High Speed Rail Authority Demolishes Peer Review Report
The California High Speed Rail Authority wasted no time in quickly responding to the critical Peer Review Report:
CA High Speed Rail Authority Responds to Peer Review
Their core conclusions:
In recommending against proceeding with the high speed rail development “at this time,” the Report ignores many components of the CHRSA’s recent Draft Business Plan and attempts to promulgate a new standard of project feasibility that is inconsistent with national funding of transportation projects.
The report’s conclusions, which would be premature at best, would place at risk $3.5 billion of federal funding for High Speed Rail currently in hand for the project and undermine extensive outreach efforts on the part of the Authority to develop greater integration with regional rail systems.
Consequently, the Authority believes this report does not provide a sound basis for critiquing the Authority’s Finance plan, nor for the public policy choices facing the Legislature.
It’s a strong defense that, as far as I can tell, is rooted in sound evidence and analysis. Since the core of the Peer Review Group’s assessment that the legislature should not release Prop 1A bonds was uncertainty about federal funding, it’s worth quoting in full the Authority’s powerful deconstruction of that argument:
The Committee states that “The fact that the Funding Plan fails to identify any long term funding commitments is a fundamental flaw in the program.” In so stating, the Committee attempts to set a standard that is simply not used for any other transportation program. By this measure, none of the unconstrained regional transportation plans of any transportation authority should be pursued. No project, in our experience, has fully identified funding sources for the entire project at this stage and it is both unfortunate and inappropriate for the Committee to apply this test only to high speed rail.
The Committee attempts to distinguish the high speed rail project because it does not have a “dedicated funding source” such as the Highway Trust Fund or Airport Improvement Funds. This analogy ignores the fact that the High Speed Rail project has funding in hand for the Initial Construction Segment, which even the Committee admits will have independent utility if constructed. Furthermore, the mere existence of a dedicated funding stream is no guarantee that any specific project or program will be funded. By this metric suggested by the Committee, Interstate 5 would not have commenced construction, despite the presence of the Highway Trust Fund.
This is a pretty good point. And it holds true of most other transportation projects in California. Take the BART to San José project. It is, in fact, not fully funded. Construction is underway on the Warm Springs extension, which I will guess won’t generate enough riders to pay the cost of operations on the extension (and to be clear I do not care whether or not it does; transit service should not based on 100% farebox recovery). The extension from there to Berryessa is, according to my read of the VTA site, not yet fully funded and depends on a New Starts grant application. The extension from there all the way to downtown San José is largely unfunded, and the recession’s impact on sales tax recepts forced VTA and BART to build only to Berryessa for the time being. The BART to San José project has a LOT of critics, but Santa Clara County voters have twice rejected those criticisms and shown their support at the ballot box and with their tax dollars. I am certain that this project is going to happen, regardless of the questions raised, the costs, and the funding shortfalls, because the public has repeatedly said they want it built.
The Authority continues:
Nor does the Committee recognize that the President has proposed that high speed rail be provided a dedicated funding stream in the reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Act. Accordingly, the High Speed Rail program is not significantly different in terms of its funding at this stage than are other major infrastructure initiatives.
Moreover, the suggestion that the high speed rail project be placed on hold because there is not a “dedicated funding source” ignores the clear mandate of the Legislature and the people of the State of California pursuant to the provisions in the Proposition 1A Bond Act (Act). Under the Act, $9 billion of bond proceeds were approved to initiate the construction of a high-speed rail system using these State bond monies as matching funds with other private or public funds, including federal funds. The CHSRA has now secured $3.5 billion in federal matching grant monies that have no cost to the people of California so that the mandate of the Act can be met. Nowhere in the Act is there a requirement that any particular amount of non-State matching funds be committed prior to the initiation of the start of the high-speed rail project. Nowhere in the Act is there a requirement that the project must be funded using a “dedicated funding source.” Future non-State match funding will be pursued by the CHSRA to progress the project beyond the Initial Construction Section in the Central Valley. Any delay in proceeding with the Initial Construction Section at this time will result in the loss of the existing $3.5 billion in federal funding and will likely jeopardize the possibility of any future federal funding for a California high-speed rail system.
The Committee fails to assess the risks of not proceeding with the program at this juncture. Those risks include the irretrievable loss of $3.5 billion of federal funds, the potential elimination of state funds, the impact on regional rail systems of the loss of $950 million in funding for “interconnectivity” which are tied to progress on the high speed rail development, the inevitable increase in costs of eventual high speed rail connection through California as a result of inflation, population growth, etc., the loss of economic opportunity and technology development. These risks are present and real and represent lost opportunity of enormous cost and lasting consequence.
The statement “Further, the ICS will not be electrified, and thus cannot serve as a high-speed test track for future VHSR rolling stock3” is misleading. The Authority never intended to use an un-electrified ICS as test track. Furthermore the foot-note (3) is also misleading to the public, as the AAR’s test track at Pueblo, CO cannot be used to test true high-speed rail systems as it does not have the capacity to test at 250 mph, although the mention of this facility in this report seems to indicate that this may be possible.
So this is a pretty thorough refutation of the Peer Review Group’s claims about the funding situation. And they fire back pretty strongly at the Peer Review Group’s contention that the ICS violates Prop 1A:
The Committee Report, after stating that it would not comment on legal questions pertaining to Initial Construction Section, then proceeds to do so and arrives at the wrong conclusion, by stating that:
“…the ICS as planned is not a very high-speed railway (VHSR), as it lacks electrification, a VHSR train control system and a VHSR compatible communication system. Therefore it appears not to meet the requirements of enabling State legislation.”
The Committee has no legal competence to enable it to make such a statement and the Authority rejects this assertion. Attorneys for the Authority and others elements of the State of California, as well as attorneys for the Federal Railroad Administration, have reached the opposite conclusion and are fully comfortable that the Initial Construction Segment is complaint with the state bond measure. It is also noteworthy that the legislative author of the bond measure has embraced this view as well.
Will the authors of the Peer Review Report, led by Will Kempton, acknowledge their error and walk this part back? I hope so.
The Authority’s defense of their business model practices is similarly strong, and calls into serious question the Peer Review Report’s assumptions about how to operate HSR systems:
The Committee complains that building the ICS or IOS without private operator involvement is not a “feasible” business model and states:
“Without input from the final private sector participant regarding route alignment and station location, the future value of the HSR concession/franchise may be greatly diminished and less attractive to potential private sector participants. In other words, the private sector needs to be brought into the process much sooner than currently planned.”
This conclusion is extremely simplistic and displays a lack of knowledge of the realities of private finance for such complicated projects. It is also not supported by any experience throughout the world for a project of this magnitude, of which we are aware.
As this canard has been reiterated by the Committee, it is worth a response in detail. Let’s compare the experience in other successful High Speed Rail systems:
• In Japan the network and the operations were built and funded by the Public sector (Ministry of Transportation). At a much later date they privatized the operations.
• In Germany and France the Ministries of Transportation decided on the routes and the funding, then turned to infrastructure companies (DB-Netz and RFF) responsible to build and own and operate the infrastructure (including some PPP components); they have associated operators (DB and SNCF), but they all are government- associated companies. Neither of these systems is thus operated by private operators.
• In Spain, when they decided to introduce HSR, they did their own designs (and still continue to do so today), and subsequently the AVE service was introduced on the lines being operated by Renfe. This is similar to having Amtrak being involved and operating the system in the end. But this has not resulted in a private operator.
• Companies such as Virgin Rail who operate on existing infrastructure in the UK, as the infrastructure was there and the government decided to farm out the operations as a concession.
• The latest example in Italy, where NTV will be operating HSR trains on existing infrastructure, supplying trains and depots, but having had no input into the system designs.
While it may make a good sound bite in theory to have a private operator on board from the start, it is neither practical nor feasible. There is also no example of this being done successfully anywhere in the world. The one case where a government turned to full privatization of HSR from the outset occurred in Taiwan, which experienced many problems as a result, and was much reduced in size compared to the California program.
Indeed it is a problem to decide on an operator too early. Choose a German company and you are most likely tied into German technology for the entire project; the same is true for French or Japanese operators. This eliminates all competition at a later date.
It is also the case that the California High-Speed Rail Authority will be “selling” a concession to a private operator, giving them the right to operate and maintain the system. In doing so, the Authority will be seeking the best deal for California. Entering into such an agreement too early in the process will lead to lower revenues from the concession company, as private investors seek to discount the amount to reflect the risk of revenue variability.
As this is a system for the people of California, the basic alignment is laid down by law (Prop 1A) and the major stations are determined. So it will not be possible for an operator to change these basic parameters. Furthermore the process is driven by CEQA and NEPA which again is not the strength of international operators. So, although international operators are important to consult (and many provided favorable peer review of our Operations & Maintenance Plans), it is simply wrong and not feasible to suggest that those operators must be brought in at this point.
To the extent the Committee can point to a comparable circumstance where what they recommend has been put into practice, the Authority will gladly review and consider alterations to our approach. Until then, we believe the Committee demonstrated its lack of understanding about how high speed rail has been built throughout the world.
Finally, we note that one of the promising U.S. opportunities for private participation in high speed rail development was in Florida, where a number of infrastructure companies were expressing interest in the Florida program on the very day when the Governor of that state announced he was returning federal funding. The resulting loss of confidence from the private sector was striking. The Committee’s report, if embraced by the Legislature, will similarly dampen enthusiasm of private investors to look to California.
In short, the Peer Review Report’s assessment of the role of private investment is deeply, fundamentally flawed and lacks basic knowledge of the California situation and comparable HSR systems. That’s unforgivable for a group that is intended to bring expertise to the subject.
In fact, the Peer Review Report’s criticisms most closely resemble the deeply uninformed and flawed criticisms that came from the Legislative Analyst’s Office. It’s almost as if someone in Sacramento was shopping around bad analysis, in an attempt to destroy the HSR project, and getting people like the State Auditor, the LAO, and now the Peer Review Committee to bite. But surely those independent bodies would never fall for analysis so deeply flawed. And surely nobody would ever actually try that strategy. Isn’t that right, Alan Lowenthal?
The Peer Review Report generated a lot of media coverage indicating that the HSR project’s financing was in trouble. Will the Authority’s convincing and thorough demolition of that report get the same coverage?
Hah, of course it won’t. That’s because most media outlets aren’t really interested in reporting the facts. They’re interested in going after things that fit their preconceived narratives. In this case, the narrative is that nobody rides trains, trains are expensive, government isn’t honest, and the public is getting fed up. So the Peer Review Report fits the narrative and gets a lot of coverage. The Authority’s response doesn’t fit the narrative and will get hardly any coverage, especially since the media is not willing to treat the Authority as a credible voice. They’re the ones on the witness stand, so to speak, so nothing they say can really be trusted – according to most reporters.
And so it goes. Once again, the facts are on our side. But we also know that’s not sufficient. The public needs to be engaged on the values of the project. Californians want trains. As we saw in Santa Clara County, that desire can easily trump the naysayers. And it can do so statewide and in the state legislature. Let’s hope it does.
Jesus. That just killed the load speed for the website.
Joey Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 10:32 pm
Hey, at least it’s not using flash…
Derek Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 1:42 pm
Try NoScript.
Yes, the authority repeats all if its old tired ‘rebuttals’
1. The measly federal funding already in hand is enough of a reason to build ANYTHING and to ignore all legitimate issues with our plan.
2. Standards set by Prop 1A are ‘unfair’ relative to all other systems in the world (forget the fact that WE the CHSRA drove the birth of Prop 1A, and our best little cheerleader every WROTE prop 1A that includes that requirement.)
3. Not fair that CHSA is held to the unfair ‘standard’ of having to identify complete funding for an entire IOS (USABLE SEGMENT). (aka the requirement set forth by Prop 1A, not invented by this Peer Review Group (again, see Galgiani if you don’t like that unfair standard btw)
4. There will be plenty (loads) of future federal funding just around the corner – because The President says so (and monkeys will start flying out of our butts soon, any day now.) – which is our long term funding plan, so what more evidence and analysis do you need?
5. You fail to count the very scary “The Cost of Doing Nothing” (which we inflate with robust lies and mis-information), otherwise known as high speed rail at any cost.
6. Look at all the irrelevant compares to other countries we have…who have been funded by their governments and/or private industry – no problemo. (none of which have shown up yet in our case, but never mind that.)
7. There are actually all kinds of private industry players just dying to get in on this sweet deal, if only you would stop saying mean stuff about our (lame) plans – which is CLEARLY scaring them away. so shut up.
Peninsula, you say, “Not fair that CHSA is held to the unfair ‘standard’ of having to identify complete funding for an entire IOS (USABLE SEGMENT).” Are you trying to tell us that, as a result, the funding plan does not comply with Prop 1A? Can you point to the requirement that you say is violated?
morris brown Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 10:00 pm
@Rick Rong:
Why don’t you read the Kings Co et al lawsuit against the Authority etc. That should answer your question in spades.
Rick Rong Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 10:06 pm
I didn’t ask for a whole deck of cards, Morris, I just asked Peninsula to back up his statement. If you can point to Prop 1A requirements with which the funding plan does not comply, why don’t you or Peninsula simply point to them?
As for the Kings County lawsuit, post a link if you have one.
peninsula Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 10:29 pm
Rick, see AB3034, 2704.08 (C), (G), and (H) along with the definition of USABLE SEGMENT and HST provided at the beginning of Article 1 2704:
(d) “High-speed train” means a passenger train capable of sustained revenue operating speeds of at least 200 miles per hour where conditions permit those speeds.
(e) “High-speed train system” means a system with high-speed trains and includes, but is not limited to, the following components: right-of-way, track, power system, rolling stock, stations, and associated facilities.
(f) “Corridor”meansaportionofthehigh-speedtrainsystemasdescribed in Section 2704.04.
(g) “Usable segment” means a portion of a corridor that includes at least two stations.
And using this infomation see 2704.08 which explains what the mandated FUNDING PLAN must contain: (particularly (C), (G) and (H). Which says that the funding plan must tell the usable segment that they are articulating the funding plan for, and must show ALL sources of funds for a complete Usable Segment OF HIGH SPEED RAIL (definition), that must be suitable and ready for HST operation with the funding plan provided.
Rick Rong Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 10:35 pm
Robert, do you have a response to what Peninsula is saying?
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 9:12 am
Neither nor.
Peninsula latched onto the fact that the consultants have only described the IOS as a “usable segment”. But the truth is, aside from two stations, construction just needs to be a suitable for a passenger rail service “planned” by the authority. And this service can’t receive a subsidy.
What this really boils down to is how much electrification will be done, and if it’s significant, the Board can always redirect the money to Merced-Fresno to build a full line out, and then build track to the south until they run out of money…
peninsula Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 9:47 am
wrong. it has to be suitable and ready for high speed train service. per section 2704.08
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 10:09 am
I don’t think you get the distinction.
Rolling stock is not required. Electrification is not required insofar as the Authority can build the track up to a specification for a 200mph diesel burning train (I know it doesn’t exist, but factual impossibilities don’t matter, legal ones do…)
The design of the track, grade separation, third rail meanwhile have to be proven technology and able to be used if a passenger operation shows up.
But you are ignoring the much bigger elephant: FRA compliance. If this is toy or test track stuff, you don’t need much of the weight restrictions and train control. You could build something which would allow HSR rolling stock to be automated for 200 mph travel back n’ forth and still meet the legal requirement.
paul dyson Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 11:43 am
So it’s OK to find some technicality or loophole whereby the money spent has no value in terms of providing mobility, and will sit in the fields stranded for years, but somehow we complied with the law and screwed state and federal taxpayers out of their hard earned dough? Shameful.
And where are all the quotes from a few years ago from the supporters of this scheme, about how HSR makes such wonderful profits and that private investors are beating down the doors? We wouldn’t be having these arguments about stranded assets if any of that were true.
Daniel Krause Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 12:15 pm
Please stop with the “no value.” I think Fresno and Bakersfield residents and other residents from Sacramento whose trips will be significantly speed up will find you language offensive. You may think it has less value or little value (I don’t), but to claim no value is absolutely false.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 12:23 pm
Daniel is right. Negative value is a better appellation.
paul dyson Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Well Dan, it’s hard to do a cost benefit analysis when we don’t know the total costs nor the benefits accruing to an unknown number of passengers. Based on today’s patronage, the unlikelihood of significant growth given a lack of rolling stock to expand service, the lack of funds to subsidize additional service, the transfer of service from existing stations to new “parkway” stations out of town, the minimal impact on end to end journey times even if all the 45 minutes are saved, which is doubtful, I would have to say that the value is de minimus. We do know that at least $6 billion will go down the tubes as a result of this exercise, for a few thousand dollars extra revenue on the San Joaquins.
If I were a San Joaquin resident I’d be more offended that this is the way my money is being spent on a caricature of mobility improvement. If I were a San Joaquin resident I would want to ride a train to Southern California, not a bus!
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 1:03 pm
You know Paul, this is getting pretty trite–
Amtrak California doesn’t cover it’s costs. Nothing can be done about that. HSR services uses does cover its operating cost. So if you want more rail service for less public money, you have to embrace HSR.
Now, there is nothing wrong with trying to preserve traditional passenger rail where HSR isn’t feasible. But attacking a bond election because there’s a structural deficit in OPERATING costs for Amtrak California is double-ass backwards.
First, could you spend $6 billion anywhere…anywhere in the state to get Amtrak California lines to cover their costs?
Secondly, if you do that, isn’t that backdoor subsidies to the host railroads that could make the upgrades themselves?
Third, if I lived in Merced, (and I don’t) I’d be excited to get be the junction of a HSR starter line from San Jose to Fresno and the Altamont Corridor Express. At least with HSR San Joaquin Valley residents can reach San Jose (and San Francisco) by train. Right now, San Joaquin types can’t go to San Jose at all and SF bound passengers have to transfer in sunny and scenic Richmond to take BART the rest of the way.
Fourth, the California political establishment needs to get over itself. The Golden State doesn’t have as much weight to throw around in DC and it needs to be less hidebound and inveterate. It needs to be open and flexible but at the same time consistent. Right now everyone is just tearing up the sofa cushions for cash as if that’s long term fix.
Daniel Krause Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 1:04 pm
I think you are being extremely pessimistic but that is your choice. I don’t see how you can advocate for rail effectively in this state with such attitudes. Not once have you acknowlege the benefit conventional rail as accruied from the HSR program. Not once have you acknowledged that we have already gotten more funding at this point just because we have a project than was project (b/c the tea baggers in other states helped us). Because we are bold we have already gotten rewarded. If continue to advocate for the destruction of this project based on short-term fear, then convention rail will also fail to piggyback on the project. In other words, Congress/President is going to give us the middle finger for all major rail investments for year to to come if we wimp out now and they should if we succumb to our lack of belief in ourselves. Anyhow, I got to get back to working constructively for the future of our state so I sign off the comments for awhile. Cheers.
paul dyson Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 5:12 pm
@Dan ref your comment and believing in ourselves. I believe in CA more than in the feds, and I believe we can build what we need for ourselves with our own money, once we get the budget under control.
@Tom, sorry if my argument is trite, but that does not make it invalid. Amtrak Cal loses money, but that is not a given any more than HSR making money is a given. Indeed the San Diegans (pre Surfliner) started to make money and as soon as that happened Amtrak changed the formula and suddenly they lost money. Better management and less overhead and these trains would probably break even on the operating account.
My point boils down to this. You would not build a new RoW for the San Joaquin trains, there is insufficient benefit for the cost. Therefore your sole raison d,etre for the ICS is to try and force the federal taxpayer to continue to write checks to complete the system. Much better to use these dollars to build out from each end and give us something immediately useful. Your hypothetical person in Merced will have to stay “excited” for a mighty long time before he can actually travel anywhere on this 1:1 scale Wunderland.
jim Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 5:32 pm
Tom,
First, could you spend $6 billion anywhere…anywhere in the state to get Amtrak California lines to cover their costs?
$6B is a lot of money. Spend it on, say, the Surfliner and you’d end up something that’s very close to covering its costs, if not actually generating a surplus. And if it wouldn’t cover its costs, that would only be because Amtrak California (presumably at CalTrans insistence) kept its fares artificially low.
I think the numbers in this debate have become detached from reality. Give another $6B to the Midwest and you’d get 110mph service from Minneapolis to Chicago to Cleveland; from St. Louis to Chicago to Detroit. Give $6B to California and you get bupkis.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 7:09 pm
raison d,etre for the ICS is to try and force the federal taxpayer
Californians pay Federal taxes.
Brsk Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 8:59 pm
@Paul
Do you really consider relocating the Fresno station from the BNSF line, away from downtown, to the UP line, downtown at Mariposa St. a couple blocks from Fulton Mall, is a “transfer of service from existing stations to new “parkway” stations out of town” really?
Are you so ignorant of the ICS that you didn’t know where the Fresno station is moving?
Of do you so hate and discount the people of Fresno for “stealing” “your” LA train money that you just don’t give a damn whether their train station gets a better location or not?
Which is it?
@Paulus
A explain to me how:
-a far better station location for the larger city on the city,
- a 45 minute speed up for all travelers going from Merced or points north to Bakersfield and points south,
- far increased reliability from double tracking over 100 mile and avoiding freight traffic,
- plus removal of Amtrak traffic and noise from the residential neighborhoods in eastern Fresno,
- and no horn anywhere for over 100 miles,
all adds up to a negative value?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 9:16 pm
Because it is of less value than the six billion dollars that would be spent to create it.
Nathanael Reply:
January 7th, 2012 at 6:41 pm
“@Dan ref your comment and believing in ourselves. I believe in CA more than in the feds, and I believe we can build what we need for ourselves with our own money, once we get the budget under control.”
Ah, so you support repealing the 2/3 requirements from Proposition 13 immediately?
That is the only way to get the California budget under control. The problem is on the revenue side. The 2/3 requirements make it impossible to have a rational tax system of any sort.
peninsula Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 12:07 pm
oh I see. Good point – so your saying as long as the authority can complete a usable segment that will be suitable and ready for operation of IMAGINARY, NON-EXISTENT high speed passenger train technology, that qualifies for the bond funding. So if they can build a track suitable and ready for ANY kind of 200mph train operation – they’re good to go. LIke maybe trains that run off of thin air? Or trains that run off of cotton candy? Because afterall – who’s to say if a segment is “suitable and ready” for service for a technology that doesn’t exist in the real world? good argument.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 12:40 pm
Um yeaaaaah….
What I’m proposing to you is that “suitability” is going to be litigated ad nauseam no matter what happens. This is California and this is a public works project…start your engines…
But it’s important to understand that what’s legal and what is factual are not the same thing, ever. As they say to 1Ls: “A factual impossibility isn’t a good defense, but a legal impossibility is…” If the law stated the speed had to be accomplished by using electric trains (instead of implying it) the case against the Authority would be stronger.
And given that the FRA can issue waivers, you have to realize that playing “gotcha” is a waste of time. Be constructive, not obstructive and you will get much further in this process.
peninsula Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Well Tom you seem to want to make a distinction between law and fact, but the fact is that AB3034 (the LAW) DOES contain both these definitions together, pretty much plain as day, and AB3034 says the high speed train system includes electrification. So you think the authority would come to court with the thinner than paper thin argument that they were allowed to build a track ready and suitable for some kind of alternative high speed operation for a non-existent, imaginary, train technology without the components of the High Speed Train system as defined in the law?
(d) “High-speed train” means a passenger train capable of sustained revenue operating speeds of at least 200 miles per hour where conditions permit those speeds.
(e) “High-speed train system” means a system with high-speed trains and includes, but is not limited to, the following components: right-of-way, track, power system, rolling stock, stations, and associated facilities.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 4:01 pm
On the contrary, I predict the Authority will simply use your argument as cover to abandon much of the track between Fresno and Bakersfield and instead focus on Merced and Fresno and the wye. Jim Costa is moving districts further north and if its true that Amtrak California is to be eliminated in next year’s budget then the southern Valley is up a creek….
thatbruce Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 6:09 pm
@peninsula:
AB3034 says the high speed train system includes electrification
Yes it does. The CAHSRA also holds the view that AB3034 has enough wriggle room for requesting AB3034 funds to match the ARRA funds which have their own Federal requirements, with a future AB3034 funding request at a later point to add the required electrification etc to make it into full AB3034 ‘usable segment’.
peninsula Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 7:20 pm
that bruce: I wouldn’t disagree with them on that. They can indeed request the bond funds later to complete the electrification. However, before they start they do need to produce a funding plan that shows where ALL the funds will be sourced, for the entire usable segment (even if they are not using them now.)
thatbruce Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 11:30 am
As pointed out a few months ago, saying ‘Funding for electrification etc to be covered by future federal/bond/etc funding in this rough timeframe’ may be sufficient to meet the letter of the law. It works for roads after all.
peninsula Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 7:27 pm
which brings us fill circle – to the ‘one of these days soon we’ll get more funding – as soon as monkeys fly out of our butts’ so called “funding plan” which the peer review group is strongly objecting. “TBD” doesn’t cut it as identified source of funds.
J. Wong Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 10:20 am
@Rick Rong
Another poster who happens to be a lawyer responded to @peninsula’s claims about meeting the legal requirements of Prop 1A and concluded that they were wrong. I don’t happen to recall the poster’s handle, but you can search for the posts.
Mike Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 11:54 am
Lawyers can argue both sides of this question. Until a judge hears arguments and renders a decision, we’re all just offering speculation. My own speculation is that if the Legislature adopts findings and declarations that the project meets the provisions of Prop 1A, that the courts will give substantial deference.
Just what planet are you living on Robert?
Your title:
High Speed Rail Authority Demolishes Peer Review Report
is without any justification. The Authority’s 10 page letter certainly does nothing of the sort.
Read the dozens, headed towards hundreds of media articles which conclude otherwise. This includes not only California press, but national press as well. Are they all wrong and only you are right?
And so you write:
“And so it goes. Once again, the facts are on our side.”
Well dozens of other editors, certainly don’t hold this view.
“Californians want trains” Californians don’t want +$100 billion trains — in fact they don’t want this project by a 2:1 margin.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 10:01 pm
Ah yes. Morris, you must be new around here.
peninsula Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 10:44 pm
Morris – oh my! I forgot they threw THAT one in there too! Californians want trains…..
We the CHSRA have a mandate handed down by the voters in 2008 that supports our righteous campaign to bring California HSR at ANY COST, and at any and all lack of justification that we may so put forth over and over again to voters – amen.
(ps – you know – The 2008 election, when we lied our asses off about a 33Billion project that would carry 115M passenger a year, at $55 a ticket, and for which our routes yet to be determined would stay inside current freeway and transportation rights of way, minimize impacts to communities, and which private investors and federal government would line up to build for us (indeed already lined up at that point) to shower HSR upon us? And we would NEVER DREAM of starting construction on any segments until we had the full funding for a full USABLE SEGMENT of HSR, that could operate as HSR independently without subsidy, so that communities wouldn’t be left holding the bag with useless holes in the ground if the balance of our funding never showed up? In other words that very clever PR snow job to misrepresent the reality, to trick voters about EVERY ASPECT of what actually would have to happen to put a realistic HSR in place)
Alon Levy Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 12:01 am
No, they said that they wanted to use the Caltrain corridor and that it would require four tracks, from the beginning. It counts as an existing transportation ROW, but it needs to be widened, and that’s been known since before the election.
synonymouse Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 1:03 pm
But the Prop 1A election videos showed only trench or at grade alignments all the while PB planned Stilt-A-Rail on steroids(namely berms)for the Peninsula. Caltrain already has 3 tracks so 4 was no big deal. It’s the aerials.
The Peninsula will not escape controversy for some time ahead as it will be forced to decide between Caltrain and BART as well as hsr options.
J. Wong Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 1:08 pm
And Caltrain already has berms and is planning more. So why is it such a big deal?
synonymouse Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 1:38 pm
A berm is a very big deal in affluent PAMPA, which will likely move move even farther towards gentrification with a BART subway.
VBobier Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 4:31 pm
Yeah a bunch of rich stuck up snobs, they think their too good to associate with commoners.
Nathanael Reply:
January 7th, 2012 at 6:48 pm
No. They’ll find themselves choked by Prop 13, and get themselves a BART berm…
Jeff Carter Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 4:48 am
Peninsula, Morris, Boondoggle, CC-HSR, etc. all talk about the public being “lied” to in Prop. 1A.
Well, what about the lies form these unscrupulous people/groups?
In Burlingame…
Why do people living on Carolan and in my apartment complex think that our homes are going to be destroyed and taken by the government/HSR?
Why do business and homeowners along California think their business/home is right in the path of HSR?
Because someone spread lies through the community claiming that HSR will do such. I have heard that someone was going door to door with their anti-HSR propaganda.
On the peninsula…
There is/was talk of HSR “destroying” hundreds of, even thousands of homes on the peninsula and thousands and thousands of trees.
In San Francisco…
Someone claiming to represent UP came my employers CEO, along with the Port of San Francisco (our landlord), claiming that HSR and Caltrain electrification will end all future freight rail on the peninsula. I heard about this after I saw our CEO’s name on a letter from concerned peninsula freight users that was presented to the Caltrain JPB and few years ago.
In the central valley…
HSR will destroy thousands of acres of pristine farmland.
So it’s ok to lie if you oppose HSR???
Peter Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 8:46 am
“So it’s ok to lie if you oppose HSR???”
Yes.
Don’t forget about the people on the Peninsula who claimed they had received eminent domain notices from the Authority.
Daniel Krause Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 9:52 am
My experience with observing opponents of large projects is yes, that many of them (not all) are very willing to engage in twisting and distorting the facts and often willing to outright lie. I see with this project along the Peninsula and see it even in SF with the Central Subway. Just heard the Central Subway called a train-to-nowhere, even though it will be sitting directly under one of the densest neighborhoods in the United States. Sound familiar? The Central Valley is also nowhere even through there are 7 going on 12 milllion people there. But hey like the radical right does, they just make shit up and if you say it enough times, some people will start to believe, even good-hearted liberals, environmentalists, and rail advocates.
synonymouse Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 1:50 pm
The current Central Subway is a basket case, whereas it could have been reasonably functional.
Building nothing is better than building stupid.
VBobier Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 7:19 pm
Well building nothing is stupid and shortsighted.
synonymouse Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 11:37 pm
On the contrary you come back a little while later and build something right when adult supervison is restored.
Nathanael Reply:
January 7th, 2012 at 6:45 pm
Syn, your attitude led to the Cincinnati Subway. Having read the records, this is unfortunately clear.
At some point, COMMIT.
Nathanael Reply:
January 7th, 2012 at 6:47 pm
The Central Subway is irritatingly close to being a good project, while not actually being a good project. It suffers from a failure to consider operational principles of rail and a mismatch of demand on the two ends of the proposed line.
Furthermore, it has something which is actually hard to correct: it has a tunnel with portals in the wrong places.
CAHSR, in contrast, is not building giant structural mistakes, at least not in the Central Valley (they’re not building *anything* in the Peninsula, and I believe the structural mistakes can probably be remedied before construction there).
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 8:56 am
In regards to San Francisco, the Union Pacific wants it look like they were forced to end freight on the Peninsula when in fact they are using any developments as cover for the fact that Oakland, not SF is the hub of their activity now and they would love to get bought out on that ROW….
Nathanael Reply:
January 7th, 2012 at 6:49 pm
I wish scum like “peninsula” would stop being such big liars. Well, can’t get all your wishes….
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 5:25 am
I believe the planet is called “Portlandia”…
Pecos Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 11:19 am
@ Tom That was funny. @Everyone on the Peninsula who thinks their home will be demolished, ect ect: What you don’t understand is that there are actually relatively few homes along the Caltrain corridor and those existing already deal with loud diesels cruising by said homes daily. Get over it. A lot more people in New York City live next to subway lines that are busier, louder, and operate around the clock. They also use those same loud and frequent subways.
Nathanael Reply:
January 7th, 2012 at 6:44 pm
Stop lying, Morris. Californians support the project — they voted on it.
If you do a push poll and lie about the project before asking if people support it, why then fewer people support it….
What bothers me most is that the lack of 2012 funding is being made an issue. Huh? Theres enough money to pay for everything that has to be done in 2012. And 2013. And possibly even 2014.
By the time 2014/2015 rolls around, and they need to start spending more money….well, guess what, they’ll have funds from the 2013 and 2014 and 2015 federal budget.
It’s almost like some people imagine the entire project breaking ground from end to end on the same day, and the $14bn running out in a year, leaving a 300 mile long fully graded piece of land, but nothing else.
That’s not how stuff works.
Elections are in 11 months. Have they forgotten this?
nslander Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 11:37 pm
The Evil Clownish expressions of ignorance bolstering the opposition is impressive.
At least the Authority finally grew a pair.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 5:05 am
I hear listening to Jay Z’s “99 Problems” helped motivate the staff to be more standoffish.
An absolutely stunning disclosure — FRA administrator Szabo attempts to discredit LAO at Mica hearing
Follow this Link:
http://denham.house.gov/press-release/federal-railroad-administration-testimony-questioned
which reveals that FRA Administrator, Joseph Szabo, in an attempt to discredit the California LAO and its report on the California HSR project, miss-spoke or outright lied to the Mica committee hearing of Dec 15, 2011. (be sure to view the video link contained there also).
The response from the LAO is shown in this letter
Link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/77231746/LAO-Contacts-RE-Rail
was swift and to the point.
Truly amazing to what lengths the FRA and the Authority seem to be willing to go in support of this disaster.
A full retraction of Szabo’s testimony is certainly due and due now.
Peter Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 6:59 am
Ok, maybe this is something that the LAO didn’t keep record of (even if they should have), but if I’m issuing a rebuttal to someone claiming they never spoke to me, in my rebuttal I would include something like
Unless the LAO is playing games.
Nathanael Reply:
January 7th, 2012 at 6:50 pm
The LAO report was a pile of bullshit, and it seems apparent that the LAO is now lying to cover its ass. As Peter said, if they actually had done what they’d said, they’d have records of it.
Szabo is of course completely correct and an a full retraction of the LAO’s bullshit is certainly due and due now.
peninsula Reply:
January 7th, 2012 at 6:54 pm
except Szabo’s office immediately admitted that their staff HAD had conversations with the LAO. So much for stomping your feet and holding your breath.
joe Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 7:05 am
Possibly.
It may also be that the LAO didn’t ask technical questions which was Szabo’s core complaint. Their letter never said they did ask about any technical concerns – it corrected the broader complaint they didn’t talk to any one.
1. The LAO letter makes no assertion that had technical questions.
2. LAO has yet to respond (at least I have not heard of any) to the California Legislature who co-sponsopsered HSR about who the LAO talked to when they issued their erroneous report did have conversations with HSR.
Now they’re sending letters correcting FRA official’s testimony.
The LAO has to come clean about how they produced such factually incorrect report.
Bloomberg has already picked up on the false testimony of Szabo
see:
http://bloom.bg/AqktYD
@Joe, @ Peter, @Robert — Just keep attacking the messengers, the LAO, the Peer Review group. It will get you only deeper and deeper into holes from which you cannot escape, and serve no useful purpose.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 8:38 am
So the LAO asked someone in the grant office: “Is there really a legal barrier to redirecting the funds?”
Standard government answer from FRA: “It depends. There are a multitude of factors to consider.”
LAO Interpretation: The burden of proof to redirect the funds is on the FRA, not on California. Ergo, let’s sidestep the merit of this high speed rail thing and just plug the money in somewhere else….
Nevermind the fact that an Executive agency always has to interpret what the Legislative branch means and that the Feds giving their opinion to a state Legislature is purely FWIW territory.
VBobier Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 7:24 pm
The LAO just wants to steal the DOT money, trying to redirect the DOT money will never happen, It’s been tried in the past, the always DOT refused and held firm.
Peter Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 8:49 am
Where do you get “attacking the messenger” from my comment?
joe Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 8:07 pm
Indeed, the LAO is a player. They refuse to disclose who they spoke with concocting the flawed LAO HSR Report.
This is a serious charge – lying to congress. The LAO is in conflict on the State and Federal Exec as well as CA Legislators.
Nathanael Reply:
January 7th, 2012 at 6:52 pm
Glad to see that Bloomberg has picked up Szabo’s accurate testimony.
Morris, you really ought to stop lying and supporting liars. Honestly, take a lesson from Elizabeth Alexis, who I can seriously disagree with, but who doesn’t just make shit up. Stop digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole, attacking the messenger (Szabo) and defending the liars (who are now weaving and bobbing to cover up their dishonest report).
Wow, they’re admitting the lie – just like that. Now that is stunning. By the way, looking back at the transcript – there was no use of the word LEADERS. He clearly says no conversation with us AT ALL, NOT ONE….
original transcript of conversation (morris’s Denham link above)
“Szabo: What I would say is that we find it interesting that they’ve had no dialog with us. None, not one conversation. And frankly we believe that we can provide a lot of professional technical analysis and assistance that is based on our experience from looking at projects around the world from decades of experience that frankly could probably clarify a lot, an awful lot of misconceptions that they have
Denham: So state and federal government is not communicating?
Szabo: The state government and our office is communicating very effectively, California High Speed Rail, we’re communicating very effectively. My point is, for some reason the LAO has not chosen to engage us at all in any discussion, not one, to better understand some of the issues and some of the concerns they raise.”
And now the statement from Szabo’s office (Morris Bloom link)
‘Staff-Level Conversations’
Szabo voiced concerns that legislative analysts didn’t consult with agency leaders as they worked on their report about the rail project, Michael Murray, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Transportation, said in an e-mail yesterday.
While there were “staff-level conversations” regarding program guidance and environmental rules, the California analysts “never contacted federal FRA leadership for input on the project as a whole,” Murray said.
Now, there are some pretty famous people being prosecuted for perjury and convicted of obstruction of justice – for lying to congress – for much less than this. Are there going to be people going to jail for lying to congress here?
StevieB Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 12:45 pm
This is an example of political bickering that will be forgotten tomorrow.
synonymouse Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 12:46 pm
You mean like professional wrestling?
Ken Orski’s influential and latest newsbrief has this to say about the Peer Group review and the response from the Authority.
——
Vol. 23, No. 2 http://www.innobriefs.com
January 5, 2012
A Devastating Verdict
Like many other observers, we have found the California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group to have made a convincing case for a fresh look at the feasibility of the California high-speed rail project. The Group’s report was issued as eleven House Democrats — eight fom California– joined an earlier request from twelve Republican House members for an independent GAO investigation of the embattled project.
That is why we find Governor Brown’s reaction— that the Peer Reviewers’ report “does not appear to add any arguments that are new or compelling enough to suggest a change of course” —incomprehensible. Either the Governor issued the statement without the benefit of having read the report, or else he is so ideologically committed to the project that he refuses to look the facts in the face.
Precisely which conclusions of the report are not compelling enough, the Governor’ s spokesman has not made clear. Is it the statement that “the Funding Plan fails to identify any long term funding commitments” and therefore “the project as it is currently planned is not financially feasible”?
Is it the Reviewers’ assertion that “the [travel] forecasts have not been subject to external and public review” and, absent such an open examination,”they are simply unverifiable from our point of view”?
Could it be their statement that “the ICS [Initial Construction Section] has no independent utility other than as a possible temporary re-routing of the Amtrak-operated San Joaquin service…before an IOS [Initial Operating Segment] is opened”?
Or, is it the Panel’s conclusion that “…moving ahead on the HSR project without credible sources of funding, without a definitive business model, without a strategy to maximize the independent utility and value to the State, and without the appropriate management resources, represents an immense financial risk on the part of the State of California?”
To us, the findings seem at least deserving of a respectful consideration.
But the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) is not ready to concede anything. Here is the opening paragraph of its response: “While some of the recommendations in the Peer Review Group report merit consideration, by and large this report is deeply flawed, in some areas misleading and its conclusions are unfounded. …Although some high-speed rail experience exists among Peer Review Panel members, this report suffers from a lack of appreciation of how high-speed rail systems have been constructed throughout the world, makes unrealistic and unsubstantiated assumptions about private sector involvement in such systems and ignores or misconstrues the legal requirements that govern construction of the high speed rail program in California.”
It is not our intention to delve in detail into the Authority’s response and judge the soundness of its arguments. No doubt, the CHSRA response will come under a detailed examination by the Authority’s critics in the days ahead. Suffice it to say that, having carefully and with an open mind examined the Authority’s rambling nine-page response, we find that it did not satisfactorily rebut the Peer Group’s central point: that it is not prudent, nor “financially feasible,” to proceed with the $6 billion dollar rail project in the Central Valley (including $2.7 billion in Proposition 1A bonds) in the absence of any identifiable source of funding with which to complete even the Initial Operating Segment. To do so, would be to expose the State to the risk of being stuck, perhaps for many years, with a rail segment unconnected to major urban areas and unable to generate sufficient ridership to operate without a significant state subsidy.
The Authority’s lashing out at the Peer Group and the dismissive tone of its response suggest that it has already made up its mind to stay the course and circle the wagons. That is not a wise posture to assume in the face of an already skeptical state legislature.
KEN ORSKI
Editor/Publisher
###
Note: the NewsBriefs can also be accessed at http://www.infrastructureUSA.org A listing of all recent NewsBriefs can be found at http://www.innobriefs.com
Please feel free to forward or reprint this item with appropriate citation. All correspondence, including requests to unsubscribe, should be addressed to: C. Kenneth Orski, Editor/Publisher, email: korski@verizon.net. tel: 301.299.1996; fax: 301.299.4425. Please make sure that your email account is set up to accept incoming mail from korski@verizon.net
Nathanael Reply:
January 7th, 2012 at 6:52 pm
Oh, another idiot hack? You do seem to find ‘em.
I’m sorry, the Authority’s defense on the “funding shortfall” issue is just weak, evasive, and unsubstantiated. The complaint has three parts:
1. There is no committed funding to complete the HSR project (whether IOS or Phase 1).
2. There is not even an established funding program to which the Authority can go begging.
3. The funded project (ICS) can, even if never extended, be used for something, but it’s not a purpose that’s worth the level of investment.
Different people can draw different conclusions from these facts. You might believe that HSR is so important that we should start now, and then fight on for money to finish the project. You might believe that political winds will shift and DC will open the HSR money tap again. You might believe that Californians of the future will be glad that we started now, so that they have a piece of track that they can expand out to a full system. And if those are the sort of things that you believe, then that’s the place to make your case.
They Authority, though, insists on trying to dispute the facts with baseless comparisons. True, I-5 did not have a funding commitment in pocket when started, but it did have an established and ongoing source of federal money (i.e., highway trust fund/federal gas tax) that was guaranteed to flow to California for highway projects of its choice. In starting to construct I5, California was choosing a project on which it would spend a portion of federal funds that it would be receiving anyways. Likewise, BART to San Jose is not fully funded, nor is the first segment to Berryessa. But that segment does have an established and reliable source of federal funds to look towards (New Starts) and the project has already been approved in New Starts for design and given a “medium” favorability rating. This virtually guarantees that New Starts money will come. Berryessa is also an extension on an already-operating system, and when complete it will immediately be put into service as an extension of the full BART system. CA HSR has none of these attributes. Money’s not committed. There’s no program that might plausibly provide money (absent speculative Congressional action). The ICS is not legitimately worthwhile on its own.
I hate to rail on the Authority like this because I still want the project to succeed, but its disheartening to discover that the Authority is unable to marshall legitimate arguments in its own defense.
Daniel Krause Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 11:03 am
Mike’s comment is a thoughtful one. The biggest gift to the campaigners of FUD has been the tea party congress. There was real momentum to establishing a dedicated source of HSR funding until November 2010. It just seems people are buying that this congressional situation is permanent. Where is the evidence? It is turning over every 2 years now (and it will almost certain turn over again in 2012). The tea party house poll numbers are in the toilet. I think it is quite fair to argue that this situation is temporary, though I agree it has made the job of arguing that future funding is forthcoming more difficult. It just seems that so many people view today’s reality as tomorrow’s reality. I am one that is totally confident that before the ICS is completed (a 5-year effort), we have another large pot of money to continue. Unfortunately, so many in this country seem to have lost all faith in America and are content to crawl in the hole of rapid decline while the rest of the world moves forward rapidly.
BTW, Warm Spring BART and the extension to Berryessa is a $3B risk and for a much smaller geographic area. There is absolutely no future funding identified for an extension to downtown SJ and Diridon. However, whether you like the project or not, the South Bay has the confidence in itself to take a risk and work like hell to find additional funding. True there is the new starts program, but it may be 20+ years before the Bay Area will put BART first in line for the next pot of new starts money. You don’t see Santa Clara County folding up and going home. They believe in themselves. Does the State of California believe in itself? Luckly the Govenor does believe in this state. Not so sure about the Democratic legislature. The jury is still out. Gave up on the modern republican party to believe in a positive future a while ago, though they too used to support infrastructure.
Daniel Krause Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 11:17 am
Here is an article with the same line of thinking as mine.
http://streetsblog.net/2012/01/05/one-anti-rail-congress-is-no-reason-to-delay-california-hsr/#more-277304
blankslate Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 12:05 pm
“BTW, Warm Spring BART and the extension to Berryessa is a $3B risk and for a much smaller geographic area. There is absolutely no future funding identified for an extension to downtown SJ and Diridon.”
The extension to Berryessa is a smaller risk than the ICS. It is projected to have a daily ridership of 46,000 (without the extension to downtown/Diridon). http://www.vta.org/bart/documents/other/bart_q_a_fact.pdf
Amtrak San Joaquin had “record ridership” of 1million last year (http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/article/Amtrak-San-Joaquin-corridor-sets-annual-ridership-record-at-1-million–28230) – That’s about 2,700/day. Let’s generously assume the 45-minute time savings offered by the ICS is sufficient to double ridership, giving us 2,700 more riders/day.
That gives the ICS about 6% of the return on investment (in terms of ridership) as BART to Berryessa.
Daniel Krause Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Yes, but we are also building a huge section of the HSR track and will be saving billions on cost escalation and saving ROW increases and getting ahead of sprawl which will soon make it infeasible to ever access Fresno and other CV cities. Again, I stand by my claim that the risk of not starting construction is far greater than the risk of proceeding.
Clem Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 2:00 pm
46,000 riders is a highly speculative and optimistic number, if past experience with BART extensions is any indication. Their optimism bias is typically in the neighborhood of 200%.
Also note that return on investment is better measured in terms of fare revenue (you know, dollars!) rather than ridership. San Joaquin riders pay much higher fares than BART riders.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 2:06 pm
Dan’s full-time hobby is to parrot and promote ever single thing that PB says and that benefits PB its very special pals’ interests. If he were smart he’d be paid to do it, and do it much more subtly.
SF Central Subway with a single new stop that will serve nobody; BART to the San José Flea Market; and HSR to Los Banos: he’s really onto a trifecta of real winners there.
joe Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 8:18 pm
I get a nickel for every Mlynarik PB conspiracy comment.
Joey Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 8:42 pm
I get a nickel every time he’s wrong
I don’t have many nickels…
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 2:39 pm
Per mile, Clem? As Londoners like to say, the Paddington Express to Heathrow from its eponymous train station origin costs passengers more per mile than the Concorde…
thatbruce Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 6:20 pm
Try taking the tube between Leicester Square and Covent Garden or Charing Cross and Embankment for expensive journeys measured on a per-mile basis.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 5:07 am
I’ve done Russell Square to Leicester Square, but I’ve also done the Picadilly Line from Heathrow TO Russell Square.
Nathanael Reply:
January 7th, 2012 at 6:54 pm
The BART ridership predictions are extremely questionable based on even a back-of-the-envelope calculation.
The ICS is only a risk if nobody ever builds either of the mountain crossings. Los Angeles is gonna build its mountain crossing sooner or later.
Mike Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Daniel I generally agree with you, and I think building the ICS will greatly improve the chances the more federal money comes to CA HSR in the future. But I’m less confident that it will come in the amounts that the Business Plan assumes (averaging something like $3B annually, if I’m not mistaken). Maybe $1B annually I would believe. I’m not saying that this would be the end of the project, but it would be responsible for the Authority (or the Legislature) to look at how the project would proceed over the next couple of decades if federal money came in at “only” $1B annually.
Daniel Krause Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 12:26 pm
Yes, this is possible but I feel momentum will gather steam over the next few years. Americans are clamoring for more rail all over the country. Remember the business plan does assume any funding for the next couple of years and they do have Plan B of Amtrak utilizing the track to accomodate for the scenario you are considering.
“In fact, the Peer Review Report’s criticisms most closely resemble the deeply uninformed and flawed criticisms that came from the Legislative Analyst’s Office. It’s almost as if someone in Sacramento was shopping around bad analysis, in an attempt to destroy the HSR project, and getting people like the State Auditor, the LAO, and now the Peer Review Committee to bite. But surely those independent bodies would never fall for analysis so deeply flawed. And surely nobody would ever actually try that strategy. Isn’t that right, Alan Lowenthal?”
You think?
peninsula Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 9:55 am
Krause – no we don’t think.
You’re looking for a FIVE and you’re showing everyone 2+2. You’ve got hoards of credible professionals lining up to tell you that 2+2 = 4, and the best ‘rebuttal’ you can come up with is that clearly everyone is conspiring against you.
You’re a joke.
Daniel Krause Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 10:37 am
Here we go with the personal name calling from a source that has demonstrate a complete hatred for the project (suprise with a username of “peninsula”), who has always claimed everything done is illegal when it has not been, etc., etc. Yes, I believe strongly that there is a conspiracy of FUD against this project. I am not saying all critques are invalid. When something makes sense I’ll endoerse it. I have always been a critic of the outreach of the Authority for example and have agreed with CARRD and others about the need for bettter communications. But so many of the claims from various “unbaised sources”, LAO, Peer Review, CARRD, etc. all sounds the same and it is just wrong, I will call them on it. Finally, the Authority has stood up and adressed all this B.S. about risk by finally calling these critic’s bluff – what is cost of not moving forward? (and it is whole lot more risky to not move forward). At least critics could acknowledge the risks with inaction but they refuse to because it undermines their efforts to fear monger. From ridership to risk, it has been a non-stop campaign of FUD. How does sending billions back during depression-like conditions makes sense, but that is what is being claimed.
BTW, try to keep the debate on your opinions about things or general observations about the other side, but naming calling is unacceptable.
VBobier Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 10:05 pm
Agreed.
There’s a twenty billion dollar shortfall between funds available and funds needed for an IOS with current plans staked on “Oh please oh please give us some money Feds, pretty pretty please” dreams. That is a very significant shortfall which the Peer Review Group is well within its right to point to and recommend that the bond money not be disbursed.
StevieB Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 11:27 am
Subtract the $6.3 billion in California HSR bond authority from the $20 billion for IOS construction and you come up with $13.7 billion. A multiple year funding source for the $13.7 billion would be ideal. Annual appropriations leave too much uncertainty with which opponents are able to attack the viability of funding.
We need a congress that gets things done instead of a congress that refuses to act.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 11:36 am
20 billion was after subtracting remaining Prop 1A funds.
synonymouse Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 11:38 am
It is immaterial whether the orphan trackage functions in any way, shape or form. It might as well be viewed as a new Maginot Line or performance art. Its entire raison d’etre is to pour concrete and transfer money to PB, contractors and select unions.
Seen this way Brown’s intransigeance is comprehensible, logical, de facto.
Palo Alto native Peter Calthorpe in today’s SF Chron: Why California needs high-speed rail
synonymouse Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 1:45 pm
Relating hsr to the highway lobby’s greatest coup, the Interstate Highway System, tells all about the true motives and intentions of hsr lobbyists. That is unlimited population growth. The environmental argument is sheer claptrap – these guys are the same guys who build freeways and the tract slums of the future.
The Interstates absolutely trashed the cities. The perfect analogy.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Uh no, Shelly v. Kramer trashed the cities. The Interstates just cleaned out the deadwood.
Brsk Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 7:20 pm
You really don’t know who Peter Calthorpe is do you?
Click on the link above and get educated. What have you founded that has been as important for saving our cities, towns and environment as the Congress for New Urbanism?
…. That’s what I thought.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 8:07 pm
The Congress for New Urbanism? That would be the organization responsible to greenwashing new auto-oriented greenfield subdivisions as long as they’re a little bit nicer and more internally walkable. There’s no benefit in the kind of urbanism it peddles over going back to the urban planning of 1811.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 11:55 pm
1811 wasn’t so bad. It was the year the Commisioners unveiled their plan for Manhattan.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:19 am
Exactly. In 1811 we got a simple grid plan with potential for further growth. Today we get master-planned communities.
Nadia Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 2:28 pm
Shouldn’t he have disclosed that he is a sub-consultant for the Authority?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Calthorpe was also a useful campaign shill trotted out for BART to San José, Capital of Silicon Valley.
Whatever it takes, whatever it takes.
PS California DOES need HSR. What it doesn’t need are limitlessly corrupt US engineering mafiosi torpedoing any chance of ever having useful HSR anywhere in the country.
Reality Check Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Calthorpe is also shilling for Cargill’s odious “Saltworks” Bay-fill plan to build another Redwood Shores-like subdivision on easily-restorable tidal salt evaporator ponds on Redwood City’s bayfront.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 4:18 pm
TOD underwater! As long as the houses have stoops and there’s a Community Activity Centre and pastel paint jobs it’s Calthorpe-tastic! (Scuba gear not included.)
Alon Levy Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 6:54 pm
At least cars don’t work underwater.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 7:44 pm
Top Gear UK would disagree with that sentiment.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 8:26 pm
Top Gear had a program on building a low-cost train–and it’s one of the funniest things I’ve seen in years! Have fun!!! Hope the links work properly. . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81HgzHSwpcQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMWBPrFVwLk
Eric M Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 8:33 pm
That was a great episode!!
joe Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 8:12 pm
Fucken Hilarious.
Joey Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 9:09 pm
CAHSR may still be the first real high-speed system in the nation. If we mess it up, then that’s going to be taken into account with every other HSR system in the nation. If costs ran out of control because the engineering firms involved have no disincentives for high costs, if ridership is mediocre because pedestrian flow and station access is botched and transfers are poorly designed, if OTP is poor because the terminals were not designed efficiently, then people are going to take that into account when building other HSR projects in the country. It’s not just us who will suffer.
Brsk Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 9:26 pm
So what are you doing to make sure that the state “bureaucrats” and private “engineering firms” are getting it right and not messing it up?
Going to meetings, talking to staffers, writing them letters?
Anything?
Or just bitchin’ on the intertubes? Like most the lot here….
Joey Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 9:40 pm
I probably should, but I have been discouraged by the stories of others (Richard for instance) whose advocacy has returned no results.
In some ways, the problems are more systemic. PB does decent work overseas, because if they don’t then they will be cut out of future projects. Here, they have no incentive because they will continue to get government contracts.
J. Wong Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 9:48 pm
I think you should because many of the issues that you point out are far from “baked”. That is, much of the proposed planning is just that, proposed, and maybe even just a starting point given the many conflicting requirements that were gathered as part of the process. The Authority seems to be adjusting its plans as more information becomes available. You can contribute to that.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:56 am
Write letters. Now there’s an idea. I’ll let my congressperson know. OK with you?
joe Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 9:50 pm
Nope. I assure you, Chicago could careless about CA’s HSR project.
In fact the likely winner would be IL. They too have a”HSR” effort to St Louis, and probably one to MoTown and eventually Milwaukee when they recall the Koch Bros. Gov.
Even Teabagger Walker reversed himself and asked for some of WI’s HSR funding to improve rail.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:21 am
Illinois would get 110 mph FRA-compliant Amtrak-plus trains, and people would assume that this is what HSR amounts to.
Nathanael Reply:
January 7th, 2012 at 6:58 pm
Illinois can get a lot out of separating passenger traffic from freight traffic along existing routes, as the South of the Lake plan provides for. The choice to start with St. Louis, one of the routes where they *can’t* get rid of the freight traffic, was… wrong.
On the other hand, Illinois is likely to end up with such a busy train network that they’ll have to build HSR for capacity relief. Can’t really argue with that approach.
Burlingame calls to stop high-speed rail
synonymouse Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 3:50 pm
All the machine’s horses and all the machine’s men could not put Stilty Dumpty together again.
Methinks a revote is unstoppable now.
J. Wong Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 6:14 pm
“Unstoppable”? Given that a re-vote isn’t on the table as of yet and time is critical. The question is where is it going to come from? The Peninsula cities don’t have the wherewithal to fund a petition drive themselves, and it definitely needs to get on the ballot either for the primary or the general election in the Fall else it will be useless. They’re hoping against hope that the Legislature will put it on the ballot, but they really don’t have any reason to do so.
Nathanael Reply:
January 7th, 2012 at 7:00 pm
No revote in 2012, they’re too late to organize it. By 2013, the idea of cancelling a project under construction is gonna be a hard sell.
Did they they say that CHSR was “shovel-ready” and that planning has been done for over “three decades”? Let me express my opinion on that in Internet jargon: LOL.
What is sad is that people will claim that this project failed because it is just not working in the United States when in fact the only reason this project will fail is because of an authority lacking spine, NIMBYs having more power than the large majority, and inefficient proposals taking over because of the latter two having more power than rational human expertise.
Don’t worry about it. If CHSR makes it back to the ballot this year, it will be killed with fire because nobody is going to accept a $98 billion HSR system that won’t be running until 2033. Does the authority even hear itself? I want the CHSRA to be abolished in favor of a Department that takes care of HSR. This department will employ foreign state-owned companies such as SNCF, Deutsche Bahn, SBB (Swiss Federal Railways) or/and the JR with the construction of our new rail system. They have the expertise. Tell them we have $45 billion and I’ll tell you, any of their proposals will beat anything CHSRA has “planned” up to this date.
This is not impossible. In know in the case of Deutsche Bahn that it has been responsible for the construction of several railway projects outside of Germany such as Qatar-Bahrain currently built. Billions can be saved if we finally get over this “this will create American jobs” attitude. There will be jobs created. Maintenance jobs, Jobs in and around the station, people working in the trains. But construction must be done by workforce that can do the same job for far less.
Nathanael Reply:
January 7th, 2012 at 7:02 pm
They said that the Central Valley segment was shovel-ready, which is true.
Planning has been done for over three decades. The problem is that we have a seriously defective “planning” process in the US which can plan forever without building anything.
Judicial Watch has issued a Freedom of Information Act request to the
FRA for documents etc., relating to the route alternatives for the CA HSR project in Madera and Merced counties.
The letter can be viewed at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77289004/Fed-Rail-Admin-FOIA-January-4-2011
Interesting…
morris
Jerry Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 5:49 pm
Will Judicial Watch seek to find out who put up the money for Mitt’s Super PAC which was used to blast Newt?
joe Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 8:15 pm
No but a FIOA or equivalent on who the LAO consulted would be interesting.
Jerry Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 5:51 pm
Has Judicial Watch ever filed a FOIA request to find out how the IRAQ War was financed while tax cuts for the wealthy were passed?
thatbruce Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 6:46 pm
“Leave it for the next guy”
Nathanael Reply:
January 7th, 2012 at 7:02 pm
Actually, not interesting at all. All of those documents have been on the website for ages. This is jut right-wing bullshit tomfoolery, Not surprised you fell for it.
Some recent news items.
1. Umberg making shit up: “If construction on the bullet train doesn’t begin by October 2012, the state will have to forfeit $4 billion in stimulus money. That, in turn, would trigger a clause that prohibits the state from spending bond money on the plan, says Tom Umberg, Chair of the High Speed Rail Authority.”
2. Editorial in the Mercury News: Peer Review Should Bury High-Speed Rail. These guys spent the past 4 years hyping the CHSRA.
3. Brown proposes folding CHSRA into a new department.
Nathanael Reply:
January 7th, 2012 at 7:03 pm
(1) Umberg is actually correct.
(2) Mercury News has been hostile to CHSRA for the last 4 years.
(3) Yes, this is correct.