SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   California High Speed Rail Thread (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=180558)

electricron Feb 12, 2021 3:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 9188988)
My god man. You are a master at suffocating a casual conversation with a bunch of numbers. Yes I am fully aware of loading gauge. It's not like there is a huge market out there for second hand high speed trainsets. The only ones I can think of are the first-gen Eurostar and the second-gen TGV.

Putting the numbers aside, do you really think the masters at CHSR will want to introduce HSR train service using cars just slightly wider than a light rail train? Have you wondered why VIA really wants to drop their newest rolling stock, the Renaissance cars, after just 20 years?

Busy Bee Feb 12, 2021 3:48 PM

Do you really think there is a single person boarding any UK or continental train, high speed or otherwise, that is actually saying "I'm not riding this - it's no wider than a light rail train!!!" ?

Come on man. I think you're missing the forest for the trees.

electricron Feb 12, 2021 5:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 9189041)
Do you really think there is a single person boarding any UK or continental train, high speed or otherwise, that is actually saying "I'm not riding this - it's no wider than a light rail train!!!" ?

Come on man. I think you're missing the forest for the trees.

People do not know what they are missing if they never rode in a wider rail car. Yet, whenever European you tubers come to America or Canada and ride in our relatively huge trains, they all comment how nice it is. It is noticeable!
Do I have to provide all the links, or just name a few?
Try Simply Railway, Wingin’ It Paul Lucas just to name two.

Once you are use to a larger kit, as the British would say, that is what you will expect. Otherwise you will feel like being squeezed into a can of sardines. And that will not be a great first impression for a train you expect to charge higher fares for.

kodak black Feb 19, 2021 8:50 AM

Bill to Bring Billions for Bullet Train

https://i1.wp.com/cal.streetsblog.or...pg?w=800&ssl=1

Quote:

Fresno Congressmember Jim Costa has re-introduced a $32 billion bill to fund the completion of California’s High-Speed Rail project. “A modern infrastructure lays the foundation for a thriving economy,” said Costa in a statement about ‘HR 867: the High-Speed Rail Corridor Development Act.’ “California is leading the way by building state of the art, fast, electrified trains that will go 220 miles per hour.”

The takeaway is that 220-mph HSR trains should be running from Los Angeles to San Francisco as early as 2033, with intermediate services starting sooner in phases as more and more sections are completed. The first bullet trains will start running on the Central Valley spine, with direct low-speed rail connections to Sacramento and the Bay Area, in 2029.
https://cal.streetsblog.org/2021/02/...-bullet-train/

LAsam Feb 19, 2021 6:32 PM

To the other 49 states, we thank you for your contribution! Or maybe it's just us getting our own money back from being a donor state? I really can't keep track anymore. At this point, if we can get the project completed by 2033... that's a miracle.

SFBruin Feb 19, 2021 8:03 PM

I'm fine with it as long as they finish the engineering of the segment between Bakersfield and Palmdale.

I'm worried that it will run over budget on this segment, unless the details are hashed out.

jmecklenborg Feb 20, 2021 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAsam (Post 9195524)
To the other 49 states, we thank you for your contribution! Or maybe it's just us getting our own money back from being a donor state? I really can't keep track anymore. At this point, if we can get the project completed by 2033... that's a miracle.

You're welcome. The irony is that some parts of the country have easy topography and HSR could be built in those places much more easily, like the Texas proposal between Houston and Dallas.

Ohio would have had the first HSR system in the U.S. had the 1982 vote passed. It's hard to believe now but Texas didn't grow larger than Ohio until about 1975. Through the early 1980s, Ohio was still had a lot of high tech manufacturing and even had some computer companies:
https://microship.com/cincinnati-milacron-george

The Ohio system was going to have a 1-mile tunnel under a freight railroad yard in Cincinnati and about 20 miles of elevated construction spread throughout the state - the rest was going to be ground running for a length of about 240 miles between Cincinnati and Cleveland.

Here is former Gov. John Kasich in 2010 making fun of Ohio's 1980s high speed rail push as he gave the Obama funding back to the feds, whereby it made its way to California:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTgH8NB3Ivg

urban_encounter Feb 20, 2021 2:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by electricron (Post 9189033)
Putting the numbers aside, do you really think the masters at CHSR will want to introduce HSR train service using cars just slightly wider than a light rail train?

Why wouldn’t they? They’re still trying to convince us that the system they’re building is truly high speed rail (it’s not) and that they know what they’re doing (they don’t).

urban_encounter Feb 20, 2021 2:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFBruin (Post 9195619)
I'm worried that it will run over budget on this segment, unless the details are hashed out.

Why worry? There’s no dollar number out there that will kill this.

Busy Bee Feb 20, 2021 3:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urban_encounter (Post 9195969)
Why wouldn’t they? They’re still trying to convince us that the system they’re building is truly high speed rail (it’s not) and that they know what they’re doing (they don’t).

Enlighten us genius. The few that participate on this thread know the project pretty well so I suspect you're about to embarrass yourself.

jmecklenborg Feb 20, 2021 3:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urban_encounter (Post 9195969)
Why wouldn’t they? They’re still trying to convince us that the system they’re building is truly high speed rail (it’s not) and that they know what they’re doing (they don’t).

FFWD 15 years - if you take an express train between Burbank and San Jose, you will travel at 220mph the entire time except for in the long tunnels, where you'll travel about 150mph.

The approach to LA Union Station from Burbank will travel at 110mph as will the stretch between San Jose and San Francisco.

It's a shame that the LA Times and others have been so successful in muddying the public's understanding of this project.

urban_encounter Feb 20, 2021 9:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 9195986)
Enlighten us genius. The few that participate on this thread know the project pretty well so I suspect you're about to embarrass yourself.

Remind me again how long the CHSR authority has been at this? How much money have they spent? How much the price tag has increased? How much track has been laid?

Any voter in California with an ounce of common sense can follow the progress (or lack of) for this project. This thread isn’t reserved for only pro high speed rail Californians.

People can be supportive of the idea of HSR but be completely opposed to the State of California’s handling of this project. We will spend tens of billions of dollars to connect Fresno and Merced.

urban_encounter Feb 20, 2021 9:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 9195998)
FFWD 15 years - if you take an express train between Burbank and San Jose, you will travel at 220mph the entire time except for in the long tunnels, where you'll travel about 150mph.

The approach to LA Union Station from Burbank will travel at 110mph as will the stretch between San Jose and San Francisco.

It's a shame that the LA Times and others have been so successful in muddying the public's understanding of this project.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but at this point the best opportunity to salvage this project is to contract with France, Germany, Japan or another country with the experience and expertise to construct an efficient system, on budget and on time.

I have said from before we voted on Prop 1A (?) that we should build the SF/Sac and LA/San Diego spurs before the main spine through the valley.
Those connections were smaller construction projects that could have given much needed experience to the California HSR. Now granted, I’ll concede my idea might be unconscious boosterism. But having taken the Capitol Corridor. to and from Sacramento and the Bay, I think it might have gotten more riders and non riders excited about the future of HSR (or even marginally faster)transit.

jmecklenborg Feb 20, 2021 4:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urban_encounter (Post 9196126)
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but at this point the best opportunity to salvage this project is to contract with France, Germany, Japan or another country with the experience and expertise to construct an efficient system, on budget and on time.

California is a state, not a country. By your logic, Nova Scotia should seek NASA's advice on how to start a space program.


Quote:

Originally Posted by urban_encounter (Post 9196126)
I have said from before we voted on Prop 1A (?) that we should build the SF/Sac and LA/San Diego spurs

They aren't spurs. The Sacramento line would still require the super-expensive Pacheco Pass Tunnel. LA/San Diego is the approaches to LA/San Diego for HSR to Phoenix with improved SoCal commuter/regional rail piggy-backing on the electrification and grade separations.

urban_encounter Feb 20, 2021 6:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 9196297)
California is a state, not a country.

Bingo!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 9196297)
They aren't spurs.

Tell that to the CHSR authority. The term “spur” came from the original proposal when Prop1A was rolled out to the voters.

jmecklenborg Feb 20, 2021 7:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urban_encounter (Post 9196369)
Bingo!

Yahtzee.


Quote:

Originally Posted by urban_encounter (Post 9196369)
Tell that to the CHSR authority. The term “spur” came from the original proposal when Prop1A was rolled out to the voters.


The term "corridor" is used in 50 times in AB-3034. "Spur" does not appear a single time. That took 60 seconds to search via google, copy, open google docs, paste, press command-F, and type "spur" then "corridor" to determine.


Assembly Bill No. 3034
CHAPTER 267

An act to add Sections 185033, 185035, and 185037 to the Public Utilities Code, to add Chapter 20 (commencing with Section 2704) to Division 3 of the Streets and Highways Code, and to repeal Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Chapter 697 of the Statutes of 2002, relating to financing a high-speed passenger train system by providing the funds necessary therefor through the issuance and sale of bonds of the State of California and by providing for the handling and disposition of those funds, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.

[ Approved by Governor August 26, 2008. Filed with Secretary of State August 26, 2008. ]

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 3034, Galgiani. Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century.
Existing law, Chapter 697 of the Statutes of 2002, as amended by Chapter 71 of the Statutes of 2004 and Chapter 44 of the Statutes of 2006, provides for submission of the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century to the voters for approval at the November 4, 2008, general election. Subject to voter approval, the act would provide for the issuance of $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds, $9 billion of which would be available in conjunction with any available federal funds for planning and construction of a high-speed train system pursuant to the business plan of the High-Speed Rail Authority, and $950 million of which would be available for capital projects on other passenger rail lines to provide connectivity to the high-speed train system and for capacity enhancements and safety improvements to those lines.
This bill would repeal the above-referenced provisions and enact new provisions submitting a $9.95 billion general obligation bond act to the voters for approval at the November 4, 2008, general election for the same purposes. The bill would revise and recast the previously proposed bond act. The bill would refer to construction of a high-speed train system consistent with the authority’s certified environmental impact reports of November 2005 and July 9, 2008, rather than with the final business plan of June 2000. The bill would revise the descriptions of route corridors of the proposed high-speed train system. The bill would require excess revenues from operation of the high-speed train system beyond the amount needed for operating and maintenance costs and financing obligations, as determined by the authority, to be used for construction, expansion, improvement, replacement, and rehabilitation of the high-speed train system. The bill would require that not more than 10% of high-speed rail bond proceeds be used for environmental studies, planning, and preliminary engineering activities and that not more than 2.5% of high-speed rail bond proceeds be used for administrative expenses, except as specified. The bill would generally require the authority to complete various funding plans and financial analyses, as specified, prior to submitting a request for appropriation of bond funds for eligible capital costs and prior to committing bond proceeds for expenditure for construction and real property and equipment acquisition, but would also provide that up to 7.5% of high-speed rail bond proceeds may be used for specified expenditures outside of those requirements. The bill would require the authority to give priority in selecting corridors for construction to those corridors that are expected to require the least amount of bond funds as a percentage of total cost of construction, among other considerations. The bill would provide for the bonds to have a final maturity of not more than 40 years.
This bill would require the bond measure to appear first on the November 4, 2008, general election ballot and to be designated as Proposition 1A. The bill would specify the ballot label and title and summary to be used for the measure.
Existing law creates the High-Speed Rail Authority with specified powers and duties relative to the development and implementation of a high-speed train system. Existing law makes the Department of Transportation responsible for improving and maintaining the state highway system.
This bill would require the authority to revise its business plan by September 1, 2008, as specified, and to submit the revised plan to the Legislature. The bill would also require the authority to establish an independent peer review group for the purpose of reviewing the planning, engineering, financing, and other elements of the authority’s plans and issuing an analysis of appropriateness and accuracy of the authority’s assumptions and an analysis of the viability of the authority’s funding plan for each corridor. This bill would, for any project along the high-speed rail network, authorize the authority to contract with the department to perform project design and engineering services, including construction inspection services, as defined.
Existing law authorizes the authority to, among other things, enter into contracts for the design, construction, and operation of high-speed trains upon approval by the voters of a specified financial plan.
This bill would provide that approval by the voters of the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act constitutes approval of a financial plan for purposes of that provision.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Digest Key
Vote: 2/3 Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: NO
Bill Text
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 185033 is added to the Public Utilities Code, to read:

185033. The authority shall prepare, publish, and submit to the Legislature, not later than September 1, 2008, a revised business plan that identifies all of the following: the type of service it anticipates it will develop, such as local, express, commuter, regional, or interregional; a description of the primary benefits the system will provide; a forecast of the anticipated patronage, operating costs, and capital costs for the system; an estimate and description of the total anticipated federal, state, local, and other funds the authority intends to access to fund the construction and operation of the system; and the proposed chronology for the construction of the eligible corridors of the statewide high-speed train system. The revised business plan shall also include a discussion of all reasonably foreseeable risks the project may encounter, including, but not limited to, risks associated with the project’s finances, patronage, construction, equipment, and technology, and other risks associated with the project’s development. The plan shall describe the authority’s strategies, processes, or other actions it intends to utilize to manage those risks.

SEC. 2. Section 185035 is added to the Public Utilities Code, to read:

185035. (a) The authority shall establish an independent peer review group for the purpose of reviewing the planning, engineering, financing, and other elements of the authority’s plans and issuing an analysis of appropriateness and accuracy of the authority’s assumptions and an analysis of the viability of the authority’s financing plan, including the funding plan for each corridor required pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 2704.08 of the Streets and Highways Code.
(b) The peer review group shall include all of the following:
(1) Two individuals with experience in the construction or operation of high-speed trains in Europe, Asia, or both, designated by the Treasurer.
(2) Two individuals, one with experience in engineering and construction of high-speed trains and one with experience in project finance, designated by the Controller.
(3) One representative from a financial services or financial consulting firm who shall not have been a contractor or subcontractor of the authority for the previous three years, designated by the Director of Finance.
(4) One representative with experience in environmental planning, designated by the Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing.
(5) Two expert representatives from agencies providing intercity or commuter passenger train services in California, designated by the Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing.
(c) The peer review group shall evaluate the authority’s funding plans and prepare its independent judgment as to the feasibility and reasonableness of the plans, appropriateness of assumptions, analyses, and estimates, and any other observations or evaluations it deems necessary.
(d) The authority shall provide the peer review group any and all information that the peer review group may request to carry out its responsibilities.
(e) The peer review group shall report its findings and conclusions to the Legislature no later than 60 days after receiving the plans.

SEC. 3. Section 185037 is added to the Public Utilities Code, to read:

185037. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for any project along the high-speed rail network, the authority may contract with the department to perform project design and engineering services, including construction inspection services.
(b) For purposes of this section, “project design and engineering services, including construction inspection services” means preliminary engineering, planning, prebid services, right-of-way acquisition, preparation of environmental documents, preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates, construction inspection including surveying and materials testing, quality control inspection including highway and utility relocation, and grade separations.

SEC. 4. Section 1 of Chapter 697 of the Statutes of 2002, as amended by Section 1 of Chapter 71 of the Statutes of 2004, is repealed.
SEC. 5. Section 2 of Chapter 697 of the Statutes of 2002, as amended by Sections 1 and 2 of Chapter 44 of the Statutes of 2006, is repealed.
SEC. 6. Section 3 of Chapter 697 of the Statutes of 2002, as amended by Section 3 of Chapter 44 of the Statutes of 2006, is repealed.
SEC. 7. Section 4 of Chapter 697 of the Statutes of 2002, as amended by Section 4 of Chapter 44 of the Statutes of 2006, is repealed.
SEC. 8. (a) The continuing growth in California’s population and the resulting increase in traffic congestion, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and the continuation of urban sprawl make it imperative that the state proceed quickly to construct a state-of-the-art high-speed passenger train system to serve major metropolitan areas.
(b) The High-Speed Rail Authority, after extensive studies and analysis, proposes the construction of a high-speed train system that serves major population centers in the state and that links regional and local transit systems to form an integrated transportation system throughout the state. The system will link all of the state’s major population centers, including Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego.
(c) The high-speed train system proposed by the authority will cost about one-third of what it would cost to provide the same level of mobility and service with highway and airport improvements and will contribute significantly toward a reduction in air pollution and global warming.
(d) The high-speed train system, once it is completed and becomes operational, will contribute significantly toward the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants and will help reduce California’s dependence on foreign energy sources.
(e) The high-speed passenger train bond funds are intended to encourage the federal government and the private sector to make a significant contribution toward the construction of the high-speed train system.
(f) It is the intent of the Legislature that the entire high-speed train system shall be constructed as quickly as possible in order to maximize ridership and the mobility of Californians, and that it be completed no later than 2020, and that all phases shall be built in a manner that yields maximum benefit consistent with available revenues.
SEC. 9. Chapter 20 (commencing with Section 2704) is added to Division 3 of the Streets and Highways Code, to read:
CHAPTER 20. Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century
Article 1. General Provisions

2704. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century.

2704.01. As used in this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings:
(a) “Committee” means the High-Speed Passenger Train Finance Committee created pursuant to Section 2704.12.
(b) “Authority” means the High-Speed Rail Authority created pursuant to Section 185020 of the Public Utilities Code, or its successor.
(c) “Fund” means the High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Fund created pursuant to Section 2704.05.
(d) “High-speed train” means a passenger train capable of sustained revenue operating speeds of at least 200 miles per hour where conditions permit those speeds.
(e) “High-speed train system” means a system with high-speed trains and includes, but is not limited to, the following components: right-of-way, track, power system, rolling stock, stations, and associated facilities.
(f) “Corridor” means a portion of the high-speed train system as described in Section 2704.04.
(g) “Usable segment” means a portion of a corridor that includes at least two stations.

Article 2. High-Speed Passenger Train Financing Program

2704.04. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature by enacting this chapter and of the people of California by approving the bond measure pursuant to this chapter to initiate the construction of a high-speed train system that connects the San Francisco Transbay Terminal to Los Angeles Union Station and Anaheim, and links the state’s major population centers, including Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego consistent with the authority’s certified environmental impact reports of November 2005 and July 9, 2008.
(b) (1) Net proceeds received from the sale of nine billion dollars ($9,000,000,000) principal amount of bonds authorized pursuant to this chapter, upon appropriation by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act, shall be used for (A) planning and engineering for the high-speed train system and (B) capital costs, as described in subdivision (c).
(2) As adopted by the authority in May 2007, Phase 1 of the high-speed train project is the corridor of the high-speed train system between San Francisco Transbay Terminal and Los Angeles Union Station and Anaheim.
(3) Upon a finding by the authority that expenditure of bond proceeds for capital costs in corridors other than the corridor described in paragraph (2) would advance the construction of the system, would be consistent with the criteria described in subdivision (f) of Section 2704.08, and would not have an adverse impact on the construction of Phase 1 of the high-speed train project, the authority may request funding for capital costs, and the Legislature may appropriate funds described in paragraph (1) in the annual Budget Act, to be expended for any of the following high-speed train corridors:
(A) Sacramento to Stockton to Fresno.
(B) San Francisco Transbay Terminal to San Jose to Fresno.
(C) Oakland to San Jose.
(D) Fresno to Bakersfield to Palmdale to Los Angeles Union Station.
(E) Los Angeles Union Station to Riverside to San Diego.
(F) Los Angeles Union Station to Anaheim to Irvine.
(G) Merced to Stockton to Oakland and San Francisco via the Altamont Corridor.
(4) Nothing in this section shall prejudice the authority’s determination and selection of the alignment from the Central Valley to the San Francisco Bay Area and its certification of the environmental impact report.
(5) Revenues of the authority, generated by operations of the high-speed train system above and beyond operating and maintenance costs and financing obligations, including, but not limited to, support of revenue bonds, as determined by the authority, shall be used for construction, expansion, improvement, replacement, and rehabilitation of the high-speed train system.
(c) Capital costs payable or reimbursable from proceeds of bonds described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) include, with respect to the high-speed train system or any portion thereof, all activities necessary for acquisition of interests in real property and rights-of-way and improvement thereof; acquisition and construction of tracks, structures, power systems, and stations; acquisition of rolling stock and related equipment; mitigation of any direct or indirect environmental impacts of activities authorized by this chapter; relocation assistance for displaced property owners and occupants; other related capital facilities and equipment; and such other purposes related to the foregoing, for the procurement thereof, and for the financing or refinancing thereof, as may be set forth in a statute hereafter enacted. The method of acquisition of any of the foregoing may also be set forth in a statute hereafter enacted.
(d) Proceeds of bonds authorized pursuant to this chapter shall not be used for any operating or maintenance costs of trains or facilities.
(e) The State Auditor shall perform periodic audits of the authority’s use of proceeds of bonds authorized pursuant to this chapter for consistency with the requirements of this chapter.

2704.05. Subject to Section 2704.18, the proceeds of bonds issued and sold pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited in the High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Fund, which is hereby created.

2704.06. The net proceeds received from the sale of nine billion dollars ($9,000,000,000) principal amount of bonds authorized pursuant to this chapter, upon appropriation by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act, shall be available, and subject to those conditions and criteria that the Legislature may provide by statute, for (a) planning the high-speed train system and (b) capital costs set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 2704.04, consistent with the authority’s certified environmental impact reports of November 2005 and July 9, 2008, as subsequently modified pursuant to environmental studies conducted by the authority.

2704.07. The authority shall pursue and obtain other private and public funds, including, but not limited to, federal funds, funds from revenue bonds, and local funds, to augment the proceeds of this chapter.

2704.08. (a) Proceeds of bonds described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2704.04 shall not be used for more than 50 percent of the total cost of construction of each corridor or usable segment thereof of the high-speed train system, except for bond proceeds used for the purposes of subdivision (g).
(b) Not more than 10 percent of the proceeds of bonds described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2704.04 shall be used for environmental studies, planning, and preliminary engineering activities.
(c) (1) No later than 90 days prior to the submittal to the Legislature and the Governor of the initial request for appropriation of proceeds of bonds authorized by this chapter for any eligible capital costs on each corridor, or usable segment thereof, identified in subdivision (b) of Section 2704.04, other than costs described in subdivision (g), the authority shall have approved and submitted to the Director of Finance, the peer review group established pursuant to Section 185035 of the Public Utilities Code, and the policy committees with jurisdiction over transportation matters and the fiscal committees in both houses of the Legislature, a detailed funding plan for that corridor or a usable segment thereof.
(2) The plan shall include, identify, or certify to all of the following:
(A) The corridor, or usable segment thereof, in which the authority is proposing to invest bond proceeds.
(B) A description of the expected terms and conditions associated with any lease agreement or franchise agreement proposed to be entered into by the authority and any other party for the construction or operation of passenger train service along the corridor or usable segment thereof.
(C) The estimated full cost of constructing the corridor or usable segment thereof, including an estimate of cost escalation during construction and appropriate reserves for contingencies.
(D) The sources of all funds to be invested in the corridor, or usable segment thereof, and the anticipated time of receipt of those funds based on expected commitments, authorizations, agreements, allocations, or other means.
(E) The projected ridership and operating revenue estimate based on projected high-speed passenger train operations on the corridor or usable segment.
(F) All known or foreseeable risks associated with the construction and operation of high-speed passenger train service along the corridor or usable segment thereof and the process and actions the authority will undertake to manage those risks.
(G) Construction of the corridor or usable segment thereof can be completed as proposed in the plan.
(H) The corridor or usable segment thereof would be suitable and ready for high-speed train operation.
(I) One or more passenger service providers can begin using the tracks or stations for passenger train service.
(J) The planned passenger service by the authority in the corridor or usable segment thereof will not require a local, state, or federal operating subsidy.
(K) The authority has completed all necessary project level environmental clearances necessary to proceed to construction.
(d) Prior to committing any proceeds of bonds described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2704.04 for expenditure for construction and real property and equipment acquisition on each corridor, or usable segment thereof, other than for costs described in subdivision (g), the authority shall have approved and concurrently submitted to the Director of Finance and the Chairperson of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee the following: (1) a detailed funding plan for that corridor or usable segment thereof that (A) identifies the corridor or usable segment thereof, and the estimated full cost of constructing the corridor or usable segment thereof, (B) identifies the sources of all funds to be used and anticipates time of receipt thereof based on offered commitments by private parties, and authorizations, allocations, or other assurances received from governmental agencies, (C) includes a projected ridership and operating revenue report, (D) includes a construction cost projection including estimates of cost escalation during construction and appropriate reserves for contingencies, (E) includes a report describing any material changes from the plan submitted pursuant to subdivision (c) for this corridor or usable segment thereof, and (F) describes the terms and conditions associated with any agreement proposed to be entered into by the authority and any other party for the construction or operation of passenger train service along the corridor or usable segment thereof; and (2) a report or reports, prepared by one or more financial services firms, financial consulting firms, or other consultants, independent of any parties, other than the authority, involved in funding or constructing the high-speed train system, indicating that (A) construction of the corridor or usable segment thereof can be completed as proposed in the plan submitted pursuant to paragraph (1), (B) if so completed, the corridor or usable segment thereof would be suitable and ready for high-speed train operation, (C) upon completion, one or more passenger service providers can begin using the tracks or stations for passenger train service, (D) the planned passenger train service to be provided by the authority, or pursuant to its authority, will not require operating subsidy, and (E) an assessment of risk and the risk mitigation strategies proposed to be employed. The Director of Finance shall review the plan within 60 days of its submission by the authority and, after receiving any communication from the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, if the director finds that the plan is likely to be successfully implemented as proposed, the authority may enter into commitments to expend bond funds that are subject to this subdivision and accept offered commitments from private parties.
(e) Subsequent to approval of the detailed funding plan required under subdivision (d), the authority shall promptly inform the Governor and the Legislature of any material changes in plans or project conditions that would jeopardize completion of the corridor as previously planned and shall identify means of remedying the conditions to allow completion and operation of the corridor.
(f) In selecting corridors or usable segments thereof for construction, the authority shall give priority to those corridors or usable segments thereof that are expected to require the least amount of bond funds as a percentage of total cost of construction. Among other criteria it may use for establishing priorities for initiating construction on corridors or usable segments thereof, the authority shall include the following: (1) projected ridership and revenue, (2) the need to test and certify trains operating at speeds of 220 miles per hour, (3) the utility of those corridors or usable segments thereof for passenger train services other than the high-speed train service that will not result in any unreimbursed operating or maintenance cost to the authority, and (4) the extent to which the corridors include facilities contained therein to enhance the connectivity of the high-speed train network to other modes of transit, including, but not limited to, conventional rail (intercity rail, commuter rail, light rail, or other rail transit), bus, or air transit.
(g) Nothing in this section shall limit use or expenditure of proceeds of bonds described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2704.04 up to an amount equal to 7.5 percent of the aggregate principal amount of bonds described in that paragraph for environmental studies, planning, and preliminary engineering activities, and for (1) acquisition of interests in real property and right-of-way and improvement thereof (A) for preservation for high-speed rail uses, (B) to add to third-party improvements to make them compatible with high-speed rail uses, or (C) to avoid or to mitigate incompatible improvements or uses; (2) mitigation of any direct or indirect environmental impacts resulting from the foregoing; and (3) relocation assistance for property owners and occupants who are displaced as a result of the foregoing.
(h) Not more than 2.5 percent of the proceeds of bonds described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2704.04 shall be used for administrative purposes. The amount of bond proceeds available for administrative purposes shall be appropriated in the annual Budget Act. The Legislature may, by statute, adjust the percentage set forth in this subdivision, except that the Legislature shall not increase that percentage to more than 5 percent.
(i) No failure to comply with this section shall affect the validity of the bonds issued under this chapter.

2704.09. The high-speed train system to be constructed pursuant to this chapter shall be designed to achieve the following characteristics:
(a) Electric trains that are capable of sustained maximum revenue operating speeds of no less than 200 miles per hour.
(b) Maximum nonstop service travel times for each corridor that shall not exceed the following:
(1) San Francisco-Los Angeles Union Station: two hours, 40 minutes.
(2) Oakland-Los Angeles Union Station: two hours, 40 minutes.
(3) San Francisco-San Jose: 30 minutes.
(4) San Jose-Los Angeles: two hours, 10 minutes.
(5) San Diego-Los Angeles: one hour, 20 minutes.
(6) Inland Empire-Los Angeles: 30 minutes.
(7) Sacramento-Los Angeles: two hours, 20 minutes.
(c) Achievable operating headway (time between successive trains) shall be five minutes or less.
(d) The total number of stations to be served by high-speed trains for all of the corridors described in subdivision (b) of Section 2704.04 shall not exceed 24. There shall be no station between the Gilroy station and the Merced station.
(e) Trains shall have the capability to transition intermediate stations, or to bypass those stations, at mainline operating speed.
(f) For each corridor described in subdivision (b), passengers shall have the capability of traveling from any station on that corridor to any other station on that corridor without being required to change trains.
(g) In order to reduce impacts on communities and the environment, the alignment for the high-speed train system shall follow existing transportation or utility corridors to the extent feasible and shall be financially viable, as determined by the authority.
(h) Stations shall be located in areas with good access to local mass transit or other modes of transportation.
(i) The high-speed train system shall be planned and constructed in a manner that minimizes urban sprawl and impacts on the natural environment.
(j) Preserving wildlife corridors and mitigating impacts to wildlife movement, where feasible as determined by the authority, in order to limit the extent to which the system may present an additional barrier to wildlife’s natural movement.

2704.095. (a) (1) Net proceeds received from the sale of nine hundred fifty million dollars ($950,000,000) principal amount of bonds authorized by this chapter shall be allocated to eligible recipients for capital improvements to intercity and commuter rail lines and urban rail systems that provide direct connectivity to the high-speed train system and its facilities, or that are part of the construction of the high-speed train system as that system is described in subdivision (b) of Section 2704.04, or that provide capacity enhancements and safety improvements. Funds under this section shall be available upon appropriation by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act for the eligible purposes described in subdivision (d).
(2) Twenty percent (one hundred ninety million dollars ($190,000,000)) of the amount authorized by this section shall be allocated for intercity rail to the Department of Transportation, for state-supported intercity rail lines that provide regularly scheduled service and use public funds to operate and maintain rail facilities, rights-of-way, and equipment. A minimum of 25 percent of the amount available under this paragraph (forty-seven million five hundred thousand dollars ($47,500,000)) shall be allocated to each of the state’s three intercity rail corridors.
The California Transportation Commission shall allocate the available funds to eligible recipients consistent with this section and shall develop guidelines, in consultation with the authority, to implement the requirements of this section. The guidelines shall include provisions for the administration of funds, including, but not limited to, the authority of the intercity corridor operators to loan these funds by mutual agreement between intercity rail corridors.
(3) Eighty percent (seven hundred sixty million dollars ($760,000,000)) of the amount authorized by this section shall be allocated upon appropriation as set forth in this section to eligible recipients, except intercity rail, as described in subdivision (c) based upon a percentage amount calculated to incorporate all of the following:
(A) One-third of the eligible recipient’s percentage share of statewide track miles.
(B) One-third of the eligible recipient’s percentage share of statewide annual vehicle miles.
(C) One-third of the eligible recipient’s percentage share of statewide annual passenger trips.
The California Transportation Commission shall allocate the available funds to eligible recipients consistent with this section and shall develop guidelines to implement the requirements of this section.
(b) For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1) “Track miles” means the miles of track used by a public agency or joint powers authority for regular passenger rail service.
(2) “Vehicle miles” means the total miles traveled, commencing with pullout from the maintenance depot, by all locomotives and cars operated in a train consist for passenger rail service by a public agency or joint powers authority.
(3) “Passenger trips” means the annual unlinked passenger boardings reported by a public agency or joint powers authority for regular passenger rail service.
(4) “Statewide” when used to modify the terms in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) means the combined total in the state of those amounts for all eligible recipients.
(c) Eligible recipients for funding under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) shall be public agencies and joint powers authorities that operate regularly scheduled passenger rail service in the following categories:
(1) Commuter rail.
(2) Light rail.
(3) Heavy rail.
(4) Cable car.
(d) Funds allocated pursuant to this section shall be used to pay or reimburse the costs of projects to provide or improve connectivity with the high-speed train system or for the rehabilitation or modernization of, or safety improvements to, tracks utilized for public passenger rail service, signals, structures, facilities, and rolling stock.
(e) Eligible recipients may use the funds for any eligible rail element set forth in subdivision (d).
(f) In order to be eligible for funding under this section, an eligible recipient under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) shall provide matching funds in an amount not less than the total amount allocated to the recipient under this section.
(g) An eligible recipient of funding under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) shall certify that it has met its matching funds requirement, and all other requirements of this section, by resolution of its governing board, subject to verification by the California Transportation Commission.
(h) Funds made available to an eligible recipient under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) shall supplement existing local, state, or federal revenues being used for maintenance or rehabilitation of the passenger rail system. Eligible recipients of funding under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) shall maintain their existing commitment of local, state, or federal funds for these purposes in order to remain eligible for allocation and expenditure of the additional funding made available by this section.
(i) In order to receive any allocation under this section, an eligible recipient under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) shall annually expend from existing local, state, or federal revenues being used for the maintenance or rehabilitation of the passenger rail system in an amount not less than the annual average of its expenditures from local revenues for those purposes during the 1998–99, 1999–2000, and 2000–01 fiscal years.
(j) Funds allocated pursuant to this section to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority for eligible projects within its service area shall be apportioned each fiscal year in accordance with memorandums of understanding to be executed between the Southern California Regional Rail Authority and its member agencies. The memorandum or memorandums of understanding shall take into account the passenger service needs of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority and of the member agencies, revenue attributable to member agencies, and separate contributions to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority from the member agencies.

Article 3. Fiscal Provisions

2704.10. (a) Bonds in the total amount of nine billion nine hundred fifty million dollars ($9,950,000,000), exclusive of refunding bonds issued in accordance with Section 2704.19, or so much thereof as is necessary, may be issued and sold to provide a fund to be used for carrying out the purposes expressed in this chapter and to be used to reimburse the General Obligation Bond Expense Revolving Fund pursuant to Section 16724.5 of the Government Code. The bonds, when sold, shall be and constitute a valid and binding obligation of the State of California, and the full faith and credit of the State of California is hereby pledged for the punctual payment of both principal of, and interest on, the bonds as the principal and interest become due and payable.
(b) The Treasurer shall sell the bonds authorized by the committee pursuant to this section. The bonds shall be sold upon the terms and conditions specified in a resolution to be adopted by the committee pursuant to Section 16731 of the Government Code.

2704.11. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the bonds authorized by this chapter shall be prepared, executed, issued, sold, paid, and redeemed as provided in the State General Obligation Bond Law, Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 16720) of Part 3 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code, and all of the provisions of that law apply to the bonds and to this chapter and are hereby incorporated in this chapter as though set forth in full in this chapter.
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of the State General Obligation Bond Law, each issue of bonds authorized by the committee shall have a final maturity of not more than 40 years from the date of original issuance thereof.

2704.12. (a) Solely for the purpose of authorizing the issuance and sale of the bonds authorized by this chapter and the making of those determinations and the taking of other actions as are authorized by this chapter, pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law, the High-Speed Passenger Train Finance Committee is hereby created. For purposes of this chapter, the High-Speed Passenger Train Finance Committee is “the committee” as that term is used in the State General Obligation Bond Law. The committee consists of the Treasurer, the Director of Finance, the Controller, the Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing, and the chairperson of the authority. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any member of the committee may designate a representative to act as that member in his or her place and stead for all purposes, as though the member were personally present. The Treasurer shall serve as chairperson of the committee. A majority of the committee shall constitute a quorum of the committee, and may act for the committee.
(b) For purposes of the State General Obligation Bond Law, the authority is designated the “board.”

2704.13. The committee shall determine whether or not it is necessary or desirable to issue bonds authorized pursuant to this chapter in order to carry out the actions specified in Sections 2704.06 and 2704.095 and, if so, the amount of bonds to be issued and sold. Successive issues of bonds may be issued and sold to carry out those actions progressively, and it is not necessary that all of the bonds authorized be issued and sold at any one time. The committee shall consider program funding needs, revenue projections, financial market conditions, and other necessary factors in determining the term for the bonds to be issued. In addition to all other powers specifically granted in this chapter and the State General Obligation Bond Law, the committee may do all things necessary or convenient to carry out the powers and purposes of this article, including the approval of any indenture relating to the bonds, and the delegation of necessary duties to the chairperson and to the Treasurer as agent for the sale of the bonds. Any terms of any bonds issued under this chapter may be provided under an indenture instead of under a resolution, as determined by the committee.

2704.14. There shall be collected each year and in the same manner and at the same time as other state revenue is collected, in addition to the ordinary revenues of the state, a sum in an amount required to pay the principal of, and interest on, the bonds each year. It is the duty of all officers charged by law with any duty in regard to the collection of the revenue to do and perform each and every act which is necessary to collect that additional sum.

2704.15. Notwithstanding Section 13340 of the Government Code, there is hereby appropriated from the General Fund in the State Treasury, for the purposes of this chapter, an amount equal to the total of the following: (a) that sum annually necessary to pay the principal of, and interest on, bonds issued and sold pursuant to this chapter, as the principal and interest become due and payable, and (b) the sum necessary to carry out Section 2704.17, appropriated without regard to fiscal years.

2704.16. The board may request the Pooled Money Investment Board to make a loan from the Pooled Money Investment Account, in accordance with Section 16312 of the Government Code, for purposes of this chapter. The amount of the request shall not exceed the amount of the unsold bonds which the committee has, by resolution, authorized to be sold for the purpose of this chapter, less any amount borrowed pursuant to Section 2701.17. The board shall execute such documents as required by the Pooled Money Investment Board to obtain and repay the loan. Any amount loaned shall be deposited in the fund to be allocated by the board in accordance with this chapter.

2704.17. For the purpose of carrying out this chapter, the Director of Finance may authorize the withdrawal from the General Fund of an amount or amounts not to exceed the amount of unsold bonds which have been authorized by the committee to be sold for the purpose of carrying out this chapter, less any amount borrowed pursuant to Section 2704.16. Any amount withdrawn shall be deposited in the fund. Any money made available under this section shall be returned to the General Fund, plus the interest that the amounts would have earned in the Pooled Money Investment Account, from the sale of bonds for the purpose of carrying out this chapter.

2704.18. All money deposited in the fund which is derived from premium on bonds sold shall be available to pay costs of issuing the bonds, and to the extent not so needed, together with accrued interest derived from sale of the bonds, shall be available for transfer to the General Fund as a credit to expenditures for bond interest.

2704.19. The bonds may be refunded in accordance with Article 6 (commencing with Section 16780) of the State General Obligation Bond Law. Approval by the electors of the state for the issuance of bonds shall include approval of the issuance of any bonds issued to refund any bonds originally issued or any previously issued refunding bonds.

2704.20. The Legislature hereby finds and declares that, inasmuch as the proceeds from the sale of bonds authorized by this chapter are not “proceeds of taxes” as that term is used in Article XIII B of the California Constitution, the disbursement of these proceeds is not subject to the limitations imposed by that article.

2704.21. Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter or the State General Obligation Bond Law, if the Treasurer sells bonds pursuant to this chapter that include a bond counsel opinion to the effect that the interest on the bonds is excluded from gross income for federal tax purposes under designated conditions, the Treasurer may maintain separate accounts for the bond proceeds invested and the investment earnings on those proceeds, and may use or direct the use of those proceeds or earnings to pay any rebate, penalty, or other payment required under federal law, or take any other action with respect to the investment and use of those bond proceeds, as may be required or desirable under federal law in order to maintain the tax-exempt status of those bonds and to obtain any other advantage under federal law on behalf of the funds of this state.

SEC. 10. Section 9 of this act shall take effect upon the adoption by the voters of the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century, as set forth in Section 9 of this act.
SEC. 11. (a) Section 9 of this act shall be submitted by the Secretary of State to the voters at the November 4, 2008, general election, notwithstanding the requirements of Sections 9040, 9043, 9044, and 9061 of the Elections Code or any other provision of law.
(b) Notwithstanding Sections 13115 and 13117 of the Elections Code, the bond measure described in subdivision (a) shall be placed as the first ballot measure on the November 4, 2008, general election ballot and shall be designated as Proposition 1A.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all ballots of the November 4, 2008, general election shall have printed thereon as the ballot label for Proposition 1A the following:
“SAFE, RELIABLE HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN BOND ACT. To provide Californians a safe, convenient, affordable, and reliable alternative to driving and high gas prices; to provide good-paying jobs and improve California’s economy while reducing air pollution, global warming greenhouse gases, and our dependence on foreign oil, shall $9.95 billion in bonds be issued to establish a clean, efficient high-speed train service linking Southern California, the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley, and the San Francisco Bay Area, with at least 90 percent of bond funds spent for specific projects, with federal and private matching funds required, and all bond funds subject to independent audits?”
At the appropriate location on the ballot, in the manner prescribed by law, there shall be provided the opportunity for voters to indicate whether they vote for or against the measure.
(d) Notwithstanding Sections 13247 and 13281 of the Elections Code, the language in subdivision (c) shall be the only language included in the ballot label for the condensed statement of the ballot title, and the Attorney General shall not supplement, subtract from, or revise that language, except that the Attorney General shall include the financial impact summary prepared pursuant to Section 9087 of the Elections Code and Section 88003 of the Government Code. The ballot label is the condensed statement of the ballot title and summary and the financial impact summary.
(e) Where the voting in the election is done by means of voting machines used pursuant to law in the manner that carries out the intent of this section, the use of the voting machines and the expression of the voters’ choice by means thereof are in compliance with this section.
(f) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of State shall use the following as the ballot title and summary for Proposition 1A:
“SAFE, RELIABLE HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN BOND ACT.
Provides long-distance commuters with a safe, convenient, affordable, and reliable alternative to driving and high gas prices.
Reduces traffic congestion on the state’s highways and at the state’s airports.
Reduces California’s dependence on foreign oil.
Reduces air pollution and global warming greenhouse gases.
Establishes a clean, efficient 220 MPH transportation system.
Improves existing passenger rail lines serving the state’s major population centers.
Provides for California’s growing population.
Provides for a bond issue of $9.95 billion to establish high-speed train service linking Southern California counties, the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley, and the San Francisco Bay Area.
Provides that at least 90% of these bond funds shall be spent for specific construction projects, with federal and private sector matching funds required.
Requires that use of all bond funds is subject to independent audits.
Appropriates money from the General Fund to pay bond principal and interest.”
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the language in paragraph (1) shall be the only language included in the ballot title and summary, and the Attorney General shall not supplement, subtract from, or otherwise revise that language, except that the Attorney General shall include the financial impact summary prepared pursuant to Section 9087 of the Elections Code and Section 88003 of the Government Code.
(g) The Secretary of State shall include, in the ballot pamphlets mailed pursuant to Section 9094 of the Elections Code, the information specified in Section 9084 of the Elections Code regarding the bond act described in subdivision (a). If that inclusion is not possible, the Secretary of State shall publish a supplemental ballot pamphlet regarding the bond act described in subdivision (a), to be mailed with the ballot pamphlet. If the supplemental ballot pamphlet cannot be mailed with the ballot pamphlet, the supplemental ballot pamphlet shall be mailed separately.
(h) Notwithstanding Section 9054 of the Elections Code or any other provision of law, the translations of the ballot title and the condensed statement of the ballot title required pursuant to Section 9054 may be made available for public examination at a later date than the start of the public examination period for the ballot pamphlet, provided that the translations of the ballot title and the condensed statement of the ballot title must remain available for public examination for eight days.
(i) Notwithstanding Section 13282 of the Elections Code or any other provision of law, the public shall be permitted to examine the condensed statement of the ballot title for not more than eight days. Any voter may seek a writ of mandate for the purpose of requiring any statement of the ballot title, or portion thereof, to be amended or deleted only within that eight-day period.
SEC. 12. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the bond act proposed by Section 2 of Chapter 697 of the Statutes of 2002, as amended by Sections 2 and 3 of Chapter 71 of the Statutes of 2004 and Sections 1 and 2 of Chapter 44 of the Statutes of 2006, shall not be placed by the Secretary of State on the November 4, 2008, general election ballot, or, if already on the ballot, shall be removed therefrom.
SEC. 13. Approval by the voters of the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act shall constitute approval of a financial plan for purposes of Section 185036 of the Public Utilities Code.
SEC. 14. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to replace the provisions of a general obligation bond measure on the November 4, 2008, general election ballot that would authorize the issuance and sale of bonds for the financing of a high-speed passenger train system and for other related purposes with a new measure for similar purposes, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.

Pedestrian Mar 9, 2021 6:27 PM

Quote:

Despite . . . setbacks, there are 119 miles of track under construction, thousands of people working on the project in the Central Valley (where unemployment is highest in the state), and over 50 structures built with new oversight mechanisms and hard-won knowledge of how to complete the project.
State Sen. Scott Wiener @ https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/...d-16007496.php

I think this short summary of what's happening emphasizes the project is moving forward, however slowly. Hopefully, any infrastructure spending passed under the current Administration in Washington will be supportive and perhaps speed things up. Critical is to get moving with the connections over 2 sets of mountains out of the Central Valley to San Jose and to the LA Basin.

TWAK Mar 9, 2021 7:13 PM

They are working on over 100 continuous miles of the project, which is substantial and many said that it would never start (construction). Now that it has people shifted to the next phase which is where it's being constructed :haha: and this part costs $12.4 billion. That's literally 12 miles of BART, and the original bond was for 9 billion which is obviously too low for 2020 construction costs.

Pedestrian Mar 9, 2021 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TWAK (Post 9212140)
They are working on over 100 continuous miles of the project, which is substantial and many said that it would never start (construction). Now that it has people shifted to the next phase which is where it's being constructed :haha: and this part costs $12.4 billion. That's literally 12 miles of BART, and the original bond was for 9 billion which is obviously too low for 2020 construction costs.

The bond issue was never meant to be more than seed money. What was hoped for was a private partner (the Chinese were cultivated). When there didn't seem much interest in that, HSR got funding from California's "Cap and Trade" scheme for greenhouse gasses. But that's not worked out so well either:

Quote:

Funding California Rail With Cap-and-Trade Revenue Hits a Snag
By Angie Schmitt
May 27, 2016

California’s cap-and-trade program is one of the boldest state-level climate change policies in the U.S. By capping statewide carbon pollution and then auctioning off emissions allowances, the state hopes to both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and generate about $10.6 billion for projects to improve energy efficiency. Among other things, that money would support various rail and transit projects, including the state’s high-speed rail line.

The state plans to borrow against future cap-and-trade revenues to provide a local match for $3.5 billion in federal funds for high-speed rail, according to the LA Times. But Adina Levin at Green Caltrain reports that there’s been a hitch:

Results of the most recent Cap and Trade auction announced yesterday, where only 2% of carbon credits were sold, pose risks to Caltrain electrification funding, the High Speed Rail project, and other state transportation and housing goals. The auction brought in $10 million, compared to $150 million that the state was expecting.

The LA Times reports that the reason for the low auction reports is unclear…

Caltrain is seeking $225 million from state Cap and Trade funds this summer to be able to move ahead with the electrification project, and High Speed Rail’s budget depends on a 25% earmark of Cap and Trade funds. The budget has a $500 million reserve in case of auction shortfalls, but cuts are expected to spending for programs that had been depending on the funds.

Auction revenue may have fallen short because reducing emissions has been easier than expected, or due to uncertainty about the program created by a pending legal challenge, or greater-than-expected trading on the secondary market.

Does this mean the cap-and-trade program is broken? In terms of meeting the state’s emissions-reduction targets, probably not, says the Environmental Defense Fund. But as a revenue source for rail and transit projects, there are now some big question marks.
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/05/...e-hits-a-snag/

So now we are reduced to hoping for some federal funding to keep things moving forward.

jmecklenborg Mar 10, 2021 1:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9212400)
So now we are reduced to hoping for some federal funding to keep things moving forward.

The state has posted gigantic $20~ billion surpluses for several years and announced a $15 billion surplus back in January thanks to the collection of windfall capital gains from pandemic stock market speculation.

The recent surpluses have been used to shore up the state pension funds and establish a very large rainy day fund. Unfortunately, critics have succeeded in turning HSR into a political hot potato and Newsom, etc., are afraid to pull the trigger on selling bonds during the lowest interest rates in history.

For example, selling $100 billion 30-year bonds - let's go big here and build out Phase 1 and Phase 2 in one swoop - would cost about $4 billion/year. That's a drop in the bucket for California's gigantic budget. With federal funding imminent, the annual cost will be much lower if California's share turns out to be less than $50 billion.

numble Mar 10, 2021 3:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9212400)
The bond issue was never meant to be more than seed money. What was hoped for was a private partner (the Chinese were cultivated). When there didn't seem much interest in that, HSR got funding from California's "Cap and Trade" scheme for greenhouse gasses. But that's not worked out so well either:


https://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/05/...e-hits-a-snag/

So now we are reduced to hoping for some federal funding to keep things moving forward.

A 2016 article isn't really that representative of how the Cap and Trade funds have worked out.

There was a big dip in 2016, but it has been steady since then, with another dip for the pandemic:
https://lao.ca.gov/Blog/Media/Image/1025

https://lao.ca.gov/Blog/Media/Image/1837

SpongeG Mar 11, 2021 8:45 AM

an update from a few months ago

Video Link

plutonicpanda Mar 14, 2021 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kodak black (Post 9195145)

Will the train actually look like that before 2050? I mean it seems with every passing 2-3 months we get a construction update with a "BTW the price tag has gone up by a couple billion and the speeds are reduce, project scope reduced, and timeline drawn out longer."

Why are no lawmakers looking at potential cost reduction measures like removing the mountain of red tape and union laws that are no doubt causing this thing to soar in costs?

Busy Bee Mar 14, 2021 12:37 AM

What "mountain of red tape"? This is a common plebeian refrain, so please be specific. Would you have them bypass required federal environmental studies and start building without a permit? Also, you don't seriously think "union work rules" are a significant contributing factor do you? That's a favorite right wing red herring. Would you prefer lower standards for workers so they have to spend billions years later fixing structures?

jbermingham123 Mar 14, 2021 6:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 9217122)
Would you have them bypass required federal environmental studies and start building without a permit?

Fuck environmental studies. Fuck. Environmental. Studies.

Busy Bee Mar 14, 2021 7:22 PM

Well you convinced me.

mousquet Mar 14, 2021 8:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbermingham123 (Post 9217574)
Fuck environmental studies. Fuck. Environmental. Studies.

Um, that's a bit of a too radical speech, though. I'm not exactly aware of or familiar with what you guys are discussing here, but I had to read some studies and articles about the environment over here.

Some worthless, pathetic extremists would just oppose any kind of development out of rage and for their dogma, and I don't really know why. I guess they just want to impoverish society as a whole by blocking development, so they can take over more easily.
Those people are selfish and very uninteresting.

But some other environmentalists are more benevolent and make serious points. Their work and studies are actually credible, backed by a scientific, unbiased work, and they only aim at teaching us how to not mess up the Earth out of greed.
I find it to be the most respectable and generous thing in the world.

In any case, rail development working on nuclear power is the most environmentally-friendly stuff we've had here so far. We've been asking to extreme environmentalists - what better solution would you guys suggest? They show up with their wind turbines, and we're laughing, because their solution is only partial and can't fulfill all our needs.
Besides, wind turbines as they are designed and built today are ugly in landscapes and kill a lot of birds.
They definitely can do better in that matter of energy provided by wind.

kurt angle Mar 14, 2021 8:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbermingham123 (Post 9217574)
Fuck environmental studies. Fuck. Environmental. Studies.

I'm sure all the people with your mindset voted to fund the project back in 2008. :haha:

plutonicpanda Mar 15, 2021 8:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 9217122)
What "mountain of red tape"? This is a common plebeian refrain, so please be specific. Would you have them bypass required federal environmental studies and start building without a permit? Also, you don't seriously think "union work rules" are a significant contributing factor do you? That's a favorite right wing red herring. Would you prefer lower standards for workers so they have to spend billions years later fixing structures?

Yes, they should bypass environmental studies. Red tape is a slang term used to define the many roadblocks put in the way by the government. I don't know what you want me to be specific about. It's all in the EIS that add years to the project. There is a reason our infrastructure cost so much more than what other countries can build it for.

plutonicpanda Mar 15, 2021 8:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kurt angle (Post 9217643)
I'm sure all the people with your mindset voted to fund the project back in 2008. :haha:

I'm sure all the people didn't think the train was going to cost 100 billion, be scaled back to the Valley, single tracked, non-electrified, and pushed back to the late 2030s which will surely be delayed again unless things turn around.

Pedestrian Mar 15, 2021 9:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda (Post 9218691)
I'm sure all the people didn't think the train was going to cost 100 billion, be scaled back to the Valley, single tracked, non-electrified, and pushed back to the late 2030s which will surely be delayed again unless things turn around.

It's not going to be all those things. It's going to be electrified. And it's not going to be single tracked. On the SF Peninsula, it's going to be double tracked (with extensive sidings allowing local CalTrains to be passed) rather than 4-tracked. Elsewhere, where it doesn't share tracks with slower trains, double tracked.

If it isn't built beyond the Central Valley, it won't cost $100 billion--that, of course, is for the full system, San Francisco and Sacramento to LA.

The schedule of when it might be completed depends entirely on funding, of course. If someday soon we wake up to the value of HSR and/or a beneficent Administration in DC decides to provide some serious money, maybe along with money for a new Hudson River tunnel on the East Coast, the schedule could be rapidly advanced.

You never know what the future may bring.

jmecklenborg Mar 16, 2021 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9218760)

The schedule of when it might be completed depends entirely on funding, of course.


As I mentioned upthread, California's existing budget has the capacity to comfortably repay a $100 billion bond sale. Debt is the cheapest it's ever been, in all of history, right now. The only reason why California's bonds (or any other state's) aren't a great investment is because of the low return, not because the state faces any sort of revenue crisis.

Come getcha some:
https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual.../profile/VCAIX

plutonicpanda Mar 17, 2021 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9218760)
It's not going to be all those things. It's going to be electrified. And it's not going to be single tracked. On the SF Peninsula, it's going to be double tracked (with extensive sidings allowing local CalTrains to be passed) rather than 4-tracked. Elsewhere, where it doesn't share tracks with slower trains, double tracked.

If it isn't built beyond the Central Valley, it won't cost $100 billion--that, of course, is for the full system, San Francisco and Sacramento to LA.

The schedule of when it might be completed depends entirely on funding, of course. If someday soon we wake up to the value of HSR and/or a beneficent Administration in DC decides to provide some serious money, maybe along with money for a new Hudson River tunnel on the East Coast, the schedule could be rapidly advanced.

You never know what the future may bring.

I'm just repeating what I've seen.

This is not the full system but only for the LA to SF portion:

Quote:

SACRAMENTO — The California High-Speed Rail Authority on Wednesday bumped its overall cost estimate for completing the rail line between Los Angeles and San Francisco to $80.3 billion
- https://www.latimes.com/california/s...ts-for-project

It seems like every other month the price jumps by a couple billion. I really don't see how this will cost anything less than a quarter of a trillion dollars to build out the entire proposed network. IIRC, just a small section in South OC by the Del Mar bluffs is going to cost a billion or so to bury. I fully support and HSR network but why on earth are we not looking at ways to potentially reduce costs? I just don't get why other countries can build massive infrastructure projects for pennies compared to what we build ours for.

plutonicpanda Mar 17, 2021 11:04 PM

Prop 1a

Quote:

Proposition 1A authorized the issuance of $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds, including $9.00 billion for the planning and construction of an 800-mile high-speed rail system connecting San Francisco to Los Angeles. Proposition 1A's remaining $950 million in bonds was intended for commuter rail systems that provide connections to the high-speed rail’s facilities. Proposition 1A said the high-speed train would need to move at a speed of at least 200 mph and connect San Francisco to Los Angeles in 2 ⅔ hours
https://ballotpedia.org/California_P..._Measure_(2008)

Original proposal. I haven't gone and check but IIRC earlier estimates placed a price tag around 20-25 billion for a build out between SF and LA with other parts of the system to be built at a later date.

Quote:

Proposition 1 is a $9.95 billion bond measure for an 800-mile High-Speed Train network that will relieve 70 million passenger trips a year that now clog California’s highways and airports—WITHOUT RAISING TAXES.
Let's see if that sticks with even recent legislation on SB-1 to make funds more "flexible" with car drivers yet again subsidizing transit.

I'm getting frustrated trying to find the current proposal with specific numbers rather than proposed ultimate build outs and I thought I found one on LA times but alas I was met with a paywall obviously.

https://www.railwayage.com/passenger...gh-speed-rail/

And see the 2020 business plan which says draft so I'm unsure if that was approved or not. From my understanding, initial plans are now deiseal powered trains, a single track in one area, grade crossings(which they promised we wouldn't have) in some areas, and a starting speed of 120MPH.

https://hsr.ca.gov/about/business_plans/2020/

I'll dig more into it later. Maybe with Biden the full plan will get back on track but not without a massive cost that could be lowered if we would reform infrastructure building reform. Just to remind anyone that thinks I'm against HSR, I'm not, I want HSR in California.

Pedestrian Mar 17, 2021 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda (Post 9221264)
I'm just repeating what I've seen.

This is not the full system but only for the LA to SF portion:



- https://www.latimes.com/california/s...ts-for-project

It seems like every other month the price jumps by a couple billion. I really don't see how this will cost anything less than a quarter of a trillion dollars to build out the entire proposed network. IIRC, just a small section in South OC by the Del Mar bluffs is going to cost a billion or so to bury. I fully support and HSR network but why on earth are we not looking at ways to potentially reduce costs? I just don't get why other countries can build massive infrastructure projects for pennies compared to what we build ours for.

That's true--$80 billion for LA to SF because that's the high cost part of the route since it involves the two mountain crossings on either end. I'm not sure what the spur to Sacramento would cost but another $20 billion seems reasonable since it's all flat.

I'm not counting the LA to OC and SD portion--I thought that had been put on a "wish list" for the future once the LA to SF and Sacto route was built.

plutonicpanda Mar 17, 2021 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9221319)
That's true--$80 billion for LA to SF because that's the high cost part of the route since it involves the two mountain crossings on either end. I'm not sure what the spur to Sacramento would cost but another $20 billion seems reasonable since it's all flat.

I'm not counting the LA to OC and SD portion--I thought that had been put on a "wish list" for the future once the LA to SF and Sacto route was built.

I could be wrong but I had thought environmental planning had begun for the LAUS to the ARTIC station in Anaheim.

I think there are also plans to build a tunnel in the Del Mar bluffs area as that area is rapidly eroding. You would think they would build for HSR but I am not sure what the status of that project is.

I think the Palmdale to LAUS is going to be insane, price point wise. I just hope they don't skimp on quality build like lower speeds and grade crossings.

SFBruin Mar 18, 2021 4:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9221319)
I'm not counting the LA to OC and SD portion--I thought that had been put on a "wish list" for the future

That's such a shame. The existing train from LA to OC and SD is already the most ridden Amtrak line in the US outside of the NEC. It could be as important as the line from LA to SF.

sloppy toppy Mar 18, 2021 6:00 AM

Phase 1 has always been SF-Anaheim.

canucklehead2 Mar 18, 2021 7:01 AM

I am so disheartened about how long this project has taken and how far it still has to go... Maybe the future really is P3-style turnkey construction/lease operations ala Brightline or Texas Central Railway...

Even just a slightly more realistic game-plan that cost half the price might have been a better idea (i.e. a 125 mph/200 km/h rail network) but it's split milk now isn't it?

Busy Bee Mar 18, 2021 1:53 PM

So........dream small?

canucklehead2 Mar 18, 2021 6:40 PM

More like "Don't write cheques, your ass can't cash!" or finance your projects in a way that can't be undone by your successor... I.e. what the hell's going on in California...

LAsam Mar 18, 2021 9:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by canucklehead2 (Post 9222146)
More like "Don't write cheques, your ass can't cash!" or finance your projects in a way that can't be undone by your successor... I.e. what the hell's going on in California...

We're supposedly the fifth largest economy in the world, here in California. You'd think we could pull of a large public works project like a new high speed train. It hits on so many levels... congestion reduction, increased housing flexibility, reduced pollution. All things that could make us even more successful in the future... and in a sustainable way. I think we just get so bogged down in special interest group politics which makes this harder than it necessarily needs to be.

jmecklenborg Mar 29, 2021 2:07 PM

Drum roll please...the broad details of Biden's infrastructure bill will be announced this week. Expect giant money for California's High Speed Rail system along with big money for electrified freight and passenger rail across the country. No telling what happens in Congress but the very real possibility exists that completion of CAHSR Phase 1 will be fully funded by the summer, with no way for Republicans to block its completion.

LAsam Mar 29, 2021 3:24 PM

^ Agreed. I think CA will be a huge beneficiary of the infrastructure bill. Maybe the high speed train will eventually reach outside the Central Valley!

Busy Bee Mar 29, 2021 3:41 PM

If I can make just ONE prediction:

I think we have been apprehensive in these parts about what is possible in Congress, easily for the last 10 years, but realistically for the last 40. Conservative ideology and chronic congressional dysfunction through obstruction-as-the-goal has jaded many about what we can realistically hope for anymore in this country regarding ambitious transformational infrastructure projects. I know it has to pass through a still nearly paralyzed Senate which will likely require action over the fillibuster and we shouldn't be popping the corks prematurely, but...

...I do predict when we see whats in this bill we are going to collectively shit our pants. It's going to be that good.

jmecklenborg Mar 29, 2021 4:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 9232172)
If I can make just ONE prediction:

I think we have been apprehensive in these parts about what is possible in Congress, easily for the last 10 years, but realistically for the last 40. Conservative ideology and chronic congressional dysfunction through obstruction-as-the-goal has jaded many about what we can realistically hope for anymore in this country regarding ambitious transformational infrastructure projects.[/B]

As I have shared elsewhere on this forum, I don't believe that true HSR is functionally necessary in most of the United States but there will be political pressure to build high speed lines because high speed trains attract a lot of attention.

But for most of the United States my hunch is that there is a lot more to be gained by upgrading major freight railroads to electric and double-tracking the intercity lines that are appropriate for expanded or new Amtrak services. The feds should also fund signaling upgrades so that we can get maximum capacity out of the existing lines and enable commuter rail on the expanded and electrified lines, where possible.


Relying on states to do in-state services is too inconsistent. The federal bill needs to be structured so there is a 90/10 fed/state funding split and then the federal bill needs to fund operation of passenger rail for 30 years. Otherwise we're going to see a repeat of the 2010 Tea Party stunts where several states gave away their money and Wisconsin abandoned u/c trainsets.

TWAK Mar 29, 2021 5:10 PM

There are plans for Capitol Corridor to be electrified, I'm not exactly sure how far they are in that process though. Part of that is to divert freight to old tracks out in unpopulated areas.

ssiguy Mar 29, 2021 7:09 PM

California HSR has done so much harm to HSR developments across the US.

It has given opponents fuel to add to the fire that HSR is a losing proposition and will never come in even remotely close to the budget they originally proposed and deadlines are nothing more than a moving target.

California has the gold standard of how NOT to build HSR.

k1052 Mar 29, 2021 9:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 9232070)
Drum roll please...the broad details of Biden's infrastructure bill will be announced this week. Expect giant money for California's High Speed Rail system along with big money for electrified freight and passenger rail across the country. No telling what happens in Congress but the very real possibility exists that completion of CAHSR Phase 1 will be fully funded by the summer, with no way for Republicans to block its completion.

I'm kind of hoping for major LOSSAN corridor money since it's going to be a very very long wait for HSR. Give it the Caltrain treatment and then some (big ticket items like Del Mar tunnel).

artie bucco Mar 29, 2021 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssiguy (Post 9232486)
California HSR has done so much harm to HSR developments across the US.

It has given opponents fuel to add to the fire that HSR is a losing proposition and will never come in even remotely close to the budget they originally proposed and deadlines are nothing more than a moving target.

California has the gold standard of how NOT to build HSR.

As opposed to all those other HSR projects currently under construction in the US. :haha:


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.