Dianne Feinstein Calls for Combining CHSRA With Caltrans
On Monday Senator Dianne Feinstein wrote to Governor Jerry Brown to strongly support his plan to create a new agency that would include the Authority and Caltrans:
I am writing to express my strong support for your plan to move the California High Speed Rail Authority into a Transportation Agency under your Administration’s direction. I encourage you to act swiftly to address the high speed rail project’s problems, which I fear will put more than $3.5 billion in Federal funding at risk if not addressed.
Deploying the expertise and resources of CalTrans towards this effort over the next six months – in direct cooperation with the California High Speed Rail Authority – could permit a rapid reassessment of the route, decisions regarding the stages of construction, and substantial progress on acquiring right of way, in order to expedite the beginning of construction by the Federal government’s Fall 2012 deadline.
…As I have discussed with you previously, putting this project on a steady path to success would demonstrate that California remains capable of building big projects, putting thousands of our citizens to work, and leading the nation. I am concerned that our state’s future would be greatly hindered if this project either failed to get off the ground, or failed to be completed. I have spoken to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood about the importance of utilizing CalTrans’ expertise, and we both agree that your leadership in this area could improve prospects for success.
Feinstein and Brown have been allies before (and Feinstein officiated at Brown’s 2005 wedding to his wife, Anne Gust) so this is likely a show of support more intended for state legislators than the governor, though it’s easier to just write to one governor than 120 legislators. Still, it’s significant that Feinstein weighed in on this and her words will carry weight in Sacramento, particularly since she is one of the state’s most powerful politicians. It will force legislators to give serious consideration to the concept, and make it harder for them to dismiss the consolidation proposal. And adding Ray LaHood’s imprimatur to the concept just makes the argument even more compelling.
Perhaps just as importantly, Feinstein also addressed the Peer Review Report in her letter:
The California High Speed Rail Peer Review Group’s recent report, which failed to endorse state funds for the California High Speed Rail project until further steps to reduce project risk are taken, vividly identifies the need to act quickly. As you know, without the Legislature’s approval of this appropriation, more than $3.5 billion in Federal funding competitively awarded to California would be at risk. Specifically, the Group called for the Authority to:
* select an initial operating segment as soon as possible,
* include a deployment plan for electrified high speed trains with positive train control systems,
* further develop the business plan to address risk and cost issues,
* involve the private sector in project design,
* increase project management capacity,
* subject demand forecasts to greater scrutiny, and
* “reduce the risk to the state of a stranded project” by investing initial funding in the segments that currently serve significant train ridership (San Jose to San Francisco and Anaheim to Los Angeles).
I find it very hard to debunk some of the Group’s key conclusions. But I also believe that many of the concerns could be addressed quickly with a concerted effort under your leadership.
The first five of these make sense to me and are, from my perspective, uncontroversial and sensible. I don’t quite know what she means by “subject demand forecasts to greater scrutiny” – an independent peer review (by a different group, not by the authors of the report Feinstein references) did indeed subject the ridership forecasts to greater scrutiny and found the forecasts to be sound. I continue to be confident that further review will only reconfirm that conclusion but at some point this gets to be ridiculous.
The last bullet point of hers is the most troubling. She is clearly suggesting that the money be moved from the Central Valley to the endpoints. She didn’t say that the White House or LaHood agreed with this approach, but if Feinstein is going down that path then it certainly raises the possibility that the Obama Administration may indeed give in and allow the money to be moved.
I am not sure that would be a good idea. We’ve tried the path of investing in existing systems in those locations and while it’s helped build ridership, it also hasn’t done a damn thing to generate momentum to close the system gap between Bakersfield and Los Angeles. Folks like Paul Dyson have correctly been advocating for closing that gap for years now, but I have to believe the problem is the incremental approach.
If they’re only going to fund investments in urban areas, then what they are doing is a de facto investment in local rail service. It will be seen as such and won’t do anything to generate political momentum to provide the intercity connections that the Central Valley Initial Construction Segment – and a Bay Area to Valley or Valley to LA Initial Operating Segment – would provide. Building in the Central Valley, however – as part of an Initial Operating Segment that connects either to San José or LA – helps fill the gap and build on the promise of intercity rail.
It’s not quite clear what Senator Feinstein is after here. Maybe she wants the other changes and is less focused on where the ICS is located. But it’s worth making a stand for the Valley as the beginning of construction. The jobs impact will be the most significant there, but crucially, it will also help fill in the missing link needed to connect the regions of California – like a high speed rail project should.
San Jose to LA by train
Now – 11 hours
With HSR – 2 hours 10 minutes
We need HSR
Roberts comment on Feinstein’s last bullet point:
The last bullet point of hers is the most troubling. She is clearly suggesting that the money be moved from the Central Valley to the endpoints. She didn’t say that the White House or LaHood agreed with this approach, but if Feinstein is going down that path then it certainly raises the possibility that the Obama Administration may indeed give in and allow the money to be moved.
when looked at in the context of the discussion at the Trans and Housing committee meeting yesterday (Jan 10 2012) seems to fit right into where this committee thinks funding will be placed, or at least where they hope it will be placed.
link to hearing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw61wVQAfeU
swing hanger Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 12:05 am
I’m more for beginning construction at the endpoints, and specifically LA-Bako (Tejon or Tehachapi). At least in the public eye, it’s less of a “train to nowhere” (as much as I dislike this term), and can connect with existing San Joaquins or future Amtrak Plus trains, whichever the case may be. That’s how the Kyushu Shinkansen was built, with the most difficult engineering done first.
VBobier Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 7:13 am
Then You wouldn’t be building HSR, You’d be building local transit & It wouldn’t be all that much faster either, as It wouldn’t reach even 125mph, let alone 220mph.
Matthew B Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 10:27 am
I care about total trip time and connectivity with a one seat ride, not the highest speed. A connection through Tehachapi even with no other improvements could mean the tipping point for me to take the train from Southern California to Northern California instead of the plane. Right now, the coastal route is too slow and unreliable. The last time my mother took it she was many hours delayed on top of an already glacial timetable. I’ve always flown, and do so once or twice per year to visit family.
VBobier Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 10:49 am
I’d still rather see the CV built 1st, but I would not object to the CV & the Tehachapi/Palmdale connection being built at the same time, problem is the money simply isn’t there, yet. So the Tehachapi/Palmdale connection will have to come 2nd & If Ya build in the Tehachapi/Palmdale the critics will still say It’s a train to nowhere that’s now elevated…
StevieB Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 12:17 am
What I saw in the hearing was half a dozen union representatives saying it is too soon to stop the project that would create jobs for their members. LaMalfa responded that we should instead build highways for more automobiles to provide jobs. The committee including high speed rail critic Lowenthal voted not to stop the project without further hearings.
VBobier Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 9:29 am
Dead end advocate.
Is there anyone who knows what the hell is going on with this project anymore?
synonymouse Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 10:29 am
Same as always, but with a few strategic tweaks. Feinstein is a geriatric multi-billionaire with just enough brain activity going to permit a shark’s recognition of blood in the water. She is just covering her keester in case this hsr thing implodes. She has to factor in the unexpected to avoid potential embarrassment.
As for hsr, monkey business as usual, which is to waste as much money as possible. The hsr cheerleaders are counting on the BART principle to make this thing acceptable to the public, no matter how dysfunctional. That SOP is a derivative of standard brainwashing and interrogation techniques. Deprive the victim of any other options, put yourself in control and in the center of everything and they’ll come to love you in time. BART does it by cornering every bit of funding and eliminating all competition, like buses, via MTC fiat, etc. This why BART and hsr don’t and won’t get along very well as the competition could make BART’s Dorian Gray flaws so blatant in the mirror. The solution: put both under the same umbrella agency(Caltrans?)and have an Appalachin style sit-down where the dons of transit divvy up territories and rackets.
But for the big picture of hsr this won’t work. They won’t be able to kill the airlines, probably not the Greyhounds, etc, and definitely not the private automobile. So it will stand as an glaring boondoggle, a laughing stock, but having fulfilled its primary objective of transferring many billions to the Friends of Nancy and Jerry.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 12:35 pm
You know it occurred to me yesterday that California’s biggest competition for fossil fuels is China? That if we expect to have an economy even remotely based on trade in the future it behooves us to stop using petroleum wherever we can.
Not because of the environment, but because there’s no sense in competing with China’s factories for raw materials if it can be avoided.
In the same vein, BART succeeded for the same reason. Once congestion delays by car between the Bay Area’s various chokepoints equal the time it takes BART to get there, what’s the point in driving?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 1:23 pm
If you drive in you get to spend all that quality time searching for low cost parking or get to brag about how much you paid for parking.
Pecos Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 11:04 am
I’m with you Donk. We’re now well under a year until construction is supposed to begin and the politicos are still fighting over who’s going to manage the actual project, let alone where to start.
I also have to thank all the posters here for making the comments on this blog more entertaining than the actual content. No offense Robert, please keep up the good work. I can’t wait til the actual project gets started though, so the pieces can start actually falling into place. This project won’t go uncompleted, that’s not the way the first world does things. It does need to start sooner than later to shut the naysayers, airlines, and oil lobbies up.
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 2:01 pm
“This project won’t go uncompleted, that’s not the way the first world does things.”
That’s just what I’m afraid of, though. This country is acting like a third world country in so many ways it’s not funny.
In general I have nothing against such a proposal if it wasn’t for the unions sucking money out of the system. If we count in union lobbying, 60% of the construction cost of HSR will go to paying benefits. As much as I support unions, when it comes to building something at a low price point, they are in the way. They’ve gotta learn how to stoop and be ready to contribute to this project not benefit from the funds. That being said, I’m suggesting a cap on the amount of job years for the project. I don’t want any authority to artificially raise the number of jobs and years in construction just so that any group be it government contractors or unions, benefit from this.
“* “reduce the risk to the state of a stranded project” by investing initial funding in the segments that currently serve significant train ridership (San Jose to San Francisco and Anaheim to Los Angeles).”
That would have been the only reasonable proposal if Feinstein had a brain. LA-Anaheim is not even worth to be considered a HSR corridor. It’s just two stations to build a train to Disneyland! What we need is to integrate the Anaheim extension into the LA – SD segment through LOSSAN. This is where the money is. Man, I really hope Obama allows the money to be moved to higher priority sections.
Donk Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 9:05 am
At least investment in the LA-Ana corridor would get us something usable. What are they going to spend the money on in the Peninsula? Tunneling under the Milbrae station? San Jose Intergalactic improvements?
StevieB Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 12:32 pm
The right of way between LAUS and Anaheim is too narrow to add two tracks for high speed rail. An elevated viaduct the entire way would be too expensive. There is no good option that would provide a high speed connection between the stations.
The planning for run through tracks at LAUS is years away. There is little to nothing to be built at this time on the segment that would enable California high speed rail to complete phase 1.
wu ming Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
“they’ve gotta learn how to stoop”
that’s a revealing way to phrase it.
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 2:04 pm
“paying benefits.”
Most of that is health care. Single-payer health care would change the computed economics of every single employment contract in the country. It would be spectactularly great for businesses, but it would be great for the rest of us too. Sadly it was killed by the health insurer (parasite) lobby and the complicity of most of both major parties (well, OK, to be fair, all the Republicans and most of the Democrats) with them.
There are now companies which only hire people over 65 (because they’re on Medicare, you see.)
Sigh.
So in other words, DiFi wants to go back to the ARRA application and swap out the Merced-Fresno and Fresno-Bako routes that were selected by LaHood with the LA-Ana and SF-SJ routes that did not get selected.
StevieB Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 1:08 am
Feinstein did not say she endorses all of the California High Speed Rail Peer Review Group conclusions. She listed their points and said “I find it very hard to debunk some of the Group’s key conclusions”. Some of the points including a call to increase project management have been asked for by the authority but funding for hiring has been delayed by the state legislature.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 5:27 am
She probably wants to make sure the Transbay Terminal is not going to sit empty for a decade (or two).
She’s thinking that with the extended timeline, there’s no reason to start first on the Peninsula and then head south like the Southern Pacific. In the meantime, you use some of the money to buy off OCTA and Metro.
It’s a dumb idea because until we know what happens to CalTrans and Metro’s Measure R, we don’t need to build something twice.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 9:27 am
I suspect they’ll let the buses it was built for use it soon after it’s completed.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 9:57 am
You know, they’ve even managed to make it a crappy bus facility.
Despite the FOUR BILLION DOLLARS being wasted on this turkey, they decided that an excellent place to save money was by not having the bus lanes grade separated where the cross over.
To understand: buses inside the terminal circulate clockwise (doors on right hand side, big central island platform inside terminal for all buses.) This means the buses need to change from right-hand running (highway) to left-hand running (terminal) at some time.
The Bay Bridge is already grade separated: eastbound traffic (inbound buses for Transbay Terminal) running on the upper level, westbound (outbound from Terminal) on the lower level.
But the sub-cretin transportation “planners” at Transbay have designed bus ramps on one level, with a level crossover where nearly every inbound bus will come to a stop, at a stop light, to avoid every outbound bus, and likewise outbound.
(See, for example, the last few slides here.
This Big Bus Station in the Sky is advertised as supporting 300 buses per hour. Well, just try getting five buses per minute through a red light controlled crossing against 5 per hour coming the other way.
The facility was nominally being built for lots of buses and trains carrying lots of passengers, but in practice, at every step, the cretins with the CAD systems have impeded vehicle and pedestrian flow in every way possible.
It’s simple incredible how bad it is.
You already know how grotesquely and completely the rail level is, thanks to Parsons Transportation Group (the far-beyond-incompetent USA-USA-USA consultants responsible for the rail design fiasco from start to finish), the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, Caltrain and HSRA (who signed off and actively approved the design), and ARUP Engineering (who are fully responsible for the disastrously restricted vertical circulation to and from the platforms, making NY Penn Station look good.)
What may not be as widely appreciated is how thoroughly ARUP and friends have fucked up the bus flow as well. For a billion and a half dollars (“Phase 1″, before inevitable blow-outs, with no trains!) we get stop lights and every bus halting at least once, and most likely twice for no purpose at all. For a billion and a half dollars, it wasn’t possible to cross from one side of the road to the other without a head-on crossing.
Just amazing. And all for the low, low cost of four billion dollars (included completely non-function rail connection.)
You simply cannot make this stuff up!
Death is FAR too kind a fate for any of the involved parties.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 11:06 am
…but they will be using it…
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 12:54 pm
Actually, is there a reason why the new TBT can’t be completely underground like Penn Station? I realize CalTrain use of diesel locomotives is an issue, but last I heard there’s really no way to serve TBT unless CalTrain is electrified….
Joey Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 1:44 pm
The rail section is completely underground if you haven’t looked at any of the transbay data.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 3:43 pm
Right, but the bus portion?
Joseph E Reply:
January 13th, 2012 at 1:17 am
The bus station in New York would be the Port Authority Bus Terminal, perhaps? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Authority_Bus_Terminal
It’s aboveground.
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 2:07 pm
PABT is nice enough, apart from the diesel fumes (when you actually board the buses), and the pigeons (when you’re in the waiting rooms !!!). I’d rather wait in (today’s!) Penn Station any day, however. Indoor pigeons do a lot to reduce ambience….
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 2:17 pm
The big “innovation” of the “design” that “won” the Transbay “architectural competition” was to … wait for it … I bet you can’t see this one coming … ok … ready, here comes the big reveal …
… to enclose the bus deck, above and to the sides.
Another stroke of genius!
You just can’t make this stuff up.
Emma Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 2:17 pm
It is just like comedy. Yet another reason to shift priority to the segments south of Central Valley.
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 2:05 pm
“But the sub-cretin transportation “planners” at Transbay ”
For once, I will agree with your terms of abuse. I have seen NOTHING to recommend the new Transbay Terminal design. It’s not just bad, it’s appalling.
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 2:06 pm
Again, this shows that SF has an exceptionally bad political culture.
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 2:10 pm
Arup is notable for designing *exactly what its clients ask for*. (Look at its alternative design for Camden Town on London’s Underground. The clients wanted some very particular restrictions, Arup gave them a design which satisfied those restrictions.)
Point your finger in the right place, Richard. *Who was asking for this Transbay Terminal design?* It’s going to be politicians.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 2:14 pm
I do know who was behind this fiasco.
You clearly don’t.
Read the letter again: Feinstein is quoting the PRG report, then saying that “I find it very hard to debunk some of the Group’s key conclusions.” Note the word “some”: she isn’t saying that she agrees with the PRG’s full list. As the critic above pointed out, “LA-Anaheim is not even worth to be considered a HSR corridor,” at least by itself. The Tehachapi gap is the single most crucial link: rather than repurposing the HSR funds for Caltrain and Metrolink, if the money was spent on building a Bakersfield-Mojave alignment, we could run nonstop trains from LA to Sacramento in 6-7 hours or Oakland in 7-8 hours with no other improvements: independent utility, competitive with driving! That would also provide a huge momentum boost to get improvements in the Central Valley, since that would shave another 2 hours off trips to both the Bay Area and Sacramento. The third priority could then be to upgrade the Metrolink Antelope Valley Line to cut another 1/2 hour. Alternatively, the Central Valley could be done first, then Bakersfield-Mojave. The Bay Area can wait.
jim Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 7:20 am
The current plan envisages 10 miles of tunnel through the Tehachapis. They certainly should not be built to accommodate diesels (and the current cost estimates undoubtedly don’t allow for them). But if they’re built for electric trains, then there needs to be electrified track either side. Electrifying the Antelope Valley line is likely to run a billion dollars all by itself.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 9:07 am
But if they’re built for electric trains, then there needs to be electrified track either side.
No there doesn’t. That’s a problem railroads have faced and solved since the first electrically hauled mainline trains were hauled. There’s many ways to solve it.
jim Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 9:23 am
Diesel-hauled from LAUS to Palmdale (for an hour and a half or less), then a locomotive change at Palmdale, electrically hauled from Palmdale to Bakersfield (for three quarters of an hour or so), then a locomotive change at Bakersfield, then diesel-hauled the rest of the way (over six hours)? Seriously?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 9:36 am
Diesel hauled to Palmdale where the locomotive detects the balise that instructs it to switch to electricity until it gets to where the electricity runs out where there’s a balise that instructs it to switch back to diesel. It’s not 1900 any more. Or 1990.
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 2:12 pm
And actually, electrodiesels have been around for a very long time.
The first section is already decided and I hope detail planning of this is making good progress so that the first construction crews can start moving onto site as soon as possible. Now is not the time to start re-prioritising other segments at the risk of losing what is already approved.
Because of the nimby resistance on the peninsula, I feel that this should te tackled only once other sections are already making such good progres that the force of momentum makes the peninsula HSR unstoppable. You build moment with easy bits and you use momentum to crack the difficult bits. Not vice versa.
And furthermore, as much as I have sympathy for Caltrains, Caltrains is the problem and responsibility of the communities who demand and pay for it. It is not the responsibility of the HSR authority. If Caltrains benefits from HSR measures such as capacity upgrades, electrification, higher speeds etc, they should count themselves lucky. But I don’t like this expectation that somehow they can get an upgrade at the expense of HSR money while not really caring whether or not the rest of HSR gets built.
Peter Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 7:29 am
Are you talking about Caltrans or Caltrain?
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 8:16 am
Obviously CalTrain…
Completely agree with Feinstein; endpoints, bookend approach, whatever you want to call it, just do it. Enough with this Central Valley ICS crap! (Sorry Robert)
Mike Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 8:40 am
There certainly does seem to be a bit of a tiny snowball heading in this direction. Peer Review Group; LAO; CA Legislature; construction unions; Feinstein. Brown not tipping his hand, but seemingly leaving a door open.
Can it happen? It seems to be the case that FRA actually CAN change the project to which the ARRA funds are obligated, without putting them at risk of deobligation and return to Congress. I can’t find any reason that FRA couldn’t allow California to spend 100% of federal funds first (before spending any state Prop 1A matching funds) so as to meet the federal deadlines. As joe described yesterday, California has a lot of leverage with LaHood on these sort of issues.
But the bookend projects still need environmental clearance and design, and they’d need to (or at least should) be done without all the CHSRA multi-billion dollar gee-gaws. They’d need to survive inevitable litigation over the environmental documents and the eventual use of Prop 1A funds.
Much as I’d like the bookends-first-outcome, it seems likely to be trading one disaster of a project for another.
jimsf Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 9:03 am
If this approach is taken. The middle will never be completed.
VBobier Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 9:30 am
Agreed, sounds like that’s their idea, their only idea.
Tony D. Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 10:32 am
C’mon Jim; never?! For the sake of argument, lets say electrified/upgraded Caltrain, ACE and Metrolink by (say) 2020-25. Once fully operational and profitable (as these would truly make money and take auto’s off of our freeways), start planning for the HSR connector in the CV by 2030. But to say “never” will happen? Sorry, but this once-Pacheco advocate is now fully onboard (pun intended) with this endpoint approach.
jim Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 10:58 am
Commuter rail is never profitable. Its fares are always structured to maximize ridership.
Beta Magellan Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 11:00 am
Metra’s BNSF Line (Chicago-Aurora) is rumored to at least break even, though there’s no way of knowing since Metra only publishes system-wide revenue and operating cost statistics.
Beta Magellan Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 11:09 am
I should also note that the line has trains that are standing-room only for something like 30 miles (and it’s a little less than forty miles long). Since Metra’s fare structure is zoned that line probably does incredibly well in terms of revenue per mile traveled, so it’s probably an outlier.
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 2:14 pm
On top of that, it’s running on a three-track line which is already maintained to 79mph standards FOR FREIGHT TRAFFIC, so it’s not paying nearly the maintenance costs your average commuter rail line would.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 10:59 am
jimsf Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 11:17 am
I’d never have voted for a high speed train between sf and sj or lax and sd only. why bother.
VBobier Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 11:20 am
Agreed, Me neither.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 11:25 am
Because God forbid two thirds of Californians enjoy better transportation.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 12:26 pm
Really?
How exactly is upgrading only Union Station to Anaheim going to help Metrolink, given that it still has cope with logistical problems once the trains head south? It’s great news for BNSF, but by that time the Alameda Corridor East will be complete and the railroad will have less use potentially for the track through the canyon between Yorba Linda and Corona.
Also, how exactly would putting in CBOSS and electrifying CalTrain do anything for the rest of Bay Area commuters?
All the Feinstein plan does is guarantee Taj Majal stations in LA, San Jose, Anaheim, and San Francisco using a number of laborers not seen since the Pyramids and no real improvement in transit….
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Do try and read what I was responding to before getting on your high horse.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Nice dodge, but I thought about that before I replied:
Even if you would have voted for a “racetrack” alignment, you would still be left with a choice between putting tracks in the middle of “nowhere” (really, no-where), or along SF-SJ and/or LA US because the “experts are having a whale of time with the Central Valley to LA segment.
The way things are now, I could see how using the “racetrack” would ensure HSR would not be built for a long time, regardless of how much local transportation entities meddled.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 1:02 pm
I honestly have no clue what in the world you are trying to say.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
How exactly would that prevent the same issues we have now? Choosing between starting at the ends or in the middle? And how would you not characterize anywhere along I-5 as something other than the middle of nowhere? And how would letting local agencies poach the 1A bonds allow:
?
blankslate Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Wow what a mess.
Tom McNamara: This is what Paulus Magnus was responding to:
“electrified/upgraded Caltrain, ACE and Metrolink by (say) 2020-25″
I am just as puzzled by your replies. Further:
” I’d never have voted for a high speed train between sf and sj or lax and sd only. why bother.
How exactly would that prevent the same issues we have now? Choosing between starting at the ends or in the middle? And how would you not characterize anywhere along I-5 as something other than the middle of nowhere?”
You are arguing with someone who agrees with you. Further:
” two thirds of Californians enjoy better transportation
?”
See “electrified/upgraded Caltrain, ACE and Metrolink by (say) 2020-25″ above.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 6:40 pm
You sure, Mr. Slate
I believe Paul was saying that a HSR route that skipped the Valley wouldn’t be such a bad thing because it would benefit “2/3″ of the state. But if that was the plan, although it *might* be cheaper the contrast in decision would be building track in the middle of nowhere or starting in the cities.
Thing is, given that the Central Valley has a constituency (mayors and Congressmen that will fight for it), you can imagine how fast the urban areas would have tried to hijack federal money aimed at a “racetrack” alignment along I-5.
I mean, Senator Feinstein is basically asking to change the rules in the middle of the game AFTER the EIRs had already born out the pros and cons of each alignment….
synonymouse Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 8:03 pm
The primary arguments for studying the I-5 racetrack are major order of savings, true high speed and little opposition due to limited eminent domain and impingement on the environment. Without the deep pockets end point markets any San Joaquin Valley route is nowhere to nowhere.
The mountain crossing is clearly where any money should be spent first. But LA would rather sabotage with demands for a detour even tho it would benefit handsomely from the Tejon route, which just happens to be better for everyone else except Palmdale(erroneously in its mind). In truth Palmdale really needs a commuter rapid transit line akin to a standard gauge ocs upgraded and updated version of BART not hsr. Maybe LA is nuttier than Berkeley.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 9:52 pm
Tom, 2/3rds of California’s population lives in Southern California. Hence, high speed rail systems which were separate and only went between San Francisco-San Jose and Los Angeles-San Diego would still be of great benefit to two-thirds of Californians. There would be no track in the middle of nowhere because there would be no track at all through the Central Valley, neither alongside I-5 nor CA-99.
thatbruce Reply:
January 13th, 2012 at 12:27 pm
How exactly is upgrading only Union Station to Anaheim going to help Metrolink, given that it still has cope with logistical problems once the trains head south?
What logistical problems exist for Metrolink south of Fullerton/Anaheim during their regular operating hours? North of Fullerton to LAUS is where they have two services vying for slots against a serious freight operation. South of Fullerton, its just Metrolink and Amtrak during the day.
J. Wong Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 12:31 pm
2/3 of Californians might have access to better transportation. Given that the vast majority of those 2/3 don’t actually use public transportation, I doubt that they would enjoy it.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Because the service needs improvement. Kinda like why there aren’t terribly many people going from LA to SJ via the Starlight but a rather larger number is expected with HSR.
J. Wong Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 1:24 pm
It would help increase ridership, but I doubt that a lot of those 2/3 would ever ride local public transportation unless it was just too expensive not too. They are just too wedded to their cars. On the other hand, I can imagine a lot of them might occasionally take the train to L.A. or San Francisco if it was fast enough.
blankslate Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 4:37 pm
I believe it is one of the foundational principles of nearly all transit advocacy that better transit (whether local or long distance) would cause some people who currently do not use transit to use it.
Jonathan Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 6:21 pm
@paulus:
If you take $3bn of Federal funds earmarked for HSR, and piss it away on god-awful FRA-coimpliant passenger rail, the California will never, ever, ever get Federal money for HSR again — not in living memory, at the very least.
That’s true irrespective of whether or not local transit needs better funding, better equipment,and operating rules cognizant of 1960s technology. Of course local public rail transportation needs all those, but that’s not what Congress voted the $bn’s for. IDole the money out piecemeal, and in the Bay Area BART would steal it, and _then- what?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 7:17 pm
or the 3 billion could be reallocated to the NEC. The NEC can suck up 3 billion dollars without breaking a sweat.
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Or to Illinois. Yes, they’re burning money on FRA-compliant passenger rail, but frankly they can get a lot of benefit out of it. Chicago is a tangled mess of 10mph diamonds and freight yards along the desirable fast passenger rail paths. Replacing those with “ordinary speed rail” with passenger-exclusive corridors and grade separations has some obvious benefits. And unlike in California, a huge hunk of market can be claimed with 90mph and 110 rail in Illinois.
jimsf Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 11:44 pm
That doesn’t even come close to two thirds the population.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 11:50 am
Would you have voted for a Chowchilla-Bakersfield high-speed train?
Tony d. Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 1:41 pm
Agreed. Again, it would be about building out-in versus in-outward (did that make sense?).
Tony d. Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Perhaps “profitable” is the wrong word than. How about simply it would generate more revenue, and make more sense, to invest in current commuter lines than the CV ICS?
Joey Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 1:47 pm
In Japan a few such lines do break even or better but Japan is weird…
Alon Levy Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 2:19 pm
To be fair to Richard, the kind of commuter rail that’s profitable in Japan is basically regional rapid transit. Trains run on a show-up-and-go schedule, the primary CBD they run to packs 2 million workers into a small number of square kilometers, and the outlying station have actual development in them, rather than enormous parking lots.
jimsf Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 11:16 am
completed in my lifetime then.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 12:08 pm
I would agree. If local transportation agencies start pillaging statewide HSR bonds, the public will blame the state. Instead of having to be revived, it will have to be resurrected which could take a very long time.
jim Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 12:45 pm
It’s not just the state, it’s Washington. There’s a long standing truce in Washington over how much money goes to transit (including commuter rail). If Congress gets the idea that HSR funds are a back-door way of increasing the transit share (and $3.5B out of $9.5B going to commuter rail will give them that idea), they’ll no longer even consider appropriating for HSR. There’ll be no federal money to match.
There might still be money for the NEC through appropriations for Amtrak, but forget it for anywhere else, including California.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 3:58 pm
True although that truce is about to end.
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 2:19 pm
The upcoming total collapse of the Republican Party is certainly going to change the dynamics in DC. Later, the total collapse of the Democratic Party will change the dynamics more….
synonymouse Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 2:27 pm
The GOP is very likely to split and the Democratic Party will adopt Hugo Chavez as it guru.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 4:47 pm
Saint Ronnie who would be denounced as Communist by today’s Republicans.
Emma Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 2:19 pm
That’s wrong. Building the ends first will provide revenues which will be used to start any construction for the Central Valley section which is mostly just for tourists who want to travel from LA to SF or vice versa. The average Californian couldn’t care less about travelling by HSR from SF to LA or back unless it’s for vacation.
Jonathan Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 6:28 pm
Wrong, Emma. Just plain factually *dumbly* wrong. On more counts than I can think of.
Business people make *lots* of trips betwen SF and LA. Just go look at the United shuttle flights between LAX and SFO. I used to have to take those to travel home.
More importantly, there are *ARLEADY* rail transit agencies serving the “ends-first” regions. *THOSE* agencies will take any revenue; not some putative HSR subset of a mega-CalTrans Transportation Authority. And at least in the Bay Area, if there’s any capital going, MTC will almost certainly swoop in and find a way to “repurpose” that money for BART.
Prop 1A was crafted fairly clearly to explicitly rule out pissing away the Prop 1A funds on local regonal rail. Good luck with the lawsuits that NIMBYs will raise on those grounds.
blankslate Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 4:39 pm
“If this approach is taken. The middle will never be completed.”
The reverse belief that, “If the middle is built first, the endpoints will never be completed,” is at least as plausible on its face.
Wdobner Reply:
January 13th, 2012 at 12:56 am
If the end points are never built that’s arguably a less-worse outcome. Without the Central Valley you don’t have high speed rail. Instead, you have two extraordinarily expensive commuter railroads which are underutilized relative to the massive investment made in them. The Central Valley is where the greatest difference between the status quo’s 79mph and the HSR’s 220mph operation will be achieved, so it is where the greatest time savings for an HST over a conventional train will also occur.
The HSR could in theory get by with just the Central Valley and the two mountain passes. Access to the end points can be operated on an interim basis in a manner which still delivers many of the benefits of the full-length route, but avoids the extreme cost of dealing with the densely populated end points. For example, the TGV Atlantique initially offered some services with a diesel locomotive hauling the trainset from the LGV to Nantes.
I’m not saying they should slap a Caltrain MP36PH on the front end, but an initial route via Altamont, following ACE’s route down to San Jose, then up to San Fran should be considered as a very early implementation for the proposed blended approach to HSR on the penninsula. To that end I’d argue the Tehachapi/Tejon crossing is a bit more important than the Altamont/Pacheco crossing. I’d certainly be very interested to see what sort of schedule and ridership they could get with a very initial operating arrangement with trains doing 79mph from San Fran down to Altamont Pass via San Jose, then doing 220mph from Altamont Pass to Palmdale, before slamming on the brakes and doing 79mph through to LAUPT. Just as a WAG it looks like it could deliver a 4:30hr trip, which could make it worthwhile.
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Yep. CV and mountain passes is all you need. Actually, CV and one mountain pass will be successful.
Yes, we all agree the mountain passes should have been done first. But the environmental clearance on them is HARD. They started it at the same time as the CV environmental clearance, and see which one is done first?
jim Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 9:38 am
If California diverts $3.5B intended for Intercity HSR to commuter rail, I suspect there will never again be money appropriated for state-led HSR.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 10:04 am
Caltrain could spend to rebuild San Bruno station another dozen times (already done it completely fucked up wrongly three times, )
And do addition “design” and “testing” on CBOSS
And pay for the world’s best service planners (who all happen to work at PTG right here in the US of A, amazingly enough) to come up with “blended service plans” that screw over their own passengers.
And pay for a USA-USA-USA-style electrification that increases operating costs while not delivering faster or more reliable service.
Give money to “commuter railroads”, or just make a giant bonfire of $100 bills and burn it: is there any difference? (Answer: yes; you don’t have to spend decades cleaning up the mess made by the bonfire.)
StevieB Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 1:14 pm
In thirty years when high speed trains are running on the initial operating segment will you ride with a smile?
Peter Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 2:37 pm
I’d hope that by 2042 they’d at least have SF-LA completed.
StevieB Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 2:58 pm
Richard Mlynarik lives in Ron Paul’s America where according to Politico it’s a grim place with no hope.
Yours is a hopeful world.
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 2:22 pm
This is, in fact, the nation we live in, not just “Ron Paul’s America”…. but we still could have SF-LA completed. Even under Hitler, infrastructure got built.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 2:43 pm
StevieB, I’m certain to be long gone before any effective modern public ground transportation is allowed to come to California. Over my dead body, as it were.
Emma Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 2:54 pm
In thirty years, the car industry might have found a way to make travelling even more convenient. Google is already testing cars controlled by computers.
And quite honestly, if our traffic was fully run by computers calculating optimized routes, speeds, and gas consumption, traffic congestion would be history. And also people filming other cars while driving. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Ny-uztjS8
Combine this technology with better battery life in EVs over the next 30 years and people won’t even bother considering HSR since the computer would drive them wherever they want. It would be a new era of driving.
Not to mention the inventions and innovations in flight that would make short distance flights more feasible.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 5:59 pm
Traffic congestion comes from the fact that cars have to be separated by adequate stopping distance. Automation is not going to change that; unlike trains, which often operate with long fixed blocks, cars are already at the limit imposed by stopping distance.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 7:15 pm
no no no, they are going to use the technology PRT uses to achieve 1 second headways, to have i second headways…..
Matthew Reply:
January 13th, 2012 at 12:40 am
Automated cars still won’t go 225mph. If handled right, they could work well in concert with HSR and other forms of transportation. Think about it: a major reason why people drive is so they can have a personal vehicle at the destination. But with automated cars, they could just call one up and have it waiting for them when they step off the train/plane. Way better than sitting in a car for 5 hours while it chugs down I-5. Rental would be a snap – because all of the liability issues associated with human driving would be obviated – and parking irrelevant.
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
Agreed.
But sadly, automated cars are at least 20 years away.
Not because of the technology, which Google could have working perfectly in a year. But because of *public acceptance*.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 4:46 pm
They’ve been promising self driving cars since Futurama in the 1939 World’s Fair.
UCB Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 10:57 am
I don’t understand why the debate has to be limited to just a Central Valley vs bookend? Both arguements for and against are valid. Sorry, if the CV portion gets built first and the funding dries up, then it won’t necessarily be train to nowhere, but it will certainly be a train to some where most people won’t use. Billions of dollars for improving Amtrak’s SJs isn’t a prudent use of money and could very well doom future non-HSR rail expansion projects at either end as critics would use the CV as a poster boy for waste. Likewise though, if the bookends were only constructed first, I can easily see those areas calling it good and never progressing farther.
Then why not spend a little money in each location – north, central, and south. I know one of the biggest bottlenecks for the SJ’s is through Fresno, so instead of building 130 miles, just build 50 miles or so through Fresno for the SJ’s to use now and HSR later. The SJ’s in the meantime get the timesavings for this segment. Likewise, in the north and south, there are several good projects that would have independent utilty, but then would be used for HSR at a later time. If the funding continues, then great, we continue build the remaining segments. But if not, no one can complain we wasted money and everyone has got something for it.
J. Wong Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 1:57 pm
The only place that HSR can run full bore is in the Central Valley. If you want a true HSR system, you’re going to have to build out in the CV. And given the NIMBY’ism that’s showing up at the endpoints, how are you ever going to get anything built there until they don’t have any choice?
I think it would be a great idea to merge the authority into Caltrans. The whole talk about shifting the money to other sections just seems like a way to kill the project. That discussion should have been done before the authority spent 2 years or so planning the central valley segment. At this point I think it it is best to start in the Valley and get going. It’s getting sickening to watch all these Republicans who keep on saying it is a train to nowhere. They don’t seem to give a damn if a road to nowhere is built. It just rings really false. It’s a shame the Republican party here is not like the conservative party in UK which at least follows what resembles logic and sense. I’m definitely more of a moderate, but only one party in this country is near the center.
VBobier Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 10:58 am
Agreed, that seems to be their aim, afterall they lost in 2008 and they don’t like being Losers.
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 2:24 pm
Yeah. I like to tell people that the Democratic Party is what would be called a “moderate right wing party” in Europe — a “Christian Democrat” party — and the Republican Party is what would be called a fringe right-wing extremist party.
In Germany the Republican Party would probably be banned for its hostility to democracy.
Those of us who are moderate left-wingers (Social Democrats) have nowhere to go, politically, in the US.
I thought CalTrans built and maintained roads? Would it make more sense to make a HSR division of Amtrak and hire people(foreigners, most likely) with HSR experience in other countries to run it?
VBobier Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 11:22 am
CalTrans also has a Train department, It as to do with Amtrak-California, so their not without some experience with trains at least.
StevieB Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
The proposed Transportation Agency would merge the departments of Transportation, Motor Vehicles, the High-Speed Rail Authority, the Highway Patrol, the California Transportation Commission and the Board of Pilot Commissioners.
Next up at the CHSRA board meeting will be grapevine elimination. We offered comments via email to the board:
http://www.calhsr.com/uncategorized/carrd-to-board-postpone-your-vote-on-grapevine/
Our general stance is don’t wrap a political decision in faux science. It is like Peter crying wolf. At some point, the science will actually be true but no one will believe it.
Donk Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Agreed.
I have always been strongly in favor of the argument “construction north of San Jose or south of Los Angeles is construction in the wrong direction”. But if CHSRA can’t come up with anything less than $15B for the Bakersfield-Sylmar segment (not even to LA!!!), then I might support blowing the whole thing up and focusing on the urban routes.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 2:07 pm
And, very clearly, when they do inadvertently come up with any truly significant potential cost savings, they immediately sand-bag the analysis and schedule a policy vote “let us never mention this matter ever again”. Phew! Another bullet dodged!
Why, it’s almost as if cost maximization were the aim of the undertaking, isn’t it?
Emma Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Always expect the worst because that’s what the authority will choose. In that sense, better get on our side and support urban routes today than tomorrow.
synonymouse Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 2:02 pm
Well done, Elizabeth. It is worth going thru the motions to let them know at least some of us are on to the sham.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 2:16 pm
Thanks, Elizabeth. I might add a fifth point, building up on your second and fourth points:
5. Because the cost of doing preliminary engineering on both the Palmdale and Grapevine alternatives is much lower than the potential difference in construction cost, in either direction, it’s most prudent to keep working on both options. Perhaps the risk on one is much worse than thought before, or even more tunneling is required due to further environmental work; perhaps there are additional cost savings.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Yes, study it to death and when it’s really been pounded to a pulp complain that they’ve spent too much money on studying it. Then have the other chorus bleet that it hasn’t been studied enough. Construction should start in 2090 or so.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 3:22 pm
No, not quite. It means spending more money on engineering now to potentially spend much less on construction in 5-10 years. It’s not studying anything to the death – it’s not about delaying present engineering.
By analogy, say you have to build a bridge to cross a river at one of two locations, but don’t know which is more constructible. It’d take about 5 years to build a bridge, but you’d only know the full scope after a year of construction. The optimal solution is to start building bridge stubs at both locations and then discontinue the worse one after the first year.
Emma Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 3:27 pm
OR you run the same river in a simulation and save yourself hours of trial & error and money.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 3:36 pm
It’s an analogy. Sigh. They shouldn’t start building both the Grapevine and the Tehachapis, just do more detailed engineering. Taking the study at face value, what it’s saying is that the projected cost is $13.5 billion, but it could blow out to far more than that, and accounting for this possibility raises the risk-adjusted cost to $15.1 billion. The solution is to spend a few tens of millions on getting the option to the same level of engineering the Tehachapis are at right now and figure out whether optimal Tejon, including an option with more takings, costs $11 billion, $13.5 billion, or $20 billion.
synonymouse Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 4:02 pm
Sorry, Alon, you are seeing this too logically. Maybe you are not in California – you have to be here to appreciate the full monty of airhead thinking and LA corruption. Rizzo of Bell was a bit player in comparison to these kingfishes.
It is a blinking fix and my surmise is that Villaraigosa is in it up to his eyeballs. It is all about a free BART LA to Palmdale. You’d think the greedy bastards would be happy with a nice station at San ta Clarita. but no-o-o-o-o.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 8:20 pm
Or you could do it the Calvin and Hobbes way.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 8:26 pm
I don’t know, seems to me like Calvinball is already how they do things.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
I’ve been around the block a few more times. It took almost 30 years to get a Record of Decision for the “missing link” for I-78 and almost as long for I-287 in New Jersey. They spent more money studying it than they spent building either. It was wonderful. 25 years of living at the stubby end of 5 lane highway to nowhere. Never any traffic. The express lanes of I-78 sat around, unused, for so long that when they finally did open them, they had to be repaved first. In the early 80s when NJTransit traffic started to creep up and Amtrak ridership stabilized they started to talk about new tunnels. They needed those in 1995. If we are lucky we’ll get them in 2030. I’ll be dead before someone in New Jersey can take a train to Grand Central. Something they have been talking about since the Tubes opened in 1908. Go ahead study it some more.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 3:53 pm
You’re still missing the fact that engineering is part of the construction process. They should not delay that; they should do engineering on both alternatives, and delay the decision of what to build until they actually start building. When they start building should depend only on how fast they can get the preliminaries done.
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Here’s the thing: Tejon has no constituency — literally no governments or landowners backing it — and Tehachapi has a large constiuency. The difference in cost might even be *paid for* by LA et al if Tejon is cheaper.
The report actually goes into this.
Nobody should be surprised if the that instead of building in the central valley first, the initial segment(s) are built in the bay area and/or Los Angeles first. Senator Feinstein has now weighed in; she did not say outright, but she certainly insinuated that the initial segments should be in the bay area and/or Los Angeles – where needless to say all of the political power and money are in California. In the valley, the agricultural industry has all the political power and money, and they are for the most part against high speed rail. The political handwriting is on the wall. It pains me to say this, but perhaps realistically (and politically) after say the bay area/Los Angeles segments are built, then the San Jose – Merced/LA-BKRSFD segments will be built – connecting to Amtrak, and last the central valley.
Emma Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 2:31 pm
They are also the areas where the overwhelming majority of HSR users will come from. Any population density map of California will prove my point that North of San Jose and South of LA are the biggest markets for any decent HSR plan. Profits collected from these sections will go toward constructing the Central Valley segment. But due to extreme political resistance North of San Jose, HSR should begin focusing on the LA-SD corridor for good.
J. Wong Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 8:38 pm
Profits? What profits? There’s no way to get true HSR North of San Jose and South of LA, at least not enough to get enough people to ride it to turn any profit.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 9:49 pm
Uh-huh. You know that the Surfliner has run an operating profit before, right? (page 24, 1987-1992).
ComradeFrana Reply:
January 13th, 2012 at 1:47 am
Different profit. “Profits collected from these sections will go toward constructing the Central Valley segment.” implies that Emma was talking about net profits including deprecation and interest.
Roelof van Ark submitted his resignation as Chief Executive Officer of the California High-Speed Rail Authority to take effect in two months.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 2:53 pm
So much for what passes for adult supervision in these parts.
(No sign of the lead consultant resigning, never fear!)
http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/01/12/2680702/capitol-alert-california-high.html
StevieB Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Van Ark will continue as Senior Consultant to the Authority at least through 2012 and longer.
Zach D Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 3:07 pm
Any idea for his resignation? Seems rather abrupt given that he knew what he was signing up for in 2010 when he was hired as CEO.
Emma Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Why? Pressure? People who love HSR enraged about the lack of spine of this authority? Jerry Brown finally kicking ass? Feinstein turning her back on the Central Valley plan? Just a few suggestions.
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 2:28 pm
Leaks say he wanted to quit long ago and only really agreed to take the job as a favor.
van Ark has resigned.
Arthur Dent Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Today has been designated ship-jumping day. Van Ark is not alone.
paul dyson Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Leavitt also
Alon Levy Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Does this mean that he’s pissed at how the project has turned, or that Brown and Feinstein want someone else in charge, or what?
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 5:47 pm
Lots of potential reasons come to mind:
1) van Ark favored the Tejon alignment and Dan Richard told him that he had to do Palmdale or else he would dishonor the “family”
2) Dan Richard wants to hire Nathan Ford, Dorothy Dugger, or Will Kempton for the job.
3) van Ark figured out that he was getting a demotion and a pay cut in the new Agency and decided it was time to go.
4) He realized he would have no influence in selling Alstom equipment by having a boss.
5) The British are hiring him for their project, and London is way closer to France…
6) He believes that the March highway reauthorization is going to ensure no more federal funding for HSR for six years
7) He’s trapped in the closet.
8) Elizabeth’s insults hurt his feelings.
9) He thinks Sacramento sucks.
jim Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 6:40 pm
9) sounds about right :)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 7:13 pm
I hear that for an extra 20 dollars, less on slow nights, it will blow.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Rather a pointless question, as, as is always the case with developments of this nature, anybody who knows (I certainly don’t) isn’t going to talk.
It’s very easy and not at all timeline-inconsitent to imagine the continual lunatic subterranean demands of the City of San José, the Capital of Silicon Valley, being the final straw, but who knows? (Well, we know who knows, but not what they know!)
Emma Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Jumping ship first like a Boss.
Arthur Dent Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 3:43 pm
They were gentlemen and allowed Rachel Wall the press secretary to go first. She got a 2-day head start.
I would love to see Robert Cruickshank putting up an opinion poll here with the following question:
Which segment deserves the highest priority considering the new numbers on the cost of HSR?
a) San Francisco – San Jose
b) Central Valley
c) Los Angeles – IE – San Diego + LA – Anaheim
d) LOSSAN + an extension to San Bernadino
e) Sacramento extension
Alon Levy Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 3:19 pm
f) LA-Bako. (Remember, a few billions can probably be shifted from Fresno-Chowchilla to the segment, and then with optimal Tejon, it’d require about $5 billion in federal funding to get to Sylmar.)
paul dyson Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 3:34 pm
A more telling opinion poll might be two choices:
A. Fastest route between So Cal and Bay to meet 2hr 40min target or
B. Super regional higher speed rail to connect all the communities (Fresno, Palmdale etc) that need better connectivity, but at lower speed between the end points.
It seems to me that the dilemma which has not been addressed is the enormous cost in construction and in operation at ultra high speed of the current proposed route trying to meet the time target. B could be much more affordable if we didn’t attempt to meet the time target. End point to end point journeys would be longer, some market share lost. Perhaps eventually the straight line could be built. We need to resolve this before we spend another dime.
jim Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Not enough money. There’s less than $6.5B available. You can’t do LA-Bakersfield for that. The best you could do would be Bakersfield-Palmdale with some upgrades to the Antelope Valley line and a link to the San Joaquins at Bakersfield.
The interesting question (since we seem to be ignoring the provisions of Prop 1A) is how much it would cost to do SF-Sac via Altamont. That would clearly be a profitable route.
Tony d. Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 4:58 pm
Im sure private/foreign investment would also add to the $6.5 billion for regional improvements, as these would definitely generate revenue and high ridership. So in theory, you could do ALL THE ABOVE: Caltrain/ACE from SF/SJ to SAC and Metrolink throughout the Southland.
ComradeFrana Reply:
January 13th, 2012 at 2:02 am
“…as these would definitely generate revenue and high ridership”
The question is if they would generate enough revenue to pay back the private investment. I very much doubt it.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 5:55 pm
True, but on the other hand, there’s not enough money for SF-SJ either, unless the scope creep gets removed (and even then, maybe not).
StevieB Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 4:10 pm
I do not know of any projections you could make from a poll of readers of this blog you could make to society in general. No useful result would come of such a poll.
vanArk resigns
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/01/roelof-van-ark-chief-executive.html
Umberg steps down as Chair of the Authority also.
————-
California high-speed rail head Roelof van Ark resigns
LS VAN ARK 1.JPGRoelof van Ark, chief executive officer of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, announced this afternoon that he is quitting, the latest setback for the state’s beleaguered campaign to build a nearly $100 billion rail network in California.
His resignation, announced at a board meeting in Los Angeles and effective in two months, comes at a critical point for the project, with rail officials bidding for Legislative approval to start construction in the Central Valley this fall. Public opinion about the project has fallen sharply, according to a recent Field Poll, and the Legislature is highly skeptical.
Minutes after van Ark’s announcement, Tom Umberg announced that he is stepping down as chairman of the rail board, though he will remain a member of the board. Umberg is to be replaced next month by Dan Richard, an adviser Gov. Jerry Brown appointed to the board last year.
Brown, a Democrat, became a vocal supporter of the project last year and appointed two advisers, Richard and Mike Rossi, to the rail board. This month, Brown proposed folding the authority into a new state agency, the Transportation Agency, a measure rail officials support.
Van Ark was hired in 2010 and oversaw the authority’s creation of an updated business plan that raised the estimated cost of the project to almost $100 billion over 20 years. Lawmakers said the plan was more credible than before, but many lawmakers remain critical of the project’s management and cost.
Van Ark cited personal reasons for his resignation.
“I need to focus myself more on my family, and maybe some other interests,” he told board members. He said he may continue on the project as a consultant.
Van Ark used his resignation announcement to reiterate his support of the rail authority’s decision to start construction in the Central Valley, controversial because it is far from California’s population centers. The administration signaled no change of course.
While Richard said he was “very skeptical of that notion” when he joined the board, he said, “I sit here today as somebody who’s been fully convinced.”
Van Ark told The Bee last year that he considered it a personal challenge to ensure implementation of the project.
“I really believe that California should have a system like this,” he said. “This state is so well positioned for high-speed rail.”
synonymouse Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 3:47 pm
I had often thought Van Ark would quit, but this comes as a surprise, seeing as how the Chandlers and Palmdale real estate speculators had re-imposed their supremacy. I suspect the Geriatric maximum leader found Van Ark too independent. Of course there will be all the perfunctory denials from all parties.
Why don’t they turn the whole ****ing disaster over to the Tejon Ranch to manage. They seem to be already in total control of the details.
synonymouse Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 3:50 pm
Elevate Heminger to Tsar of Stilt-A-Rail.
Arthur Dent Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 4:21 pm
If it means he joins the queue for the exodus door, I’m all for it.
LA Times coverage of vanArk’s resignation.
————
California bullet train CEO, chairman stepping down
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/01/california-bullet-train-ceo-chairman-both-stepping-down-.html
The chief executive of the state’s high-speed rail agency resigned Thursday amid growing criticism of the $98.5-billion bullet train project and declining public support for the proposal.
Roelof van Ark, 59, announced his departure in a major shakeup that included the replacement of attorney Thomas Umberg, a former state legislator, as chairman of the California High Speed Rail Authority Board of Directors.
Umberg will recommend that Dan Richard, who was recently appointed to the board by Gov. Jerry Brown, assume his leadership role. Van Ark said he will leave in two months, while Umberg will step down in February.
The departure of the chief executive comes a week after an independent review panel issued a scathing critique of the project and refused to recommend that the state issue billions in bonds to help fund the first leg of the 520-mile project in the Central Valley.
The panel raised serious doubts about almost every aspect of the project and concluded that the current plan “is not financially feasible” at this time. The original cost of the project also has tripled from $33 billion to $98.5 billion and two recent public opinion polls indicate that voters would turn down the project they approved in November 2008.
Van Ark’s resignation represents a serious blow to the management of the authority as it hustles to start construction of the project’s first 130 miles in the Central Valley, a segment that has run into increasing opposition from major agricultural interests and some cities along the route.
Van Ark, a senior business manager with extensive experience in high-speed rail systems, replaced Mehdi Morshed in June as head of the authority. He had been president of the North American division of Alstrom SA, a French conglomerate that makes high-speed trains and built the the TGV bullet train system in France.
Van Ark also headed other major divisions of Alstrom as well as units of Siemens AG, a German firm that also develops high speed rail systems.
The rail company executive took over the rail authority at a critical juncture. After years of quiet planning, the authority began moving rapidly to develop the 520-mile link between the Bay Area and Los Angeles, but faced a multitude of challenges and a growing array of skeptics.
An “Inventory of the Criticisms of High-Speed Rail With Suggested Responses and Counterpoints” has been put forward by the American Public Transportation Association. The report has eight groupings with facts about the charge.
Charges of elitism, social engineering, and untruthful attacks;
The unaffordability of high-speed rail;
The lack of political and popular support for high-speed rail;
The notion that rail corridors were being proposed and built to “nowhere;”
Whether and why intercity and high-speed rail should receive a taxpayer subsidy;
That intercity and high-speed passenger rail is old technology that is not transformational;
That even though high-speed rail has enjoyed success in Europe and Japan, it’s a transportation
technology that won’t work in the U.S.; and,
That proponents of passenger and high-speed rail have overstated the benefits.
On high speed rail being a waste of money the truth is that has not been the case globally.
It’s hard to imagine that Van Ark, coming in, didn’t see what a mess he was getting into. He had presumably been selling Alstom HSR equipment to customers. He must have imagined that he would be able to turn the California plan around and make it workable, the first step being to write a more realistic budget.
He didn’t understand how thing work here. He thought that you list the options, decide which option is the best, then go forward. Actually, what you do here is ask the politicians how they like the options. They will tell you to rule out the best, second best, and third best, and then give you a choice between fourth and fifth. What the agency needs is dual managers: One to do the technical stuff and one to shmooze the politicos to get them onboard. You need both Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock.
Or we could scrap the whole thing, repeal 1A, give back the money, start with a clean sheet of paper, and design a rail passenger transport system that is not a laughing stock. Any bets on when that might happen?
Arthur Dent Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 4:25 pm
Shortly after Nov 2012 and the politicians have milked it dry.
morris brown Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 5:07 pm
Quite clearly the plan to fund only the Central Valley was his plan. Politically, it has been one big dud, first starting with the “train to nowhere” tag which got huge very negative press everywhere.
Finestein’s letter is a killer, since it surely (as pointed out by Robert — bullet point 5) says this is not acceptable. Umberg also a casualty, since he fully backed the plan and was responsible for the attack letter on the Peer Review Group, who comments seem mortly ok to Finestein.
What happens next is the big question.
synonymouse Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 7:30 pm
I always considered the train from nowhere to nowhere was an attempt to force a blast of reality into CHSRA fantasyland. Sorta calling the bluff, and of course it did accomplish that.
So now instead of a train from nowhere to nowhere you have a train off the tracks. This derailment could pose a serious political problem for Jerry when he tries to peddle his tax increase. The pr tack will be if you turn down the tax Tiny Tim won”t get his operation. The critics will retort if you pass on the exorbitant toy train there’s the money for the operation.
Jerry still shows the detachment from reality that earned him the monicker Moonbeam.
Emma Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 5:07 pm
“Or we could scrap the whole thing, repeal 1A, give back the money, start with a clean sheet of paper, and design a rail passenger transport system that is not a laughing stock. Any bets on when that might happen?”
Well, whenever it happens, HSR would still be finished by around 2033. In that sense, what is the point dragging this mess in hope some miracle happens that covers the other 90% of funding required for this project? Put the existing money towards rail upgrades so that at least MetroLink, Pacific Surfliner, San Diego Coaster, Caltrain and the expansion of public transit system in major California cities. That would at least prepare the state in case we try HSR once again.
Tony d. Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Yes!
StevieB Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 9:46 pm
If California returns the federal funds for high speed rail the money could go to the NEC to use for the D.C. to N.Y.C. Amtrak line. In twenty years when the public sees the great success of NEC high speed rail then California might start again with planning. Construction of an operating segment would be finished by around 2050.
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 2:32 pm
Exactly what StevieB writes. Reject the money now, you delay the construction by 20 years.
Try looking at what happened to Seattle when it rejected Forward Thrust. Also, watch carefully to see if Florida ever gets any more high speed rail funds (hint: it won’t. By the time people have forgotten Scott’s behavior, Florida will be wailing for seawalls as it sinks under rising sea levels).
Wisconsin will be forgiven faster, but only because it’s the fastest way to get from Minnesota to Illinois, and Iowa isn’t any better.
jim Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 2:35 pm
But the Minnesota AA says the route that avoids Madison is preferred.
Beta Magellan Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 2:49 pm
I think Nathanael’s referring to actual HSR along the line of MHSRA’s studies, not the current Amtrak+ proposals. If you’re going to do quick-and-cheap interim improvements there’s no need to make a big, new FRA-compliant link to Madison, and if you’re going to build a greenfield, non-FRA compliant link you’ll still be seeing an outlying station, not one on the isthmus.
VanArk’s resignation statement at the board meeting today (Jan 12, 2012) can be now be viewed on YouTube at:
http://youtu.be/7f4iCeE0w78
(about 4 minutes)