OCTA To Call For Moving HSR Funds
Anti-HSR reporter Tracy Wood has a new article up at Voice of OC reporting that the Orange County Transportation Authority is calling on the California High Speed Rail Authority to move the currently available funds out of the Central Valley and toward the endpoints of the project – i.e. Orange County.
After spending much of her article rehashing various attacks on the HSR project, Wood finally gets around to her point. (She wrote earlier in the day, before the OCTA board unanimously approved the letter described below.)
A draft letter scheduled for a vote by the OCTA’s 17-member board states it has “grave concern over what appears to be missing elements and unrealistic components of the [newest business] plan.”…
The draft letter by OCTA states the “project has the potential to provide significant improvements to California’s transportation infrastructure, but must be done with prudent planning and judicious use of public funds.”
It urged the High-Speed Rail Authority to abandon its plan to begin construction in the Central Valley and instead use a “bookend” approach, starting in the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas and moving toward the Valley.
That approach would ensure more riders would immediately begin using the trains, the draft letter said. It also commended state high-speed rail officials for switching to a “blended” approach, which initially integrates the system with existing commuter lines in the large urban areas of Northern and Southern California, including the Anaheim-to-Los Angeles corridor.
The draft noted that “the funding plan is largely speculative and lacks any firm commitment of funding beyond the initial construction section.”
The draft added that the high-speed rail’s funding plan puts it in direct competition with local rail agencies, including OCTA, for “scarce” federal rail and other transportation money.
These criticisms don’t make much sense from the perspective of building a statewide high speed rail system. If the goal is to simply improve existing service in Orange County, however, it makes sense to attack the notion of starting in the Central Valley. Even though the 2012 Business Plan indicated this was a prudent way to begin, OCTA apparently prefers to just take the money right now and run.
Of course, it’s not even clear how much one could buy for $6 billion in LA/OC or the Bay Area. One of the main reasons for starting construction in the Central Valley is that it’s cheaper to build there given the less amount of urban landscape to deal with. Building rail infrastructure in Southern California is not cheap, and starting at the ends does nothing to fill in the missing link between SF and LA.
Further, as the OCTA should know, the federal government has not shown any interest in allowing the federal money to be moved from the Valley to the endpoints. OCTA may be hoping to influence the Obama Administration to allow this, but that still appears to be an uphill battle.
Orange County surely needs better regional rail. But it also needs high speed rail in order to help travelers from Northern and Central California reach OC, and vice-versa. Orange County’s only airport, John Wayne, is at capacity with no room for expansion. Plans to build a new and larger airport at the former El Toro Marine base were abandoned ten years ago, and there’s nowhere else to put new flights. So Orange County either has to build high speed rail, or simply give up on the idea of more people coming to visit the county for work or pleasure.
OCTA should not be in the business of making long-term decisions based on short-term considerations. The best thing for OCTA to do would be to help get the high speed rail project underway in the Central Valley and fight hard to get the funding it needs to build out from there toward San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orange County.
OCTA considers the CHSRA a competitor for funding? The original Evil Empire, I’m sure, has its operatives at MTC working at this very moment on carving up the carcass of nowhere to nowhere.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 4:48 am
No, you got it backwards. MTC and Metro have figured out how to reconcile HSR with their “vision”. OCTA’s problem is that it was counting on Metro to defend its interests and without Katz or Pringle on the Board any more, the Northern California establishment cut its deal with L.A. and will move forward.
OCTA, meanwhile, is screwed.
I said yesterday there’s a high likelihood that in exchange for IOS North, Metro would get funding to extend Metrolink from San Bernardino to Victorville to connect with Desert Xpress.
What people don’t understand is that Metrolink tickets allow you free transfers and that Metro reimburses local operators for this. Obviously, if the only route that hits Victorville originates at Union Station, OCTA is frozen out of any revenue from this arrangement. That’s the “competition” OCTA is talking about.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 6:30 am
Aren’t you forgetting about the Romulans? They would ally with the Klingons to prevent HSR from crossing the neutral zone.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 7:49 am
Wouldn’t the Borg be a more apt comparison?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
all of them have to fill out the paperwork with the Vogons first.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Vogon poetry, I hear, is simply amazing…
VBobier Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Cylons do not fill out paperwork made by inferior Humans.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
…but it’s Vogon paperwork….
http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/railroads/197509-lahood-clashes-with-gop-over-rail-criticism
Looks like we’re now entering the ‘he said she said’ phase. Apparently the federal government may not be showing any interest (as Robert puts it) but they aren’t the ones actually defining WHERE it must be either. Yet all we hear from the CHSRA (and Robert) is that it’s start in the Central Valley or nothing.
Ray Lahood says…
“If you don’t like the places a high-speed rail is proposed to go in California, you need to talk to the people in California who’ve been working on high-speed rail for 15 years,” he said. “This is not a result of President Obama or Secretary LaHood drawing [routes] on a map.”
The only real question here – who are the biggest liars? Is it, or is it not the Federal Government requiring the start in the Central Valley. Maybe Octa is actually just looking for the truth on this point?
Since there will be a federal hearing on this in the next couple days, maybe we’ll get a straight answer from this…
joe Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 7:28 pm
The liars are imaginary.
Feds set ground rules for funding such as stand alone utility. CA met the Fed conditions with the HSR proposal to build in the CV.
Award granted and its time to use the money or lose it.
Maybe we should just be thrilled that OC actually wants it now. Isn’t that a positive change?
I’d rather counties be fighting over who gets it first rather than trying to block it anywhere.
Mike Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
The actual OCTA letter is a bit confusing on whether or not OCTA wants it. http://bit.ly/rE6rMI There’s really only a passing reference to beginning at the “bookends” rather than in the Central Valley, and the point is not reinforced in the letter’s conclusion. Most of the letter is taken up with hammering on the deficiencies of the business plan (e.g., the funding is speculative, the cost estimate is too low, HSR might compete for existing federal funds such as CMAQ and New Starts, $170 billion highway/airport comparison is bogus).
So the overall message and logical conclusion of the letter seems to be: CHSRA, we’re not buying what you’re selling. Straighten out your story if you can. If you can’t, well, then we don’t want to see this project built. But it doesn’t seem to be an effective argument for actually doing HSR and starting it at the bookends.
joe Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
OC is pissed at Gov Brown for balancing the CA budget by eliminating its 48 Million bonanza Bankruptcy bailout. OC pays 90 M annually for costs associated with their stupid bankruptcy. Apparently this free lunch became an entitlement.
Lets just burn OC to the ground and start over again. I would rather live in Ulanbator than OC.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 4:49 am
I hear the beaches in Ulanbator aren’t very pretty though….
Andre Peretti Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 7:15 am
From peakoil.com:
The smoke can make it hard to breathe and it’s affecting the health of Ulan Bator’s burgeoning population.
The director of the environmental health research centre in Ulan Bator, Dr N Saijaa, said: “The mortality rate is increasing, people’s health is getting worse and the incidence of respiratory diseases such as bronchitis, pneumonia and lung cancer has increased.”
Donk Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 9:07 am
Well, at least they have the trans-Siberian Railway that stops in Ulanbator between Beijing and Moscow. But it takes like 36 hours to go from Beijing to Ulanbator, and like 3 more days to Moscow. I actually went to Ulanbator once, and we had to change equipment at the China/Mongolia border due to the different gauges. We flew back on the Mongolian airline, which is a much more practical way to get around. I don’t think cars are too viable for long distance travel since the roads suck and it is damn cold for 3/4 of the year.
Back to the OC comparison – The rolling hills in Mongolia sort of reminded me of the rolling hills in Irvine, before they covered them up with a gazillion tract homes and turned it into a complete hell-hole. In contrast, all of the hills in Mongolia are totally covered in cow shit, so dense that you can’t take more than a few steps without stepping in some. I still give Mongolia the edge over Irvine.
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
I have to say, this is one of the funniest pieces of criticism I’ve read in a while. Thanks for the humor. (And yes, I know you’re serious, it’s still funny.)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
They are uncrowded though… like the rest of Mongolia.
We can argue all we want about the “Train-to-Nowhere” segment (when did the central valley become nowhere?), but the piece does bring up an important point about the project as a whole. The gap between the CV and LA must (!!!) be filled (the argument of how is an entirely new clusterf**k of debate, as this site has shown) as soon as possible, to build support for a statewide rail system and to attract private investors. Even if this whole project were to unravel, the state would at least be able to begin the process of building the super-Amtrak San Joaquins: 110 mph FRA lead sleds or in an even better case scenario, depending how much BNSF extorts the taxpayers (cuz I doubt UP will play nicely), 125 mph diesel service when the new California Cars and EMD locos start rolling off the assembly line. Thoughts?
joe Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Tim;
ARRA funding required all projects have stand alone utility so the CV segment is usable by design. Inefficient? Not as useful as lighting 7 trillion to recapitalize the banks which we did without blinking an eye.
Tim Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 11:49 pm
I’m not claiming that the first operating segment in the valley is necessarily inefficient (upgraded service in the CV is most certainly needed), it’s just that for the biggest initial benefit to rail infrastructure in the state, the gap closure would have the highest return on investment (ignoring political ramifications). The recapitalization of the banks (plus a couple of wars, here and there) shows how much money this country wastes (we could have gold-plated HSR stilt-a-rail BARTesque structures in every town in America, within reason) with no real plan to fix the problems at home.
synonymouse Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Hey, “BARTesque” – you’ve got something there. I like it.
Here what I don’t get. They want the construction to start at the endpoints, but also commend the blended approach…
Um, isnt the blended approach all about building in the middle, and using existing tracks in the endpoints…?
How would you do a blended approach by starting in the OC? High speed rail from Anaheim to LA, and then existing tracks to SF? Yeah, great idea.
StevieB Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 3:36 am
They want to start with small improvements to Orange County rail infrastructure and not building a high speed rail system.
Mike Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 8:50 am
So let’s say OCTA gets its wish granted, and the “bookends” are to be done first, and let’s say 2/3 $4 billion) of the available money goes to the southern bookend. So what would actually get built that would be of immediate benefit (to Metrolink, I guess) and of future benefit to HSR? Some grade separations? A few miles of separate tracks for passenger and freight?
synonymouse Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 11:44 am
Much better than vandalized orphan track from nowhere to nowhere.
Do you think those pissed-off Kings Co. hsr neighbors are going to call the cops when they see some gangbangers on CHSRA property?
Peter Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 11:48 am
Because gang-bangers are going to hang out on the railroad tracks half a mile out from town?
synonymouse Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
I see no indication that the inflation of commodities, particularly metals, is going to stop. Yes, gangbangers etc. are going to rip off any metals they can get their hands on, even if it is not that easy or without risk of getting caught. That’s a poor, remote area and AFAIK the neighbors are deeply hostile to the hsr plan.
The class ones won’t touch this white elephant and where is Amtrak going to get the money for maintenance and expensive 24/7 security? The electrification requirement should be tested in court before this nutty plan goes any farther.
Peter Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
Go ahead, ask Aaron Fukuda whether he would say anything to criminal activity near his house. You may be surprised what he says.
synonymouse Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
They have trying to get laws passed criminalizing not reporting. Puh-leez most people with a pulse know to be discreet about revealing what you really feel.
In Rome slaves who did not report any moves to rebellion were to be crucified whether they participated or not.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
What commodity inflation?
Alon Levy Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
Also, I’m all for testing electrification in court, but it should be a New York court and not a California court and the test subjects should be Albany’s legislators.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
…. They’ve been testing electrification ever since Mr. Sprague hung wires over the streets of Richmond….. By the time the New Haven was making decisions about it they had a pretty good grip on how to do it anc the pros and cons of various methods. Every see pictures of the Siemens three phase test train with three pantographs going to the wire on the side of the track instead of over the track….
Alon Levy Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
I don’t care, they should retest it. In case they need fewer than 214 = 150 + 62 + 1 + 1 test subjects, a few more technologies they could test include flamethrowers and corrosive chemicals.
Nathanael Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 7:29 pm
Hey, hey, Alon, not all Albany legislators deserve that.
Just a majority.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Gasoline is a commodity. Much easier to siphon gas out of your tank and much easier to fence or use in the car that they stole. Wait. They could just steal your car…
synonymouse Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
Yep, that’s why Fresno is the car theft capital of the US.
Nathanael Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
Electrified fences will do nicely for preventing metal theft on an electrified railroad.
Andre Peretti Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 8:09 am
And a court will award thieves $1million damages for intentional bodily harm.
Does anybody else find it just a little bit awkward that the OCTA CEO is also the chairman of the California High Speed Rail Peer Review Group? How can he perform his job as independent peer reviewer when OCTA potentially has a financial interest in the failure of the project?
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 9:51 am
No…
Kempton is the former CalTrans Director under Arnold but wasn’t kept on because he’s a Republican. OCTA was his landing pad because Metro lured away their old Director Art Leahy.
OCTA has a 13 member board that resembles MTC. Kempton doesn’t get a vote. Moreover, as a Schwarzenegger guy, he doesn’t want the project to fail…instead he just wants it done in a way that doesn’t turn it into the union’s newest plaything….
Reality Check Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 11:28 am
I met Kempton in early November during lunch at TRAC’s annual conference. During his talk after lunch, he spoke about the latest HSRA business plan. He said that while he hadn’t read it yet, he was optimistic about much of what he knew about it so far — but that he still thought it made more sense to prioritize closing the Bakersfield-LA gap. He was unambiguously a supporter of CA HSR, but clearly — like almost anyone — had ongoing concerns about the way HSRA was managing the project. His overall tone and attitude he projected was what I’d characterize as cautiously upbeat.
morris brown Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 11:51 am
@Clem:
It is more than a litle awkward. It is clearly a conflict of interest and although comments have been made about this, like almost all comments, the CHSRA or legislature doesn’t take any action.
The project is essentially dead. Congress is not gong to fund further pieces. They feel swindled by having been told the project would cost much less than 1/2 the current estimates and they certainly gave no indication that they were willing to fork another $50 billion in funding.
It all about the money for the OCTA — they want whatever funding they can get for themselves.
The whole idea of a peer review, was to give the legislature another independent view of the project. So what does the CHSRA and vanArk do? They proceed to engage the group for advice, essentially getting them to be a member of their team. What kind of chance is there still for a really independent review of the project?
Nathanael Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 7:31 pm
For once you said something honest: “It all about the money for the OCTA — they want whatever funding they can get for themselves.”
Congress will partially fund the Bakersfield-LA segment in 2013. OK, I have only about 65% certainty on that prediction, but seriously, my political predictions are pretty solid.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
Well, if President Romney wins reelection and gets a Democratic house, then maybe. On the other hand, it sounds like the kind of thing that would be the first to go in a bipartisan compromise for getting 60 Senate votes.
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
The more they do these “bipartisan compromises to get 60 Senate votes”, the more likely violent revolution in the US becomes. They are gonna have to cut it out sooner or later.
joe Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
Awful to engage the peer review and take their advice – it’s a conflict of interest to listen to expert advice.
Van Ark should have totally ignored the Peer Review and maintained Reviewer’s objectivity.
Now that the CAHSRA is asking their advice, the peer review will be hesitant to criticize the project.
Nadia Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
@ Clem
AB3034 has a specific provision for someone like Kempton (actually – 2 people like him) to be on the Peer Review Group:
From AB 3034
“Two expert representatives from agencies providing intercity or commuter passenger train services in California, designated by the Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing.”
I have an idea to quickly reduce the cost of the project…. rename San Jose to LA Phase One…. the rest of the phases as “Future Phases” – San Jose to SF Phase Two… San Diego Phase Three… Sacramento Phase Four, and drop Anaheim entirely – let people find their own way from Union Station on the Metro. After all, the LA-San Diego and LA-Anaheim legs take such circuitous routes that even at high speeds, they’re not much faster than current rail options. Cut the project cost by 65% this way?
I find it odd that OCTA wants the money. How much transit infrastructure has OCTA built? I’ve seen some plans for light-rail lines, but those plans have gotten nowhere.
StevieB Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
OCTA plans on spending $20 billion on Freeways and Streets and $4 billion on Transit Capital Improvements in the next 25 years. Improving automobile speed is a priority.
Daniel Krause Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
OCTA cancelled the 21 mile Center Line LRT line a few years back as well. Yep, it is and has been all about the car in Orange County.
bixnix Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 8:52 pm
Not entirely about the car … the OC’s transportation alternative is the Disneyland Monorail.
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
Whose extension outside Disneyland, proposed by Pringle IIRC, is also unfunded.
OC politicians are simply not serious about transportation other than gas guzzlers.
Donk Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 1:08 am
The CenterLine probably wouldn’t have been worth a damn anyway. It would have been one of those 15mph mixed-traffic LRT lines. There is no hope for intracity rail in OC.
off topic but my trip to sf for a dr appt today will be a 13 hour trip mcd sf and back im glad we have a well established statewide network in place but im sick of the valley being discounted by no nothing hacks in the media in the valley we a choice of driving which is very slow and tedious or amtrak which is evven slower and more tedious i took the train since i can ridde on my pass and save the 25 dollars in gas 5 in bridge toll and 10 in parking i left at 730 this morning ill be home at pm its freakin ridiculous even when its free the bay and la markets have choices the rest of the sstate has no choice ill be driving next time air quality be damned
joe Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
The Central Valley is Costal California’s Appalachia.
Daniel Krause Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
Jim,
If you have time, you should share your views about the CV as being “somewhere” significant with state lawmakers in Sacramento in future hearings on the business plan and HSR budget.
jimsf Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
I would if thought it would matter.
Joey Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
Would you mind using a bit of punctuation?
jimsf Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
I think i posted that from my phone.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Why I should I or anyone else give a rip about your transportation problems?
What an entitled turd.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
“Why I should I or anyone else give a rip about your transportation problems?”
At least partially because sooner or later they will become YOUR problems–and some already are.
Don’t like driving with some old guy on the road tying things up? Brother, that will be you someday, and sooner than you think. Arthritis, bum nerves, bad eyes–they make driving tougher when you get older.
I have leg cramps and failing night vision (recovery from glare) myself, and I’m just 56. How would you like to meet me at night some time? Where I am it is dark at five in the afternoon right now. How much would YOU want to drive if you were aware of this in yourself?
Last I heard, there is a mandatory retirement age–I think it is 60–for airline pilots. I suspect there are good reasons for that.
Also, do you still want to be wedded, do you still want your country to be dependent on that “go juice” that is dominated in the world by other people who don’t like us for real and imagined reasons? How much does it cost to send fighting people there to protect that black goo?
The real question: Can we afford the status quo?
jimsf Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
He’s not interested in a conversation. He’s just bitter.
Ferrari-red NTV “Italo” HSR trains to shake up Italian railways
egk Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
Isn’t it fantastic how the government investment in hsr infrastructure serves as the foundation for a thriving industry, with new companies entering the market to compete with one another to the consumers benefit?
Wouldn’t it be great if we could have that here in the states?
Quite obviously Southwest and other airlines don’t seem to be worried about being driven out of business by HSR
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-lands-19-billion-southwest-125430864.html
joe Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 7:55 pm
I’m flying SW SFO to Chicago Midway, direct. Amazing!
Just my opinion, but I kind of like the bookend approach to building our HSR system: NorCal, SoCal, and then Central Valley.
StevieB Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
San Francisco to San Jose and Los Angeles to Anaheim sections are several years away from reaching a political agreement on final plans. Given each year of delay adds $2 billion to $3 billion dollars to the cost of the system then starting at the ends is not an economically prudent option.
Nathanael Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
City terminal sections are *always* the most difficult.
I’m impressed that LA is coming to consensus on Union Station and its approaches. I strongly suspect that we will get LA-Central Valley, and then we may find the legislature modifying Prop 1A to go to Sacramento first…. because the Bay Area has been causing trouble.
thatbruce Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 9:32 am
Then the ‘done right’ crowd will be complaining because they’ve been put on the backburner for a decade ;)
Paulus Magnus Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 9:38 am
There’s no need to modify Prop 1A to go to Sac first, you just need to not delay the Phase 1 stuff by virtue of spending the funds on Phase 2 elements.
synonymouse Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 10:52 am
Perhaps California’s unsustainable spending should come to a crescendo sooner rather than later. The California really is so stupid as to believe in Jerry Brown’s free lunch, as in let the rich pay for it. Yeah, sure. As if they don’t know how to neutralize the taxman.
A mostly-empty BART thru the San Joaquin Valley boonies? Why not? Give the prison guards 3 months of annual leave and the UC Chancellors $1mil salaries. What me worry?
Bring on the deluge – the sooner the better. Pelosi embrace the newest pc fad – the pledge of allegiance in Spanish. citta operta Let’s go Reconquista and let Carlos Slim and the cartels runs the guvmint.
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 9:01 pm
California doesn’t have “unsustainable spending”, it has unsustainable *tax laws*.
For instance, one effect of Prop 13 was that corporations pay essentially no property tax. Hmm. And another effect was the obscene, anti-democratic 2/3 rules. As a result, whenever operatives of the Big Money Party control 1/3 (plus one) of one house of the legislature, it is impossible to raise any taxes from any of the Big Money interests. (They will usually be willing to raise fees on the poor, or the middle class, though.)
Big Money should at least be required to buy a *majority* of the legislature in order to pay less taxes than they ought to, but the 2/3 rule means that they can cheap out and only buy 1/3 of one house.
Loren Petrich Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
I’d be disappointed by abandonment of the Bay Area. I suggest going to San Jose first and avoiding the contentious issue of the Peninsula. One can build to Sacramento at the same time, since it would be politically similar to building to San Jose.
California High-Speed Rail Authority approves hybrid route from Merced to Fresno
Emma Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 7:55 pm
Are there any plans to make this project finish before we’re all in our graves? Last time I checked, the original idea was to begin construction by the end of 2011.
The project would still be at $45 billion if the authority had some spine and stuck to the original business plan. Instead we are planning to build dozens of viaducts to please every NIMBY from San Francisco to Downtown LA.
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
he irony may be that the route could change via the cemetary and our graves may further delay the project
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
We’ll all be dead anyway when this thing opens.
J. Wong Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
No, Sept. 2012 is the drop-dead date to begin construction.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 9:22 pm
For stimulus money. If everyone wants to spend the next decade doing community outreach and getting warm fuzzy feelings at the coffee klatches they schedule in every primary school between San Diego and Sacramento go right ahead. The poeople whining and moaning about how bad the community outreach has been can then moan and whine about how expensive the ten year long community outreach program is costing.
Elizabeth Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 9:46 pm
not true. The only hard and fast deadline is Sept 2017 – last day to spend money. Everything else is not a statuatory requirement and just lives within the FRA contract, which continues to change to reflect the facts on the ground.
joe Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 10:25 pm
Really? You stated the date when the funding expires but there are also requirements to start projects. Did you mean to imply that there isn’t any requirement on when the HSR project starts?
Arthur Dent Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 10:40 pm
This drop dead start date keeps getting repeated, but no one has cited the law or contract or agreement where it’s spelled out. My understanding is that the HSRA didn’t produce proof when asked by the Senate, and neither did the FRA when asked by Congress.
This drop dead date has become an urban myth. What’s the Authority’s motivation for perpetuating the rumor?
The “bookend” approach will not involve building light rail lines in Orange County. It will involve laying rail between LA and Bakersfield. So I don’t see much point in Orange County joining up with Kings County and Palo Alto and whoever else, to stop the project.
Starting construction in the central valley will give people time to settle on a route between Bakersfield and LA. I think there’s a few years of negotiations and arguing ahead, then some planning and engineering work, before Bakersfield-LA is shovel-ready. The same applies to the Bay Area approach.
The central valley alignment is an acceptable, if awkward, compromise between those who would like a fast, low-cost routing, and those who would prefer to provide better service to valley population centers. Discussion on this blog has raised questions regarding many aspects of the high speed rail routing. As for the central valley segment, however, I haven’t seen any alternative presented which is clearly superior and more feasible. At some point, you’ve got to go with what you’ve got, and I think we’ve reached that point with the central valley segment.
StevieB Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
If you are opposed to high speed rail then you know that construction in the Central Valley makes it more likely to be followed by construction of the Initial Operating Segment. If the IOS is built and makes a profit then investors will pay billions for the concession and then more construction will follow.
So if you do not want high speed rail your alternative is to attack central valley construction that makes the plan likely to succeed.
Mike Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 8:15 pm
Hell, if you (i.e., OCTA) don’t like HSR, there’s plenty of grounds on which to attack it, and a pretty decent shot of getting it killed in the California Legislature. There’s no need for complicated strategies like “I’ll support the project in a way that won’t work as well as the Central Valley-first way.” Just go ahead and oppose it; the thing is on life support anyways.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 8:25 pm
This ^
What I’m suggesting is that we postpone all the planning until after the recession. Since the recession our country has been moving more and more to the right up to the point where it’s downright embarrassing!
The right lies with every sentence and the news media refuses to call them out and question whether what has been said is true at all. I never understood the Anaheim extension to begin with. What’s the point of that thing?? It should be the last thing on our priority list and clearly behind the LA-SD extension which would easily double ridership.
StevieB Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 10:18 pm
The official end-date of the recession , according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, was June of 2009.
synonymouse Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 11:03 am
And according to the stock market cheerleaders there never was any recession. Remember at any and all times the American economy is in great shape. You don’t want to miss out on the gravy train, do you.
And be sure to invest in California real estate – it always goes up and you can never lose any money.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 8:26 pm
LOL… Sure it was.
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
That is exactly Stevie’s point.
In reality, this recession will not end until the government embraces Keynesian economics. Just like the Great Depression.
California could do that on its own if it chartered a Bank of California like the Bank of North Dakota (look it up) — otherwise we need to wait for all the Republicans in the federal government to be thrown out, including the Democrats who act like Republicans. Sigh.
joe Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 9:37 pm
Speaking of BoA, that company, which was locally owned, bought all the bonds for financing the Golden Gate Boondoggle Bridge. Talk about an over budget, bridge to nowhere – I bet you’ll find folks here that can explain why it’s bad infrastructure and encouraged sprawl.
Donk Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 1:11 am
The Anaheim extension was just for more votes for Prop 1A.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Why I should I or anyone else give a rip about your transportation problems?
What an entitled turd.
Once again you managed to pretend like you missed the point. Do you and other folks who use this desperate tactic actually think anyone falls for it?