California High Speed Rail Thread

[202_Cyclist]

The House Transportation & Infrastrucutre Committee is holding a hearing this morning on high speed rail. The hearing can be seen here:

An Update on the High Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Program: Mistakes Made and Lessons Learned
http://transportation.house.gov/hear...px?NewsID=1761

Additionally, the U.S. Government Accountability Office published a report on California's study today.

Preliminary Assessment of California's Cost Estimates and Other Challenges

"What GAO Found
Based on an initial evaluation of the California High Speed Rail Authority's (Authority) cost estimates, GAO found that they exhibit certain strengths and weaknesses when compared to best practices in GAO's Cost Guide. Adherence with the Cost Guide reduces the risk of cost overruns and missed deadlines. GAO's preliminary evaluation indicates that the cost estimates are comprehensive in that they include major components of construction and operating costs. However, they are not based on a complete set of assumptions, such as how the Authority expects to adapt existing high-speed rail technology to the project in California. The cost estimates are accurate in that they are based on the most recent project scope, include an inflation adjustment, and contain few mathematical errors. And while the cost estimates' methodologies are generally documented, in some cases GAO was unable to trace the final cost estimate back to its source documentation and could not verify how certain cost components, such as stations and trains, were calculated. Finally, the Authority evaluated the credibility of its estimates by performing both a sensitivity analysis (assessing changes in key cost inputs) and an independent cost estimate, but these tests did not encompass the entire cost estimate for the project. For example, the sensitivity analysis of the construction cost estimate was limited to 30 miles of the first construction segment. The Authority also did not conduct a risk and uncertainty analysis to determine the likelihood that the estimates would be met. The Authority is currently taking some steps to improve its cost estimates.

The California high-speed rail project faces many challenges. Chief among these is obtaining project funding beyond the first 130-mile construction segment. While the Authority has secured $11.5 billion from federal and state sources, it needs almost $57 billion more. Moreover, the HSIPR grant program has not received federal funding for the last 2 fiscal years, and future federal funding is uncertain. The Authority is also challenged to improve its ridership and revenue forecasts. Factors, such as limited data and information, make developing such forecasts difficult. Finally, the environmental review process and acquisition of necessary rights-of-way for construction could increase the risk of the project's falling behind schedule and increasing costs..."

The full report can be seen here:
http://gao.gov/assets/660/650608.pdf

[M II A II R II K]

Rep. Denham: Not 'one more penny' for Calif. high-speed railway

Read More: http://thehill.com/blogs/transportat...d-rail-funding

The House lawmaker responsible for oversight of the nation's railways promised Wednesday to use his new position to put the brakes on a controversial high-speed railway in his state.

- "I've obviously taken a very strong position about California high-speed rail and I'm going to continue do so," Denham said. "We'll have the ability to hold hearings, we'll have the rail reauthorization bill and different transportation funding measures. I don't want to see one more penny [go to the California high-speed rail] until they disclose who their private partners are."

- Despite his state's Democratic leaders' enthusiasm, Denham sponsored an amendment to the $105 billion transportation bill that was approved by Congress last year to bar any of the money from going to the proposed California railway. He told The Hill on Wednesday that he would seek to continue the ban in future transportation authorizations. "I don't believe gas tax money should be going to rail," Denham said.

- Transportation industry officials may not see Denham's appointment as act of goodwill on rail funding, however. "We need a transportation network in this country that is interwoven and properly funded from our waterways to our railways to our runways to our highways. ... We can’t be an economic power if we’re defined by slow passenger trains, eroding bridges, over-crowded transit systems, aging aviation technology, congested highways and ports that are choking the economy," AFL-CIO Transportation Trades Department President Ed Wytkind wrote Wednesday in blog post defending federal funding for high-speed rail.

- "America is littered with examples of botched privatization and contracting schemes that left us with reduced wages, weakened health care and pension protections, and eroded or eliminated bargaining rights," Wytkind wrote. "This labor model ensures our [high speed rail] goals will fail miserably." House Transportation Committee Bill Shuster (R-Calif.) has made comments similar to Denham's about the possibility of finding "common ground" with supporters on a new rail funding bill. The Pennsylvania lawmaker has sought to recalibrate his message on rail funding after contentious fights in the last Congress over a GOP effort to eliminate federal subsidies for Amtrak.

.....

[easy as pie]

this guy is a monster.

[202_Cyclist]

Amtrak Joins California to Help Buy High-Speed Rail Gear

By Angela Greiling Keane
Jan 17, 2013
Bloomberg

"Amtrak agreed to work with California, the only U.S. state planning to begin construction on a high-speed rail project this year, to buy passenger-rail equipment.

Amtrak, the U.S. long-distance passenger railroad, will ask companies starting today for information on building as many as 60 trains, which will add units on the Northeast Corridor, replace Acela trains and provide equipment for California, Chief Executive Officer Joseph Boardman said.

New trains might cost $35 million to $55 million each, Boardman said in Washington, declining to estimate the value of a contract. Amtrak and California, which plans to begin fast- train rail operations in 2022, will seek bids from companies by September, Boardman said..."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...rail-gear.html

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by MIIAIIRIIK

I don't want to see one more penny [go to the California high-speed rail] until they disclose who their private partners are.

I don't see anything unreasonable about this^.

[Bootstrap Bill]

CaHSR was approved in 2008, the same election Obama won his first term. It's been more than four years and still no ground breaking.

Is it normal for projects like this to be delayed so many years?

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Bootstrap Bill

CaHSR was approved in 2008, the same election Obama won his first term. It's been more than four years and still no ground breaking.

Is it normal for projects like this to be delayed so many years?

Yes, especially when the EIS hasn't been completed. Environmental Impacts can take years to clear and have to reaccessed when changes are made. Every time a significant change is made, it delays progress 6 months to a year. It's not like the CHSR project was set in stone 4 years ago. Changes have been made, and more changes will be made in the future because the total amount of money needed to complete the project hasn't been allocated. So expect more delays as changes are made to build the project cheaper.

[DJM19]

Originally Posted by Bootstrap Bill

CaHSR was approved in 2008, the same election Obama won his first term. It's been more than four years and still no ground breaking.

Is it normal for projects like this to be delayed so many years?

Well that was really just the approval by voters to set up a funding mechanism. The project still had a lot of planning ahead of it, including all the necessary environmental documents which take a lot of time for a project this size. But ground breaking will begin this year.

[M II A II R II K]

http://www.cyclelicio.us/2013/govern...ransportation/


California Governor Jerry Brown gave his State of the State speech tonight. He hinted at changes coming in how we fund transportation and indicated his continuing support for high speed rail and mitigating the effects of climate change.




• Video Link

[easy as pie]

the changes in transportation funding run along two lines:

1) pedestrian and cycling initiatives into a single file, streamlining funding and that;
2) lowering the electoral threshold for bond measures/taxation initiatives related to transportation funding, down from 2/3 to 55%.

this wouldn't touch on hsr directly, but it would definitely help along a lot of projects in the pipeline. over the past decade, we've seen losing majority-backed transit initiatives in many counties, including notable ones in los angeles and marin, where there was almost 66% support, but not quite.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by easy as pie

the changes in transportation funding run along two lines:

1) pedestrian and cycling initiatives into a single file, streamlining funding and that;
2) lowering the electoral threshold for bond measures/taxation initiatives related to transportation funding, down from 2/3 to 55%.

this wouldn't touch on hsr directly, but it would definitely help along a lot of projects in the pipeline. over the past decade, we've seen losing majority-backed transit initiatives in many counties, including notable ones in los angeles and marin, where there was almost 66% support, but not quite.

Hmmmm, not affect HSR directly?????
Where does CHSR Authority plan to find the remaining $40 to $50 Billion to finish just the L.A. to S.F. HSR line, and both future extensions? So far, around $4 Billion from the US and $9 Billion from the California treasuries have been allocated. Less than $15 Billion will never build something that costs over $60 Billion.
Yes, CHSR will come back and ask for more funds from California voters in the near future, and that my friend directly affects CHSR!

[northbay]

The initial bonds were part of Prop 1A that passed in 2008 with just a simple majority. It got 52.62%.

[202_Cyclist]

California still hasn't bought land for bullet train route

Construction is supposed to start in July. High-speed rail officials say they can do it. But they face resistance from landowners, and if the schedule slips, costs could grow too high.

By Ralph Vartabedian
Los Angeles Times
January 27, 2013

"Construction of California's high-speed rail network is supposed to start in just six months, but the state hasn't acquired a single acre along the route and faces what officials are calling a challenging schedule to assemble hundreds of parcels needed in the Central Valley.

The complexity of getting federal, state and local regulatory approvals for the massive $68-billion project has already pushed back the start of construction to July from late last year. Even with that additional time, however, the state is facing a risk of not having the property to start major construction work near Fresno as now planned.

It hopes to begin making purchase offers for land in the next several weeks. But that's only the first step in a convoluted legal process that will give farmers, businesses and homeowners leverage to delay the project by weeks, if not months, and drive up sales prices, legal experts say..."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...tory?track=rss

[easy as pie]

Originally Posted by northbay

The initial bonds were part of Prop 1A that passed in 2008 with just a simple majority. It got 52.62%.

yeah, i should have written that it's local measures/initiatives that will see a reduced electoral threshold, and why i say bond/tax is because the specific way that it works in california is that these transportation projects are funded by issuing bonds backed by sales taxes, which require 2/3 majority to pass.

so, no, not directly related to hsr, but very good for rail projects. i'd love to see a geary street line here in sf, and unlikely as that is, a 55% threshold makes that one a lot more feasible than 66%.

[eleven=11]

anybody see the Anderson Cooper tv show about High Speed Rail?

[phoenixboi08]

Originally Posted by eleven=11

anybody see the Anderson Cooper tv show about High Speed Rail?

was it an entire episode or just that segment in Vermont?
I was hoping they at least presented a full picture. Doubt it though.

[Innsertnamehere]

just the Vermont portion. though they seemed to insinuate that they will be doing a continuing series on it, so hopefully they feature the true 100mph trains like chicago - St. Louis.

plus they must realize that $10 billion isn't going to get you anywhere with HSR. HSR is insanely expensive.

[eleven=11]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

just the Vermont portion. though they seemed to insinuate that they will be doing a continuing series on it, so hopefully they feature the true 100mph trains like chicago - St. Louis.

plus they must realize that $10 billion isn't going to get you anywhere with HSR. HSR is insanely expensive.

not just HSR maybe only better rail & higher speed rail
plus Higher Speed rail and better tracks and new trains
is not easy or fast

[phoenixboi08]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

just the Vermont portion. though they seemed to insinuate that they will be doing a continuing series on it, so hopefully they feature the true 100mph trains like chicago - St. Louis.

plus they must realize that $10 billion isn't going to get you anywhere with HSR. HSR is insanely expensive.

The segment just seemed a bit too...
They seemed to have already made up their mind that it's a waste of money.

[DJM19]

It really just showed a lack of expertise in what its like to build an actual high speed rail line. They complained that California has yet to start its project (even though planning it is just as much part of it as building it) but neglect that it was only recently approved for a release of funding is out to big as we speak. They acted like a 60 billion dollar project can just start up overnight or that there are no obstacles in the way its all the planners faults.