California High Speed Rail Thread

[jmecklenborg]

This recent interview with the current head of CAHSR only has 250 views. Meanwhile, Elon Musk can speculate about rescuing soccer teams from caves and get millions of views.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0afgE1j60U

The interview offers some interesting insights in the second half, especially regarding the decision to start construction in the Central Valley. Specifically, he says that the CAHSR authority decided back in 2009 or 2010 to begin construction in the Central Valley in large part to create work in the part of the state that had experienced the most unemployment during the 2008-09 economic collapse.

He also remarks that while the CAHSR authority has the cash on hand to make Bakersfield > Merced operational, it will not have the funding to build the Pacheco Pass Tunnel and connection to San Jose without federal funds.

[202_Cyclist]

It is great to have a president committed to investing in modern, efficient, and sustainable infrastructure.

Biden restores $929 million for California high-speed rail withheld by Trump

By Derek Francis, David Shepardson, Kanishka Singh
June 11, 2021
Reuters

"The Biden administration late on Thursday restored a $929 million grant for California’s high-speed rail that former President Donald Trump revoked in 2019.

The parties, which also include the California High-Speed Rail Authority and the U.S. Transportation Department, agreed to restore the grant within three days, according to the settlement agreement here.

Talks began in March, around two months after Biden became president, to settle a suit filed in 2019 after Trump had pulled funding for a high-speed train project in the state hobbled by extensive delays and rising costs. Trump had repeatedly clashed as president with California on a number of fronts..."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN2DN0DY

[Busy Bee]

I concur.

[chaunceyjb]

Are trains now using the downtown shoo-fly?

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by Buster Posey

He still hasn't promised a cent of NEW federal money for the train. I'll withhold my adulation until he gets on that.

That's because he's wisely avoiding the unforced error (see what I did there?) of giving the Repubs a sound bite about throwing good money after bad on what they decided years ago was going to be a "boondoggle" no matter how actually untethered from reality, scoring fake political points and fomenting ginned up outrage. If you think that Joe Biden's USDOT isn't going to figure out a way to get significant funding to California HSR you cray-cray.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

That's because he's wisely avoiding the unforced error (see what I did there?) of giving the Repubs a sound bite about throwing good money after bad on what they decided years ago was going to be a "boondoggle" no matter how actually untethered from reality, scoring fake political points and fomenting ginned up outrage. If you think that Joe Biden's USDOT isn't going to figure out a way to get significant funding to California HSR you cray-cray.

California has committed so far the Proposition 1A $10 Billion in bonds into CHSR, plus 25% of the Cap and Trade taxes collected every year totaling $800 Million.
The US has committed so are $3.5 Billion into CHSR.

In 2009, one year after the passage of Proposition 1A, the Authority received $2.5 billion in funds made available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).
In 2010, $929 million in additional funding was authorized though a Fiscal Year (FY10) Transportation, Housing and Urban Development grant.
In 2014, the Legislature appropriated 25 percent of the annual proceeds from the Cap-and-Trade Program to support the development and construction of the system, providing an ongoing revenue stream
In 2017, the Legislature extended the Cap-and-Trade Program through 2030
The Cap-and-Trade Program annual auction revenues have averaged $534 million since 2015‑16, with a low of $221 million and a high of $787 million.

Some math follows
25% of $534 Million = $133.5 Million.
2030 - 2014 = 16 years
2020 - 2014 = 6 years
6 x 133.5 Million = $801 Million
16 x 133.5 Million = $2.1 Billion (projecting the same average of 6 years over 16 years, it could sum up to a higher or lower number)

Will California give up ownership and control of the CHSR program at the point the US government commits more cash than it? For example, if Biden gives CHSR more than $12 Billion?

Project costs for just Phase 1 completion is approaching $80 Billion.
More math
80 Billion - 12.1 Billion - 3.5 Billion = 64.4 Billion shortage.

[numble]

Originally Posted by electricron

California has committed so far the Proposition 1A $10 Billion in bonds into CHSR, plus 25% of the Cap and Trade taxes collected every year totaling $800 Million.
The US has committed so are $3.5 Billion into CHSR.

In 2009, one year after the passage of Proposition 1A, the Authority received $2.5 billion in funds made available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).
In 2010, $929 million in additional funding was authorized though a Fiscal Year (FY10) Transportation, Housing and Urban Development grant.
In 2014, the Legislature appropriated 25 percent of the annual proceeds from the Cap-and-Trade Program to support the development and construction of the system, providing an ongoing revenue stream
In 2017, the Legislature extended the Cap-and-Trade Program through 2030
The Cap-and-Trade Program annual auction revenues have averaged $534 million since 2015‑16, with a low of $221 million and a high of $787 million.

Some math follows
25% of $534 Million = $133.5 Million.
2030 - 2014 = 16 years
2020 - 2014 = 6 years
6 x 133.5 Million = $801 Million
16 x 133.5 Million = $2.1 Billion (projecting the same average of 6 years over 16 years, it could sum up to a higher or lower number)

Will California give up ownership and control of the CHSR program at the point the US government commits more cash than it? For example, if Biden gives CHSR more than $12 Billion?

Project costs for just Phase 1 completion is approaching $80 Billion.
More math
80 Billion - 12.1 Billion - 3.5 Billion = 64.4 Billion shortage.

Your math is wrong. Pretty sure you confused what CAHSR actually receives on average from the cap-and-trade program (the 25% of cap-and-trade funding that CAHSR gets each year has averaged $534 million) with what the total cap-and-trade program receives.

Here are the quarterly auction revenue figures:



There was $916 million in revenue in just the most recent quarter. Far higher than your estimate of $534 million average for the whole year.
https://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/659

CAHSR reports they have received $3.7 billion in cap-and-trade funding up to February 2021, far higher than your estimate of $801 million.
https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/upload...iness_Plan.pdf

Through the February 2021 auction, the Authority has received a total of $3.7 billion in Cap-and-Trade funds

They estimate receiving $500-$700 million per year from cap-and-trade funds, far higher than your estimate of $133.5 million.

We established a range of future Cap-and-Trade receipts for purposes of capital planning—low, medium and high. The low range assumes that the Authority will receive $500 million per year, and the high range assumes $750 million per year.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by numble

Your math is wrong. Pretty sure you confused what CAHSR actually receives on average from the cap-and-trade program (the 25% of cap-and-trade funding that CAHSR gets each year has averaged $534 million) with what the total cap-and-trade program receives.
There was $916 million in revenue in just the most recent quarter. Far higher than your estimate of $534 million average for the whole year.
https://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/659

CAHSR reports they have received $3.7 billion in cap-and-trade funding up to February 2021, far higher than your estimate of $801 million.
https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/upload...iness_Plan.pdf


They estimate receiving $500-$700 million per year from cap-and-trade funds, far higher than your estimate of $133.5 million.

I used for my sources of data, which didn't include all the recent data from 2020 and 2021. So sorry.
https://www.kqed.org/science/1965124...educed-revenue
But I would like to point out that revenue chart in your reply excludes very, very poor data from 2016 and 2017, starting in 2018 >> just ignore the bad data to make your averages look better.

[numble]

Originally Posted by electricron

I used for my sources of data, which didn't include all the recent data from 2020 and 2021. So sorry.
https://www.kqed.org/science/1965124...educed-revenue
But I would like to point out that revenue chart in your reply excludes very, very poor data from 2016 and 2017, starting in 2018 >> just ignore the bad data to make your averages look better.

I posted 2 charts which includes all the data from February 2015, including the quarters in 2016-2017. The only averages I mentioned is your $534 million average, by the way.

The $534 million average is from a 2020 report from California's Legislative Analyst Office and does not include quarters after May 2020, it includes the "poor data" from 2016 and 2017:
https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4252

project’s annual auction revenues have averaged $534 million since 2015‑16

Your KQED source does not indicate there was $534 million average annual revenue--even in 2016 the annual revenue was over $800 million (above your $534 million average) and in 2017, the annual revenue was over $1.9 billion--this is based on the KQED chart, which comes from the same source, the LAO:

[electricron]

Originally Posted by numble

The only averages I mentioned is your $534 million average, by the way.

The $534 million average is from a 2020 report from California's Legislative Analyst Office and does not include quarters after May 2020, it includes the "poor data" from 2016 and 2017:
https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4252

Thanks for finding my source, and confirming I did not invent numbers out of thin air. You should also see this quote from the same report.
"The Cap-and-Trade Program annual auction revenues have averaged $534 million since 2015‑16, with a low of $221 million and a high of $787 million."
The numbers derived from math are correctly calculated from the data provided in that same report.

As with any forward looking data, higher highs and lower lows than what occurred in the past can occur in the future, that is why I averaged the data in the first place.
If I had desired to twist the data making the revenues from cap and trade smaller, I could have just used the lower number, and likewise the opposite way as well. But I did not twist the data because I averaged them.

Which data set is more correct, what an independent study reported to the legislature or what the government department reported? I have not the slightest idea, just wanted to add there must be reasons why the legislature wanted an independent report.

[numble]

Originally Posted by electricron

Thanks for finding my source, and confirming I did not invent numbers out of thin air. You should also see this quote from the same report.
"The Cap-and-Trade Program annual auction revenues have averaged $534 million since 2015‑16, with a low of $221 million and a high of $787 million."
The numbers derived from math are correctly calculated from the data provided in that same report.

As with any forward looking data, higher highs and lower lows than what occurred in the past can occur in the future, that is why I averaged the data in the first place.
If I had desired to twist the data making the revenues from cap and trade smaller, I could have just used the lower number, and likewise the opposite way as well. But I did not twist the data because I averaged them.

Which data set is more correct, what an independent study reported to the legislature or what the government department reported? I have not the slightest idea, just wanted to add there must be reasons why the legislature wanted an independent report.

That quote isn’t in the report. You edited it to represent the total amount of revenue, when the actual quote says $534 million is the average that the CAHSR project receives (in other words, the Cap-and-Trade’s annual auction revenues are 4x that amount):
Your statement:
“ The Cap-and-Trade Program annual auction revenues have averaged $534 million since 2015‑16, with a low of $221 million and a high of $787 million.”

The actual statement in the independent report:
“The project’s annual auction revenues have averaged $534 million since 2015‑16, with a low of $221 million and a high of $787 million.”

There is no math to show how you arrive at a $534m annual average auction revenues in total (for which 25% goes to CAHSR), you just misread and misquoted from the LAO report, which says $534m is the average annual cut received from total auction revenues per year.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by numble

Your statement:
“ The Cap-and-Trade Program annual auction revenues have averaged $534 million since 2015‑16, with a low of $221 million and a high of $787 million.”

The actual statement in the independent report:
“The project’s annual auction revenues have averaged $534 million since 2015‑16, with a low of $221 million and a high of $787 million.”

There is no math to show how you arrive at a $534m annual average auction revenues in total (for which 25% goes to CAHSR), you just misread and misquoted from the LAO report, which says $534m is the average annual cut received from total auction revenues per year.

Oh, I understand your correction now. Sorry I misread the report. So all the calculations I did earlier was a waste of my and everyone else's time.


Even with the new peak at the numbers, they are still going to be short of cash completing all of Phase 1 by a significant amount.

$534 Million (average to date for that report) x 16 years (Cap & Trade program set aside for CHSR is set to expire in 2030) is only $8.544 Billion.
California Proposition 1A only allows bonds up to $10 Billion. Uncle Sam's ARRA funding was $2.5 Billion, and Uncle Sam's HUV funding was approximately $1 Billion, summing all up to just $22.044 Billion.

Cap & Trade CHSR "program" funding needs to be 3 to 4 times what they had been averaging to get the required approaching $80 Billion total.
80 - 22 = 58
58 / 16 = 3.625
And if that $80 Billion is too high an estimate, lets drop it to $60 Billion
60 - 22 - 38
38 / 16 = 2,375
In that case the Cap & Trade program needs to be 2 to 3 times what they had been averaging.
My point is just as valid as before, they need more cash to actually finish the railroad between SF and LA - or two, three, or four times more time.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by electricron

My point is just as valid as before, they need more cash to actually finish the railroad between SF and LA - or two, three, or four times more time.

The state has run gigantic surpluses for the past few years. Prudently, those funds were used to shore up the state pension fund and cash reserves 2017-2020.

California, right now, has almost enough cash on hand and due in its coffers within the next 12 months to pay cash for the rest of this project:
https://calmatters.org/commentary/20...t-surplus-lao/

There is no way that the governor and legislature would ever hand a huge sum to CAHSR without also allocating money to local transit, but as many have mentioned here before, much of the CAHSR project *is* local transit since many upgrades are being made to commuter rail in the Bay and LA.

The current surplus is so profound that the state could easily hand over the cash to build the tunnel between 4th/King and Transbay, which would help peninsula commuters in the short-term.

In LA they could upgrade commuter rail from Burbank to Anaheim to CAHSR specs - all grade separations, Union Station upgrades, and electrification.

There is also potential in the Bay to improve ACE and Capitol Corridor by electrifying to CAHSR/Caltrains specs in anticipation of the second Transbay Tube.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The current surplus is so profound that the state could easily hand over the cash to build the tunnel between 4th/King and Transbay, which would help peninsula commuters in the short-term.

In LA they could upgrade commuter rail from Burbank to Anaheim to CAHSR specs - all grade separations, Union Station upgrades, and electrification.

There is also potential in the Bay to improve ACE and Capitol Corridor by electrifying to CAHSR/Caltrains specs in anticipation of the second Transbay Tube.

Whether CHSR gets any more State derived cash or not, they should be investing it into tunnels between Merced and Gilroy and between Bakersfield and LA. Tunnels take twice as long to build as elevated or at grade structures, and at least twice as much money as well. Surpluses, money falling from the heavens, should be spent on the most expensive sections. What good is a second transbay tunnel in northern California, or a tunnel under Burbank in southern California as long as SF and LA remain unconnected. The first priority should be interconnecting the two huge metros with high speed tracks.

[Busy Bee]

I agree they need to get moving on the tunnels.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by electricron

The first priority should be interconnecting the two huge metros with high speed tracks.

I don't believe that they can run trains to just Burbank or LA Union because operations will be dependent on the maintenance facility/storage yard in Anaheim. So from Palmdale southward they need to build everything.

That's different than NoCal, where the HSR trains might terminate at 4th/King before the connecting tunnel to Transbay can be built.

That said, from a political standpoint, it probably makes sense to launch both the Pacheco Pass and Palmdale tunnels at the same time. Inevitably, one or the other will go wildly over budget and that will be used as an excuse to never build the other tunnel if the "bad" tunnel is built first.

[ardecila]

^ That's not really true, once the Burbank-Bakersfield mountain crossing opens they can just purchase dual mode locos and re-route the existing San Joaquins fleet. The result would be a basically high speed service from LAUS to Emeryville/Oakland, with the only "slow" section (79mph) between Merced and Oakland.

Both the Siemens Venture coaches and the Charger diesel locos are rated up to 125mph and should be able to reach that speed consistently on a true HSL, unlike the NEC which still has a lot of slow zones. The result would have roughly the same average speed as Acela between LAUS and Merced, even without building a specialized maintenance facility for high speed trainsets. However, due to the long tunnel on the mountain crossing a diesel loco would not work, so a dual mode version of the Charger would probably be required. After the HSR is fully built out from LA-SF, the dual modes can be handed down to one of the commuter operations.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Both the Siemens Venture coaches and the Charger diesel locos are rated up to 125mph and should be able to reach that speed consistently on a true HSL, unlike the NEC which still has a lot of slow zones. The result would have roughly the same average speed as Acela between LAUS and Merced, even without building a specialized maintenance facility for high speed trainsets. However, due to the long tunnel on the mountain crossing a diesel loco would not work, so a dual mode version of the Charger would probably be required. After the HSR is fully built out from LA-SF, the dual modes can be handed down to one of the commuter operations.

Why build a track for 220 mph speed trains and then only use rolling stock that can only go 125 mph? Eventually, they will have to hang catenaries in long tunnels, dual mode or single mode, might as well use electric trainsets.
Eventually, they will use trainsets for 220 mph speeds, might as well go ahead and build the maintenance facilities or depots to support them.
California's order includes 49 Venture cars, formed into seven semi-permanently-coupled trainsets.
The existing San Joaquin trains running between Oakland and Bakersfield have 315 rail miles, the new HSR corridor will be approximately just as long. The existing trains take around 6 hours to travel the 315 rail miles, averaging 52.5 mph.
Assuming 125 mph max speed trains double the average speeds of the trains to twice what they do today, 105 mph average, the trains will still need 3 hours to travel those 315 rail miles.
They still will not take your all the way to LA from Oakland, or to San Jose and San Francisco if you route the trains to Oakland.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by electricron

Why build a track for 220 mph speed trains and then only use rolling stock that can only go 125 mph?

It wouldn't be a permanent situation. I am suspicious, however, that building a single diesel track on the new HSR line to enable a rudimentary service between Bakersfield and Oakland would impede the eventual testing and implementation of HSR on the line.

Also, it's worth noting that the max speed in the planned tunnels will be about 150mph, so not much faster than the max speed of the non-HSR trainsets. However, I did some reading recently on the base tunnels finished recently in Switzerland and the ongoing construction of the separate Austria-Italy tunnel, and they're all being built to a slower spec of 120mph vs California's 150mph. They're saving a ton of money by doing so because the bore diameter is about 26 feet instead of 28 feet, which pencils out to a huge amount of material and cost savings over the length of a 30-mile tunnel.

Lowering the tunnel speed requirement for one tunnel or the other could save the project a ton of money but the 10~ minute longer end-to-end run time might put it in violation of the 2008 ballot issue.

Building along I-5 would have, in theory, saved time for the LA-SF express run since the running distance would have been about 30 miles shorter. But in reality it might not have saved any time because it would have enabled the tunnels to have been built at an even smaller diameter, perhaps with a max speed of 100-110mph, in order to achieve the same 2:45 run time.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Also, it's worth noting that the max speed in the planned tunnels will be about 150mph, so not much faster than the max speed of the non-HSR trainsets. However, I did some reading recently on the base tunnels finished recently in Switzerland and the ongoing construction of the separate Austria-Italy tunnel, and they're all being built to a slower spec of 120mph vs California's 150mph. They're saving a ton of money by doing so because the bore diameter is about 26 feet instead of 28 feet, which pencils out to a huge amount of material and cost savings over the length of a 30-mile tunnel.

But in the tunnels, they would be building 150 mph tracks. Besides the bore size, the tunnels also have grades, steep enough to lower maximum speeds. And by the way, the speed reductions is for going downhill cause by braking limitations.
But in the Valley, 220 mph tracks are what they are planning to build.