California High Speed Rail Thread

[electricron]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

And now the Japanese want to invest heavily in California's HSR.

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

[Rail>Auto]

http://www.cahsrblog.com/2011/01/%E2...united-states/

[JDRCRASH]

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

[202_Cyclist]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[DJM19]

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

[ocman]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

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

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

[DJM19]

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

[skyscraperfan23]

Originally Posted by DJM19

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

and we need to stop wasteful spending.

[DJM19]

Originally Posted by skyscraperfan23

and we need to stop wasteful spending.

What do you propose we cut?

[fflint]

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

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



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

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

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

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

[JDRCRASH]

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

[Illithid Dude]

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

[fflint]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

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

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

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

[dimondpark]

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

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

New California bullet train plan a grand finale to years-long drama
By Mike Rosenberg
mrosenberg@mercurynews.com
Posted: 04/02/2012 02:09:52 AM PDT
April 2, 2012 12:46 PM GMT Updated: 04/02/2012 05:46:30 AM PDT

When California's high-speed rail leaders on Monday unveil their fourth and final business plan on the state's controversial quest to link the Bay Area and Los Angeles by bullet train, they'll be slashing $30 billion off the price tag and speeding up the first leg of construction beyond what's been dubbed a train to nowhere in the Central Valley.

They'll also be delivering a message to Bay Area travelers looking forward to boarding a bullet train from here to Southern California: You'll just have to wait.

Under the new plan, the first trains are now pegged to zip between a 300-mile leg between Merced and the San Fernando Valley, near Los Angeles. Though it's unclear how the extra tracks will be funded, previous plans had limited the first leg to a 130-mile path between two remote Central Valley towns, with high-speed trains not running until the route extended to either San Jose or Southern California.

But the longer route and the lower price estimate, which surfaced in news reports over the weekend, are all part of a desperate effort for high-speed rail leaders to save a project that has skyrocketed in both costs -- and critics -- since voters first approved a bullet train four years ago. The most expensive public works project in California history is now tabbed at $68 billion -- still twice what voters were told when they approved the project, but less than the near $100 billion estimates in the most recent plan.

"The numbers, frankly, are challenging to follow," said state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, who has held oversight hearings on the project. He noted it's the fourth price change in recent years. "I think, frankly, that undermines public trust."

This week's crescendo in the bullet train saga is all the more dramatic when you consider the wild ride that got us here.

The original: Big idea gets its start: Led by local politicians Rod Diridon and Quentin Kopp, the California High-Speed Rail Authority proposed building a $33 billion railroad to whiz you from San Francisco to Los Angeles for $55. In 2008, voters narrowly passed a bond measure to fund one-third of the rail line, while envisioning private investors and the federal government would take care of the rest. The bountiful profits expected from 55 million annual riders would bankroll extensions to Sacramento and San Diego. Statewide, the plan was mostly ignored during an election dominated by Obama and Proposition 8.

The sequel: Rosy dreams turn realistic: That plan was then overhauled in late 2009 and 2010 as a new board chair, former Assembly Speaker Curt Pringle, and new CEO, international transit engineer Roelof van Ark, were brought in to bring the dream to fruition. Reality began to set in: The cost soared by $10 billion, ticket prices nearly doubled and expected rider counts dropped 25 percent. Funding sources dried up as local governments were tapped to contribute money and the Sacramento and San Diego extensions were essentially written off for the coming decades. Anger brewed in the Bay Area on the Peninsula, where residents feared elevated tracks bisecting their communities, and in pockets around the state, but it wasn't yet front-page news.

Part III: Fighting off the backlash: Last year, hostility bubbled across the state and country as a slew of nonpartisan critical reports slammed the project. Brown appointed Richard, a former PG&E executive, and ex-Bank of America Vice President Mike Rossi to overhaul the plan again in November. Hoping to win over critics with blunt honesty, they pushed the cost to the $99 billion-to-$117 billion range, delayed the start of full service from 2020 to 2034, lowered projected rider estimates and profits again, and conceded funding wasn't coming anytime soon. It backfired: Republicans singled out the project as a boondoggle and moved to ax it while a majority of polled voters agreed.

"We all start from the standpoint of wanting good mass transit. But the more we dug into this, we found that there's hardly a claim that's been made in all these four years that's been accurate," said Palo Alto Councilman Pat Burt, who chairs a group of concerned Peninsula cities.

The finale: Now or never: Since Richard has been through this before, some lawmakers are for the first time optimistic that bullet train leaders are responding to their concerns. In addition to the lower price tag, the federal government relaxed this fall's funding deadline for California to start laying track, and high-speed rail leaders are aggressively lobbying the state's urban communities with promises of quicker upgrades to local rail lines.

"The good news is (they) appear to be working hard to pull together a more practicable plan," Simitian said recently. "The bad news is: Time is short."

http://www.mercurynews.com/californi...d-finale-years

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

Dan Richard, the architect of the new plan, did not return calls or emails

Im not surprised.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

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

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

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Gordo

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

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

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

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

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

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

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

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

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Gordo

We're up to what, $8 billion for the full Santa Clara extension (with a lot fewer stations per mile than would be needed on the peninsula)? $40-60 billion for Millbrae to downtown SJ doesn't seem that outlandish, especially considering that peninsula towns would insist on burying BART.

I guess your right on this point.

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

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

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

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

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

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

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

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

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Gordo

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

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

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