California High Speed Rail Thread

[202_Cyclist]

And here is more:

"Congressional Republicans this week are trying to drive another spike, or two, into the heart of California’s high-speed rail program.

Daring a presidential veto, GOP lawmakers are deploying a Fiscal 2015 transportation funding bill to effectively block the federal Surface Transportation Board from issuing new permits for the California project.

Hammering home the point, House Republicans on Tuesday approved an amendment by Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., that blocks any money from the $52 billion bill from going to California high-speed rail."

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/pol...e24768775.html

[electricron]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

electricron:


Jajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajaja! Surely you are joking. The Trump mafia regime pulled nearly $1B of funding for high-speed rail from California.

Trump and Republicans in Congress also tried to cut funding for Amtrak.

"The proposal would cut Amtrak funds in fiscal 2021 by more than 50% over 2020 levels. It could cut funds to the congested northeast corridor from $700 million to $325 million and cut long-distance train funds from $1.3 billion to $611 million, then phase out support for Amtrak’s long-distance trains."

You missed my point entirely. If Obama's FRA had granted CHSR 50% of the total funding needed for Phase 1, California's 33% share from Prop1a wouyld still had been 17% short. Since neither California nor Obama did not fully fund Phase 1 when they had the power to do so, inflation has turned that 17% short into a 34% shortage from California. and even a higher % shortage from Obama. Do not blame later Presidents (either Democrat or Republican) for the underfunding from the beginning. Later funding would have been unnecessary if the CHSR project had been fully funded from the beginning.

My point is that CHSR has never been fully funded by either California or USA.
The plan that future Administrations and Congress will continue to fund a capital project years later is a recipe for failure.

[Busy Bee]

202, you're not going to change the guys mind so you just made your fingers tired for nothing. Finding mindboggling anti-rail and hsr right wing misinformation is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Electricon, you're missing the forest for the trees. The general truth that Democrats are for the most part for federal rail and hsr funding and investment and that Republicans for the most part are not should be self-evident.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

202, you're not going to change the guys mind so you just made your fingers tired for nothing. Finding mindboggling anti-rail and hsr right wing misinformation is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Electricon, you're missing the forest for the trees. The general truth that Democrats are for the most part for federal rail and hsr funding and investment and that Republicans for the most part are not should be self-evident.

Really, how much of the $66 Billion Amtrak will be getting in the Bipartisan Bill will actually go to HSR (greater than 150 mph trains)?
If they are so in favor of real HSR, where are the 200 mph plus speed trains in any of their plans?
ZERO is still ZERO!

Here's a truth that can not be debated, if all $66 Billion was given the CHSR, it still would not be enough top finish Phase 1, or even start Phase 2.
Of course, Amtrak will instead invest almost all of it on the NEC and on other rail corridors east of the Appalachians. And we are only talking about new trains with maximum speeds of just 165 mph.

[edale]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Building through the Central Valley cities that developed around the UP mainline is costing perhaps $2 billion more than building parallel to I-5, which is is a rounding error on the overall cost of the network. The added 35~ miles (much of that the deflection to Palmdale via Tehachapi) will add at most 15 minutes to the overall express transit time. They still could nix Palmdale and reach the San Fernando Valley via the I-5 Grapevine route, which is a bit shorter and less expensive, but would cut out Las Vegas.

So $2 billion is "a rounding error on the overall cost of the network" but...

"The Trump mafia regime pulled nearly $1B of funding for high-speed rail from California." <-- This is being cited as the Feds underfunding CAHSR? Half of a 'rounding error'?

Look, it's no secret Republicans largely have it out for rail projects. But I don't think that's the problem here in CA.

I'm very much in favor of passenger rail, and I absolutely support high speed rail in California. But I really disagree with many aspects of this project, and I find the lack of progress after so many years of work to be really troubling. The longer we go with minimal results to show for the work, the more people are going to become frustrated with the project and convinced it's not worth it. It just should not be this hard to get the initial operating segment built in the damn central valley. With the setbacks, delays, and cost overuns the project has already experienced in this 'easy' part of the routing, who would have confidence that the CAHSRA can deliver on-time and on-budget for the more challenging segments like getting into SF and LA?

[electricron]

Originally Posted by edale

So $2 billion is "a rounding error on the overall cost of the network" but...

"The Trump mafia regime pulled nearly $1B of funding for high-speed rail from California." <-- This is being cited as the Feds underfunding CAHSR? Half of a rounding error?

Look, it's no secret Republicans largely have it out for rail projects. But I don't think that's the problem here in CA.

And that $1 Billion has since been restored, and the Federal program being used as the source of the money was from Housing and Urban Development - not the Department of Transportation.

How many houses will HUD build on the CHSR corridor? ZERO?
Could California use the $Billion from HUD better on public housing right now with its homeless population crisis today than on CHSR?

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by electricron

Really, how much of the $66 Billion Amtrak will be getting in the Bipartisan Bill will actually go to HSR (greater than 150 mph trains)?
If they are so in favor of real HSR, where are the 200 mph plus speed trains in any of their plans?
ZERO is still ZERO!

Because Democrats dont have a strong majority - they barely have a majority at all and have members of the party with politics out of step with where the moment is. Dont you think if Democrats controlled the majority of state governorships and legislatures and held 2/3 of the Senate and a large House majority the infrastructure bill probably wouldnt have been twice the size? A multi-hundred billion dollar standalone rail investment act years ago? This goes back forty years. If the country had taken a different political path, the Democratic party wouldnt have spent twenty years being dragged to the right by the Reagan era voter... We would have gotten a Gore administration addressing climate change twenty years earlier... Strong Democratic leadership would have prioritized and passed a smogesbord of transit, rail, alt transportation, complete streets...the list would go on and on. You dont think the Obama administration would have liked to do more in those 8 years? Thanks to the effectiveness of the hateful right wing propaganda machine and the "wisdom" of the voters, the Republicans spent 7 years of 8 spinning tales of his "foreignness" and his "dangerous socialist policies" and obstructing virtually everything Dems and his administration wanted to accomplish. Then they turn around and push that fucktard as their standard bearer on a platform that the Democrats cant get anything done. Sound familiar?... Because they're hoping to use the same playbook to take back power for the sake of taking back power next year. How do you suppose rail, hsr and transit funding will fare then?

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by electricron

Let's do the math of your reply, so everyone can see what happens when a project is underfunded.
Prop 1a in 2008 at that time pays 33% of Phase 1
Inflation since then has more than doubled the cost of Phase 1
Therefore Prop 1a actually only pays 16% of Phase 1.

Where did CHSR think the other 67%, now 84%, was going to come from?

Federal funding and more state funding.

Originally Posted by electricron

How many transit projects in the last 50 years, in both Democrat and Republican Administrations and Congress, has Uncle Sam paid 70%, 80%, 90%, or 100% of a transit project? ZERO!

The original UMTA of 1964 established a 80/20 federal/local matching formula. Between the 1964 and 1970 acts, the federal government paid 80% of the construction cost of the Washington Metro, Miami Metrorail, Baltimore Subway, Baltimore light rail, Buffalo light rail subway, and various NYC subway improvements, including the Second Ave. subway sections that were abandoned in the late 1970s.

Originally Posted by electricron

CHSR has been so underfunded by the State of California they are hard presses to fund just the IOS, about half the route of Phase 1.

Yeah do the math on how cheaply they're getting roughly half of Phase 1 built - for less than the purple line expansion in Los Angeles.

Originally Posted by electricron

Even NY and NJ will have to fund 50% of the new Gateway tunnels under the Hudson River. Why did CHSR think they could get away with less?

Chris Christie scuttled that project 10 years ago after $250 million had been spent. Why? He's the same guy who put barrels out on the George Washington Bridge as political payback.

Refer to my first response - California has tons of money rolling in to fund more construction without any help from the feds. Unfortunately, Gov. Newsom chickened out two years ago since he smelled a recall challenge coming on.

Originally Posted by electricron

Which is worse, not promising a pie in the sky project or promising an unfinished and unusable pie in the sky project?

It's not pie-in-the-sky. California has banked $20 billion surpluses for several years in a row. It's in an outstanding financial position. It could easily sell bonds to fund completion of Phase 1 but they had to outlive the recall threat and are waiting to get as much federal money as they can.

[SFBruin]

I posted something else, but I'll stick with local issues from now on.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Refer to my first response - California has tons of money rolling in to fund more construction without any help from the feds. Unfortunately, Gov. Newsom chickened out two years ago since he smelled a recall challenge coming on.
It's not pie-in-the-sky. California has banked $20 billion surpluses for several years in a row. It's in an outstanding financial position. It could easily sell bonds to fund completion of Phase 1 but they had to outlive the recall threat and are waiting to get as much federal money as they can.

Is Newsom a Democrat or Republican? Democrat, I rest my case you can not blame all under financing on Republicans.

If they could have, why have they not already sold those bonds so as to finish the IOS or more of Phase 1? Do not sell the bonds = do not have that money to spend on construction now, these delays cause the need to spend more later because of inflation. Looks like Democrats really wish CHSR to fail due to lack of cash because inflation is stealing money from the project.

The truth is that many legislators, lets suggest maybe a majority of them right now, would rather spend that cash on something else. There is no other valid reason to not sell those bonds and spend them now!

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by electricron

Is Newsom a Democrat or Republican? Democrat, I rest my case you can not blame all under financing on Republicans.

California has the stupid governor recall thing (it's much harder to trigger in most other states) so all governors are forced to walk on eggshells. Arnold Schwarzenegger - someone with zero political experience - managed to unseat Gray Davis 15~ years ago using this ridiculous backdoor mechanism.

Also, the 80/20 federal/local match for transit projects established in 1964 was undone by Reagan in the early 1980s. It's been 50/50 ever since.

Originally Posted by electricron

If they could have, why have they not already sold those bonds so as to finish the IOS or more of Phase 1?

They still have billions in the bank. They don't need to sell bonds until the unbuilt sections are fully designed and out to bid. In fact they're probably not allowed to do so under law.

Originally Posted by electricron

The truth is that many legislators, lets suggest maybe a majority of them right now, would rather spend that cash on something else. There is no other valid reason to not sell those bonds and spend them now!

The current and upcoming surpluses are so gigantic that they could pay cash for the entire remainder of Phase 1. Instead, they're spending it on checks, half which are just going to end up buying bitcoin and meme stocks: https://www.gov.ca.gov/2021/07/12/ca...nt-challenges/

Water resilience and drought response: Climate change is making droughts more common and more severe. The Governor’s Plan invests $5.1 billion over four years in drought support, water supply and natural habitat restoration projects around the state to build climate resilience in the face of more extreme cycles of wet and dry.

Working to build a 22nd century electric grid: The Administration continues work with the Legislature to build a cleaner, more resilient and reliable 22nd century electric grid amid record-breaking temperatures driven by climate change.

Expanding broadband access: It’s time to stop talking about closing the digital divide and finally do it. Through a $6 billion investment, more Californians will be able to access broadband coverage through the construction of an open access middle mile and last mile projects that connect unserved households in remote areas to the middle mile.

In addition, the Administration continues work with the Legislature to advance investments to build a modernized and sustainable transportation system, including funding for the state’s public transportation system and high-speed rail.

The budget and related budget-implementing legislation signed by the Governor today include:

AB 141 by the Committee on Budget – Budget Act of 2021: Department of Cannabis Control: licensure: safety and quality assurance.
SB 129 by Senator Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) – Budget Act of 2021. A line-item veto can be found here.
SB 139 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – Golden State Stimulus II: Golden State Stimulus.
SB 146 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – Correctional facilities.
SB 151 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – Economic development.
SB 158 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – Hazardous waste.


###

[electricron]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Also, the 80/20 federal/local match for transit projects established in 1964 was undone by Reagan in the early 1980s. It's been 50/50 ever since.

The current and upcoming surpluses are so gigantic that they could pay cash for the entire remainder of Phase 1. Instead, they're spending it on checks, half which are just going to end up buying bitcoin and meme stocks: https://www.gov.ca.gov/2021/07/12/ca...nt-challenges/

In addition, the Administration continues work with the Legislature to advance investments to build a modernized and sustainable transportation system, including funding for the state’s public transportation system and high-speed rail.

Spending the surpluses on all other pressing needs is what governments do. I have never ever seen any government spend all their money on just one thing.
Continuing to work with the Legislature for more funding for public transportation and CHSR means they were not included in this years budget.
Maybe the Governor is hoping for a special allocation of funding for special programs outside of the normal budget?
Or waiting until next year to include these projects in to the normal budget?

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by electricron

Maybe the Governor is hoping for a special allocation of funding for special programs outside of the normal budget?
Or waiting until next year to include these projects in to the normal budget?

The federal transportation bills should but do not follow regular cycles. This applies to highways, which have received the vast majority of federal aid over the past 100 years, in addition to transit and intercity rail. This is what makes it all so difficult from any state's perspective - they have to wait on the hope that they get a federal match, but they don't know when they're going to be able to apply, because when and what is offered is completely unpredictable. Then they don't know how much they're going to get awarded. Then there is the threat of a Tea Party claw back - i.e. the incoming Republican governors rejecting Obama's stimulus funds, or simply an obnoxious stall, like Elaine Chow's Caltrain stunt.

In my city, the incoming Tea Party Mayor wasted several TIGER grant applications in the mid-2010s on favors for donors. These were applications for items that the TIGER grants didn't award grants for. It would be like thinking you could take a football scholarship to one college and using it to buy a house. It doesn't work like that. But instead of applying to a transit grant with a transit project, he'd do stuff like apply for a parking garage next to a donor's suburban office building. Crap that wasn't even inside the city limits.

This is what politics is. This is how you win office and keep office - you gain new donors by doing crazy futile stuff for current donors.

[electricron]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/feds-bloc...193917145.html
"Associated Press
Thu, November 11, 2021, 1:39 PM
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The federal government says California is ineligible for about $12 billion in public transit funding because of a long-running dispute over changes to the state's public pension law that the Biden administration recently determined are improper.
The Sacramento Bee reports the U.S. Department of Labor recently determined those changes were improper because they were imposed by law instead of collectively bargained with public employee unions.
The federal government's latest decision means the state would be ineligible for about $9.5 billion in money set aside for California public transit agencies in the infrastructure bill Congress approved last week. California would also forfeit about $2.5 billion in grants for public transit that were part of the most recent federal coronavirus relief legislation."

Try placing the blame of this fiasco onto Republicans, I dare you!

Give them a chance, Unions will mess everything up in the name of fairness.

Hey, CHSR, do you still believe Biden is going to send you $12 Billion with no strings attached?

[Busy Bee]

Nothing in that article suggests they wont find a solution that will allow the state to receive the federal funds. Also I'm not sure how you could read that and say its the fault of unions. The Labor Dept objection to the pension law is that it does not fairly award the unions collective bargaining rights. So its the legislatures hasty pension bill thats caused this mess. But hey lets blame everything on the unions, thats what conservatives do best.

[Busy Bee]

Kind of a mixed bag from Vartabedian. Not as bad faith as usual. More of a focus on funding breakdown from the BIB:


Biden infrastructure funds will help state bullet train, but not as much as boosters hoped

BY RALPH VARTABEDIAN
NOV. 11, 2021 5 AM PM

The infrastructure bill that President Biden plans to sign Monday contains a historic amount of new funding for passenger rail service and aims to remake its role in American transportation, but any boost for the nation’s bullet train ambitions will be limited at best.

Exactly how much money will reach various rail projects — including the financially challenged California bullet train — is still an unknown and will depend on how the complex law is administered and developed into grant programs.

Hopes for a $100-billion national high-speed rail program, a goal backed by former secretaries of transportation, labor unions, major engineering firms and rail advocates, were dashed by the bipartisan infrastructure bill. Most of the money for rail systems will go to Amtrak’s service on the East Coast, various long-distance Amtrak routes and freight rail systems.

Rest of story

[numble]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Nothing in that article suggests they wont find a solution that will allow the state to receive the federal funds. Also I'm not sure how you could read that and say its the fault of unions. The Labor Dept objection to the pension law is that it does not fairly award the unions collective bargaining rights. So its the legislatures hasty pension bill thats caused this mess. But hey lets blame everything on the unions, thats what conservatives do best.

The reason this comes up actually is because the Amalgamated Transit Union files objections to federal grant awards to transit agencies, and that’s what triggers the DOL review. See the Sac Bee article.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics...id=-1997988967

Anyway, this came up during the Obama administration, and California was able to solve it by temporarily exempting transit workers from the pension reform law. This didn’t come up during the Trump administration since the Trump Department of Labor doesn’t side with unions.

https://twitter.com/numble/status/14...729312773?s=21

I don’t think this rule affects CAHSR anyway, because this is regarding funding from the FTA, and CAHSR is funded through the FRA. The rule is for a bunch of FTA programs.

The rule is 5333(b):
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/5333

(b) Employee Protective Arrangements.—
(1) As a condition of financial assistance under sections 5307–5312, 5316,[1] 5318, 5323(a)(1), 5323(b), 5323(d), 5328,[1] 5337, and 5338(b) of this title, the interests of employees affected by the assistance shall be protected under arrangements the Secretary of Labor concludes are fair and equitable. The agreement granting the assistance under sections 5307–5312, 5316,[1] 5318, 5323(a)(1), 5323(b), 5323(d), 5328,[1] 5337, and 5338(b) shall specify the arrangements.

Here are all those programs covered—CAHSR doesn’t seem to be funded by any of these.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/t...III/chapter-53

[mattropolis]

The amount of irrelevant information in this thread is annoying. Can we discuss the California high speed rail project instead of all this irrelevant politics?

[Busy Bee]

^Thanks for your opinion.

If you don't think politics are relevant to CHSR you must have your head in the sand buddy. I have a fairly low tolerance with anyone telling others they shouldn't discuss something as central and pivotal as politics, doubly so from a Canadian.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^Thanks for your opinion.

If you don't think politics are relevant to CHSR you must have your head in the sand buddy. I have a fairly low tolerance with anyone telling others they shouldn't discuss something as central and pivotal as politics, doubly so from a Canadian.

No, Canadians are good people, even if they have funny accents, eh!

You're absolutely right. Public funding is critical to this important investment, so politics is inseparable from the California high speed rail project.