California High Speed Rail Thread

[202_Cyclist]

I'm not going to try to defend every decision made by the CA High Speed Rail Authority and I agree with others who've posted here that CA should use its limited bond money and federal funds (I realize this isn't possible because of ARRA restrictions) to upgrade the existing rail service between SJ - Sacramento and LA - San Diego first.

That said, however, the alternative to high speed rail is spending tens of billions of dollars on new highways, widened highways, and airport expansion. Spending tens of billions of dollars on these projects doesn't do anything to limit sprawl or build walkable communities, does little to reduce some of the nation's worst highway and airport congestion (SFO is ranked among the most delayed airports this year), and does nothing to reduce some of the 35,000 annual highway fatalities.

We know growth is coming and by 2070-2080, there will be tens of millions more people living in California. The alternative to high speed rail is likely paving over every remaining bit of open space in CA.

This is also a good time to remind everyone of the double-standard applied to transit and passenger rail. Vehicle miles traveled were down 1.8 percent last year, while Amtrak ridership was up 5-6% this past year but we don't hear any of the same criticisms that I-5 or any of the other roads in CA have a failed business model. Similarly, you can be pretty certain if this sprawl-inducing project linked below goes through there will be cost-overruns and will end up costing perhaps twice as much but there won't be any of the same hand-wringing that there is with high speed rail.

O.C. toll road agency is studying 241 extension — again
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...442,full.story

[202_Cyclist]

pesto:

Interestingy, solar is now slipping as a generator of electricity as the technical advances in natural gas recovery have continued. However, the solar advocates are confident that they have innovations coming soon that will push down their cost of production. Ethanol and wind also claim they can be the cost leader. A fascinating field to watch in the near future. This should result in lower costs for rail as well.

Paul Krugman has a good column today about the rapid advances and the falling prices for solar, making this source of energy much more competitive.

Here Comes the Sun
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/op...ar-energy.html

I agree with you about the rapid advances in natural gas extraction. Someone from the Energy Information Administration noted that up until the early part of the last decade, oil and natural gas prices were roughly similar but now natural gas is much cheaper. The US has abundant supplies of natural gas, especially in the plains states and Pennsylvania. These are not without serious health and environmental concerns, but the new natural gas extraction techniques, along with the discovery of vast supplies of natural gas has the potential to greatly transform our energy consumption.

It's unfortunate that all you hear about recently is the Washington-manufactured Solyndra scandal/hype but the availability of huge reserves of natural gas here in the US, combined with the dramatic innovations in electric vehicles, has the ability to also dramatically change our transportation system. Every single day, there must be ten articles in the newspapers about new cooperative agreements to develop electrical cars, new facilities to produce these opening, new models being planned, and other significant breakthroughs. This, combined with the natural gas, is nothing less than hugely beneficial, giving us the opportunity to reduce our carbon emissions by half or more and reducing some of the $300B we spend every single year on foreign oil.

If electric vehicles make driving a lot cheaper, as you believe it will, then as the marginal cost of driving falls, you can expect vehicle miles traveled to increase. Congestion pricing can help address some of this additional demand for auto travel, but good passenger rail will also need to be part of the solution.

Here are two must-read editorials about this new energy future for the United States.

Oil’s new world order

By Daniel Yergin
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...w7L_story.html

Shale Gas Revolution

By David Brooks
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/op...evolution.html

[pesto]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

So unless you're already speaking to the converted flock of tea party people, you need to do a lot more than simply state that we are over-taxed and over-regulated. I mean, how do you know that's really the problem? It comes across like you are assuming that there is some kind of non-material external reality in which ideas of everything exist in perfection and that you have access to such a realm which gives you the ability to compare the situation we are all experiencing with your privileged view; surely elitism at its worst.

While you have access to this realm could you also tell us what the perfect dimensions of a brick would be, or better yet, while you have access to this extra-human godlike point of view, can you tell us whose version of history was the correct one? Economic positions and politics aren't mystical experiences that you just know the answer to in your gut, leave that to spiritual and aesthetic matters.

Seriously pesto, either take the time to give us a thought out narrative as to why America's investment in infrastructure didn't precede our most powerful economy in the world status or take your ball and go home. If you come up with a well thought out narrative (one that uses explanations that move beyond appeals to the authority of yourself or your like-minded friends), then try and tie that into the California High Speed Rail project and argue for or against it.

I am on-board for the "non-God-like" approach to governance and the economy. That's why I want the govt. to take a low profile and let every small (or big) guy with an idea to go after it. The rest of your discussion I couldn't really follow except you seem to believe that infrastructure is important to economic development? I definitely agree.

Fortunately, we don't need to discuss over-regulation; both the current administration and the GOP agree that it is a problem (note the "cutting of redtape" for LA subway projects by special order from the Prez). California has just gutted its environmental laws for large projects (that's a state 100% controlled by Dems.).

As you can see, this is not a party issue; it's a good governance and fiscal responsibility issue. Have you been watching the Calif. DEMOCRATS savaging HSR? To condense the story, their audit committee first told them to improve and clarify their plans, then said it wouldn't work. HSR is now on its 3rd iteration, each of which gets more expensive and fewer riders. Try to think like its YOUR money that's being spent not like your going to let your children pick up the tab.

[202_Cyclist]

This is from today's Sacramento Bee. One of my friends works in govt affairs for Amtrak, so I'll try to find more information about this proposal. I just hope the train doesn't get stuck in Lodi.

"Those officials say they can leverage that revenue with private investments to build an extension between Merced and Sacramento. Still, Sacramento could find itself sitting on the sidelines as bullet trains speed up the Valley, turn left at Merced, and head to the Bay Area.

To avoid that, a group of north Central Valley cities, counties and rail agencies, including Amtrak, are teaming to lay plans for a local, interim rail line, on existing tracks, that would carry passengers between Sacramento and a Merced high-speed rail station. It would likely have stops in Elk Grove, Lodi, Stockton and other cities.

High-speed rail officials like the idea and are chipping in to help study it. Ultimately, the line could be electrified for bullet trains..."


Sacramento plans a station for high-speed rail

By Tony Bizjak
Sacramento Bee
Nov. 7, 2011

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/07/403...nto-plans.html

[pesto]

Originally Posted by Gordo

Um, I certainly don't believe that the majority of cars will be non-oil driven is just 25 short years

Given the current political incentives, I think there's just as much a chance that we'll see gasoline directly subsidized to keep prices reasonable as anything else in 25 years.

If we've seen anything from this HSR project, there is a lack of will to use government power to push through big projects without being nickel and dimed by various small stakeholders (call them NIMBYs, whatever) or gouged by contractor cost inflation (a US-specific problem across all projects, not just transit). I don't see why this would be different in developing the new infrastructure needed for large-scale movement to new car types. Easier to just kick the can down the road. We're finishing up a Bay Bridge that was 400%+ over budget, and there were zero political consequences to that...but talk of any type of increase in gas tax is a political third rail. "Market" prices in gasoline will simply not go up enough to make the switch that you're implying in that time period, without some major switch in current geo-political realities.

Now, maybe if we have some type of complete political meltdown (national or state level) and re-writing of the current constitutions and/or political structures, maybe.

Gordo: please no doom's day scenarios! Just when Peak Oil theorists are dying out!

I don't believe oil will disappear from larger, sportier vehicles for many years; I wouldn't even guess how long because who really knows. I am only claiming that most small and mid-sized commuter cars in the LA and Bay areas will be electric in 25 years. This is believed by many in the industry.

But if, as you suggest, the price of oil does not go up in price, as OPEC is forced to react to alternative suppliers of energy, so much the better. Then gasoline powered cars will continue indefinitely at a reasonable price.

[202_Cyclist]

I agree with pesto on this one. I'm extremely bullish on the potential for electric and plug-in electric vehicles. As I posted above, the widespread adoption of these vehicles is going to be one of the most transformative developments in transportation in decades.

Here is a presentation from the annual Transportation Research Board meeting a few years ago by an analyst from Booz Allen who predicted by 2030 nearly thirty percent of vehicles sold in the US will be either electric or plug-in electric vehicles. Given that the US consumes nearly one-fourth of the world's oil and vehicles are responsible for 50-60% of that consumption, if this prediction plays out, it is nothing less than excellent news for the United States (especially given that IAEA just announced today that Iran is signfiicantly closer to developing nuclear weapons).

Vehicle Electrification – So How Close are We?
http://cta.ornl.gov/TRBenergy/trb_do...sion%20538.pdf

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by pesto

I am on-board for the "non-God-like" approach to governance and the economy. That's why I want the govt. to take a low profile and let every small (or big) guy with an idea to go after it. The rest of your discussion I couldn't really follow except you seem to believe that infrastructure is important to economic development? I definitely agree.

Fortunately, we don't need to discuss over-regulation; both the current administration and the GOP agree that it is a problem (note the "cutting of redtape" for LA subway projects by special order from the Prez). California has just gutted its environmental laws for large projects (that's a state 100% controlled by Dems.).

As you can see, this is not a party issue; it's a good governance and fiscal responsibility issue. Have you been watching the Calif. DEMOCRATS savaging HSR? To condense the story, their audit committee first told them to improve and clarify their plans, then said it wouldn't work. HSR is now on its 3rd iteration, each of which gets more expensive and fewer riders. Try to think like its YOUR money that's being spent not like your going to let your children pick up the tab.

I think enough evidence has been put on the table in this thread that overhauling California airports and freeways to better handle the movement of goods and people is still going to create a sizable commitment of funds. The whole kids picking up the tab in the future discussion is much more applicable to entitlements pertaining to healthcare and social security and then to our cold war military in a post cold war era (something like 68% of the national debt is owed to US government and to citizens in their retirement and healthcare, not to other countries); the only thing our children can really default on is themselves with their own benefits (which is what conservatives in the Tea Party want anyway). Look at how much of our GDP goes to infrastructure and then please proportionally adjust your spending angst accordingly.

[fflint]

It's not obviously true cars in LA and SF will be all electric in 25 years. Even if it were true, California would still need to spend vast sums to move the growing population up and down the state. We can spend $100B on HSR, or we can spend $200B on paving more of the state for congested freeways and filling in the bay for more congested airport runways. The 5 freeway is already hell at busy times of the year, and the Southland-Bay Area air corridor is already the nation's busiest. We need rail to complete our transportation network and adequately handle new growth. Rail antagonists love to claim Californians won't ride trains, but the astronomical growth not only in local public transit sytems, but also in inter-city Amtrak California lines--just in our lifetimes--shows otherwise.

[202_Cyclist]

Brown will ask legislators to OK billions for bullet train

The governor says the state will have a broad need for the system in the long term and that high-speed rail is a cheaper alternative to more highway and commercial aviation investments.

By Ralph Vartabedian and Dan Weikel
Los Angeles Times
November 11, 2011

"Gov. Jerry Brown said Thursday that he will formally request that the Legislature approve billions of dollars to start construction of the California bullet train next year and will work hard to persuade skeptical lawmakers that the project is critical to the state's future.

In his first extended remarks on the $98.5-billion project since a controversial business plan was unveiled last week, Brown said that the state will have a broad need for the system in the long term and that it represents a significantly cheaper alternative to additional highway and commercial aviation investments.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,6770873.story

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

In the Mountain West, if we can get away with it, we generally always elevate our freeways by bringing in a ton of dirt and then pave the road on top of it. Whenever you need paths to pass under it, you simply dig out a section of the elevated roadbed and create an overpass to bridge the freeway across the gap. This is cheaper to build and easier to maintain.

So this may be a dumb question, but why is California insisting upon elevating High Speed Rail with huge concrete piers?


• Video Link

Two words: Costs inflation. See, e.g., Clem Tillier and Alon Levy.

They're trying to get away with bloating the construction budget as much as possible, for several reasons: the two biggest seem to be (a) Parsons Brinkerhoff trying to maximize its revenue, and (b) the use of "concrete" to separate out agency fiefdoms rather than integrating operations and services thereby making this type of transit easier and more convenient to use.

EDIT: A mono-use mentality also seems to be in play here. Aerials along streets can have other land uses engrained under them, for example. This happens all the time in Europe--shops and light industry are placed under rail viaducts.

[M II A II R II K]

Judge: Bullet train must ax route through South Bay, Peninsula, for now


Read More: http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_19312258

Once again, a judge on Thursday ordered the state to scrap its plans to zip high-speed trains from Gilroy to San Jose and up the Peninsula, saying officials failed to show how the massive route would harm local traffic and homes. Even so, the California High-Speed Rail Authority signaled it would reapprove the route along the Caltrain corridor after completing more studies to appease the judge. That could trigger yet another lawsuit, extending a three-year long legal battle against the polarizing $99 billion bullet train project.

The cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton don't want the elevated tracks to divide their communities, create an eyesore and lower property values. So they sued in October 2010 to ax the Bay Area route for the San Francisco-to-Los Angeles line. They prefer a railroad that would run through the East Bay and across the Dumbarton Bridge to San Francisco. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny ruled that the rail authority must rescind the Peninsula route to study how the traffic in the far South Bay would suffer if the tracks force the elimination of lanes on Monterey Highway. He said it also needs to examine how Peninsula residents and roads would be handicapped by freight trains running closer to properties.

.....

[fflint]

CAHSR is just going to reapprove the route after they jump through the EIR hoops set up by the NIMBY obstructionist scum.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

Two words: Costs inflation. See, e.g., Clem Tillier and Alon Levy.

They're trying to get away with bloating the construction budget as much as possible, for several reasons: the two biggest seem to be (a) Parsons Brinkerhoff trying to maximize its revenue, and (b) the use of "concrete" to separate out agency fiefdoms rather than integrating operations and services thereby making this type of transit easier and more convenient to use.

EDIT: A mono-use mentality also seems to be in play here. Aerials along streets can have other land uses engrained under them, for example. This happens all the time in Europe--shops and light industry are placed under rail viaducts.

My guess is that the demand for elevated rail with or without retail under it is about zero in SJ.

[M II A II R II K]

Brown will ask legislators to OK billions for bullet train


Read More: http://www.latimes.com/news/science/...,3412601.story

Gov. Jerry Brown said Thursday that he will formally request that the Legislature approve billions of dollars to start construction of the California bullet train next year and will work hard to persuade skeptical lawmakers that the project is critical to the state's future. In his first extended remarks on the $98.5-billion project since a controversial business plan was unveiled last week, Brown said that the state will have a broad need for the system in the long term and that it represents a significantly cheaper alternative to additional highway and commercial aviation investments.

- Rail officials hope the money can cover construction of a 140-mile Central Valley segment from Chowchilla to Bakersfield, though it would not pay for electrification, trains or other necessary parts of an operating system. To actually carry passengers will require more than $20 billion of additional investment in track and equipment, money that the state now does not have. Still, the start of construction with the money in hand represents "a prudent next step," and the state could find future sources of funding in new types of federal bonds, in state taxes or even by securing more federal funding, Brown said.

- "I want to see the first segment completed in short order," Brown said, noting that under the current plan the full scale-system would not be finished until he was 95 years old. "You can't build something like this in one jump. We have the first step paid down." State Controller John Chiang's office reported Thursday that tax receipts are about $1.5 billion lower than state budget architects anticipated through the first four months of the fiscal year. "I think we're in for a rough ride for the next couple of years in terms of the budget, but we are going to promote investments in the state, because I think they're crucial," Brown said. Even though the cost of the project has doubled, Brown said it is manageable over the 23-year construction period.

.....

[dimondpark]

I find it very amusing that the CAHSR authority can be so defiant on this issue?

Judge: Bullet train must ax route through South Bay, Peninsula, for now
By Mike Rosenberg

mrosenberg@mercurynews.com

Posted: 11/11/2011 07:25:20 AM PST
Updated: 11/11/2011 09:18:37 AM PST


Once again, a judge on Thursday ordered the state to scrap its plans to zip high-speed trains from Gilroy to San Jose and up the Peninsula, saying officials failed to show how the massive route would harm local traffic and homes.

Even so, the California High-Speed Rail Authority signaled it would reapprove the route along the Caltrain corridor after completing more studies to appease the judge. That could trigger yet another lawsuit, extending a three-year long legal battle against the polarizing $99 billion bullet train project.

The cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton don't want the elevated tracks to divide their communities, create an eyesore and lower property values. So they sued in October 2010 to ax the Bay Area route for the San Francisco-to-Los Angeles line. They prefer a railroad that would run through the East Bay and across the Dumbarton Bridge to San Francisco.

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_19312258

This pic is interesting:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Djn44SRfrB.../s400/map2.jpg

Well, the CAHSR balked at the above mentioned points and issued this response back in 2009:
Sure, a shift from the Pacheco to the Altamont alignment might serve more East Bay residents. But it would come at the expense of about the same number of people in Santa Clara County and the Monterey Bay Area. Given that San José is the state's third largest city and one of the state's key economic centers, you'd think that it would have a pretty strong argument for being included on the HSR line. But you won't hear that argument on the website.

Their reference to San Jose being a key employment center implies that people will be taking the CASHR to SJ for work? But how is that possible when hardly any commuters into the Bay Area from outside the region live along the Pacheco route??

On the other hand, we know that approximately 100,000 workers commute into the Bay Area from East and North.

For that matter, why would CAHSR brag about commuting? Do they plan to directly compete with CalTrain for riders?

And as far as future population growth, the corridor that includes contiguous areas of Alameda, Sacramento, San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties is projected to add millions of people in the coming decades-growth along the Pacheco route is going to be slow or stagnant by comparison.

There is no real rhyme or reason for insisting on the Pacheco route vs the Altamont route.

[Beta_Magellan]

Supposedly, the real reason why Altamont was rejected was because Rod Diridon said that trains from San Jose couldn’t head north to get to Los Angeles, which was south. I’d love to have been his realtor—“only give me houses with driveways facing downtown!”

More seriously (though I’ve heard the above story from more than one place, so I’m inclined to think it’s true) Pacheco was mainly selected because it offers faster service to San Jose (though slower to San Francisco—even though Pacheco is more “direct,” the Altamont alignment has a higher average speed to SF) and the fact that you have to pass through San Jose to get to San Francisco—they had a legitimate concern that cost overruns would could the San Jose branch to be cut, which is a pretty common anti-Altamont strawman.

The employment features are more for indicating the economic importance (ergo ridership potential) of a place than anything else—more business travelers will go to a big job center than otherwise. I get the impression that Caltrain was, at least in the early stages of the project, hoping CAHSR would amount to a giant ball of electrification-and-other-upgrade money, but that was scuttled by the two agencies’ inability to agree on anything—note that the “blended” San Jose alignment posted a couple of pages back was mostly based on keeping CAHSR as far away from Caltrain as possible.

The people pushing Altamont, TRANSDEF, are big fans of shared alignments, and see an Altamont alignment as having the potential to carry FRA-noncompliant EMUs as well as HSR—more bang for your buck. Unfortunately, that sort of smart planning seems to be the last thing on the minds of Bay Area planners.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan

The people pushing Altamont, TRANSDEF, are big fans of shared alignments, and see an Altamont alignment as having the potential to carry FRA-noncompliant EMUs as well as HSR—more bang for your buck. Unfortunately, that sort of smart planning seems to be the last thing on the minds of Bay Area planners.

Oh, it's on planners' minds. The planners aren't the problem: the Pacheco alignment is all about Silicon Valley politics.

[M II A II R II K]

Central Valley county sues to stop state from building bullet train there


Read More: http://www.mercurynews.com/californi...il/ci_19336343

.....

Kings County says California can't legally spend $2.7 billion in voter-approved state bond funds to start building the bullet train line in their rural district, arguing it's not the same project voters approved in 2008. Since then, the cost has tripled and funding sources have dried to such an extent that the state can only afford to build an initial stretch of track so small that it won't support any service.

- The board of supervisors for the small county between Fresno and Bakersfield and two community activists hired a Peninsula attorney to file the suit in hopes of preventing California leaders from starting construction on the bullet train line next year. The 10-page suit filed in Sacramento is the latest legal challenge from angry communities, led by the Peninsula, that want to stop the project. The cities fear the elevated rail line will destroy properties along its path, lower home and business values, divide the community and create blight.

.....

[pesto]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Central Valley county sues to stop state from building bullet train there


Read More: http://www.mercurynews.com/californi...il/ci_19336343

This will be a great opportunity for the public to find out how HSR makes it decisions, the economic ties of its people and backers, etc. I am curious how much of the original proposals were known (or reasonably could be expected) to be wrong right from the start and how much real estate developers in SF and along the route were involved.

It's hard to imagine how one group could have enraged everyone from the upscale left on the Peninsula to the down and dirty right of Bako and King's County. Not exactly natural allies. But HSR managed to do it.

[202_Cyclist]

High-speed rail agency wants big firms to bid on first stretch


By Lewis Griswold
The Fresno Bee
Nov. 15, 2011

"The California High Speed Rail Authority on Tuesday said it wanted large companies doing world-class projects to bid on the first $2 billion rail leg through Fresno.

Tens of thousands of jobs would be created on that leg, which, depending on the alignment, would run about 21 to 29 miles from Madera to just south of Fresno, the rail authority said.

The announcement signals that the $98.5 billion high-speed rail project, opposed in farm country and parts of the Bay Area, is marching forward despite a new lawsuit to stop it..."

http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/11/15/...wants-big.html