty of time to “conquer” Stockton , the Peninsula, and Tracy. Keeping HSR alive, but barely, is exactly what it wants so that the Bay Area can reassert itself against the south…..
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
It’s a realllllly long hike from where the ACE stations are to where the BART stations are.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
Today, yes… but once the BART extension are built…different story….
Peter Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
You mean the BART extension that Livermore actually wants? Namely the freeway median station? They may have chosen a downtown station in the Program EIR, but a LOT of opposition has appeared since then, as well as budget problems, and a VERY disfavorable cost-benefit ranking by the MTC.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Exactly. Not to mention the minor detail that until the Altamont Corridor Project is complete, ACE to Merced is a pipe dream. But if you delay HSR enough, the BART kraken can suffocate its prey.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
By the time they extend BART to Livermore HSR will be running to Transbay.
Joey Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
It relies on having a coherent phasing plan which is beyond the cognitive abilities of our current transit planners.
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:46 pm
No, it’s really not the transit planners’ fault here; it’s the politicians’, because the transit planners do what their bosses tell them to. The politicians aggressively prevent coherent phasing plans from being carried out, by delaying one project, pushing another, asking for weird and implausible changes in another. Hell, the politicians are the reason there are multiple *competing* transit planners in the Bay Area (which is a good recipe for lack of a coherent plan).
Of course, this raises the question, who do we blame for the politicians?…. Some places certainly have better-behaved politicians than others…
Peter Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Tom, you’re conflating the ICS with the complete Merced-Fresno route being studied in the EIR. While the EIR recommends a Merced station location that is not co-located with the existing San Joaquins station, the ICS does not extend all the way to Merced. The ICS, as currently planned, connects to the existing BNSF tracks both between Merced and Fresno, as well as between Fresno and Bakersfield. There is no problem with route compatibility.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Not exactly.
Note that staff noted that Merced to Bakersfield constituted an “extended ICS” yet not an IOS: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10330
By the same token, I’m pretty sure there are no legal problems with operating service on the ICS immediately. Moreover, the only reason you think that Merced to Bakersfield can’t double as a “usable” segment is because of this:
Just remember that:
.
In other words, wherever the Feds or private partners want to build, the Authority can build.
The key here is that (3) doesn’t really exist… Amtrak California would cause the Authority to bear some sort of operational cost and (4) always exists unless you build the track in the middle of the desert. In theory (1) is a problem except that given that the system always starts with zero ridership, the alternative would have to generate more revenue with the same amount of money.
That leaves the test track and the presence of outside money as deciding factors. Merced to Fresno comprises two stations.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Oh and I should point out, the Authority can add to the list of factors it uses for establishing priorities, but if it does, it must consider 1-4….
Which means that if they want to use 5) angers Richard Mylnarik, 6) causes the greatest amount of depreciation on Morris’ house and 7) stokes Robert’s ego… they can, but they must weigh such utility against 1-4….
Peter Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
I’m scared to ask you to elaborate or explain your comments, because I don’t believe doing so would result in a better understanding of your arguments.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 6:27 pm
Peter, how does Merced to Bakersfield not qualify as a usable segment? I’m arguing that Prop 1A allows it to be, even if the Authority chooses not to designate it as such.
Peter Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
What? Where did I say that?
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 5:03 am
Okay, now I’m thoroughly confused too… All I was trying to demonstrate is that the hybrid vote pretty much locks in the wye and decision in Merced and Bakersfield. However, because Merced won’t have Amtrak California and HSR using the same station, I think the Board is leaning toward buy rolling stock and serving Merced to Fresno right away.
Jon Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 10:30 am
No, they’re probably just planning on running test trains until they complete the connection between Bakersfield and the LA Basin and actually have a chance of making some money. There was never any plan to have Amtrak use the HSR track except as a worst case scenario where nothing else ever got built.
Merced was never going to have the same station as Amtrak. Even if they had picked the BNSF route the station would have been in the same place as it is now, rather than the edge of downtown Amtrak station on the BNSF line.
Jon Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Peter is correct here. The ICS extends from Avenue 17 in Madera to Allen Rd in Bakersfield, as shown on page 4 of the presentation you linked to, and in this more detailed email to prospective contractors. Both of these locations are right next to the BNSF tracks. The extensions to the ICS south into Bakersfield and north into Merced shown on page 5 of the presentation you linked to are not yet funded; the presentation just indicates that they will be the next priority after the current ICS. When they are funded, it will likely be with money that does not have an independent utility clause, as the ARRA program which requires that clause will no longer be handing out cash.
Jon Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
I should note that the Avenue 17 to the San Joaquin River north of Fresno is listed as an “option” in the RFQ and not mentioned in the email I linked to.
Mike Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
To put it more accurately, the Authority has said that they don’t expect private investment until an operational HSR system proves ridership and profitability. HSR operations on the ICS between Merced and Fresno will have, at most, a few thousand daily riders, and probably not enough fare revenue coming in even to justify the depreciation cost of purchasing new HSR rolling stock. It won’t be financially advantageous for the Authority to put this service out, and if they did it wouldn’t attract private investment.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
I don’t care what the baord says, at this cost and lack of sufficient revenue to cover it they will never see any private investment.
Howard Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
The initial construction segment is fully compatible with Amtrak California, because Amtrak trains will switch from the BNSF track to the UP track northwest of Merced on an industrial crossover track that Merced now owns; therefore, the southern terminus of the San Joaquin’s will be moved to the Merced High Speed Train Station when it is opened for service.
Just to be clear, the 98 billion figure only included the cheapest alternatives so this decision just means the cost has not gone up more.
Eric M Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 11:47 am
So that means you have gone through the authority’s cost estimate. Why don’t you change your website instead of deceitful.
Walter Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
Eric, you’re being a whiner. You refer to the spot on CARRD’s home page where it says that it has been 306 days since the Authority was asked to revise its cost estimate. This is accurate. You’ll notice that CARRD isn’t saying the Authority DIDN’T update their estimate, only that they were asked to do so 306 days ago.
Sarcasm aside–Elizabeth, can we at least agree that this is an incomplete statement?
Eric M Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
No, because I am so sick of lack of forward thinking in this country and obstructionists who go by the false pretense of try to claim they are for something, “if done right”, ie CARRD
Walter Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
You and I both, Eric. I was speaking to Elizabeth. I’m hoping she’ll agree with my characterization of CARRD’s “days since” box as incomplete or explain why it is appropriate.
Eric M Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Oh, gotcha.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 8:03 pm
Being forward thinking also includes looking at all alternatives and being fiscally responsible in the decision making process to ensure the long term viability, something CAHSRA seems rather incapable of doing. If this project is not done right and becomes a giant white elephant it is currently on track to become not one more mile of HSR will be built in America. You realize that right?
There is far more at stake here then you getting your way.
joe Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Yes, all alternatives which of course is expensive and grounds for killing HSR – spending millions and not building anything.
The PAMPA EIR lawsuit litigated the requirement HSR study more alternatives. Fail.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
You completely ignored the real issue here… Fiscal responsibility.
joe Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Yes, I understand CAHSRA lost 1.7 Billion in investor funds, oh wait that’s a Wall Street Investment Firm.
You’ve got nothing but townhall talking-points & internet connection.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
You are of course aware that the Wall Street Firm in question was headed up by an HSR supporting liberal douche named Jon S. Corzine right?
http://www.houstontomorrow.org/livability/story/lahood-imagines-500-billion-in-high-speed-rail/
Quote: “…Rendell hosted a panel that included former New Jersey Gov. Jon S. Corzine, former U.S. House Democratic Majority Leader Dick Gephardt, laborers’ union president Terence M. O’Sullivan, and Google’s Pittsburgh office director, Andrew Moore.”
What were you saying about talking points and an internet connection?
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
What the hell are you talking about?
Corzine is an idiot and a Wall Street crook, but frankly I don’t recall him doing a damned thing for HSR. I do remember him driving without his seatbelt on — that was him, right?
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
There is no 98 billion dollar figure. The number is 65 billion.
Is that money saved or is the authority going to use the $500 million on something else? They will probably spend it on another viaduct somewhere else so you can’t really talk about savings. Call it re-shuffling.
Someone should tell them that they have $50 billion and not a dime more. Be creative, be efficient. I’m getting repetitive now. But I need to say it again: If this goes back to the ballot it will be killed with fire. And 2033 to finish the first section is far too long. Is this a one-man project or something? Why on earth would it take two decades? It’s not a train to the Moon.
What’s even worse is that the Transbay Terminal began construction with the faith that the SF-LA section will be finished at the same time the Terminal opens. Now we have these stations built long before any HSR will pass by. How the youth would say today: Coordination fail.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
They have 10 billion and not a penny more. Anything else has to be negotiated.
Joey Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
And $50b is being generous…
Eric Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Be creative, be efficient? what do you suggest, build it out of fairy tales and pixie dust? There comes a point when the cheap alternative isn’t an alternative. Lets face it, this isa 200mph train system they’re designing. its a 700 mile long race track. It needs to be built to high standards and that’s going to cost money.
Its going to take two decades because they have to beg for money. If the state (ot the fed) was more behind it, and the environment and community impacts weren’t an issue, I’m sure it could happen more quickly.
And there’s no way the Transbay terminal was built on the assumption that the SF-LA segment would be finished when the terminal was complete. It may have been built with the high speed system in mind, and space set aside for those terminals/platforms, but there’s no was it was expected to be completed concurrently.
Emma Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 9:49 pm
I think you’re the one living in fantasy land if you think that Californians will sign off on something that costs $98 billion which is 100% of the yearly state revenue. It’s not gonna happen, period.
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
Luckily, the cost is currently estimated at $65 billion.
Boy, the phony “98 billion” numbers based on fake inflation estimates were an effective piece of propaganda, weren’t they? Even you believed them.
ComradeFrana Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 2:46 am
“Lets face it, this isa 200mph train system they’re designing. its a 700 mile long race track. It needs to be built to high standards and that’s going to cost money.”
The thing is, it’s not just going to cost a lot of money. It’s going to cost much more than most HSR systems in the world.
Let’s just do a quick comparison:
Taiwan high-speed rail: 73% of the line elevated, 18% in tunnel, in earthquake prone area. Cost per km in 2010 dollars: 46.5 million.
California high-speed rail: Cost per km in 2010 dollars: 78.6 million.
When the cost per km is almost twice as high as THSR, one of the most expensive HSR systems in the world, which despite it’s high ridership is struggling to make a net profit, you just have to wonder that maybe, just maybe, the CHSRA is doing something horribly wrong.
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
Hmm, so you’re saying that CAHSR is going to be 832 km (520 miles) long?
ComradeFrana Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 1:14 am
According to the Business Plan the full Phase 1 has length approx. 520 miles and costs the oft quoted figure $65 billion. So no, I’m not saying that, the CHSRA does.
J. Wong Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
It may not cost $98b. They’ve built in a contingency of 20% so it may be less (hopefully a lot). We’ll know better when the bids come in for the ICS, which given the economy are unlikely to be padded.
As to the 2033 date, again they’re being conservative, but that is for completion of Phase 1, which is LA to SF. Initial operation will begin before that. Also, the anti-HSR folks are fighting tooth and nail to stop it so they have to be conservative about how long it is going to take to actually push through. Again, things can change. Once the ICS is underway maybe opposition will lessen. We can only hope.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
They should have built in 50% contingency.
synonymouse Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 12:08 am
Yeah, the conventional wisdom is that the bids will be artificially low due to the recession and the desire of contractors to get in early and become the favored or pets of the CHSRA in later bids. Problem is there may be no later bids, in which case a loball bid could end up not performing.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
The most recent airport project I’ve seen with a 20 year time horizon was actually carrying a 100% contingency.
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
It will not cost $98 billion. The price tag is $65 billion (2010 dollars), and inflation is simply not going to run as high as they are estimating, not with the current Depression.
Martin Engel: High-speed rail critics have come a long way
J. Wong Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 2:39 pm
“Truth”? The truth is they don’t want HSR coming through their communities for completely selfish reasons. Everything else is just grabbing at straws to support that.
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
Yes, they’ve gone from being angry kooks to being an organized disinformation campaign. That’s a long way, and not in a good way.
The last page of this presentation is interesting. What are the chances of the
Atherton lawsuit actually resulting in a change to Altamont?
Peter Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
There is very little that the lawsuit itself can force. All you can get with a CEQA lawsuit is delay. The big changes won’t come from these types of lawsuits.
What COULD happen, is that the Authority may use the result of the latest Atherton suits to justify taking a closer look at Altamont, particularly to exert pressure on San Jose to force it to drop its ridiculous tunnel demands. Whether that actually results in a change to Altamont is anyone’s guess.
William Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
Yes, as a Pacheco supporter, I do wish San Jose will drop demand for the tunnel and 87-280 alignment, and go back to the original preferred alignment along the current Caltrain/UP corridor.
StevieB Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
If the HSR Authority follows the advice of expert testimony and builds the initial operating segment to Los Angeles County then San Jose will have another 10 years to decide upon station design issues. The Peninsula segment will have another 15 years from now to decide what to do about the train right of way to San Francisco. Many politicians and administrations will have a say in how and how fast HSR is built. This type of infrastructure takes generations but HSR will eventually be built in California.
joe Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
IMHO, a SJ Tunnel’s biggest opposition comes from Physics. The City will need time to accept the findings, maybe even hire a independent firm to Fedex a clue to the downtown business association.
Joey Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 12:32 am
The tunnel is ridiculous, but so is the 60′ viaduct. There’s no reason, operationally or technically, why either is necessary.
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
What Stevie said. Given both the political situation (LA / Burbank / Sylmar want HSR and will put money in, while there’s nothing but trouble in the Bay Area south of SF proper) and the general view of the experts, the second construction segment is almost certain to be Bakersfield-LA. That end of things will have decades to decide what to do.
Personally, I suggest bulldozing the houses of the Peninsula jackasses who are spending their own money to fearmonger in the Central Valley — hurting the Central Valley’s own interests. But then I’m vindictive. I know that won’t happen.
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Ahem, “The Bay area end of things will have decades to decide what to do”.
Peter Baldo Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
I hope people don’t think they can kick this around for ‘decades’. ACE would like to upgrade its system, BART would like to connect with ACE near Livermore, and Caltrain has plans as well. Their course of action will be affected by whatever route is chosen for high speed rail. They can’t be expected to put their plans on hold for ‘decades’.
State rail authority will let PR contract expire
High speed rail far “cleaner” than cars or planes – report
Bullet train’s travel-time mandate adds to ballooning of costs
The ballot measure for the project required that the L.A.-to-San Francisco trip take no more than two hours, 40 minutes. Achieving that would mean building more viaducts and tunnels, which are costly.
synonymouse Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 12:00 am
Vartabedian is pointedly critical of the Tehachapi detour so I can certainly see how this article would enrage the devout believers hereabouts in the consecrated Kopp-Morshed-PB scheme. But Lowenthal is just riding the fence in typical political fashion.
At this point I don’t think it will be easy, either politically or legally, to change or weasel around the provisos of Prop 1A without putting the whole thing back before the voters. It might be possible to challenge obscure or contradictory elements. For instance what is precisely the prescribed routing, if there is such an exact thing in Prop 1A.
Dumbarton rail funding delays may be boon for buses
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Pissing money away on diesel fuel. Sad.
StevieB Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 3:08 am
The environmental study is years away and $5.5 million is less than 1% of the projected cost of the bridge. It is much less than the $91 million already taken from the Dumbarton bridge project for the prioritized BART Warm Springs Extension project.
Reality Check Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Less than %1? While this implies a bridge cost of over $550m, the (probably know-nothing) consultants at the Dumbarton meeting in Menlo Park last month said they thought the bridge cost was around $300m.
StevieB Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
The article you cited says a $700 million to $800 million price for the bridge.
Reality Check Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 4:43 pm
First off, reporters very often get stuff wrong. Secondly, the article does not say what you said it does. There’s a difference between the project cost and the cost for the bridge — which is only a part of the project.
There’s a lot more detailed info (reports, etc.) about the project — much of it outdated — on the Dumbarton Rail Corridor part of the San Mateo County Transportation Authority’s website.