Please post a link to any offer from any Japanese entity offering to invest even just one penny into California High Speed Rail. I haven't heard, read, or seen any such offer.
Earning money from California taxpayers by selling goods and services is not the same as investing money into a project.

^ I'm not buying it. Chinese banks said the same thing and we haven't heard a word back from them.

Price for Calif. high-speed rail drops to $68.4B (SJ Mercury)
 

Price for Calif. high-speed rail drops to $68.4B

By DON THOMPSON
Associated Press
Posted: 03/30/2012

"SACRAMENTO, Calif.—The price tag for California's ambitious high-speed rail project has dropped to $68.4 billion, a $30 billion decline over a highly criticized draft released last fall, a source familiar with the plan confirmed late Friday.

The first full section of track will now stretch from Merced to the San Fernando Valley, a significant expansion of the initial phase that eliminates the so-called "train to nowhere" between two small Central Valley cities.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority had scheduled a news conference for Monday to announce its updated business plan, but The Sacramento Bee reported some of the key details late Friday night..."

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-...il-drops-68-4b

The thing is, the 100 billion price tag was always in future dollars. In 2011 dollars it was more like 64 billion. Thats important because the price at the time of prop 1a was in 2009 dollars and did not account for inflation. So if this new number accounts for inflation, I imagine the price tag is more like 50-55 billion in 2012 dollars. (for the sake of comparison)

I'm sure they meant it until they thought about California's debt crisis and realized they're likely not going to get their money back.

California was well into its peak debt problem when these nations were pledging interest in the project. I think it has more to do with the republican takeover of the house and thus defacto withdrawal of federal support.

and we need to stop wasteful spending.

What do you propose we cut?

The last paragraph below is a very interesting development--infrastructure and service on ACE and the San Joaquins will be improved to better connect with HSR in Merced.

High-speed rail plan slashes costs to calm critics
Michael Cabanatuan
Sunday, April 1, 2012
sfgate.com

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/20...1333235625.jpg

State transportation officials have slashed the price tag for California's controversial high-speed rail project by $30 billion and expanded the first stretch of track to run from Merced in the Central Valley south to the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles.
....
While the updated strategy still calls for construction to start in the Central Valley, it abandons plans to build only a 130-mile stretch from Chowchilla (Madera County) to Bakersfield. Instead, it extends the initial line north to Merced and south across the Tehachapi Mountains to Palmdale and the San Fernando Valley, probably Burbank, and calls for it to carry high-speed trains along the 300-mile stretch. It relies heavily on what officials have called a "blended approach" that uses existing commuter rail lines - including Caltrain - in the Bay Area and Los Angeles.
....
the decision to head first to Los Angeles was based on that region's much-larger population and potential ridership.

"It was driven by the numbers," he said. "Financially, the only sensible answer is to go south."

Under the new plan, construction still will start with the 130-mile Central Valley stretch, then continue north to Merced and south to Palmdale, crossing the Tehachapis with a series of tunnels and viaducts. It could reach both destinations by 2020. Extending the line to Burbank will take two more years.

In addition to spending about $2 billion for regional commuter rail improvements at the urban ends of the system, the updated plan also calls for the authority to invest in improvements that include advanced signaling systems and elimination of street-level railroad crossings on the Altamont Commuter Express and Amtrak San Joaquin trains, which would allow them to increase speeds and haul passengers to Merced faster.
....

Its good, but truthfully, Palmdale-San Jose would've been better I think.

I'm confused. How will they connect Merced to San Fransisco, or are they just going to go to Sacremento instead? Also, how will sharing track with Commuter Rail affect the speed of HSR?

I haven't seen details--the official news release is set for tomorrow--but it appears existing inter-urban/commuter rail service will be improved and sped up between Merced and the Bay Area. San Francisco-bound passengers will transfer to the San Joaquins at Merced and then transfer either to BART at Richmond Station or to a ferry boat at Jack London Square in Oakland. Also, Amtrak California runs buses over the Bay Bridge.

One of the articles above said electrified Caltrain tracks would allow trains to run at 110mph. I'm going to assume it will be much the same with Metrolink in Southern California. That's slower than the maximum speed CAHSR will hit out in the flat, open valleys, but it should be noted that trains were never, ever going to run at 200mph+ through places like the Penninsula or the San Fernando Valley anyway.

The new plan doesnt make any concrete timetable as far as expansion into the Bay Area. WHAT'S THE POINT THEN?

Bay Area officials have already taken $1.5 Billion that could be spent of more worthwhile local projects just to electrify caltrain tracks and now we learn that we've been demoted to the same status as Sacramento or San Diego, i.e someday.:rolleyes:

Why now or NEVER? That's ridiculous. I'm sorry, why are we in a rush?

Im not surprised.

:haha:

I'm curious about this statement - if I were going to spend $1.5 billion on transit in the Bay Area, I honestly can't think of a better use than "just to electrify Caltrain tracks". That basically gets us to BART-equivalent infrastructure down the entire peninsula at like 1/40th the cost! That's certainly a better use of money than the Central Subway pig or other gigantic wastes of money like Livermore BART.

To address the 1/40th thing, It would not cost $40 Billion to expand BART down the peninsula from Millbrae(not that I am advocating that, but your cost comparison doesnt make sense).

Furthermore, Caltrain carries less than a tenth the riders that BART does, we are not talking about 2 systems that are at parity with respect to the dent they make in alleviating traffic in the Bay Area.

We're up to what, $8 billion for the full Santa Clara extension (with a lot fewer stations per mile than would be needed on the peninsula)? $40-60 billion for Millbrae to downtown SJ doesn't seem that outlandish, especially considering that peninsula towns would insist on burying BART (not that I would blame them - BART is obscenely loud due to the horrible wheel squeal - much louder than Caltrain is currently, and certainly much, much louder than an electrified Caltrain).

Um, that's kind of my point. Upgrading Caltrain with electrification essentially makes BART-level service available for Caltrain (every 10-15 minutes, etc)...meaning that it would be able to handle similar numbers (per track-mile) to BART. BART doesn't have some kind of special sauce - you electrify Caltrain and you have the capability of metro-like service on the peninsula immediately.

I guess your right on this point.

But then, to me I would rather spend that money to expand BART and be able to travel from Pittsburg to Palo Alto or San Francisco to Milpitas without having to transfer to another system.

Such an expense to me would be worth it in the long run and we would see returns on investment almost immediately by way of traffic being alleviated at critical choke points leading into and out of Silicon Valley(880 especially).

Obviously this all a pipe dream but we are just supposing.

I dont think Caltrain service is necessary every 10-15 minutes all day long. Demand is just not there.

So you would build BART down the peninsula and run it every hour? What's the point then?

BART wouldnt be every hour, and a peninsula line would be no exception as more people would probably use BART as its more convenient to downtown SF, SFO, soon to be OAK and points east, not to mention thousands of East Bay commuters who work on Peninsula---that would be a huge actually.

Furthermore, BART down the peninsula is just a dream---spending $1.5 Billion to electrify CalTrain without any real need(except to try and get support for the bullet train) appears to be a very expensive nightmare come true, even worse now that the updated business plan doesnt even include funding for the Bay Area leg of the system.

You can't say that Caltrain shouldn't be more often because demand doesn't exist and then turn around and say that only BART would generate more demand. More frequent service would generate more demand, regardless of the agency that provides it. Re-badge Caltrain as BART if you think that branding is the big deal. "BART peninsula" with connections to other lines at Millbrae.

Also, BART will not be more convenient in many ways, since you'll still have to take the round-the-mountain approach into SF that adds 20 minutes to get to downtown. How many people transfer to BART from Caltrain now to reach downtown SF? Approximately none?

The need is for more frequent transit up and down the peninsula and especially connecting SF to Silicon Valley. I don't know about you, but I travel to the South Bay from SF an average of once a week, and the trains are packed. Having them be even faster and more frequent would be a gigantic economic plus for the region, especially as SF and Palo Alto continue to be the two centers of the current tech boom.

I don't support the HSR plan. It doesn't do anything for the economies of the 3rd and 4th largest metro areas in the state. That's ridiculous. The whole thing is about linking LA with SFBA, which is fine but it's way too costly and i doubt there's even going to be enough riders to justify the cost. It's not going to be cheap to ride the HSR. A lot of the N-S back and forth is made by moderate income earners. Also since LA is still such a car-orientated city I just don't believe the projected ridership numbers. People are going rightly reason that when they get to LA they are going to have to have a car to get around... which is another added cost/concern.

We should focus first on connecting the major cities of Northern California together and the major cities of Southern California together with a HSR and then tackle the big N-S link after that.

I think we need to grip on reality. Why should we pay for this boondoggle? LA is still way too car-dependent and San Francisco is still too isolated from it's own region. Sorry if that "demotes" you somehow, but that's reality.

You should learn about HSR systems around the world, before you make statements like "bondoggle" and such.

@dimondpark: Huh, "what's the rush?"

Dude the project HAS to break ground IN the central valley THIS year to qualify for Fed. funds. Not to mention state Republicans are going to present an anti-hsr prop to voters this fall asking for the $9 Billion back.

And in case you haven't noticed, their House Congressional counterparts aren't cooperating...

ozone:
The second phase of the project will contect to both San Diego and Sacramento. Most people would like to see those connections sooner, but as noted above, when you're dealing with a Congress that sees any investment in infrastructure as socialist, these connections will have to wait.

At the very least, in the first phase, better integrating the Central Valley cities with the more prosperous coastal mega-regions should indirectly benefit Sacramento. Commuting to jobs in San Jose will be feasible for workers in Fresno. Fresno is also planning billions of dollars of redevelopment downtown around the planned stations. If this encourages significant infill development in Central Valley cities of Merced and Fresno and helps preserve important farmland, this will beneift the entire Valley. As I've said, this is indirect for Sacramento, but as the largest city in the Central Valley, it is only likely to help it.

This is not at all true. The 30/10 Plan promises significant improvements in transit for LA County. LA County already has the largest bus system in the US. The westside subway promises something like 60,000 daily passengers. Construction is suppose to begin on a new subway or light rail in LA County every year for most of the next decade. By the time all the Measure R projects are completed, LA County will have a more extensive light rail and subway system than DC and possibly Chicago. There is also something like 500 miles of Metrolink track in Southern California with something like seventy stations. The Surfliner is also either the second or third busiest passenger rail in the US.

The US Census also published data today noting that LA-Long Beach-Anaheim is the densest metropolitan region in the US, denser than the New York-NJ metropolitan region.

They should start with a segment that connects Metrolink and Caltrain and upgrade .

Surely ending Phase 1 in Palmdale instead of Sylmar (avoiding costly viaducts/tunnels) would save enough money to extend it to San Jose...

This is why it should be criminal to plan infrastructure based on political expediency.

So they are ramming this through so Barack Obama(whom I plan on voting for again btw) can brag about it on the stump?:rolleyes:

Regardless to what this is all going to cost to Californians?:haha:

I would like to agree with you. But Metrolink and Caltrain don't serve the central valley, Amtrak California does. Amtrak California already runs multiple trains from San Jose to Bakersfield and to Sacramento. Amtrak California already runs multiple trains from Los Angeles to San Diego. What's needed first is to connect these Amtrak California train corridors together, and that's the central valley (at least Bakersfield) into Los Angeles.
If the Metrolink, Caltrain, and ACE train tracks are electrified, these new HSR trains can reach downtown San Francisco and Sacramento over the existing rail lines Amtrak California runs over, just not up to the high speeds that will become available once the new tracks are built between Merced to San Jose or to Sacramento.
Building the Bakersfield to northern Los Angeles gap is needed earlier than the gap between San Jose and Merced because there are corridors Amtrak California already uses between San Jose and Merced. I assume once the Caltrain corridor is electrified that California HSR will be able to use them for San Francisco to Los Angeles HSR trains.
This is going to be a project built in phases, mainly because it's so expensive, don't expect everything to be built all at once.

A lot of critics of the project are saying that LA is too "car dependent." So?? What does that have to do with anything? HSR is a way to get from one city to another, just like airports. If there is high air traffic, then there is demand for HSR.

Do people take their cars with them when they fly? No.
Can people get a rental car at/near a train station downtown? Yes.
Can people take a taxi from a train station? Yes.

So, can someone explain to me what public transportation has to do with HSR??

While your points are totally correct, to me it's more like a "cart before the horse" act. If the HSR project is simply the beginning (and intermingling) of a grand, visionary, public transit system then I'm for it. I believe inner-city networks need to be vastly improved, first.

As for flying, unless absolutely necessary, I would never fly from L.A. to San Francisco. Your perspective is very different in Boston. I lived in Boston and grew up in Chicago. Driving 'out East' is a completely different experience in California. I've flown from Boston to Philadelphia, which is a shorter distance, because driving it is absolutely miserable! Driving in general is miserable on the East Coast, but they have the best public transit! Inter/Intra-city travel is amazing in Boston, New York, etc.

I live pretty geographically centered in L.A. at the moment. To drive from here to San Francisco (Fisherman's Wharf to be exact) would take 6 1/2 hours, and $80 in gas. I drive a Corolla, and half of L.A. has already been suckered into the Prius. California's HSR website claims a trip from L.A. to S.F. "under 2 hours 40 minutes". I'd have to be a naive fool to believe a figure given about an unproven system, by an organization whose purpose is to desperately convince people of something.

After creeping through the suburbs and odd mountain turns, and unexpected cow-dung on the tracks, I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being well over 3 hours. But, just like them, I can't prove a damned thing and shouldn't make up my own conjecture, so I'll give them an extra 10 minutes and say 2 1/2 hours! Or maybe I just suck at math, haha.

Anyway, I will give AT LEAST 1 1/2 hours travel time just to get to the station (traffic, bag checks, ticket checks, shuttle/walk from parking lot, etc.). We're already up to 4 hours when we arrive a station in S.F. The worst part about transportation that is not rapid-transit (subways, city buses, etc.) is that on regular trains and plains, people take their sweet-ass time getting off. If you don't need a car, great, you saved a couple of hours versus driving - and then figure the added cost of a Taxi. If you need to rent a car, that takes time. You may have shaved an hour off when everything is done. And this is if everything goes smoothly.

Also, how much are the ticks for HSR going to cost. Likely more than the $80 in gas for my car. Perhaps a little more with passengers.

That being said, I hate driving. I miss having the transit systems like Boston and New York, but I just find this to be a cart before the horse silliness for a time savings of 1 - 2 hours (maybe). Bring the 'T' to L.A., then we'll be ready for the rest.

Buses also count as public transportation of which Los Angeles has many.
I think many believe far more people would use the HSR line if more could get to the station. There are few parking garages around downtown train stations as large as you'll find at the various airports. But I agree with you, taxis are used world wide to get to and from train stations and airports. And there certainly isn't a lack of taxis in either San Francisco or Los Angeles.

-dp-

Why not just buy dual-mode locomotives for the San Joaquin's Oakland trains and run them on the high speed line through to Santa Clarita/LA? There's no need for a transfer at Merced. Amtrak can continue to run a set of normal San Joaquin trains that run Bakersfield-Sacramento on the legacy line.

I do like the idea of building to Merced, though. It punts on the issue of Pacheco vs. Altamont, which is another potential source of cost savings.

Excellent idea for maximum speeds up to 100 mph, or whatever the existing Amtrak California dual level coaches are rated at. But you'll need HSR train sets to ride at 200 mph on the brand new HSR corridor in the central valley. That's why I suggested electrifying the existing lines for the blended system.

At least in the Initial Operating Segment, the time savings will not come from running at 200mph. If you can average 100mph, you're already traveling lightning-quick. On the high-speed line, there will be no grade crossings and no signal interference with other trains, so there should be no obstacles to sustained 110mph travel between stations. With station stops factored in, the average speed is reduced to 100mph. The bilevel coaches are rated at 110mph, so that shouldn't be a problem.

The only problem is getting the trains up to sustained speeds of 110mph, which the F59PHIs cannot do easily. That's why Amtrak would need new locos.

More GOP shenanigans
 

From CHSR Blog.

Darrell Issa To Use HSR to Bash Obama Administration

Apr 10th, 2012 | Posted by Robert Cruickshank


Darrell Issa, a Republican Congressman from San Diego County, has decided to launch a politically-motivated investigation into the high speed rail project:

Rep. Darrell Issa has launched a probe into the California high-speed rail project, asking for the preservation of documents that relate to federal funding for the project.

The Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman outlined a range of concerns in a letter Monday addressed to newly installed California High-Speed Rail Authority Chairman Dan Richard. Those questions include whether the $3.9 billion in federal money the project has received has prevented work on other important transportation projects. Issa requested a specific accounting of that money.

Issa’s letter makes it obvious what’s behind this:

“CHSRA has earned high-profile support from the Obama Administration,” Issa wrote to Richard. “But this praise has yet to be matched with tangible results.”

Ever since Solyndra, a Bay Area solar power company that received federal loans, went bankrupt and became the subject of a right-wing manufactured scandal, Republicans have been searching for a “new Solyndra” that can make President Obama’s green energy push again look like wasteful spending. Issa is clearly hoping that California’s high speed rail project will fit that bill.

Continue reading...

Shenanigans or not, it'll work if CHSR doesn't break ground soon.

Why don't they connect Bakersfield to L.A. with Amtrak today? I'm assuming Amtrak could do it. Does BNSF not let them? Or is there no demand on that circuitous route via Tehachapi/Palmdale?

The route through the Tehachapis is one of the most congested freight segments in the country. It's only one track, has steep grades, and it even loops back over itself.

Since freight trains pass over the Tehachapis at an absurdly slow speed, and there are 40 trains/day, there is literally no room in the schedule for a passenger train.

The San Joaquins cannot be extended south without a new rail line over the Tehachapis. Fortunately it sounds like there will be a new line, going as far as Palmdale where it will tie into the existing Metrolink Antelope Valley Line.

Solyndra was a "manufactured" scandal? Better read the lengthy stories in the NY Times, WSJ, SJ Mercury, etc. You may be interested that the federal report on it basically criticized every part of the decision process and the administration has implemented new regs. to keep this sort of decision process from ever happening again.

It would be very interesting to see if Transportation has similar criteria for approving projects as Energy did. If so, it will be quite a show.

Nope, nobody rides rail in California.

Amid trans-Hudson fuss, Amtrak touts ridership

Railway Age
April 11, 2012
Written by Douglas John Bowen

"...In the West, ridership rose 11.5% on the San Joaquin service (Sacramento-Oakland-Bakersfield), and up 6.7% on the Capitol Corridor (San Jose- Oakland-Sacramento- Auburn). Amtrak Cascades (Vancouver, B.C- Seattle- Portland-Eugene, Ore.) saw a more modest 0.5% increase."

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/....html?channel=

Remember, the San Joaquin, Capital Corridor, and Surfliner routes are already some of the busiest, most successful routes in the US.

I see HSR has added back the Anaheim link, although it's unclear what they plan to spend the money on in this corridor. It looks like it may be relatively minor improvements that allow them to "include" Anaheim without raising the overall price much.

With the new "Bookends" approach, the Anaheim corridor will probably just get electrification and other improvements to the existing "shared" tracks to increase the maximum speed up to 110 mph. CHSR was never planning on 200 mph max speeds on that short corridor anyways - but they were thinking about using separate, dedicated tracks in that corridor.

They should only build dedicated HSR tracks imho where they plan and need to go faster than 125 mph. At that speed and higher, FRA compliant standards for railcars change. Commuter trains will just get in the way because they'll be limited to a max speed to 125 mph. I believe the need for separate, dedicated tracks for lighter weight HSR train sets at the slower speeds will disappear in the future, with the FRA being more friendly to trains with collision management systems (more engineered crush zones).

Using much more shared tracks with reduce construction costs considerably. Think CalTrain operations on both ends of the "Bookends".

Thanks for the info and comments. That thinking does make some sense and seems to alleviate some local issues. But the safety one is going to be a hard sell I would think.

High-speed rail board approves final plan for California bullet train


04/13/2012

By Mike Rosenberg

Read More: http://www.mercurynews.com/californi...ifornia-bullet

Start building with a 55B shorfall? This sounds reminiscent of the last HSR deal or the latest deal out of Sacto: the Kings arena. You sell your parking revenues for 30 years (itself a financially horrible act) to build an arena but still need AEG, the NBA and the tenants to kick in a couple of 100M in building costs. The most objective economists to look at it called it a disaster for both the city and the team.

So who funds the 55B for HSR? Well, obviously the taxpayers. And who funds the over-runs? Same folks. And who funds the operating losses. Yep. That's 55B that would otherwise have gone to schools, social programs, law enforcement, road repairs, etc.

And? I don't understand how this is any different than highways. And how do you know there will be operating losses?

^I think the answer to that is obvious. Unlike the rest of us, pesto can see into the future. I sure wish I had powers like his.

I didn't say it was different from highways; but this is immaterial because the ones that perform the functions of HSR (connecting LA to Bay) are aleady built. I would vigorously object to a 55B additional road building project connecting areas already well served.

I hate to remind you again, but HSR passed on the claim it would take peanuts to build and would run a profit. And not one auditor (seriously, NOT ONE) has believed that there is the slightest chance this will happen.

Please listen to reason Governor Brown.