Central Valley HSR Segment Completion Delayed to 2022

May 19th, 2016 | Posted by

In what should come as no surprise for reasons that I’ll explain in a moment, the completion of construction on the Central Valley portion of the California High Speed Rail project has been delayed by four years to 2022:

The first segment of California’s first-in-the-nation bullet-train project, currently scheduled for completion in 2018, will not be done until the end of 2022, according to a contract revision the Obama administration quietly approved this morning….

State and federal officials downplayed the shift in the timetable, saying it partly reflected more ambitious plans for the Central Valley work, and in any case merely ratified construction realities on the ground. Jeff Morales, CEO of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, said his agency is accelerating its pace after a painfully slow start, with a half dozen construction crews now building overpasses, relocating utilities, and demolishing structures from north of Fresno down to the Bakersfield area.

And what might be causing these delays? It’s a deliberate act of political and timeline sabotage by project opponents who have spent the last 8 years (my god, has it been that long already?) trying to kill a project voters approved:

Federal Railroad Administration officials assigned much of the blame for the lags to the project’s vociferous critics, who have tied it up with a tangle of lawsuits, administrative challenges, and other red tape. They complained that the opponents, especially Central Valley farmers and other not-in-my-back-yard landowners, have gotten far more traction against the railway than they would have against a highway, reflecting a cultural and political bias in favor of traditional asphalt infrastructure. But while they described today’s agreement as a routine bureaucratic clarification, they said they expect an explosive reaction from opponents looking to score political points in Sacramento and Washington.

“We’re just doing due diligence, but everything about California high-speed rail gets magnified and overblown,” said FRA head Sarah Feinberg.

The FRA is absolutely right about this. A highway project would have sailed right through without public opposition and delay. But HSR opponents have used every possible opportunity to delay the project in hopes it will die.

Their greatest success appears to be delaying the process of acquiring right of way, which has set back construction work by several years. Opponents have gone up and down the Valley encouraging property owners to drag this out as long as possible in hopes that HSR will be abandoned. It won’t be, but the result has been further delays that project opponents are gleefully seizing upon to try and prove that somehow the project should be abandoned.

One such opponent is Orange County resident Kevin Drum, who blogs at Mother Jones. Why a progressive publication promotes someone who opposes clean energy infrastructure is beyond me, but here he is, trashing the delay and the project:

By the way, for those of you wondering what “Central Valley” means, it means Bakersfield to Fresno. Exciting, no? The official reason for building this leg first is blah blah blah. The real reason for building it first is to get something—anything—done. Once you’ve got some track laid, it’s really hard to kill the project because, hey, you don’t want all that money to have been wasted, do you?

So for this guy, reducing CO2 emissions and other air pollution in the Central Valley, as well as promoting economic growth in a part of the state with unemployment still above 10%, is just “blah blah blah”? Ridiculous. And short-sighted.

While the delay is annoying, California can look at the El Niño that flopped as a reminder that climate change is here and its impacts on the state are already serious. HSR should have been built 35 years ago, but better late than never.

  1. synonymouse
    May 19th, 2016 at 22:15
    #1

    El Nino flopped? You mean you want NorCal flooding like what occurred in 1982-83 just to fill the Kardashians’ swimming pools?

    The gross flop here is PB planning, sucking up to high desert developers. Any Sierra Club types who ok this obvious sprawler project should resign and go to work for the Club for Growth.

    The mega-disappointment is Jerry Brown, guru turned growth-monger.

    J. Wong Reply:

    Same old whine. Why don’t you come up with something new?

    synonymouse Reply:

    Something new like BART reinventing the wheel? A gadgetbahn?

    Well, we will have a new honcho – by 2022 Jerry will be long gone.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Oh how I missed the ancient BART conspiracy ™

    Not.

  2. John Nachtigall
    May 19th, 2016 at 22:47
    #2

    so how can the schedule have flipped in a matter of months. They only approved the 2016 business plan a few months ago.

    You dont think they lied just to try and hide the truth do you? Oh my.

    All of these “causes” were known factors. Factors that the CAHSR authority ignored or made worse. Say for example the treatment of the central valley. Perhaps ignoring the concerns of the citizens 8 years ago caused the opposition you see today.

    http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/hsr-chairman-pledges-new-era-of-cooperation/article_c3945722-7e90-11e1-9633-001a4bcf887a.html

    California High-Speed Rail Authority board members met with Kings County supervisors on Tuesday to pledge more cooperation, admitting to past mistakes but repeating their intention to start building next year north of Fresno.

    Authority Chairman Dan Richard, talking to a standing-room-only audience in supervisors’ chambers, said 61 questions from the Kings County Board of Supervisors submitted last year were never answered.

    “I want to acknowledge that because it was wrong,” Richard said. “I understand that this community wants to set a higher standard of openness. So be it. I respect that.”

    PS: Who could have predicted that ROW acquisition would cause major delays…

    Jerry Reply:

    “questions from the Kings County Board of Supervisors submitted last year were never answered”
    I always wanted to count the total number of municipalities the HSR would pass through in Phase I. If anyone knows, please answer.
    But I’m sure the agency was inundated with questions and challenges that were overwhelming.

  3. Jerry
    May 19th, 2016 at 23:07
    #3

    “As late as 2012, California’s high-speed rail agency had just a dozen employees overseeing the megaproject.”
    The 6Ps were always discussed in the Army. Prior Planning Prevents a Piss Poor Performance. In 2016 the agency finally came up with a workable business plan.
    In the past, it seemed like they were trying to build the entire system all at once. So by now they should know what has to be done. And focus on getting it done in the remaining four years.

    Jerry Reply:

    Wonder why HSR hasn’t been brought up in the California primary??

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Haven’t you been arguing they have been doing a good job? Which is it?

  4. Donk
    May 19th, 2016 at 23:07
    #4

    Thanks for the delays CARRD. And thanks for turning a blind eye to highway construction.

    Bdawe Reply:

    huh? CARRD?

    If there was ever a more clear example of the destructive siege-mentality that poisons transit advocacy in California, that would be it.

    synonymouse Reply:

    Over the years transit advocacy has been poisoned by such as Bechtel, PB, MTC.

    You cannot even get trolley coaches on Geary planning is so corrupt.

    Bdawe Reply:

    I’ve always wondered when I might see a chance to make use of missing trolley-coach index of planning corruption. Truly the right tool for the job.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    One could almost get the impression that some irony were employed here…

  5. Aarond
    May 19th, 2016 at 23:11
    #5

    Unfortunate. but assuming CAHSR is still able to use state money, then they should start focusing on other segments (specifically, the Caltrain and Metrolink corridors) where a new ROW isn’t needed. The state shouldn’t sit on any cash because of ED delays, spend it immediately wherever they can. If the Central Valley is going to take six (!) years to build, then we might as well have everything else ready to go by then.

    I’m more than certain Caltrain, ACE and Metrolink could find uses for the money (be it electrification, grade separation, double/triple/quad tracking etc) and that will get more improvements quicker. Now is the time to move on this.

    Jerry Reply:

    I’m also sure they could all find use for the money. But it would even take them six years to go through the very lengthy process to just get it shovel ready.

    Aarond Reply:

    Caltrain is already gearing up to be electrified by 2022. There’s plenty of shovel-ready projects here. Metrolink should at least have four tracks between Burbank and LAUS ready to go by then.

    Joe Reply:

    These projects require an EIR and face CEQA challenges which cause years of delay.
    Litigation over prop1a funding would’ve happened regardless of whether they built in the central valley or try to electrify Caltrain.
    TransDEF would still oppose caltrain electrification because that’s all they do is complain and litigate.

    Because of high-speed rail, Caltrain is migrating to a modern, high-speed rail compatible platform height. These kinds of cooperations are necessary and would only happen if there were a high-speed rail project actively under construction creating state wide standards. The piecemeal approach results in piecemeal standards and re-doing work and over again.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Plus High Speed Rail is able to generate a profit which can be leveraged for new construction. Caltrain and all the others do not under the current model that subsidizes cars generate a profit.

    synonymouse Reply:

    “generate a profit”

    nyuk nyuk nyuk

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    I am sorry, I did not quite get that.

    Do kindly look up the 2012 or 2013 figures of DB Fernverkehr or the SNCF long distance subsidiary. Or the figures of Eurostar…. Or the JRs.

    Clem Reply:

    Ever heard of the loss-making entity known as RFF?

    Roland Reply:

    1) RFF is now know as “SNCF Réseau”
    2) They are “profitable” EBITDA: http://www.sncf-reseau.fr/sites/default/files/upload/_Mediatheque/investisseurs/SNCF%20R%C3%A9seau%20-%20Base%20Prospectus%20EMTN%202015.pdf (page 143).

    Clem Reply:

    EBITDA is not a good way to measure the profitability of a rail infrastructure entity, since it excludes the stuff that actually matters in the letters I, T, D and A.

    Roland Reply:

    Correct and this is precisely why SNCF Réseau are increasing track access charges, taking SNCF Mobilités (and others) into the red in the process: http://www.sncf.com/ressources/reports/rapport_financier_annuel_2015_sncf_mobilites_final.pdf (Page 9)
    Marge opérationnelle 2,401M
    Résultat net – Part du groupe -2,178M

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    It is a fabulous way to tell nvestors that if it wasn’t for the awful gubbermint taxing you twice and forcing us to use GAAP you’d be making money instead of losing it.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    DB Netz is making money. Some even say it’s some sort of three dimensional chess to get the profit over into another part of the same company in order to eliminate any potential for non-DB profits…

    Those things are notoriously complicated… What is notoriously easy to understand is whether highways make a profit: They don’t.

    J. Wong Reply:

    @synonymouse “feels” that CAHSR cannot ever be profitable based on his entirely non-expert opinion, which we should give credence to because? Find some supporting evidence, @synonymouse, and post it here (but of course, he can’t or more likely claim it’s too much trouble).

    Car(e)-Free LA Reply:

    It’s obvious. Everything will be doomed because it goes through Palmdale. Am I right Syno? No, Syno, I am not and neither are you.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    I thought it all went to hell wen BART was built…

    Because of the ancient conspiracy ™

    of course…

    Aarond Reply:

    To get an idea of what we can get done in six years, both Caltrain and Metrolink should be mostly ready for HSR by 2022. This means quadtracking, grade separations, compatible platforms and ideally electrification (at least of HSR shared lines).

    If the state is going to push everything back four years, they now have a clear shot to get both these things done while the CV remains unsolved. Construction should not stop or slow, at all.

    Joe Reply:

    There is no quad track environmental impact review for the peninsula.

    Expanding right-of-way and property acquisition for great separations along with the increased traffic for such expansion in urban areas will be slowest.

    Much slower than what they’re doing in the central valley.

    Most of the delay is at project level, challenging the project authority or allocation of funds regardless of where they do work.

    J. Wong Reply:

    I’m hoping that they’ll start the EIR process for where they already have a wide enough ROW (mid-Peninsula overtake).

    Joe Reply:

    They have the electrification EIR under CEQA litigation.

    The HSR EIR will be for a full build and not limited to blended service.

    HSR is a Federal Project under STB oversight (Jeff Denham’s doing) and while it is likely the full build EIR will be done to CEQA standards it is not at all clear the project will legally be held to the states CEQA legal oversight. Federal EIR process takes precident and offers fewer chances to litigate.

    Clem Reply:

    The HSR EIR will probably not include the full build alternatives for SF-SJ that were previously studied in 2009-2011, otherwise why would they start over at square one with the scoping process?

    Joe Reply:

    I guess not.

    It’s the old “camel’s nose under the tent” trick, Chief.

    http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/statewide_rail/proj_sections/SanFran_SanJose/HSRA_Initiates_Environmental_Review_Process_for_SFtoSJ_Portion.pdf /blockquote>

    EIR is Limited to three stations, the SF being TBT or 4th and King (it will be 4th& King), Milbrae /SFO and San Jose.

    Mid-peninsula station is omitted from the EIR.

    The good news is to expect some adult supervision over the Caltrain Schedule, level boarding and dwell time.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Caltrain picks the same platform height etc. as HSR every Caltrain station could be an HSR station.

    Joe Reply:

    Yes. Post Prop1a it should be possible for a HSR operator to run a few trains to Palo Alto for some Stanford event like a USC football game. Imagine the drinking revenue. $10 Budlights.

    More importantly every platform at Transbay is interchangeable which will be very helpful maximizing station capacity as Clem has written.

    I’ve come to think they stopped phase 1 HSR at sanjose to limit the Peninsula NIMBYs from
    using prop1a to stir up more bullshit.

    Caltrain can do the Pennisula work with HSR commentary for compatibility. The head of Caltrain was on the HSR board and that’s going to be very very helpful keeping communication lines open.

    Once phase 1 is over the prop1a money is exhausted. No more “show me all the money up front or I’ll scream.” They can decide where to put the mid Pennisula station, begin row enhancements as funding is made available.

  6. morris brown
    May 20th, 2016 at 04:08
    #6

    Absolutely the only reason why the Authority and the HSR project are still alive is due to the never ending support of Governor Brown.

    Keep talking about 4 and 6 year time spans, but remember Brown leaves office in early 2019. After he is gone the whole picture changes, and you can put a tombstone on top of the Authority and this project.

    les Reply:

    Hmmmm, by 2019 the entire CV section will be close to completion; SJ to Merced will be under contract and/or construction; Environmental clearances for the entire line will be in hand and most resistance will have tempered; new funds for Bakersfield to Palmdale will most likely have been appropriated; Democrats from LA and SF will insist that some sort of funding exist for completion before passing any budgets.

    morris brown Reply:

    @ les

    Dream on — not going to happen

    les Reply:

    And lets not forget trainsets will have been ordered; I can’t image the public would stand by and watch 220 mph trains limited to the CV, ain’t happening.

    Aarond Reply:

    Didn’t stop Scott Walker from scrapping WI’s Talgos. The right guy in the right place in the right time can make anything happen, no matter how stupid or self destructive it is.

    les Reply:

    Didnt talgo win that lawsuit For a much smaller contract.

    Aarond Reply:

    Of course they did. But WIHSR is still dead. The Talgo trains are now sitting in limbo at Beech Grove. Whether or not MDOT continues with their plan to buy them depends if N-S can get their new bilevels to be FRA compliant.

    les Reply:

    But comparing the two investments is a huge stretch, and matching the timelines doesn’t pan out. California’s will be a much harder abandonment.

    Aarond Reply:

    Newsom is one of the few people that are capable of pulling it off. He’s got the connections and political capital to do it. That is, assuming his comments against HSR are to be taken seriously.

    joe Reply:

    Newsom isn’t stupid.

    Walker’s antics included asking for the money back after he rejected it.

    1. Newsom would have to pay back all billions in ARRA money if they didn’t match ARRA construction with billions in state funding. That’s stupid.

    2.He can’t move the money no matter how many times critics make the suggestion – Walker tried that and failed.

    During the 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary, Walker proposed to instead spend that money on Wisconsin’s roads, while his opponent, East Troy businessman and former U.S. Rep. Mark Neumann, told supporters that he’d use it for tax cuts. However, a 2010 segment on Wisconsin Public Television’s “Here and Now” reported that states can’t actually do that under ARRA.

    Both Walker and Neumann said during the primary that they hoped for more flexibility from a GOP-led Congress. Republicans did win the majority in the U.S. House in 2010, in the same election that swept Walker and several other tea party-backed governors into office.

    After taking his seat as governor, though, Walker didn’t get the flexibility that he’d hoped for.

    Scott Walker then tried to get the ARRA money back for HSR upgrades for Hiawatha.

    The FRA Laughed at him.

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/118842999.html

    Less than four months after losing nearly all of an $810 million grant, Wisconsin is again seeking federal high-speed rail money – this time to upgrade the existing Milwaukee-to-Chicago passenger line.
    http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/118842999.html
    In a bizarre twist, some of the money that Walker now seeks originally was allocated for the Milwaukee-to-Madison route he previously turned down. That money is available because a fellow Republican governor rejected it as well.

    Milwaukee Ald. Robert Bauman called the governor’s pursuit of federal stimulus money for the Hiawatha “rank hypocrisy.”

    Newson isn’t stupid. Most people that we meet day-to-day are not that stupid.

    Danny Reply:

    the Midwest had a wave of anti-infrastructure Republicans: Walker, Snyder, Pence, Daniels, Rauner, Brownback, Heineman, Kasich, FL’s Scott: they’d just make like TX and Create JobsTM by offering cheaper labor than the Blue States, and the companies would pack up en masse

    didn’t quite work out long-term

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    It’s not even sure Newsom will even get the nod. There may well be a Villaraigosa primary bid or some dark horse (Who would have bet on Sanders in 2014?) winning the primary. And a Republican won’t win. Period.

    Well, we’ll wait and see. I happen to be so optimistic as to believe in a pro-HSR (or at least sufficiently ambivalent to keep HSR alive) government for California even after Brown…

    les Reply:

    “Wisconsin taxpayers will end up paying $9.7 million more for two state of the art train sets — for a total of roughly $50 million…. The bizarre and expensive outcome for Wisconsin — paying for a product but not keeping it or ever using it”

    I can’t image California would spend 1 billion dollars to furlough 20 trains sets.

    joe Reply:

    1. Wisconsin/Walker rejected ARRA HSR funds to improve Milwaukee to Chicago service
    http://www.wpr.org/following-wisconsins-high-speed-rail-funding-down-tracks

    2. Wisconsin/Walker then asked for ARRA HSR funds to improve Milwaukee to Chicago service.
    http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/118842999.html
    The FRA laughed at Walker. No.

    3. Wisconsin/Walker are paying for the improvements with State Money.
    http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/multimodal/rail-chi-mil/facts.aspx

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Christie pissed away 600 million that had been spent on studies. For a project that would have cost half of what Amtrak is proposing. That was proposed to be completed next year. 2017 was probably a bit optimistic but 2020, 2022 is better than 2030. And would have improved pedestrian circulation. Amtrak’s makes it worse.
    He lied about reallocating the Federal money too. Lied about the Port Authority money that did get reallocated.

    http://www.northjersey.com/news/1-2b-for-what-much-of-the-cash-spent-on-scrapped-plan-for-arc-tunnel-will-go-to-waste-1.1389339

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Christie is an idiot. His endorsement of Trump just goes to prove it.

    Car(e)-Free LA Reply:

    Christie’s primary goal in life is to make his own life better, by whatever means necessary.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Which is not a bad thing per se. But it may become a bad thing in certain circumstances…

    Aarond Reply:

    morris I will have to admit that the only thing that pisses me off more than newsom’s gun control measures is his lack of support for HSR. He’s probably the only person in the state government with enough balls and power to actually kill it. $40 billion probably buys peninsula BART which he obviously is more interested in doing.

    really hoping that Villaraigosa runs

    Car(e)-Free LA Reply:

    I thought a governor Villaraigosa was guaranteed, and he might be even better for HSR than newsome, given his transit record. The one thing that really pisses me off about Villaraigosa, however, is that he doesn’t advocate the same gun control measures as Newsome.

    Aarond Reply:

    We’re clearly not going to see eye to eye on certain things, but as it pertains to transit the proof is in the pudding. The LACMTA doesn’t have half the problems Muni has. Starting today LA residents can proudly ride the Expo Line to the coast. Meanwhile Muni riders still have to sit in car traffic on Taraval. Look at the mess the TTC is (namely, running out of cash and no Caltrain hookup) is as well.

    Villaraigosa is far more competent than Newsom in this regard.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    He just wants tp regulate the militia.

    Aarond Reply:

    that worked out so well for cuomo right?

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    54 percent of the vote is the same as the best George Pataki ever did.
    If it was so awful the Republican would have gotten more than 32 percent of the vote, with a 40 percent total. The Green Party got 4.86 percent. I don’t know what the Green Party’s position is. I suspect it’s not “let anyone overcompensate anyway and anywhere they want to”.

    Aarond Reply:

    And guess who controls the NY state senate? Newsom wants to bring the whole “f- cuomo” campaign to the west coast starring himself.

    My point here isn’t about the merits of gun regulation insomuch as it is not fueling the tire fire that is the Republican party. Brown has had a mostly pleasant time in office because he knew not to start battles he can’t win. I’d like this to continue because it means CAHSR has a much greater chance of getting built within my lifetime.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    People who told their voters that same sex marriage would cause plagues of locusts. There haven’t been any. The sky hasn’t fallen either.

    Aarond Reply:

    And notice how those sorts of notions cause them to do stupid and backwards things. I’m willing to bet that the people CHSRA is having the most problems with are also NRA members that want to “stick it to the liberals” as much as they can.

    As it pertains to Newsom, nobody cares if SF bans guns in SF. But when it spreads outside of SF, a lot of moderates, even Democrats, get ticked off. Which is another hurdle for projects that have to be built outside of SF.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    He hasn’t proposed a ban.

    Aarond Reply:

    Yes he has. He wants to ban AR-15s with “bullet buttons” and make mere possession of an registered “high capacity” magazine a crime. The Senate passed both these bills with his endorsement yesterday:

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/california-senate-vote-sweeping-gun-control-measures-081506326.html

    Whether or not that’s justified is another question. It’s a restriction on people’s lives that wasn’t there before. This makes these people less cooperative than they otherwise would have been. Which makes CHSRA’s job more difficult.

    In a similar vein, it’s why Republicans have so many difficulties finding allies within urban areas, since many Republicans are openly against gay marriage and/or abortion.

    Point is: Newsom isn’t building bridges here. Instead of letting people smolder out (or get smothered by post-HSR developers), he’s dumping gasoline on them.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Why are guns such a big issue anyway? Why would someone feel threatened in their freedom if their access to instant death machines is restricted?

    I am living just fine without an instant death machine…

    Car(e)-Free LA Reply:

    Of course banning AR1s is good. Guns can be used to kill people, and restricting them saves lives, which is more important than so called “rights to own guns.” Also, we compromise every right in the name of safety. We allow the NSA to spy on people’s lives (right to not be searched), we ban yelling fire in movie theaters (freedom of speech) and we ban dangerous weapons (right to bear arms), because it is the necessary and right thing to do.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Banning high capacity magazines is not “banning guns”. It makes it harder for crazy people to mow down large numbers of people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Long_Island_Rail_Road_shooting

    The people who stopped him used their bare hands and other body parts.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    The people who subdued the guy shooting up the Thalys train (or rather the guy trying to shoot people and failing spectacularly) were also unarmed…

    Car(e)-Free LA Reply:

    There is no intelligent argument against this new law.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    But stupid people also get to vote…

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Simple facts are that in the last 40 years the homocide and other violent crime rate has dropped by 50+ % without restrictive gun control. The argument that this is needed to reduce crime has been conclusively proven wrong.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Moving the goalpost to a stadium in another state.

    Aarond Reply:

    The entire point of my post wasn’t so much the merits of gun control, just that doing it makes people in the CV unhappier than they otherwise would. This in turn makes it more difficult to complete projects that have to go through the CV.

    In a similar manner Cuomo is loathed outside of NYC. This makes it difficult to complete an otherwise sensible project (Empire Corridor modernization) that other states were able to complete (PA with the Keystone Corridor).

    Brown knew not to start these types of fights, something Newsom does not.

    Miles Bader Reply:

    @Aarond

    In a similar manner Cuomo is loathed outside of NYC

    Keep in mind that Cuomo is loathed inside of NYC as well, in no small part because of his “screw the MTA and NYC whenever possible, cars, cars, [muscle] cars!!1!” transportation policies…

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    How did I move the goalpost. The stated reason for these laws is crime reduction. Are you aware of another reason? PS. I don’t own a gun but that does not mean I support restricting them

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Cuomo got 54 percent of the vote after the SAFE act was passed. The Green Party candidate got almost 5. No matter how hard you wish that means New Yorkers hate the SAFE act doesn’t make it so. Clap harder.

    The discussion was about automatic weapons enabling crazy people to mow down large amounts of people easily. Not about taking away guns. Not about crime.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    There were more people killed per million inhabitants by a gun in Switzerland in 2001 than in Germany. The two countries were at that point in time very similar in every conceivable way (in fact, Switzerland is even richer than Germany) except for one: Switzerland had a “militia system” with almost every adult male having both a gun and ammo in its home. Whereas Germany did not. Switzerland subsequently got rid of this aspect of its “militia system” – the homicide and suicide rates went down as a result.

    This is probably the closest we will ever come to a real life controlled experiment on this.

    The data is quite clear.

    You are free to draw your own conclusions.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Even Fox News reports on the relationship

    http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/01/21/gun-ownership-tied-to-three-fold-increase-in-suicide-risk.html

    There might be more data collected and reports but the gun fondlers had Congress ban any funding.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Indeed there is an explicit ban on any research into the dangers of guns.

    Now why do you think that is?

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Is it even certain that Newsom will run?

    Eric Reply:

    http://www.gavinnewsom.com/about/

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    So his hat is in, but Villaraigosa is still playing coy… Though https://twitter.com/villaraigosa/status/732715570194325506 this link makes it seem like he already endorsed someone else…

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuNEq7gHqF8

    J. Wong Reply:

    I wouldn’t necessarily take Newsom’s statements in the past about HSR as any indication that he’ll kill the project. Maybe review it sure, and then come up with some way to save it. By 2019, CAHSR will be much farther along than it is today, or even when Newsom started making noises about it.

    Of course, he’s not a lock for the governorship. It’ll be a classic north/south battle with Villaraigosa.

    Car(e)-Free LA Reply:

    And it is time southern California finally won a statewide office.

    synonymouse Reply:

    Garcetti might be a more effective SoCal candidate than Villa, who is not particularly photogenic.

    Joe Reply:

    He’s to tan for your tastes.

    synonymouse Reply:

    You need another “o”.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Am I hearing do whistles?

    Car(e)-Free LA Reply:

    Yep, Syno is racist. I have never thought that was the case about Villaraigosa but then again, I am the guy who finds Hillary Clinton likable and inspiring. (Perhaps I am out of step with the general electorate?)

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    She’d be inspiring in any “normal” year. But any “normal” year does not contain a self declared democratic socialist getting at least awfully close to getting the democratic nomination. And don’t get me wrong, Hillary is probably as fine an establishment choice as you can get. But many Americans don’t want the best the dynasties offer. They want something else. That’s Hillary’s tragedy.

    Car(e)-Free LA Reply:

    I am just so establishment.

  7. morris brown
    May 20th, 2016 at 06:45
    #7

    Robert in this rant writes:

    A highway project would have sailed right through without public opposition and delay.

    Really! Let me remind you about completion of the 710 freeway, which is now been delayed over 50 years.

    Recall the complete turn around by the Palo Alto City council, which endorsed Prop 1A without opposition before the Nov 2008 election, only to completely reverse that position when that council learned from Rod (rotten apples) Diridon, any opposition would simply be “overridden”

    This project and the Authority are “dead meat” once Brown exits office. What will be the net result, maybe at best, are some new tracks connecting to the existing Amtrak system somewhere along the path of Madera to north of Bakersfield.

    Eric M Reply:

    Boy, for someone not worried about this project coming to fruition, you sure spam a lot on Roberts blog. Maybe it’s is time you start your own blog Morris.

    les Reply:

    “This project… are dead meat”, exactly how many times have you said this since this blog was started and yet here we are.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Yes here we are

    – 8 years on and have just broken ground
    – Another new 4 year delay just months after signing the 2016 business plan
    – Only enough money to terminate at a concrete pad in the middle of a 25,000 person city
    – Continuing opposition that has caused delays in the past and continues to cause delays int he future
    – A lack of identified funds to compete any portion of the line in SF or LA
    – 1 vote away from new legislative oversight

    By 2019 they MAY have finished the 1st construction segment. Think about that for a moment. The self identified “easy” 30 mile section in a rural area and they MAY be done by 2019.

    The chances of failure far outweigh the chances of success in this project. It has no friends in Sacramento beyond the Governor and he is termed out soon enough. Why do you think the oversight bills passed with near unanimous consent. When the time comes to strip the cap and trade money (assuming there is any left) the environmentalists will happily turn on the project

    keith saggers Reply:

    sfgate

    Between 2012 and 2016, a lot has happened,” said Lisa Marie Alley, spokeswoman for the rail authority.
    Alley said the date change in the federal grant aligns with what the authority has been projecting for the past several years.

    Joe Reply:

    Not Even close.

    You write lame dialogue like some gloating cartoon villain.

    Only a biased critic would ignore the project’s successful legal accomplishments including environmental clearances under CEQA. You also ignore the design work being done under the design build contracts.

    Republican gubanatorial candidate ran on a platform against high-speed rail and was humiliated. Time and time again voters approve the project and candidates who support the project.

    les Reply:

    – 8 Years of law suits and opposition and unrealistic expectations by people like yourself.
    – 2022 has no bearing on 2016 business plan of a IOS in 2025.
    – enough money for IOS system of 2025; not bad if you ask me
    – Continuing opposition that continues to lose at every corner
    – 20 years to identify funds for completion (given a 2040 opening date)
    – oversight which will have 0 impact even if passed.

    What really matters at this point is: “Morales said the agency is now moving fast enough to spend every dime of its $2.5 billion in stimulus money over the next 15 months, so it wouldn’t have to return any to the Treasury”

    Joe Reply:

    I believe there are three independent contracts underway each lead by different, competing contractor teams for design/build work in different locations.

    They don’t start with highly visible construction because part of the contract is to do on site assessments and then come up with a design which offers potential cost savings.

    This is all work that can happen in parallel. Success on these initial contracts can lead to success and future contracts. These teams are competing with each other so the incentive to stick it to the state is low and uless they only want to get one contract.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    – every big project known to man has opposition and lawsuits in the US. HSR is nothing special. Did you think that they would not have opposition? Grow up, they are not being picked on, they are being treated the same as any transit project including highways.

    – Do you really think that you can delay the first construction by 4 years but the IOS will magically stay on schedule. Again, grow up. They are just staggering the bad news to try and keep it on the down low.

    – They “think” they have enough money for the IOS. That is only true if
    a. The cap and trade funds get renewed before 2020
    b. The cost overruns don’t exceed the budget.
    BTW, that IOS is from SJ to a concrete pad in the middle of a field. So no, I dont think it is impressive.

    – Is the opposition losing. They have cost them 6+ years of delays so far. They have not killed the project yet but there is more than 1 way to skin a cat. If you die by a thousand cuts…you are still dead.

    – Big math error, you dont have 20 years. If the IOS is done in 2025, you need the money then to start construction for the rest to be DONE in 2040. So you are most have 8-9 years. And the truth is you dont have that long because to you have to start before 2025 on those sections to be done in 2040. tick tock, tick tock

    – Oversight is the 1st step to canceling. Look at history. It is oversight, then size control, then “study alternatives” then cancel.

    Without Jerry, who is the politician that will champion this project??? Go ahead, who will keep feeding it state money??

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    So oversight is a good thing? I thought the free market was the panacea for all problems.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007-08#Deregulation

    joe Reply:

    Shorter John:” Consequences of our dogmatic opposition are all your fault.”

    – Is the opposition losing. They have cost them 6+ years of delays so far.

    joe Reply:

    – Oversight is the 1st step to canceling. Look at history. It is oversight, then size control, then “study alternatives” then cancel.

    Oversight shines a light on Opposition bullshit. It always backfires.

    Opponents order the GAO to show how the Ridership Projections and ProjectManagement are Bad => GAO Oversight produced the positive GAO report.
    http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-304

    Opponents order STB to Federalized the Project to delay it. STB federalized HSR in CA and forced Bakersfield to drop the CEQA EIR lawsuit. Allow the project to proceed in parts.
    U.S. board: Federal law on high-speed rail trumps state environmental lawsuits
    Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/high-speed-rail/article19528353.html#storylink=cpy

    My favorite is Jeff Denham’s Very Serious HSR Oversight Committee on the Lawsuits that dragging CA HSR to WA and produced congressional record of the *serious* Prop1a lawsuit delays and negative impact on HSR.

    This hearing produced evidence that CA AG used to expedite their Appeal and resulted in a over turn and HSR victory.
    http://transportation.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=351413

    You guys are awful.

    les Reply:

    – I’m not questioning conflict; just stating the facts. I can even quote you “They have cost them 6+ years of delays so far”. But progress is ramping up, just checkout the CAHSR website.
    And when was the last time anybody built a 64 billion project or built HSR in the states. The potential for conflicts is enormous and has proven a pain in the ass and cost a lot of time. But I forget only you have a crystal ball which could have foreseen all these speed bumps. The worst is behind, get over it.
    — The delay in the IOS was included in the 2016 Plan. Fact is there are 9 years to complete the CV section by 2025. Why this is unfathomable for your grown up and mature mind is beyond me.
    — Bids for CV thus far have been coming under budget and C&T will be around as has been verified on numerous occasions.
    — Again opposition has hindered but not succeeded and momentum is stronger than ever.
    — Your math is as bad as your reading skills: 2040 – 2016 = 24 years. looks like 20+ years to identify more funds. Who says they have to wait til 2025 to identify more funds?
    — If you read the bill it says define how it will be funded down the road. Next Plan isn’t due until 2018 so bill will have no bearing on what needs done anyway.
    Jerry just needs to get the line to Palmdale-Metro, SF, Merced and then the Mayors of LV, LA, SF, Sac and SD will push for the rest. Texas will have their line running and republicans will be onboard.
    http://www.ble-t.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=44172
    Already 100+ engineers working on their project.

    Joe Reply:

    Texas project is no sure thing. Opposition to eminent domain, fears it will fail and be a tax burden and the cities want the system to reach into downtown Eg. Houston.

    Texas investors have to recover capital cost of construction and operate while in competition with subsidized air and auto modes.

    les Reply:

    We’ll see, EIS will be out later this year. I think the obstacles faced are minimal compared to CAHSR. The connecting city-pair is ideal, there is no tunneling through fault lines, no wealthy pecan farmers to fight, no Jeff Denham’s, no Federal grant or state bond adherence rules. If the feds approve it and given rail ROW laws I don’t see how it can be stopped.

    Joe Reply:

    Private money, 12B, is vulnerable to an economic down turn which is probable over the project construction.

    Capital costs have to be recovered with operating revenue.

    Additional requirements levied by the state for accessing downtown.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Let’s assume I am dead wrong on everything else.

    How the hell are you going to build it by 2040 if you “find” the money in 2040?

    You see, you have to pay up front. So you need the money in 2025 to build the section by 2040. I am unsure why this is a difficult concept for you to understand. They have 2025-2016 = 9 years to identify the funds.

    And if you think construction companies will work for an IOU there is always prop 1a that say the funds for any segment need to be identified up front.

    Simply put, they have 9 years to come up with the rest of the money

    Joe Reply:

    Oh how can I make payments on my house if I don’t know the source of all my funds for the 20 years forward ?!!

    Oh noes

    Prop1a ends and the requirement to identify all future funds is over.

    They then need to pay as they go- no you do not need to have the full amount of a contract in a imaginary bank. It’s the state and it has to, by constitutional law, pay all debts.

    les Reply:

    Loans off revenue from IOS as stated in business plan. Revenue will materialize before and after 2040. Same thing is occurring in France on their latest segment.

    Car(e)-Free LA Reply:

    Are you familiar with how bonds work?

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    I am. Are you familiar that you need a constant and stable source of revenue to sell them and then pay it off? You can’t sell bonds on the promise that ” someday congress will not run the GOP and we will get money”. From the vote

    The Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century is the only bond act currently qualified to appear on the November 2008 statewide ballot. If all $9.95 billion worth of G.O. bonds are issued and sold as 30-year bonds at an average interest rate of 5%, the total principal and interest cost over this period is $19.4 billion, or $647 million of debt service per year for 30 years.

    …if the term of bond maturity is extended from 30 years to 40 years, assuming 5 percent interest and 3 percent inflation. Annual General Fund debt service payments (assuming they are level over the term) would be $580 million for 40 years, rather than $647 million annually for a 30 year term, but the total debt service would be $23.195 billion for 40 year bonds, rather than $19.418 billion for 30 year bonds. These figures are in current dollars.

    So 10 billion bond pays out 23 billion over 40 years. Basically a 2.3 multiplier

    So they need ~47 billion to finish phase 1. So a 40 year bond is 108 billion. 2.7 bil a year for 40 years

    Do you think CAHSR will earn 108 billon in profits from 2025 to 2065?

    BTW, it is from 2025 because they are not going to wait until 2040 to start getting paid and you need the money in 2025.

    From 2025 to 2040 the authority thought they would earn 10-15 billion. So you are planning to earn less than 1/2 what is needed to service the bond.

    Explain how the bonds will sell again?

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    they’ll sell because there are rich people looking to avoid taxes, who want to buy triple tax free government bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the State of California.

    les Reply:

    @John hypothetical. in the year 2039 LA will have a 1/2 billion grant approved to finish station completion, meanwhile testing will have been underway and operations will commense in 2040. Thus funding will have arrived upto 2040 and your annul ass will have been satisfied.

    Car(e)-Free LA Reply:

    The $ can come from cap and Trade, caltrans, road tolls, vehicle fees, gas tax, any number of things.

    Joe Reply:

    @John

    California’s Constitution requires the State honor all debt second only to paying for education.

    Prop1a debt is backed by the worlds 7th largest economy. Guaranteed to be paid by the state constitution.

    And the Califronia Republican Party is in shambles so it’s not like they’ll take over and run the state into a hole like Kansas or Louisiana.

    les Reply:

    The most time consuming project will be the Gabriel’s 21 mile tunnel (assuming the east route is chosen, otherwise a 14 or 9 mile tunnel). Based on the 12 year, 11 billion, 38 mile Swiss Alps tunnel it will take 8 years to complete, fewer if a different route is chosen. Environmental work and route selection will have been completed by 2018. This 7 billion dollar project will need to be started by 2031 at the latest. I suspect it will be tackled immediately so as to not risk causing delays to a 2040 opening.
    Options:
    a) Included as part of a 2025 IOS concession contract and signed in 2025.
    b) Included in a phase I 2040 concession contract and signed in 2031.
    b) Xpresswest/Chinease are in the market for a LAUS connection. Free passage for 50 years if
    funded.
    c) In 2018 Jerry puts a bond before voters on his way out.
    d) Federal RR loan.
    e) Newsome proves ineffective and Democrats will assume majorities in either 2022, 2026 or 2032 and funds will roll again. (anything can happen: who would have thought a Hillary-Trump matchup 1 year ago)
    I suspect all other work can be put together piecemeal like has been done up to this point. There is no reason contracts for grants, loans and concessions can’t be signed up to time of service. Also keep in mind there will be new concession opportunities with Sacramento and San Diego.

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a17123/gotthard-base-tunnel-complete/

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    In all those arguments above I missed the part with the actual funding. But just to summarize

    – These bonds are not triple tax free, only Puerto Rico bonds are and you can see how that turned out. Rich people only buy bonds they think will be paid off which is why in the bond offering they have to show how they will be paid.

    – LA building a station in 2039 does not fund a bond in 2025

    – These bonds, unlike the original 9 billion, would be revenue bonds not backed by the full faith and credit of the CA government. Unless you think you can muster the 2/3rd needed to pass a new bond act. They would be backed by revenue of a new HSR system in the US with no history or background. If they get 5% they should be real happy. But we agree that the original 9 billion will get paid back no problem.

    – I think it is cute how you think that US conduction is proportional the EU construction when in ever case US construction is up to 10x more expensive. But even assuming you are right you are only proving my point. Profits are not going to make a where close to 108 billion over 40 years. Even established HSR systems don’t make that kind of money. Which is why HSR does not pay back its conduction.

    – At least care-free actually made an attempt. It is true the revenue could come from any of those things. But since they blew the cap and trade fund they have on the IOS they need to be allocated those things. So what are the chances the legislature gives them another 108 billion in revenue?

    les Reply:

    You just need to sit back, and as Clem would say, enjoy the popcorn.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    The bonds will be sold in places other than California. Where people pay Federal, State and local income taxes. They’ll buy them because California, at least when the Democrats are in charge, isn’t going bankrupt.

    Joe Reply:

    Highway 101 along the Menlo Park Palo Alto Corridor added four lanes without a peep. Even CARRD members complaines about the rubber stamp process and lack of environmental review and notifications.

    Danny Reply:

    right–I think a lot of anti-rail-ism gets the wind in its sails by portraying it as a complete novelty that’ll spook the horses and bring in undesirables, an inevitable money pit, an untried boondoggle, it’ll destroy houses, it’s loud, there’ll be constant construction

    roads and freeways get treated as infrastructure on the other hand–it’s essential to bring them to capacity, expanding a 4-lane arterial to 6/8-laners to service expanding burbs-of-a-burb is a sign of progress, they’ll ease traffic, construction brings jobs

    basically it’s lengthening vs. widening

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    They’ve been promising to ease congestion by building new roads for over a century. It doesn’t work.

    Joe Reply:

    Right. For now it is working.

    One is a merge lane which reduces congestion on sidestreets in Palo Alto. Metering lights were installed for on ramps over 10 years ago and have not been turned on because these influential residents don’t want cars backing up on the streets. Now the metering lights are on.

    Eventually the additional capacity will be at gridlock. Sidestreets will back up. In fact they’re seeing additional traffic even with the lanes.

    Waze, a traffic routing application, has shown commuters these lovely shortcuts on the side streets in Palo Alto Menlo Park and they’re being used. Residents are complaining about heavier side street traffic.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    One way to curb side street traffic is limiting side streets to 20 mph and enforcing it…

    Joe Reply:

    Traffic is now limited to 25mph and heavily enforced.

    Long sections of 101 and 85 highways average 20mph or less.

    Car(e)-Free LA Reply:

    Or building transit.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Well that certainly helps.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    They’ve been promising to end Homicide by making it illegal for over a millennium. It doesn’t work.

    Building roads works fine, it allows for more capacity for the growth in more cars/people/miles traveled on the roads. There has never been a stated goal to end congestion, just to keep it at a manageable level, just like Homicide.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    It’s a pity you find English so confusing.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Well it’s that public education

    Joe Reply:

    S they say, “You can lead a horse to water but can’t make it drink.”

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Once you start changing the question from “How do we move cars down the road” to “How do we get people where they want to go” the answer becomes something that’s not “freeways freeways, parking and freeways”. But whom am I telling that?

    Danny Reply:

    what? lane widening’s the archetype for the law of diminishing returns and locks people in burb-to-burb commutes that combine with the burb-to-small-nucleus traffic: from the Valley to Irvine the 405’s a parking lot 6 hours out of 24

    it summons its own sprawl

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    And there has never been a decommissioned highway that was turned into a trail or cyclepath. Now compare that to rail lines…

    Tokkyu40 Reply:

    Good point. There’s no major organized political party dedicated to eliminating road traffic. That does make a difference.

  8. keith saggers
    May 20th, 2016 at 09:48
    #8
  9. Danny
    May 20th, 2016 at 10:25
    #9

    Drum is notorious as an “establishmentarianism CAN be radical and I can prove it!” twit–even his Wiki page is thin on views except for “invading Iraq’s the lefty thing to do!”; just like Yglesias and the New Atheists–useless appendages to the body politic that sometimes burst dangerously

    on more pragmatic notes 2022 is the new *completion* date: that doesn’t mean there won’t be constant construction and sunk costs until that year–there’ll work constantly done, land acquired, barratry being crushed in public forums: presumably Brown’s #1 priority is getting the welded track and catenaries laid so it all looks like a “real thing”

    half the Expo got delayed THREE YEARS by rent-a-radicals (viz., Eric Mann and Damien Goodmon: seems they’re a veritable plague in SoCal) and now there’s a pushback against the anti-rail histrionics: in fact the courts seem to be undergoing a massive swing against even hearing such suits instead of letting them pour millions into appeal after appeal

    Aarond Reply:

    Every court fight has diminishing returns for NIMBYs: every battle lost means another precedent set for future battles. Courts don’t need to hear 9,000 more cases against light rail, if the previous 9,000 were total bunk.

    Joe Reply:

    I agree with you 110%.

    Many of these court challenges are at the project level and attack the project throughout its entirety. Once these hurdles are cleared the project can move forward through all the other phases.

    BTW, there are currently multiple contracts issued, each doing design work under the design-build approach and these are occurring for different locations.

    Danny Reply:

    so that accounts for the duration of the challenges and for their sudden end–would you guess whether the pattern to these overfunded busybodies is county-level, statewide, or tripartite? (north of Gilroy, CV, and then south of Tehachapi)

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Yer NIMBYs still file them regardless…

  10. Jos Callinet
    May 20th, 2016 at 11:46
    #10

    I’m wondering, now that we’ve been handed this latest delay announcement, how many more such revelations of delays are in the offing in the years to come?

    To me, anyway, it’s beginning to look more and more likely that this HSR project will be brought to a complete standstill before all has been said and done. Its increasingly delayed snail’s-pace construction now guarantees that the program won’t be anywhere nearly far enough along by the time Governor Brown leaves office to prevent his likely anti-HSR successor from putting the kybosh to the whole thing.

    We’re now more likely than ever to end up instead with some form of the Hyperloop. Again and again, the U.S. is showing us that it has little or no interest in building HSR – leave THAT to the Europeans and Asians. We Americans profit far more from continuing to promote and build our traditional asphalt-based solutions for travelers.

    Domayv Reply:

    and those asphalt-based solutions will no longer solve anything

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    The fossil lobby knows that it has to lose just once on HSR. Once true HSR is up and running in the US everybody will want their own HSR. That’s why they fighting so desperately. It’s literally a fight for their economic and political survival.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Acela is running and is HSR when supporters want to point to ridership success and operating profit. But then they say it is not HSR when the argument suits them (as above)

    Either it is or it is not HSR. Which is it?

    Eric M Reply:

    Acela is high speed rail in the U.S, but by world standards, it is only higher speed rail. So yes, is does have a dual personality and can be classified as both, considering which standard you use.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    It is a conventional line that has been sped up. With a tilting train running on it. Both of that are indicators against it being HSR. As is the average travel time. But it is still the closest thing to HSR the US has. Which goes to say a lot…

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    It is a rail line. And it generates a profit. The question whether it is HSR is immaterial for the question whether it generates a profit.

    It does not run on dedicated tracks – which HSR usually does

    It has a lower end to end average speed than almost all purpose built HSR

    It is way more expensive than even the relatively expensive JRs

    Yet it still makes a profit and blows the airlines out of the water

    Clearly the Acela shows both how crappy the US are in terms of HSR at the moment and how big the potential could be. HSR at 200 mph? People will wonder how they could ever live without it.

    Alan Reply:

    Acela does not make a profit, except in the minds of the creative accountants at Amtrak. They conveniently omit the cost of maintenance and betterments to the infrastructure–unlike any real private business, which must account for all of its expenses when reporting profits or loss.

    Thank God that “Corridor Joe” Boardman is leaving Amtrak. He’s done enough damage.

    wdobner Reply:

    Why count those things when they’ll be the first things excluded from the accounting if the righties ever get their way and break up Amtrak’s NEC operations? At that time all we’ll hear is how the company they gave some sweetheart deal for an operating concession turned Amtrak’s ‘failing operation’ around and achieved “profitability”.

    What we won’t hear are the capital costs being eaten by Amtrak and the increased track fees to the commuter railroads to cover what the Acela operating company is no longer funding, but those are minor details. At least this way we can be consistent with our made up numbers to head off future propaganda.

    J. Wong Reply:

    That’s assuming Newsom will do that, and that he’ll be elected. I don’t take his positions as absolute. He presents himself as a fiscally conservative liberal so opposing HSR was a perfect opportunity to exhibit his bona-fides back a couple of years ago. But 2019 is 3 years hence and even with the delays significant parts of the ICS will be complete making it likely politically difficult to just cancel it. More likely he’ll just study it, make some adjustments, and then claim to have “saved” HSR with his “business” acumen.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    In some ways only Newsom can kill all HSR opposition the same way only Nixon could go to China… But that’s already the three dimensional chess level. Of course it could all be the other way around as well…

    Let’s just hope whoever gets the nod will build HSR for California. And if somehow someone gets in with the intention to gut it, I trust this blog to raise hell to stop that.

    Joe Reply:

    Once Prop1a expires, all this useable segment, matching fund, “show me all the money up front” bullshit disappears.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Expires? I have read it several times and I have not read an expiration clause. In your mind when does prop 1a expire?

    Joe Reply:

    When the 9 billion runs out.

    It’s a bond act. The Autjority have to comply with prop1a to acces funds. Failure to comply means no money. Once the money is gone the bond act requirements for funding are irrelevant.

    That’s 2025 /end of phase 1.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    I see. It’s actually a law. A law that does not “expire”. But that is semantics

    so all the parts expire?

    – no subsidy
    – time requirements
    – station count

    All that does not count either?

    I ask because by definition those things happen after construction. So by your reading of the law after the 9 billion is spent the authority does not have to comply with anything?

    Joe Reply:

    The consequences of not complying with the bond act is NO money. The money is finite – 9B.

    The conditions protect the use of the bond money.

    The High Speed Rail Autjority was authorized under a different law. Prop1a does not govern the authority or the project.

    It just sets terms for how the money can be spent on any HSR project.

    Roland Reply:

    And that is precisely why there is a $600M hole in the Caltrain electrification budget.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    So how do you separate the part of the system built with the initial 9 billion and the other part. For example, the original 9 billion will be used to buy the train sets. So in your opinion does that mean the whole system must meet the requirements or is there some invisible fence in your interpretation.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Sorry, hit reply to soon

    Or we you advocating just ignoring the restrictions after the 9 billion is spent because you believe there are no consequences to breaking the restrictions?

    joe Reply:

    “that’ refers to …. ?

    Roland Reply:

    The entire court ruling is here: http://www.thehamiltonreport.com/downloads/TOS-RULING-KENNY-3-4-2016.PDF
    – The ruling that the Authority must approve and submit a detailed funding plan concerning a specific corridor (or usable segment thereof) before committing appropriated bond funds to construction is on page 3.
    – The ruling that the Authority can build something that is not Prop1A compliant as long as they don’t use Prop1A bonds is on page 9.
    – The ruling that a 79 MPH electrified Caltrain does not qualify for Prop1A bonds is on pp14-15.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    What are the consequences? And who has standing once all of the money is spent?

    Joe Reply:

    Roland

    Pp14-15 refer to blended HSR service.

    Caltrain electrification is not blended HSR service.

    It’s not HSR corridor under phase 1 either.

    Alan Reply:

    – The ruling that the Authority must approve and submit a detailed funding plan concerning a specific corridor (or usable segment thereof) before committing appropriated bond funds to construction is on page 3.

    Wrong. That isn’t a ruling of the court, it’s merely a recitation of the requirements of Prop 1A. But do tell us something else that we’ve all known for the past eight years…

    – The ruling that a 79 MPH electrified Caltrain does not qualify for Prop1A bonds is on pp14-15.

    Wrong again.There are absolutely no reference–ZERO to the speed of any Caltrain service–79 mph or otherwise. The only reference to Caltrain is the judge’s opinion that the CHSRA cannot use the Caltrain station at 4th & King as the terminal for its trip time calculation.

    Anyone who tries to read Judge Kenny’s ruling as anything other than a total and complete defeat for the Tos interests is at best, hopelessly optimistic, and at worst, delusional and illiterate.

    Judge Kenny’s ruling confirmed what I’ve been saying here for several years–that the court simply cannot judge the compliance of a portion of the system WHICH HAS NOT YET BEEN DESIGNED. That claim is simply not ripe. And as I’ve posted several times, the proposals being put forward by SF Planning include changes to the terminal area which could easily allow both the 5-minute headway and the 30-minute SF-SJ timing to be achieved. And that’s without even taking into account the improvements in technology which are undoubtedly to come.

    Finally, it can still be argued that the blended system still is not the final design which should be judged. Nothing prevents a 4-track system from being built at all–SB 557 merely prevents the spending of any bond funding from being used to do a 4-track buildout. Nothing inhibits the Authority from finding other funding sources to do the 4-track. And nothing prevents the Legislature and Governor from removing the SB 557 restrictions whenever they choose to do so.

    BTW, how’s that appellate case going? Is Stuart Flashman, California’s Worst Lawyer(tm) getting ready to be laughed out of the Court of Appeal again?

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    There will not be a need for a subsidy. The time and station things can be done by offering different trains (express, limited express, super express, Sprinter and so on). As the Japanese system has done for decades. You will see, it will all work out.

    Roland Reply:

    @ Alan
    “The only reference to Caltrain is the judge’s opinion that the CHSRA cannot use the Caltrain station at 4th & King as the terminal for its trip time calculation.” Precisely my point: a funding plan to electrify Diridon to 4th & King with a travel time of 45 minutes does not qualify for Prop1A Bonds.

    @ Bahnfreund how do the Japanese manage to cover 55 miles at a maximum speed of 79 MPH in less than 30 minutes?

    Joe Reply:

    Prop1a has allowances for spending on non-HSR projects that will feed riders into the HSR system.

    Suprised ?

    Joe Reply:

    @Alan

    I think the Authority is sidestepping all the prop1a bullshit litigation, Kenney micromanagement by stopping phase 1 in San Jose and electrifying Caltrain to SF.

    Prop1a will be spent by phase 1 completion.

    There is a possible, maybe expensive, design to SF for fast enough travel times compliant with Prop1a so the issue will never be litigated. Prop1a money will be spent. Game over man.

    Then they can run blended service to SF at any speed they want to any station they want.

    Alan Reply:

    @Roland

    Precisely my point: a funding plan to electrify Diridon to 4th & King with a travel time of 45 minutes does not qualify for Prop1A Bonds.

    You’re still wrong. There is not one word in Judge Kenny’s ruling that says that. You’re trying to magically read things into the ruling that just are not there. You don’t understand that Prop 1A mandates certain design standards. Nothing mandates that every train operated on the Peninsula operate at full HSR speeds. That would certainly be a surprise to Union Pacific, which may have a problem operating freight trains at 100+. Likewise, a Caltrain local that makes every stop is not going to achieve HSR speeds. Prop 1A does not make that illegal.

    Prop 1A does not mandate operating standards.

    @Joe–I agree completely. All of this will be moot by the time construction starts on the Peninsula.

    Any of the proposals from SF Planning will be expensive–no way around that. But I still believe that the option which eases the curves into TBT will make the 30-minute SF-SJ time achievable. If one of the loop options is built, that should increase throughput of the terminal to the point where 5-minute headways can happen.

    I do disagree with you on one point–as long as Laurel and Hardy can draw a breath, and haven’t been disbarred, they will litigate anything they possibly can.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    All the parts expire once the bonds are paid off. That’s the way bonds work.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Well the bonds won’t pay off for 30-40 years so I guess we are stuck with it for a while

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    this guy seems to think it’s carved into stone brought down from the mount.

    John Nachtigall Reply:
    May 21st, 2016 at 8:56 am

    I see. It’s actually a law. A law that does not “expire”.

    Joe Reply:

    Stuck with what? once funds are expended it’s requirements do not hold until the bonds are repaid – it’s over with phase 1 as of the 2016 business plan.

    Good riddance too.

    Joe Reply:

    Prop1a project requirements are terms for the access of funding from the issuing of bonds.

    The legal remedy for non compliance is no bonds, no funding. No other remedy such as blocking construction or legacy requirements/powers are granted to bond holders.

    We have to maintain prop1a compliance for 9 billion, and a matching 9 billion worth of work. 18 billion out of 43b project, 63b including inflation and contengicies.

    Alan Reply:

    Once all of the Prop 1A funds have been expended, there are no more remedies that can be enforced against the Authority by the courts. I don’t think it’s necessary to wait for the bonds to be retired to say that. The only remedy provided by Prop 1A is the withholding of Prop 1A bond funds. Once that money is gone, the law becomes toothless. Not that I believe that the Authority would deliberately go and start building a non-compliant system once the money runs out, and not that the Legislature would allow them to do so, but once the money is gone, there’s not much that the opponents can do. The Court of Appeal has made very clear that the trial court cannot create a remedy where none exists, and Judge Kenny has made clear that the court cannot and will not enjoin any construction using non-Prop 1A funds. The opponents will not be able to successfully argue that they are entitled to relief where no relief can be had, and the courts will not even entertain such a claim. And Judge Kenny pretty much blew the CCP 526a argument right out of the water.

    The remedy which remains–and it’s a powerful one, and not dependent on Prop 1A–is the absolute power of the Legislature to appropriate or not appropriate. If the Legislature likes what it sees in the Authority’s future proposals and reports, it is entirely within its power to appropriate non-Prop 1A money, and the Court of Appeal has made clear that it will not interfere with that political decision. Conversely, if the Legislature does not like the Authority’s new plan, it doesn’t have to spend a dime.

    There’s plenty of remedy left–just nothing which would give a hungry shyster an excuse to file yet another lawsuit. Enough to keep the Authority from getting too cute.

    So no, John, the law itself does not expire, but with no remedy available, the law doesn’t mean much once the money runs out. Don’t blame HSR supporters for that, blame the legislators who wrote and enacted Prop 1A. I don’t think that anyone can argue, with 8 years of court cases in the books, that Prop 1A was a well written or constructed piece of legislation.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    So those restrictions, the ones used to get the law passed, those have no “teeth”? Because during the election there was no supporter saying “these are unenforceable”.

    I agree that the court has made it clear that they will not intervene in a system not yet built and have given the authority the benefit of the doubt. I even believe the authority intends to meet the law. They have good intentions but they have no clue of how they will do it. I also believe that the degrees of restriction are such that they can’t actually make it. But time will see.

    I don’t think, however, that once the system is built, if they don’t substantially meet the restrictions, for example by providing a subsidy, there is no recourse. The US is a country of laws and no one is above them. If the courts allowed a government to ignore the law it sets a precedent against the basic foundation of the legal system.

    We will see if they manage to get it built, which is doubt

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    So what happens if it gets built and – as you say will happen – they fail to meet some provision? Do they have to rip out the tracks?

    Roland Reply:

    It won’t get that far: the CRRA will be right back in court the moment they submit a funding plan for a project that does not meet the Bond Act requirements.

    Joe Reply:

    @John

    Prop1a is a bond act, not a design document. It’s not a business plan or funding plan. It’s a safety lock on 9B in bonds. Once issued it has done its job.

    Joe Reply:

    CRRA is a infantile renaming of the CAHSR Authority. You need to stop the name calling.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    @Joe

    Prop 1a was a law passed by popular vote. The people agreed to provide 10 billion for a system that runs at certain speeds and requires no subsidy. If supporters didn’t want to be restrictions they should not have wrote the law that way.

    Time will tell whom the courts agree with, you or me

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Who wants it to be slow or money losing?

    synonymouse Reply:

    Judge Kenny effectively expired Prop 1a. It is irrelevant as in no threat to the whims of Jerry and PB. Other circumstances, like the economy, are more important and not easily predictable. Hell , a little while ago the class ones were presumed to be on a permanent roll.

    Alan Reply:

    Quit whining. Prop 1A is very much in effect.

    Ted Judah Reply:

    The interesting thing is that CAHSR was derided by some Democrats at first for being “Arnold’s Train”. The existing transit lobby and its very strong base of union labor didn’t know what to do at first, until Anne Gust got behind it.

    My thinking is CAHSR will never die, but the Authority easily could morph into something else. The main factor will be just how much of Brown’s realignment legacy the next governor wants to undo. (This is because of the incredible pressure from local governments to reverse it now that the State General Fund is no longer in a deficit. )

    In any case, CAHSRA itself could be merged back into the Division of Rail at CalTrans. That would formalize the incrementalist approach that the Authority’s top brass are beginning to embrace. CalTrain, Amtrak California, the Surfliner….CAHSR would slowly upgrade and modernize operations until as “blended service” until full build out is complete.

    The more interesting possibility to me, however, would be to merge the Authority and the California Transportation Commission into an effective parent organization for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the Bay Area, and the very hungry catepillar called LOSSAN down south. Adding HSR funding to the mix would actually create a comprehensive planning organization. In turn, transit agencies could be more diverse in their requests, and subsidiarity would flourish.

    …Newsom, by the way, isn’t opposing HSR on ideological grounds. Instead, he knows that with the top two primary system, Republicans often are the swing votes that decide who makes it out of the primary and who wins the general. He knows that very few Democrats will choose based on a candidate’s position on CAHSR, but nearly all Republicans could.

  11. Car(e)-Free LA
    May 20th, 2016 at 14:51
    #11

    The expo line is open to Santa Monica and it is spectacular!!!

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    How long do you think it will be before LA will be known as a “transit friendly city”?

    Car(e)-Free LA Reply:

    It depends on who you ask. Many people still stereotype LA as polluted and auto dependent. I have never had any difficulty navigating LA without a car, and consider it transit friendly, but I have lots of patience and love for transit. I would guess that by the time Measure R is complete, the city of LA (and Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Pasadena, etc.) ,but not southern California as a whole, will be considered transit friendly. The Westside subway and crenshaw line in particular will have a large impact.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Interesting to hear.

    I think it’s also that outdated prejudices take time in dying down. And in LA’s case it may also be a question of “where do you want to go?” – If you want to go somewhere where you have to take five buses, it’s probably far from optimal, but the subway has had two decades of impressive growth now and as you say, more is to come… Part of the problem with SoCal is that many places tend to blend into one another, so e.g. someone living in Riverside (and yes, I know Riverside is surprisingly far from LA) would still take a car to get to LA instead of public transit…

    Car(e)-Free LA Reply:

    Yes, or DRIVE to Metrolink and take the train you can go virtually everywhere in southern California, but you then have to drive to and from the station. That is starting to go away in LA, but not further out. Perhaps that is the one thing driverless cars are for…last mile connections in the suburbs, allowing car free living there.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Well my impulse would be to take a bike for the last mile, but I know that cycling is very dependent on infrastructure and I would gather the infrastructure for bikes in SoCal can improved upon…

    Car(e)-Free LA Reply:

    Of. Course. I am thinking more along the lines of last 5 miles to a cul de sac up in the bills somewhere.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Well yeah. The Cul-de-Sac…

    Who ever came up with that?

    Zeljeznicar Reply:

    Metrolink”s map may make you believe you can go anywhere, but the schedules will tell you that you are very limited on weekdays, and almost no service weekends on most routes.
    As for the wonderful Expo, is there anywhere in the world so totally screwed up as the Blue Line/Expo Line junction at Washington? Unbelievable except in L.A.

    Car(e)-Free LA Reply:

    It is irritating. It is very unfortunate that area wasn’t built as a subway.

    Danny Reply:

    with the extension now every quadrant of LA County has Metro in it, Orange needs to be tracked, and Purple’s adding three stops–it’s not some strange luxurious novelty but a part of everyday life: it just went from the focus of complete raving histrionics, of constant lawsuits and crank letters and bucket drummers, to a nonissue in the span of 24 hours

    with more people on rail they’ll see buses as connectors to destinations rather than an impossible slog to get onto another bus to then walk another mile; with more people on rail they’ll pay attention to the network expansion and service improvements

    even the most Trump-is-an-infiltrator-who’s-gonna-take-our-guns-and-abortions-away South County barfly will absolutely agree in principle (of course I’m in the pre-1980 burbs), so I’m talking up the DMU plans: driving to the station will be an option for more and more people, skipping the past-10-mi commutes

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Those things do have a tendency to take ages at first with (seemingly) nothing happening and then going very fast without any “warning” whatsoever… That’s why so many people fight it tooth and nail. They know how successful it can be.

    J. Wong Reply:

    It’ll take all those who believe otherwise (cough-@synon-cough) to die before that will happen. Meanwhile those of us in the reality based community will be happily riding.

    swing hanger Reply:

    That’s good to see. I lived, carless, in the Westside during my college years (pre-Metro era, SM Bus Lines was predominantly Fishbowl), the expo line ROW was just a dusty strip of land then. I see, however, the complaints have already started- that there is not enough parking (!) at the stations. Is it that socio-economic divide rearing its head again re. who rides/won’t ride the bus??

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    There can’t be enough parking at the station, really. A light rail line can take much more people in an hour than fit in the cars on a normal sized lot… The only solution is having good bus feeder lines and putting bike racks there.

    But even in Germany too many park&ride shit has been built over the years…

    swing hanger Reply:

    Agree about bus feeders. But in LA (where I spent 15 years or so of my life), the bus is used mainly by “minorities” and those who can’t afford a car- it is shunned by the demographic who need to be wooed out of their cars. And on the Westside at least, the buses are actually quite nice, and run frequently.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Yeah I know the associations the bus evokes. This is hard to fix (and it is part of the reason the “rail bonus” exists) but it can be fixed eventually. Give it some time…

    Car(e)-Free LA Reply:

    The parking is an off whined about problem, but the area expo passes through isn’t particularly auto dependent, compared to place like Azusa.

    Jos Callinet Reply:

    to Car(e)-Free LA: did you yourself get a chance to ride it today? From news reports I heard it has been overflowing with riders – so, wondering if you were able to fit yourself aboard. For those wanting to get to Santa Monica from downtown LA this must be a game-changer. If / when you get the opportunity, please share with us your first-hand impressions of the Expo Line. Thank you!

    Car(e)-Free LA Reply:

    I rode it fom Santa Monica to Culver City. It was very crowded, but I arrived early and had lunch by the station. I was especially impressed by the mostly elevated section through Sawtelle and Palms. Along those areas, it was rather speedy. It was slower than it should have been along Colorado, but not awful. I feel like it may have been smarter to run it elevated along Olympic instead. I noticed that while there is some redevelopment going on along the line, there is opportunity for plenty more, particularly around sepulveda. All in all, I think expo is the biggest and best transit investment LA has made since the red line.

    Car(e)-Free LA Reply:

    On a slightly unrelated note, I love the new official Go Metro Map. It shows the LA River, all the under construction routes and a clearer looking silver line.

    Zeljeznicar Reply:

    Doesn’t show Metrolink, the fastest way between Chatsworth, Van Nuys, Burbank Airport and L.A.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Putting a river into transit maps is a good idea imho. It gives orientation.

  12. Travis D
    May 20th, 2016 at 17:57
    #12

    Overlooked is that the construction actually underway is ahead of schedule. For example the Fresno River Viaduct, scheduled to take two years, is now 70% done after only one year. The Tuolumne Avenue Bridge is also way ahead of schedule.

    The delays have been only in property acquisition which has been hugely exacerbated by ideologues going around telling people not to sell. In Kings County things are even worse since the judges are all friends of opponents of the project and recused themselves forcing CAHSR to bring in outside judges.

  13. JimInPollockPines
    May 20th, 2016 at 18:44
    #13

    This is ridiculous

  14. JimInPollockPines
    May 20th, 2016 at 18:51
    #14

    This is an epic failure on the part of the highly overpaid people who were suppose to get this project done. There just isn’t any excuse

    Alan Reply:

    Jim, how is it a failure when the Authority has had to deal with one frivolous lawsuit after another? And how is it the Authority’s failing when the Kings County judges deliberately try to stall the land acquisition?

    The DOT’s action is a clear sign that it will not reward Laurel and Hardy and their puppet plaintiffs.

  15. morris brown
    May 20th, 2016 at 19:16
    #15

    San Diego UT Editorial:

    Why does Obama administration enable bullet-train fiasco?

    Yet instead of protecting taxpayers, the Obama administration acts as an enabler. The latest modification to the $2.5 billion grant’s terms gives California breathing room for yet more years of futile attempts to escape the “straitjacket.”

    But in 2017, we’ll have a new president, and in 2019, a new governor. Last year, gubernatorial candidate Gavin Newsom said the bullet train’s “math doesn’t add up,” so perhaps one or both of these individuals will realize the obvious: It’s wrong to waste billions of dollars on a badly planned project that’s always had a business plan built on bad math.

    Joe Reply:

    What’s bad about getting the state out of a straight jacket ?!

    How unaware to use such an accurate term that illustrates why Obama did the right thing.

    And now Gavin Newsom is their only hope.

    Shorter San Diego UT: “My god it’s full of stars. “

    Alan Reply:

    Wednesday’s news that the Obama administration had extended for four years a 2017 deadline to complete a 118-mile section of the state’s bullet-train system illustrates the utter failure of federal oversight of the troubled $64 billion project.

    Bulls***. The DOT makes a decision that goes against what the extremist whack jobs at the San Diego Union Toilet want. That’s not a failure, except of conservative thinking. (pardon the oxymoron…)

  16. Roland
    May 20th, 2016 at 20:31
    #16

    Old news: Caltrain chooses Stadler Kiss EMUs. No news on any Bombardier response.

    Roland Reply:

    Cost of EMUs goes up from $440M to $727M
    Cost of electrification goes up from $785M to $1,253M
    Both contracts to be awarded in July 2016
    First vehicle to be delivered in July 2019. Revenue service late 2020.

    What could possibly go wrong????

    Car(e)-Free LA Reply:

    I just hope it doesn’t turn out like Warm Springs BART.

    William Reply:

    I believe the increase in EMU cost is due to 100% fleet replacement, instead of 75% replacement as before.

    Clem Reply:

    Source please?

    joe Reply:

    can’t find anything. Did I waste my time with a Roland comment?

    Roland Reply:

    When was the last time you did not waste everybody’s time posting useless comments?

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Please be civil!

    Roland Reply:

    Please be civil!

    Roland Reply:

    http://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/content/Executive/Meetings/cac/2016/05-May/Caltrain%20Early%20Investment%20Program%20supplemental%20MOU.pdf

    keith saggers Reply:

    As noted above, the Transportation Authority has committed funds to cover $20,860,000 of San
    Francisco’s original $60 million contribution, with the City’s Prop A General Obligation bond (2014)
    covering the rest. The $20 million increase in the local contribution will be covered by $3.9 million in
    Prop K funds that are remaining in the Caltrain Electrification line item. The source for the remaining
    funds has yet to be identified. The City and the Transportation Authority are jointly working to secure
    the funds. Sources could include a potential new sales tax measure under consideration for the
    November 2016 ballot or City funds. Other major sources of funds in the Early Investment Program are planned to come mainly from the CHSRA ($113M), Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Core
    Capacity ($647M), and MTC Bridge tolls ($28M). Caltrain.

    Clem Reply:

    Didn’t find the word Stadler in there…

    Roland Reply:

    You won’t find it here either http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/TranscriptViewer.php?view_id=24&clip_id=25243 but you will hear it here http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=24&clip_id=25243 if you FFW 9:40 (turn on CC and watch what happens to the transcript).

    Clem Reply:

    Fabulous! It was always a given that they would pay too much (thanks to the hyper-prescriptive RFP), so can you imagine how disappointing it would have been to get a mediocre train? At least we’re getting the Tesla of the rails.

    Roland Reply:

    It will be REALLY interesting to learn how the LTK geniuses were able to cram 950 seats, two toilets and 120 bikes in 650 feet of platform or if we need to spend another $300M (total cost >$1B) to extend platforms beyond 700 feet to accommodate 8-car DOSTOs in which case we are going to have interesting operational “challenges” at Transbay, Diridon and Gilroy…

    PS. Last time I checked, Teslas were running on batteries(?)

    Clem Reply:

    I know, lugging your power source around with you is so primitive! I meant to say that like Tesla, Stadler is driving innovation in the rail vehicle market and disrupting a market that was long dominated by large and lazy corporations.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    What makes you say Stadler is so much better than anything?

    I am rather partial to the Bombardier Talent 2…

Comments are closed.