|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Nov 13, 2009 8:25:41 GMT -8
From L.A. Times:Schwarzenegger quietly quashed effort to improve commuter rails By Dan Weikel and Eric Bailey November 13, 2009 Reporting from Sacramento and Los Angeles - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger quietly spiked an effort last month to win $1.1 billion in federal high-speed rail stimulus funds for 29 projects to improve the safety, speed and capacity of heavily traveled commuter corridors through Southern California. Instead, he ordered state officials to seek money for only one project -- the proposed bullet train between San Francisco and San Diego. ______ Read the rest of the article at L.A. Times.com
|
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Dec 12, 2009 18:49:54 GMT -8
Makes some sense, the HSR is one project with a clear vision and intent. However, dividing the money between many local projects will create much needed stimulus jobs faster, and these projects will start much sooner.
HSR is still a dream, a partially funded dream.
|
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Feb 27, 2010 20:37:53 GMT -8
  The city of Buena Park has learned that part of a transit-oriented residential project tied into its 3-year-old Metrolink station may have to be ripped out for the bullet train. Planners are reexamining the issue. (Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times / February 19, 2010) Some fear California's high-speed
rail won't deliver on early promises There's concern that local, state or federal subsidies would
be needed as projected ticket prices between L.A. and San Francisco have almost doubled. And building costs for the
first phase have grown.By Rich Connell and Dan Weikel Los Angeles Times: Sunday, February 28, 2010 Despite a new $2.25-billion infusion of federal economic stimulus funding, there are intensifying concerns -- even among some high-speed rail supporters -- that California's proposed bullet train may not deliver on the financial and ridership promises made to win voter backing in 2008. Estimates of ticket prices between Los Angeles and San Francisco have nearly doubled in the project's latest business plan, pushing ridership projections down sharply and prompting new skepticism about data underpinning the entire project. "This just smells funny," said state Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), a supporter of high-speed rail and chairman of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee. New, inflation-adjusted construction figures show that outlays needed to build the first 520-mile phase of the system have climbed more than 25%, from $33.6 billion to $42.6 billion. And some government watchdogs are concerned that a linchpin commitment to taxpayers in the bullet train's financing measure -- that no local, state or federal subsidies would be required to keep the trains operating -- may be giving way. High-speed rail planners recently advised state lawmakers that attracting billions in crucial private financing will probably require government backing of future cash flow. "Without some form of revenue guarantee from the public sector, it is unlikely that private investment will occur at [the planned] level until demand for California high-speed rail is proven," project planners wrote in December. That is feeding fears that a larger state commitment, beyond the $9 billion in construction bonds approved by voters, could be sought to complete the 800-mile project. "To now put in that we have to [give] some kind of revenue guarantee . . . is totally unacceptable," Lowenthal said. "That's not what we agreed to." Financial risks and planning adjustments are inevitable in such a massive project, say officials with the California High-Speed Rail Authority. They insist that significant progress is being made, that there is cause for optimism and that they are keeping their commitments to voters. Opportunities for capturing more federal dollars are greater than ever, they say, because President Obama supports high-speed rail. "The project is moving forward, very much," said Mehdi Morshed, the agency's executive director. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and a coalition of business, labor and political leaders argue that the project is ahead of others in the United States and will provide enormous benefits in job creation, congestion relief and environmental improvements. Tying San Diego, Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Francisco together with European-style, 200-mph trains has been a long-stalled dream for many. The prospect that construction could actually begin has intensified scrutiny of financial, ridership and route issues. "I think the numbers should be scrubbed," said authority board member Richard Katz, adding that doing so could help the project. Jeff Barker, the agency's deputy director, said the latest business plan fueled confusion about a revenue guarantee "We didn't do a good job of explaining that," he said. The system is being designed to operate without a taxpayer subsidy, and that will be clarified in a new, as-yet unavailable report, he said. But Morshed, who is stepping down next month, reiterated that some guarantee, probably from the federal government, may be needed to ensure that cash flow can repay front-end construction investments by private parties. That is not uncommon in federally backed projects, he said, and would not violate the state's ban on taxpayer operating subsidies. Current plans call for up to $12 billion from private-sector investors, about $18 billion from the federal government and up to $5 billion from local agencies. New forecasts show an operating surplus topping $1 billion a few years after service begins. But some analysts point out that almost all U.S. rail systems -- and a number of foreign operations -- have required large government loans or cash infusions to keep running. Under the new scenario, one-way fares between L.A. and San Francisco rise from $55 to $105, closer to the cost of an airline ticket. The change shows healthier surplus revenue, which may appeal to private investors. But estimated ridership falls by about one-third, to about 40 million annual boarders in 2030. Some transit advocates say predictions of private participation aren't realistic. "A lot of it's still magical thinking," said Bart Reed, executive director of the Transit Coalition. complete story continues |
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Dec 2, 2010 14:31:46 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Dec 2, 2010 14:56:37 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 2, 2010 19:51:04 GMT -8
It's a great first segment. Nice and flat with no tunnels or mountain passes. Relatively straight as such things go.
Pretty much NIMBY free. Avoids the Union Pacific NIMBYs by building elevated tracks over it. Satisfies all of the legal requirements. It will make a nice test track for any Shinkansen or TGV trains, and we can even run the San Joaquin on it because it will link with the BNSF. Fresno is something like the 4th or 5th largest city in the state, above Long Beach and Sacramento.
And don't worry, the rest of the state will be connected soon enough.
Damn the lawsuits, full speed ahead.
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Dec 9, 2010 15:39:57 GMT -8
Wow, the Feds just did a pull back on that money ($1.2 billion) that Ohio and Wisconsin don't want. Looks like California is going to get another $624 million per the CHSRA blog. Apparently the USDOT wants us to use that money to extend that initial segment towards Bakersfield. It looks like their (the Feds) plan is to have us build as much track as possible.
Sounds good to me. Thank you very much. I'm guessing that within a few days we may see an official response from the CHSRA concerning what will be done with the money.
Merry Christmas !
RT
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 9, 2010 17:00:27 GMT -8
^^ Thanks RT. For the record, the US DOT press release says California will get up to $624 million in additional funds. The CAHSR Authority press release substantiates this, and says that "funding is anticipated to further construction in the Central Valley toward another urban center." This may or may not be Bakersfield: we'll know for sure once a credible source comes forward on this. And referring to Wisconsin and Ohio, US DOT says it "will work with these states to determine whether they have already spent money under their contracts that should be reimbursed." LOL  |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Dec 9, 2010 22:14:50 GMT -8
Finally, after decades of meathead policies that encourage sprawl and favor building and expanding highways over mass transit, it appears the feds are starting to get it.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Dec 10, 2010 11:42:59 GMT -8
This is really good news for us!
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 10, 2010 15:02:40 GMT -8
What's good for Cal HSR is going to be good for rail transit in the long run. There's going to be a ridiculously steep drop off in technology between Cal HSR and say, Metrolink, Caltrain, ACE, Coaster, etc. (The jump from HSR to commuter train is not nearly so steep in Japan or Europe). When construction begins, Metrolink should really look at their options (if they haven't already). There's room for electrification, eliminating grade crossings, maybe even shared trackage, and certainly shared ROWs. America has never been closer to true HSR than it is now, and I am excited about it |
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 10, 2010 15:32:59 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Dec 10, 2010 15:47:36 GMT -8
I read somewhere else that CAHSR plan on connecting the initial segment with existing rail lines so that HSR can operate into Bay Area. In another way, the line maybe operational despite only have true high speed segment in the Valley (i.e. not a train to nowhere... as the train could go at slower speed once it leaves the Valley). If this is true, does it imply that existing rail lines will need to be electrified (as per James' comment)? And what about connection to LA Basin? Is there a way for HSR to come to LA Union Station from Bakersfield? I thought Amtrak couldn't even do this...
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 10, 2010 15:51:01 GMT -8
I still don't understand why CAHSR chose to build the initial segment between Madera and Corcoran, excluding both Merced and Bakersfield from the initial route. It seems to me, a Fresno-Bakersfield or Fresno-Merced route would have made more sense, so that they could run some actual service on the initial tracks.
Hopefully the additional money from Wisconsin/Ohio will allow them to add Merced or Bakersfield to the initial segment.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Dec 10, 2010 16:42:38 GMT -8
I still don't understand why CAHSR chose to build the initial segment between Madera and Corcoran, excluding both Merced and Bakersfield from the initial route. It seems to me, a Fresno-Bakersfield or Fresno-Merced route would have made more sense, so that they could run some actual service on the initial tracks. Hopefully the additional money from Wisconsin/Ohio will allow them to add Merced or Bakersfield to the initial segment. I'm no expert on CAHSR, but the CAHSR Blog does a good job of getting into some of these details. It appears that the money will be used to send the tracks south towards Bakersfield. Whether they can make it all the way to Bakersfield is a little unclear, but from what I have read it appears that this will be the case. Basically, the reasoning to build this section first is that it is ready to go first both environmentally and from ease of construction. Also, they can run test trains at the top speed of 220 mph here. Amtrak can use these tracks for their current trains (San Joaquin). I initially thought LA to Anaheim would be a great first section, but the problems building here are pretty immense. There are a lot of issues to work out. Remember these are stimulus dollars and construction must start in 2012 or the funds are gone. Ultimately, if they can get it to Palmdale from Bakersfield, then you could take a Metrolink train to Palmdale and then HSR throughout the SJ Valley and even connect up to Amtrak going in the Bay Area. Not ideal, but a def. improvement over current train service. People from Fresno would probably use that combo over an expensive flight to LAX. Anyway, the idea is to get the whole thing under construction within a few years and not open it in sections years and years after each section is built (like our subway). |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Dec 10, 2010 17:51:31 GMT -8
I still don't understand why CAHSR chose to build the initial segment between Madera and Corcoran, excluding both Merced and Bakersfield from the initial route. It seems to me, a Fresno-Bakersfield or Fresno-Merced route would have made more sense, so that they could run some actual service on the initial tracks. Hopefully the additional money from Wisconsin/Ohio will allow them to add Merced or Bakersfield to the initial segment. It's now planned to go to Bakersfield (http://www.bakersfield.com/news/local/x1534674164/Feds-insist-that-first-leg-of-bullet-train-reach-Bakersfield) |
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Dec 10, 2010 21:16:13 GMT -8
I still don't understand why CAHSR chose to build the initial segment between Madera and Corcoran, excluding both Merced and Bakersfield from the initial route. It seems to me, a Fresno-Bakersfield or Fresno-Merced route would have made more sense, so that they could run some actual service on the initial tracks. Because that section never would have opened. Look at the construction timeline, they wont even break ground until 2012. By the time it's done, in say, 2014 or 2015, other segments would be under construction. Take the 600 million they got yesterday that will take the line to Bakersfield. They probably count on annual federal grants. So by the time construction actually starts in 2012, they may have enough money to go from Merced all the way to Bakersfield. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Dec 10, 2010 21:36:21 GMT -8
There's room for electrification, eliminating grade crossings, maybe even shared trackage, and certainly shared ROWs. Sharing ROWs is inevitable. There's just not enough support to build freeway adjacent routes. Yes, it's good for us but it sucks for Ohio and Wisconsin, who elected idiots as governors and now their states are heavily suffering: There are no words to describe the idiocy of this certain political party. They utterly lack the comprehension of what is good in the long run. It's now planned to go to Bakersfield (http://www.bakersfield.com/news/local/x1534674164/Feds-insist-that-first-leg-of-bullet-train-reach-Bakersfield) This would be huge if it's true. Conservatives won't be able to spread "Train-to-Nowhere" propaganda. |
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Dec 11, 2010 10:03:52 GMT -8
LOL this was in the LA Times today, the last line had me rolling on the floor... www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-trains-20101211,0,7552797.story Outraged by excessive stimulus spending? Worried that construction of new infrastructure in your state will create operating costs lasting well into the future? If you're a Republican governor with such troubles on your mind, we have the solution: Send the federal money to California. The Golden State is more than willing to relieve you of the burden of all that free cash. Remarkably, the governors of Wisconsin and Ohio seem to have taken us up on an offer so disadvantageous that the most shameless infomercial producer would hesitate to promote it. After being awarded a combined $1.2 billion in stimulus money to build rail projects — $810 million for a train from Milwaukee to Madison in Wisconsin and $385 million for a rail line linking Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland in Ohio — the governors turned it down. Instead, it will be distributed to train projects in 13 other states, with California being the biggest single beneficiary. Why would they do such a thing? Because it would cost taxpayer money to operate the rail lines after they're built. Scott Walker, Republican governor-elect of Wisconsin, fretted that his state's train would cost $7.5 million a year to operate. As train supporters pointed out to the New York Times, this is sort of like turning down a free car because you don't want to have to pay for gasoline and insurance. Not only did Walker and Ohio Gov.-elect John Kasich, also a Republican, ignore the construction jobs the projects would have created, but they ignored the positive impact on their states' economies, freeways and environment that the trains would have brought to future generations. Get the best in Southern California opinion journalism delivered to your inbox with our Opinion L.A. newsletter. Sign up » But that's perfectly OK with us, because California can use the money. Our state's future high-speed rail line from San Diego to San Francisco and Sacramento is already hitting snags, and we expect many more before the system is complete. The $624 million from Wisconsin and Ohio, combined with the $3 billion in federal funds the state has already received, will help smooth the way. Thanks a billion, cheeseheads. |
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Dec 11, 2010 14:18:45 GMT -8
One other good aspect of this recent distribution is that the Florida system is now essentially paid for. Going forward, no more federal $ will be sent to Florida, at least for the Tampa-Orlando phase, thereby leaving only the California project and possibly the NEC as the remaining true high speed systems to be getting federal funding. So if the 2011 HSR allocation is indeed reduced to $1 billion, down from $2.5 billion in FY2010, California would probably end up getting a bigger slice of a smaller pie.
Unless the Florida Governor does something really stupid, like give all the money back, they will also be the first system up and running. If ridership pays for the operations, or even generates a surplus, most of the HSR opposition arguments will start going up in smoke, making the California system a much easier sell.
The HSR Authority is having a meeting on December 13th spelling out what the newly added $624 million will be used for. If you then add most of the FY2011 $1 billion that California is likely to get, you are almost able to entirely build Fresno to Bakersfield. And like Cruickshank pointed out, the Republican congressmen from those areas will hopefully "see the light" when it comes to future HSR $ allocation voting, after having seen 10,000+ of their constituents being put to work on HSR construction.
RT
|
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Dec 11, 2010 15:23:42 GMT -8
The Wisconsin Badgers will play in the Rose Bowl on January 1st.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Dec 11, 2010 23:01:45 GMT -8
And like Cruickshank pointed out, the Republican congressmen from those areas will hopefully "see the light" when it comes to future HSR $ allocation voting, after having seen 10,000+ of their constituents being put to work on HSR construction. God himself* could come down and tell him how amazing HSR is an Nunes would still repeat the same baseless critiques as long as the party line is still "no". *Nunes claims to be highly religious so I would assume he would hold God's advice in high regard. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 12, 2010 16:04:16 GMT -8
And like Cruickshank pointed out, the Republican congressmen from those areas will hopefully "see the light" when it comes to future HSR $ allocation voting, after having seen 10,000+ of their constituents being put to work on HSR construction. God himself* could come down and tell him how amazing HSR is an Nunes would still repeat the same baseless critiques as long as the party line is still "no". *Nunes claims to be highly religious so I would assume he would hold God's advice in high regard. The high priests and Pharisees were also highly religious, from what I hear ;D (* That's right, I'm comparing high-speed rail to Jesus. ) Getting back on, um, track, I'd be all in favor of electrifying Metrolink, especially the parts which will eventually link up with Cal HSR. I'm fairly certain that the funds for that don't exist (yet), but it's certainly something to consider. Tokyo's commuter trains aren't pushed around by diesels. For the time being, if I understand correctly, the plan is to let Amtrak borrow the new HSR tracks (or at least, make it possible for regular train service to operate on the tracks if necessary in order to meet some legal requirements in the bond measure). That's why the new tracks need to connect to BNSF in Fresno and in Corcoran/ Wasco/ Shafter (depending on how far south the tracks actually get.) I'm not sure what heavyweight trains would do to tracks designed for Shinkansen-level, non-FRA compliant train service, but I guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Shinkansen, TGV and the rest would also need electrification to test out 220-mph operations, so I'm surprised that there hasn't been more said about that. |
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Dec 12, 2010 17:06:48 GMT -8
Just remember, stimulus money that is going to build HSR in the middle of the Central Valley is money that isn't going toward electrifying Metrolink and Caltrain. It's also not going toward linking the Central Valley to the Bay Area and Southern California, and even once the the new awesome high speed Bakersfield to just south of Merced section gets built and high speed (or Amtrak) trains are running on it, passengers headed to LA will have to get off at Bakersfield to get on... a bus.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 12, 2010 19:31:44 GMT -8
Just remember, stimulus money that is going to build HSR in the middle of the Central Valley is money that isn't going toward electrifying Metrolink and Caltrain. It's also not going toward linking the Central Valley to the Bay Area and Southern California, and even once the the new awesome high speed Bakersfield to just south of Merced section gets built and high speed (or Amtrak) trains are running on it, passengers headed to LA will have to get off at Bakersfield to get on... a bus. You get your info. from TRAC California Rail News, don't you?  * but I kid... The awesome high-speed rail will reach Los Angeles. And it will reach San Jose and San Francisco, although not via Altamont. It just won't reach there yet. See also: the Purple Line, Expo Rail Phase I, etc. And saying that the funds aren't going to Metrolink... well, reminds me of a certain organization complaining about the funds going to "racist" Metro Rail, not the poor people on the bus lines. I don't know what Metrolink needs to do to get Southern California politicians to take it seriously. The fact that they have to decide whether or not to buy these awesome new Rotem cars, and the fact that they can't afford TAP is just...  yeah. But I do think HSR will at the very least force local politicians to take another look at the transit they have and decide if they think it is adequate. We have a few years to figure out the funding... |
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Dec 20, 2010 11:58:12 GMT -8
CHSRA applies new $616 million to build South: www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/pr_approvesstatematch.aspxSo now the initial segment will be extended from the planned 65 miles to possibly as many as 120 miles of the 520 total miles in Phase 1. It depends on the outcome of the environmental studies taking place now. I guess the final decision will come sometime in 2011. The above states that the total funds now committed to the initial segment are $5.5 billion. The line would still not quite make it to Bakersfield. So you would think that the next "chunk" of funding that becomes available would try to get all the way there, and also construct the Bakersfield station. IMHO. It will be interesting to see how the Governors first budget deals with the HSR funding from a state perspective. While I realize that "everything" will be facing massive cuts, unless a corresponding tax increase is approved by the public, I would still hope to see some level of state funded HSR money coming through outside of the 1A bond money. It would, if nothing else, demonstrate a willingness of the state to provide additional monies out of the general fund going forward. Hopefully this is on Jerry's radar... RT |
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Dec 20, 2010 12:02:15 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 20, 2010 15:24:52 GMT -8
The line would still not quite make it to Bakersfield. So you would think that the next "chunk" of funding that becomes available would try to get all the way there, and also construct the Bakersfield station. IMHO. Well, Bakersfield does have its own special little problem called Bakersfield High School. It's obviously a NIMBY issue, and I don't support their point of view at all, but I do acknowledge at the very least that it is a problem which needs to be addressed before the train gets any further south. |
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jan 19, 2011 16:14:05 GMT -8
Looks like $30 million of HSR specific federal funds are coming to Southern California. The article is vague about what exactly the money will be used for, but it does mention property acquisition. It also says that some of the money might be used by Metro in purchasing Union Station, which was mentioned by someone else in another thread... www.turnto23.com/news/26545527/detail.html |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jan 20, 2011 6:52:00 GMT -8
|
|
* but I kid...
yeah.