California High Speed Rail Thread

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Sign the petition to get CA HSR in next year's budget for a significant chunk of money: https://hsrail.salsalabs.org/cahsr-a...get/index.html

And read more about it: https://hsrail.org/blog/time-beast-m...3-ae421e0f7c9c

Meanwhile, in one last hurrah before capital gains taxes plummet, California is now claiming a $98 billion surplus:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/gavin-n...=hp_opin_pos_1

"California’s highly progressive tax system—in 2019 the top 0.5% of taxpayers paid 40% of state income tax—creates a revenue roller-coaster. Capital gains are now a larger share of personal income-tax revenue than at any point since 1999—before the bursting dot-com bubble triggered a multiyear budget crisis."

Also:

The biggest budget winner as usual is the teachers unions. Public schools will get $128 billion, a 25% increase over pre-pandemic levels, though student enrollment has shrunk by 270,000. School shutdowns and California’s woke curriculum have spurred many parents to seek alternatives.

Mr. Newsom also wants to give $400 to every registered vehicle owner, including those with electric cars. He wants to mitigate the political damage to Democrats from California’s high gas prices, which are $1.50 a gallon more than the national average. The causes are high taxes and environmental regulation. Yet Democrats don’t want to ease those because higher gas prices encourage people to buy electric cars. Better to send everyone checks.

[Busy Bee]

WSJ makes me seethe. Every word drips with inflammatory contempt.

[jmecklenborg]

^Yes, they can be counted upon to go overboard.

However, they are correct in citing a central problem with high capital gains rates - the taxing strategy invites a wild fluctuation between feast and famine.

That said, from what I have read, California has been pretty responsible with the recent surpluses, including a prudent shoring up of the state's reserves and public pension.

It also ought to be stated that a big reason why the California state pension - and indeed all public pensions nationwide - have struggled over the past 10+ years is because they are almost always required to invest heavily in bonds (stocks are usually limited to dividend-paying blue chips, so no speculative tech). The low interest rate environment has meant that the bond side of these portfolios have wildly underperformed. Interestingly, nearly all of the capital gains the state has collected over the past few years have been from tech and other speculative stock sales, meaning the pension bail-out has been funded in large part by the stock gains the pension fund itself is not allowed to invest in.

It's also absolutely ridiculous that Newsom is pushing for gasoline allowances. Not sure it's legal but I think there's a much greater argument for gas cards in the rural counties than in LA County and other areas of the state where public transportation exists.

We're seeing that gasoline costs need to go much higher ($10/gal?) before people choose to leave the car at home and take the bus or train.

[202_Cyclist]

But high-speed rail isn't getting built and there is no funding....!!!!

California High-Speed Rail Authority pursues first major award of new federal infrastructure funds

By David Lester
RT&S
May 25, 2022

"The California High-Speed Rail Authority has submitted two applications totaling nearly $1.3 billion in federal grant funding for the nation’s first high-speed rail project.

The applications are the first major push for a continued federal partnership under the newly enacted Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, signed by President Biden in November, 2021.

“With the state’s continued commitment and the Biden Administration’s leadership and support, we are confident we will deliver a project the country will be proud of,” said Governor Newsom in his support letter for the grants. “California is the home of innovation, and we are committed to advancing this very innovative project to improve our economy, advance clean mobility and expand economic opportunity for all.”

"The Authority’s two applications include funding for:

*Constructing the second track for the initial operating segment between Merced and Bakersfield, beginning with the two tracks on the first 119 miles currently being built in the Central Valley.
*Advancing design work for the extensions to Merced and Bakersfield.
*Station development in Fresno and Kings/Tulare.
*Purchasing six fully electric train sets capable of speeds in excess of 200 mph.
*Advancing the next phase of design for two segments into the Bay Area (Merced to San Jose and San Jose to San Francisco) and into Southern California (Bakersfield to Palmdale and Burbank to Los Angeles)."

https://www.rtands.com/passenger/hig...ructure-funds/

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

two applications totaling nearly $1.3 billion in federal grant funding

Unfortunately, there is no telling how much inflation will occur in the years between the submission of this application and the signing of contracts. These grants ought to be at least in part pegged to inflation so that what is budgeted for in 2022 can actually be built with the awards.

[curt-pdx]

a refreshing counterpoint:

• Video Link

[jmecklenborg]

^Also, one of the big problems with the I-5 route is that people driving from Bakersfield, Fresno, etc., who got in their car with every intention of taking the train to SF or LA might change their minds en route and just...keep driving to SF or LA.

If you've ever been an Uber Driver (I have), you know how flaky people are. They change their plans...all of the time.

I think someone who misses a train in downtown Bakersfield or downtown Fresno is a lot more likely to wait 45 minutes for the next off-peak train than someone who just drove to an I-5 station and missed their train. They think...well in 45 minutes I could be 45 minutes toward wherever I'm going.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

^Also, one of the big problems with the I-5 route is that people driving from Bakersfield, Fresno, etc., who got in their car with every intention of taking the train to SF or LA might have changed their minds en route and just...kept driving to SF or LA.

If you've ever been an Uber Driver (I have), you know how flaky people are. They change their plans...all of the time.

I think someone who misses a train in Bakersfield or Fresno is a lot more likely to wait 45 minutes for the next off-peak train than someone who just drove to an I-5 station and missed their train. They think...well in 45 minutes I could be 45 minutes toward wherever I'm going.

... and have their car when they get there. and too often its super easy to drive on a 'free' freeway and then cheap or free to park right in front of places where they want to go. ugh.

[Busy Bee]

The I-5 idea is a perfect example of something that makes sense until you think about it.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by curt-pdx

a refreshing counterpoint:

Ugh man I dislike this guy. Though this particular point can be found agreeable.

[Pedestrian]

Litigation looms over California high-speed rail, development access in Millbrae

An ongoing dispute involving a proposed 488-unit apartment project in Millbrae and the state’s high-speed rail plans took a turn last week, with the Millbrae City Council initiating proceedings to acquire a portion of land that could move the housing forward but throw a wrench in the bullet train plans.

The California high-speed rail project, envisioned as a 200-plus mph train linking San Francisco to Los Angeles, has been in the works for decades, and a stop is proposed in Millbrae to join with the city’s existing station that serves both BART and Caltrain riders.

But Millbrae officials, pointing to myriad disruptions the train could cause locally, plus other uses for the prime downtown real estate, have requested the tracks and station be built underground.

And in recent years, the sticking point has been the apartments, which would be included in a sweeping project with two 10-story and a nine-story building that would also include nearly 300,000 square feet of office space. The city approved the project in 2018, but it has not been constructed in part because the city has been unable to acquire land from Caltrain on which to build a road planned to serve the development.

“We need those 488 housing units to go forward,’’ Mayor Anne Oliva said. “That’s the crux of this whole deal.”

The City Council this week approved a resolution of necessity, the first step in eminent domain court proceedings, which could allow the city to acquire the thin strip of land in question.

The resolution states the housing development is a “more necessary public use,” than the bullet train, something the city may need to prove to take control of the parcel. It also questions if the train will ever come to fruition given a lack of funding for the Bay Area stretch.

“It’s going to be many, many decades before high-speed rail comes this way,” City Manager Tom Williams said, who pointed to the housing emergency declared by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The city’s plan is to reroute an existing portion of California Drive closer to the Caltrain tracks and extend the street further north before turning it to El Camino Real to create a four-way intersection connecting to Victoria Avenue. The city already acquired multiple other parcels needed for the task that were previously owned by BART. The Caltrain-owned parcel spans roughly three blocks, though, only a half a block section is needed for the road.

The high-speed rail project intends to use the parcel for tracks, a platform and a pole to support electric infrastructure, said Gale Conor, an attorney for Caltrain, who added the use was “clearly not compatible with a city street.”

The high-speed rail project was approved by voters in 2008 with a proposition that detailed the route and stops and at the time it was proposed the stretch through Millbrae would be built underground. But with cost estimates blowing past the original $40 billion estimate, the tracks are now planned to run above ground next to the existing Caltrain line where they can share electrification infrastructure.

Steve Silva, an attorney representing the California High-Speed Rail Authority, the governing body overseeing the bullet train project, pushed back on the city’s framing that completion was an uncertainty.

“High-speed rail isn’t a speculative use in the future, it is happening now,” he said. “Unfortunately, this particular road acquisition imperils the authority’s use of this property” . . . .

https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/...8ae377810.html

[edale]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

^Also, one of the big problems with the I-5 route is that people driving from Bakersfield, Fresno, etc., who got in their car with every intention of taking the train to SF or LA might have changed their minds en route and just...kept driving to SF or LA.

If you've ever been an Uber Driver (I have), you know how flaky people are. They change their plans...all of the time.

I think someone who misses a train in Bakersfield or Fresno is a lot more likely to wait 45 minutes for the next off-peak train than someone who just drove to an I-5 station and missed their train. They think...well in 45 minutes I could be 45 minutes toward wherever I'm going.

Hm, maybe a small number of people would do this. But Bakersfield and Fresno aren't going to be the primary users of this system. So you're talking about a small percentage of a small percentage of the total projected users. Is that worth the increased mileage between LA and SF, and inflated construction timeline and budget of the whole project? I don't think so. But we don't need to relitigate this...

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by edale

But we don't need to relitigate this...

You're right, we don't, because the central valley route that was chosen will win out every time. It's not just about speed or construction costs. No nation would build a racetrack between two major cities bypassing millions of inland population who's struggling economies are desperately needing to be stitched together and connected to the coast unless they where already served by a high speed rail system, or at least efficient and useful higher speed rail. The I-5 route would have helped achieve a technical performance objective and ignored virtually all other variables and benefits.

[MAC123]

https://hsr.ca.gov/2022/06/10/califo...san-francisco/

California High-Speed Rail Releases Final Environmental Studies to Finalize Project Alignment into San Francisco

https://youtu.be/Tt_WBGupfaA

San Jose to Merced Overview

[Busy Bee]

I'm tempted to say only in California do we have to design a custom and likely more expensive OCS just to save a few birds.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by MAC123

https://hsr.ca.gov/2022/06/10/califo...san-francisco/

California High-Speed Rail Releases Final Environmental Studies to Finalize Project Alignment into San Francisco

https://youtu.be/Tt_WBGupfaA

San Jose to Merced Overview

Great overview video.

[MAC123]

Hopefully those tracks CHSR will run on in the Bay Area will eventually be grade separated. Wasn't Caltrsin planning something like that.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by MAC123

Hopefully those tracks CHSR will run on in the Bay Area will eventually be grade separated. Wasn't Caltrsin planning something like that.

Train speeds on that section of track determines when the FRA requires grade separation at street or highway intersections or crossings. Trains can go 110 mph using signalized grade crossings. CHSR trains on Caltrain owned tracks will not be going faster than 110 mph.
Grade separation crossings can be very expensive in urban areas with tight clearances. CHSR should only pay for stuff needed to run HSR trains, not subsidizing local communities vehicles get across the tracks.

Yes, who pays for separated grade crossings usually falls upon taxpayers eventually. But it does matter which budget the public funds comes from.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by electricron

Train speeds on that section of track determines when the FRA requires grade separation at street or highway intersections or crossings. Trains can go 110 mph using signalized grade crossings. CHSR trains on Caltrain owned tracks will not be going faster than 110 mph.
Grade separation crossings can be very expensive in urban areas with tight clearances. CHSR should only pay for stuff needed to run HSR trains, not subsidizing local communities vehicles get across the tracks.

Yes, who pays for separated grade crossings usually falls upon taxpayers eventually. But it does matter which budget the public funds comes from.

I don't really care who pays for them (I assume that eventually Caltrain will grade seperate them on its own) they just need to be seperated.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by MAC123

Hopefully those tracks CHSR will run on in the Bay Area will eventually be grade separated. Wasn't Caltrain planning something like that.

The dilemma was that if CAHSR built its own tracks entirely independent of Caltrain (alternately side-by-side where space allowed or on an elevated viaduct where the corridor narrows) that Caltrain would never find the money to electrify or grade separate its own tracks.

What is being built compromises CAHSR a bit but significantly boosts the service provided by Caltrain. It will also force the hand of localities to capitulate to the costs needed to build grade separations and those projects will grade separate both services, not just HSR.