California High-Speed Rail

[krudmonk]

Wah wah, I want moderate speed commuter rail....

[Richard Mlynarik]

Originally Posted by bmfarley

I am as much a skeptic of mpo's like MTC like the next person, but aren't you the true conspiracy theorist!

No conspiray mongering needed here.

Just look objectively at outcomes and compare promised costs and benefits of selected projects and adopted plans with reality.

Every single major capital "investment" promoted by the agency over the last 30 years has been an unmitigated disaster, except as measured in ways that consider only contractor welfare as the yardstick of success.

$5 billion (500%) over "budget" on the Bay Bridge East Span, and counting...

As to why the agency should have such a track record, and why titanic levels of public-policy failure are consistently rewarded, well, fire up the conspire-o-mat.

[BTinSF]

Bill seeks to modify high-speed rail bond on California ballot
By STEVE LAWRENCE, The Associated Press
2008-02-29 02:10:24.0
Current rank: # 1,826 of 8,889

SACRAMENTO -
Two Democrats have introduced legislation sought by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that could broaden voter support for a twice-delayed, $9.9 billion high-speed-rail bond on the November ballot.

The bill by Assemblywomen Cathleen Galgiani of Tracy and Fiona Ma of San Francisco would allow the bonds to be used for all segments of the proposed 700-mile rail system. The bond's current language dedicates the money only for the proposed segment between the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas.

Their bill also would put a 10 percent cap on the amount of state bond money that could be spent on studies, planning and engineering work instead of construction. In addition, it would require the state's high-speed rail board to have a detailed funding plan in place for each segment of the system before awarding a construction contract for that segment.

The board has recommended that California link its major cities with trains running at top speeds of more than 200 mph as a way to ease increasing congestion on freeways and at airports.

In addition to Los Angeles and San Francisco, the trains would reach Sacramento, Fresno, San Jose, Oakland, Irvine, Riverside and San Diego. The $40 billion rail network would be built over a 20-year period.

Schwarzenegger has been hot and cold on it. He twice supported legislation that postponed the bond measure from going to the ballot, but last May wrote an op-ed piece saying high-speed rail would be a "tremendous benefit" for California.

In January, when he released his state budget proposals, Schwarzenegger dropped a request that lawmakers delay a vote on the bonds a third time. But he said he wanted legislation requiring the rail board to identify federal and private funding to help finance the project before moving ahead with construction.

A spokeswoman for Schwarzenegger, Sabrina Lockhart, said Thursday that the administration worked with the rail board to draft the Galgiani and Ma bill.

"As it stands today, it addresses the concerns the governor outlined in his budget proposals," she said. "We are happy that this legislation has been introduced and will be monitoring the bill as it makes its way through the Legislature."

Ma and Mehdi Morshed, the rail board's executive director, said the bill could broaden public support for the bonds by allowing all areas served by the project to compete for money.

The bill would require the board to give top priority for bond funding to segments of the project that could attract the most federal, local government or private financing and that also could be used by other passenger trains.

But those commuter train systems would have to use the same equipment as high-speed rail to mesh with the faster train service once it began, Morshed said.

"Everyone has a fair shot at it," Morshed said. "If they can come up with more money or a better proposal, then they get to the head of the line."

Quentin Kopp, a former state senator who chairs the rail board, said he had been told by Schwarzenegger's chief of staff, Susan Kennedy, that the Republican governor supports the bond proposal.

But Kopp said Schwarzenegger had not agreed to a request that he serve as a co-chair of the campaign to pass the bonds. He hopes to line up a "dream team" of current and former public officials to persuade voters to approve sale of the bonds.

Lockhart said she had no comment about whether the governor would eventually agree to help lead the campaign.

Source: http://www.examiner.com/printa-12490...ia_ballot.html

[urban_encounter]

That's a wise decision..

I think without Sacramento and San Deigo being included in the intial phase (if i understand the article correctly), the chances of this passing aren't good.

On the other hand, include those areas and i think it will have a much better chance of passing.

Sacramento voters have been strong supporters of local transportation bonds in the past and recently voted to extend Meausre A.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

That's a wise decision..

I think without Sacramento and San Deigo being included in the intial phase (if i understand the article correctly), the chances of this passing aren't good.

On the other hand, include those areas and i think it will have a much better chance of passing.

Sacramento voters have been strong supporters of local transportation bonds in the past and recently voted to extend Meausre A.

My first reaction was, "It's about time", but the following few sentences (below) make me wonder how well Sacramento will be able to compete against the other huge metros.


The bill would require the board to give top priority for bond funding to segments of the project that could attract the most federal, local government or private financing and that also could be used by other passenger trains.

But those commuter train systems would have to use the same equipment as high-speed rail to mesh with the faster train service once it began, Morshed said.

"Everyone has a fair shot at it," Morshed said. "If they can come up with more money or a better proposal, then they get to the head of the line."

[munkyman]

There was an article in the Examiner today on high speed rail.



http://www.examiner.com/a-131784~Rai...a_reality.html

Rail system speeds closer to a reality

Bay Area (Map, News) - Dozens of international investors are poised to float a proposed high-speed rail system that would take San Francisco and Peninsula residents to Southern California in 2½ hours, officials said Wednesday.

More than 60 international investors were interested in helping bankroll the $42 billion train system, said Rod Diridon, a member on the California High Speed Rail Authority Board. About $10 billion in private investments is needed for the train system to be built, officials said.

“We don’t have a project unless we have a private component,” Diridon said. “These private investors are ready to go.”

The authority’s financial firm, New York-based Lehman Brothers, met with about 80 investors representing 50 different firms from around the world last Thursday. The investors included train operators, construction firms and financiers. Before Thursday’s meeting, the level of serious interest from private investors was relatively unknown, rail authority Executive Director Mehdi Morshed said.

“The level of interest from private finance people from all over the world was amazingly good,” Morshed said.

Rail proponent and state Assemblymember Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, said the reaction from private investors was very encouraging.

“It kind of signals to the world and California that it’s finally happening and that this is a reality,” Ma said.

The project is slated to be completed by 2020. The network would link all of the state’s major population centers, including Sacramento, the Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, Southern California’s Inland Empire, Orange County and San Diego.

Electric-powered trains on the 700-mile rail system would travel up to 220 mph and the trip from San Francisco to Los Angeles would take 2½ hours and cost $55 for a one-way trip.

Voters are being asked in November to support the state in taking out a $9.95 billion bond to fund the first phase of the project. Strong private financing increases the likelihood of voters approving a $9.95 billion bond for the November ballot, Morshed and Diridon said.

A recent poll indicated 58 percent of Californians would support the bond, which could then be used as leverage for another $9 billion in federal funds, Diridon said.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has declined to formally endorse the bond, citing a lack of guarantee in private financing. He could veto the bill for a bond if passed by the Legislature.

[Echo Park]

wow. so with this 9.9 billion dollar bond plus private investments, this project is alive and well, right? i haven't kept up on this issue since the last delay (which at that point i kinda gave up following the project)

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by Echo Park

wow. so with this 9.9 billion dollar bond plus private investments, this project is alive and well, right? i haven't kept up on this issue since the last delay (which at that point i kinda gave up following the project)

Did you say $9.9 Billion bond? And your asking if it's alive? Hell yeah!!!!

But as I said before, one possible downside that I hope will not happen is that it may encourage sprawl in the Central Valley; which would further complicate the Levee issue and make traffic worse.

[Smiley Person]

cross posted from the transit maps thread: here's a "metro style" system map to get yall excited for a new way of living in the state. Imagine what life will be like when being in love with someone on the other end of the state is no longer a long distance relationship...

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by Smiley Person

cross posted from the transit maps thread: here's a "metro style" system map to get yall excited for a new way of living in the state. Imagine what life will be like when being in love with someone on the other end of the state is no longer a long distance relationship...

I'm more excited about those hypothetical extensions.

[StethJeff]

Murrieta? Industry? Sylmar?

Are that many stops really that necesary?

[Web]

Originally Posted by StethJeff

Murrieta? Industry? Sylmar?

Are that many stops really that necesary?

there are many potential users in murrietta and industry

sylmar seems close to burbank

[DJM19]

Sylmar isnt that close to burbank, especially considering that the main link between them is the 5, which has no prospect of getting better.

They are only like an 11 mile drive apart...but that can be a light year in traffic :p

[KarLarRec1]

What are the prospects for the bond finally being on this November's ballot?

I was just at the Authority's website, and it hasn't been updated in a few months.

I'm a little miffed the LA-San Diego route will take 1 hour, 15 minutes. I was hoping for around 45 minutes. But with the roundabout route, I guess it wasn't possible. It's a shame the line doesn't extend from Irvine to San Diego.

[nequidnimis]

Originally Posted by KarLarRec1

It's a shame the line doesn't extend from Irvine to San Diego.

Totally agree with you. Also, the San Francisco Sacramento trip is obviously left out. Perhaps an Altamont high speed branch will come after the current project has proven high speed rail is viable in our state. I am a big fan of the project, but at this point, I am really not sure of its chances at the ballot.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

Totally agree with you. Also, the San Francisco Sacramento trip is obviously left out. Perhaps an Altamont high speed branch will come after the current project has proven high speed rail is viable in our state. I am a big fan of the project, but at this point, I am really not sure of its chances at the ballot.

I am a big fan of the concept, but this project keeps getting worse. At this point in time I will still vote for it and work hard to get it to pass, but it's starting to look more and more like a boondoggle, especially with the elimination of the Altamont alignment.

[subterranean]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Did you say $9.9 Billion bond? And your asking if it's alive? Hell yeah!!!!

But as I said before, one possible downside that I hope will not happen is that it may encourage sprawl in the Central Valley; which would further complicate the Levee issue and make traffic worse.

Doubtful this will have a huge effect in that regard. Unless you know of 500,000 people who are willing to pay $25+ per day to commute.

[DJM19]

Agreed. If they were expanding the freeway it might encourage more sprawl, but seeing as this is not connected to the road system, it doesnt aid and expanding road system in anyway, and not many people are likely to commute between the central valley and the job-centers.

[nequidnimis]

Originally Posted by subterranean

Doubtful this will have a huge effect in that regard. Unless you know of 500,000 people who are willing to pay $25+ per day to commute.

Lots of people: that's less than parking in downtown San Francisco and the Golden Gate bridge fare cost.

[sf_eddo]

I'm confused with why they chose Union City as the Southern Alameda County stop and not Fremont, which seems to me the natural choice given connection to Bart, VTA, AC Transit, and with ACE close by.

Also, any reason they're calling it University City instead of La Jolla? In my mind, La Jolla has more "cachet" than University City, in which I just think of the mall...

I love the mix of industries included in all these cities - connecting centers of finance, law, technology, media, telecommunications, health, biomed, agriculture, government...