|
Post by Frank Boothe on Mar 9, 2007 20:55:29 GMT -8
2007 Update of California High-Speed Rail News __________________________________ Message from: YAHOO's Commuter Rail Group Listserve CommuterRail@yahoogroups.com Come visit us--we need your voice in our group! ___________________________________ Business Wire PR Friday, February 16, 2007 08:35 PM Eastern Time Governor Schwarzenegger Bulks up the California High-Speed Rail Authority Board SACRAMENTO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Governor Schwarzenegger announced four appointments to the California High-Speed Rail Authority Board on Wednesday: David Crane, R. Kirk Lindsey and Curt Pringle were appointed and Rod Diridon was reappointed. "The Authority enthusiastically welcomes the appointment of these qualified individuals. It's encouraging that the Governor seems to understand the significance and need for a viable transportation alternative for Californians. It's logical our Governor would appoint qualified business and transportation experts to continue to forge ahead for the betterment of the state's transportation system," stated Judge Quentin Kopp, Chairman of the Authority. David Crane currently serves as special advisor to the Governor for jobs and economic growth. Before joining the Administration, Crane was a partner with Babcock & Brown, a financial services firm. Rod Diridon, Sr. has served on the Authority since 2001, serving one term as chair. Additionally, Diridon serves as the executive director of the Mineta Transportation Institute. Previously, he served on the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors from 1975 to 1995 and served as chair of the Board for six terms. Diridon is past chair of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, American Public Transit Association, Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the Association of Bay Area Governments. He is the president and founder of the California Trolley and Railroad Corporation. R. Kirk Lindsey has served on the California Transportation Commission since 2000 and has served as the president of Brite Transport System Incorporated since 1973. Lindsey is also a managing partner of B&P Bulk, an agricultural trucking company and a partner of P&L Properties. Curt Pringle serves as Mayor of the City of Anaheim and president of Curt Pringle & Associates. Pringle has also served as an adjunct faculty member in the political science department at the University of California, Irvine since 2000, where he teaches California government. Previously, he served in the California State Assembly from 1988 to 1990 and 1992 to 1998. While in the Assembly, Pringle served as Speaker in 1996. The California high-speed train system would create a comprehensive network of high-speed trains throughout the Northern and Southern California regions, reducing traffic and increasing mobility in a way that is fast, safe, convenient, economical and environmentally friendly. The Authority continues to make significant progress and has recently hired a program manager to oversee the project's design and construction. Engineering, environmental and financial consultants have been hired to conduct the last significant phase of environmental review of the six regional lines extending 700 miles throughout California that are required before construction of the train system can begin. Contacts California High-Speed Rail Authority Kris Deutschman, 916-444-8801 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Wednesday, March 7, 2007 High-Speed Rail California high-speed system would attract more riders, generate more revenue than projected, consultant says A statewide high-speed rail system in California would attract up to 104 percent more passengers and generate up to 170 percent more revenue than originally projected, according to a study recently conducted by transportation consulting firm Cambridge Systematics. Presented earlier this week to the California High Speed Rail Authority board, the study projects ridership could total between 86 million and 117 million passengers and revenue, between $2.6 billion and $3.9 billion annually by 2030. The high-speed rail authority's 2000 business plan projected ridership to total 68 million and revenue, $1.8 billion by 2020. The updated forecast factors in rising automobile use, increasing auto and air travel costs, and a high-speed rail link to Orange County. The proposed 700-mile California high-speed rail system calls for operating trains up to 220 mph between the Bay Area and southern California. Progressive Railroading www.progressiverailroading.com/prdailynews/news.asp?id=10319 ################### Legislative Analyst's Office Analysis of the 2007-08 Budget Bill: Transportation High-Speed Rail Authority (2665) The California High-Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) is responsible for planning and constructing an intercity high-speed rail system. Chapter 796, Statutes of 1996 (SB 1420, Kopp)-the California High-Speed Rail Act of 1996-established HSRA as an independent authority consisting of nine board members appointed by the Legislature and Governor. The authority was due to expire December 31, 2003. Chapter 696, Statutes of 2002 (SB 796, Costa), repealed the expiration date, making HSRA permanent. Chapter 696 also authorized the sale of $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds, including $9 billion of which would be for planning and construction of a high-speed rail segment between San Francisco and Los Angeles. The bond measure was scheduled to be placed on the November 2004 ballot. Since Chapter 696, the bond measure has been postponed twice. First, Chapter 71, Statutes of 2004 (SB 1169, Murray), postponed the measure to the November 2006 ballot. Chapter 44, Statutes of 2006 (AB 713, Torrico), further pushed back the bond measure to the November 2008 ballot. Time to Bite the Bullet for the Bullet Train The Governor proposes to indefinitely postpone submitting a high-speed rail bond measure to the voters. The budget provides $1.2 million to support the High-Speed Rail Authority through 2007-08, however, it provides no funds for contract services. We recommend that the Legislature decide whether or not to continue the project. If the Legislature decides to terminate the project, we recommend deleting the authority's funding and disbanding the High-Speed Rail Authority. Budget Proposes to Stop High-Speed Rail Project Indefinitely. As part of the 2007-08 budget, the administration is proposing $29.4 billion in general obligation bonds for various infrastructure projects, principally in education, to be placed on the ballot in 2008 and 2010. The administration believes that setting aside bonding authority for high-speed rail would take up the state's capacity to issue bonds for most other purposes. Therefore, the administration proposes to indefinitely postpone submitting the high-speed rail bond measure to the voters. This would essentially end the project unless another source of funding is provided. The budget, however, requests $1.2 million to support the continued operation of HSRA during 2007-08. This amount does not include funding for the authority to continue to contract for work related to the development of a high-speed rail system. The HSRA has worked since its creation to develop a high-speed rail system in anticipation that the bond to fund the first segment would go to voters. In the current year, HSRA entered into several contracts for that purpose. These contracted services would develop processes and plans to manage and finance the project, as well as perform preliminary environmental and engineering work on segments of the high-speed rail line. Discussions with the authority indicate that $13 million has been committed toward these efforts in the current year. Although these contracts are funded on a year-to-year basis, the work outlined in them spans several years. The HSRA estimates that the cost to continue funding the contracts in 2007-08 would be about $70 million. (This cost does not include the cost to acquire any rights-of-way.) Legislature Should Decide Fate of Project. Each year the authority operates, it is getting further along in the development of a high-speed rail system, and more money is being spent on the project. Through 2006-07, the state will have spent approximately $47.4 million on this project. Not knowing if the state is committed to the project makes it difficult for HSRA to determine how quickly it should develop the project. For instance, if a system is to be constructed, certain critical rights-of-way should be acquired before they are taken up by growth and development. However, without certainty that the system will be constructed, HSRA does not know whether funds should be expended for rights-of-way acquisition. Additionally, repeatedly delaying the decision on whether the state will seek voter approval of project funding creates uncertainties and makes it more difficult for the state to seek financing from other sources. For instance, funding support from the Federal Railroad Administration may not be forthcoming until it is clear that the state is committed to the project. Discussions with the authority indicate that if the project is to proceed in a timely manner, several hundreds of millions of dollars will be needed in the next few years to acquire critical rights-of-way and to complete preliminary engineering on various segments of the rail system. We recommend that the Legislature decide on whether the state is committed to the project before substantial amounts of additional state resources are expended. If the Legislature decides that the project should proceed, it should provide funding for HSRA to continue its system development work in 2007-08. Otherwise, there is no reason to continue funding the authority. In that case, we recommend deleting the $1.2 million from the budget and enacting legislation to disband the authority. Return to Transportation Table of Contents, 2007-08 Budget Analysis www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2007/transportation/tran_08_2665_anl07.aspx +++++++++++++++ The next California High-Speed Rail Authority Board Meetings are as follows. Meetings are subject to change, so please check this website before making your final plans to attend a specific meeting. Date: March 28, 2007 Time: 10:00 a.m. Location: Sacramento Area Council of Governments 1415 L Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA ============
|
|
|
Post by erict on Mar 20, 2007 11:29:35 GMT -8
..in the 1st Public High Speed Rail Meeting.
Please join Councilmember Tom LaBonge and representatives of California's High Speed Rail Authority in a "Pre-Scoping" Meeting to be held tomorrow evening, Wednesday, March 21 at Friendship Auditorium in Griffith Park. Your input is important!
An informational meeting to discuss the future potential of high speed rail that would travel 220 miles an hour along a north-south route through California will be hosted by proponent and Councilmember Tom LaBonge along with representatives of high speed rail.
At the meeting, officials from the High Speed Rail Authority will given an overview of the project, including a video showing its unique technology and capabilities, and will take input and answer questions.
"When we consider how many people drive or fly between Los Angeles and San Francisco on a daily basis, we know that high speed rail between these two cities would be an instant success,"said Councilmember LaBonge. "High speed rail is hugely popular in Europe and Japan and there is little doubt that the public is looking to a speedy alternative to our clogged freeways."
WHAT: Community Outreach California High Speed Rail Meeting
WHEN: 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, March 21, 2007 WHO: Councilmember Tom LaBonge Veronica Snyder, Sylvia Novoa, Annette Cortez & Denny Papilion, High Speed Rail Authority WHERE: Friendship Auditorium, Griffith Park 3201 Riverside Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90027
This is plenty of parking adjacent to Friendship Auditorium.
|
|
|
Post by jeffe77 on Apr 6, 2007 11:37:31 GMT -8
..in the 1st Public High Speed Rail Meeting. WHAT: Community Outreach California High Speed Rail Meeting WHEN: 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, March 21, 2007 WHO: Councilmember Tom LaBonge Veronica Snyder, Sylvia Novoa, Annette Cortez & Denny Papilion, High Speed Rail Authority WHERE: Friendship Auditorium, Griffith Park 3201 Riverside Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90027 This is plenty of parking adjacent to Friendship Auditorium. Article about the aforementioned Meetingla.indymedia.org/news/2007/04/196323.phpOn March 21, 2007, a public meeting took place about the proposed Los Angeles to Palmdale high-speed train.(Other meetings about this project will be held this month, including one on April 5. Details at bottom.) If implemented, it would ultimately connect San Diego to San Francisco, with stops in between. (Map: www.eltoroairport.org/images/route_map.jpg) For the Los Angeles-Palmdale branch, stations in Burbank, Sylmar (concept art for this can be seen here: www.anilverma.com/detail.php3?c_id=950806915), San Fernando, and Santa Clarita have been discussed. To the south of Los Angeles, there would be stops in Ontario, Irvine, and of course San Diego. The event was held at the Friendship Auditorium on Riverside Drive (near Los Feliz Boulevard) and was presented by Los Angeles City Councilmember Tom LaBonge. It began with a video presentation which explained the proposal. (A version of the movie can be downloaded and viewed here: www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/) Footage of existing high-speed trains and computer-generated imagery visualized the project. The film’s narrator noted that California’s population will increase by 30% in the next 20 years, and “ y 2030, 50 million people will call the Golden State home.” This, of course, will compound our existing transportation catastrophe.
Thus, the movie states, we need “new innovative approaches: highly-efficient, safe, and clean alternatives that support our growing economy, improve and augment our existing transportation networks and promote sustainable development patterns that protect our landscape and environment.”
Some of the film’s computer-generated imagery depicted wind generators powering the system. The train cars were being fed by overhead electric lines .
“Often maligned as science fiction in the United States, high-speed trains are a fact of life in most of the world’s developed, industrialized economies,” the narrator continued. “In fact, high-speed trains have proven to be the safest and most reliable form of transportation in the world, ideally-suited for the unprecedented needs of California in the 21st-century.”
The plan is to have the entire 700-mile system operating by 2020.
In urban areas, the trains would travel at about 125 mph, and in open areas 220-250 mph. Thus, a trip from San Diego to Los Angeles would be less than one hour and 20 minutes, Los Angeles to Fresno less than 90 minutes, downtown Los Angeles to downtown San Francisco slightly over two-and-a-half hours--“every time, regardless of weather.”
The narrator added: “High-speed trains will also provide fast, frequent service for shorter trips: Anaheim to Los Angeles Union Station in 20 minutes, downtown Los Angeles to Palmdale and Ontario Airport in 25 minutes. [Also] the underserved the Central Valley Corridor: Bakersfield to Fresno in less than 30 minutes, Fresno to Sacramento in just over 50 minutes.” According to the plan, local trains and long-distance express trains will travel on separate tracks.
It was also said that this project would be 50% cheaper than competing remedies to traffic, expanding highways and airports. The train system would cost $40 billion and the other two options would total $82 billion. The exact details of the funding have yet to be defined, but construction bond measures are expected to play a role. Dan Tempelis, who represented the California High-Speed Rail Authority, said at one point that “systems like this, once [they] get beyond the issue of capital, actually generate a revenue and are very profitable.” As examples, he cited the “very profitable” high-speed trains in Japan.
The presentation emphasized the proposed system’s use of clean technology and its minimal impact on “farmlands, wetlands, and sensitive habitats” by using existing right-of-ways (i.e., train and freeway routes) with stops confined to urban areas.
Furthermore, according to the movie, “[h]igh-speed trains will counter the tendency towards sprawl in California’s emerging urban centers by promoting sustainable, transit-oriented developments.” Computer-generated footage depicted monorails servicing a high-speed train station in Anaheim’s Platinum Triangle (which the movie described as “the middle of the densest area in all of Orange County”)(1).
Also, “eparated grades will eliminate crossing points between cars and trains, reducing both noise and congestion, allowing for safer, more efficient movement on both rail and roads.”
Councilperson Tom LaBonge took the floor once the video ended and mentioned his long-time support for “high-speed rail to San Diego, Phoenix, Las Vegas(2), Fresno, Oakland, San Francisco…”
He added that the system under consideration would expedite trips to, say, Yosemite vis-à-vis a Fresno station and rental cars. (Although, environmentalists will probably take issue with increasing the presence of humans—and their cars--in Yosemite.)
“In Tokyo they had the bullet train back in 1964--this is 2007,” he continued. “We’re way behind, and we have to catch up. “
Questions from the audience included: “Is this a question of building it and hoping people will come? Or have you actually done studies to show that people would forego other modes of transportation for this?”
In response, LaBonge referred to the success of these transportation systems in Europe and Japan “and how they move people and how they energize cities.” He added that this new system would be “complimentary” to the already-popular Metrolink.
The councilperson then drew a parallel between this project and L.A.’s bygone Red Car trolley. He mentioned the close proximity of the meeting location (i.e., the Friendship Auditorium) and an old Red Car route(3). “[The Red Car] came from downtown, down Glendale Boulevard into Atwater,” he said. “It was taken out. Look at the mistake we made then. Let’s not make that mistake again and stall on this operation to get high-speed rail on-track. Let us move forward.”
Ensuing questions brought up “the 600-pound gorilla in the room: terrorism” and the massive cost overruns of the Red Line subway construction. “Are we hiring those guys to do the building?”
In regards to cost overruns, LaBonge promised “a very tough oversite.” According to him, it has not been determined who will do the construction.
He added: “Terrorism affects all our daily lives now. We hope that we do not have situation again, but we have to be prepared for that. But 43,000 people in the United States lose their lives in automobile and pedestrian accidents.”
Another question was directed to Dan Tempelis. “Do you expect the fare to be less than or more than taking an airplane? Say you were going to take a flight from Los Angeles to San Francisco, would this [train] be a cheaper alternative, or would it be about the same?”
“As I see it today, it would be about the same,” he replied. “Ultimately, it would end up being cheaper. If you look at the fares on the bullet train system in Japan, it’s actually a little bit cheaper and a lot faster.” Roderick Diaz, also of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, added that studies on the fares are still in progress.
Another audience member said: “It seems like it’s a bit of a circuitous route to go from downtown L.A., out to Riverside, and then to San Diego, when we already have a rail line that goes directly from LA to San Diego. What was the reasoning behind that?”
Tempelis answered: “The environmental and [inaudible] studies that they did looking at population growth with respect to that corridor. Quite a bit of it is going to be out there in the Riverside and San Bernardino area. We just felt this would be the best opportunity to try and service those communities.”
When asked about the safety of these trains, Tempelis referred to the impressive record of Japan’s high-speed trains. “It’s pretty phenomenal when you look at the fact that Japan is a much more seismically-active environment than California. The systems that they have on those trains actually work to prevent derailment and accidents.“
The next public meeting about these plans is on April 5 at the MTA headquarters in Los Angeles. (Details and information about this and other upcoming meetings can be found here:
www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/public_notice/LA_to_Anaheim.asp.)
Continued public input is requested as details of the local routes are worked out. For example, it has yet to be determined whether the trains should be separated from automobile crossings by going over or beneath them.
Tempelis also encouraged people to e-mail questions and comments. (See the website below.)
-----
(1)Roderick Diaz commented on the monorails depicted in the film: “That’s a process that the city of Anaheim is undertaking. They’re doing a planning study right now, and that’s in co-operation with this program. Orange County is encouraging their cities to have local connections within their cities. And I think Anaheim is studying ways to circulate from their station, which is the existing Metrolink station. But the Metrolink station is going to move into this big, big station called the ARTIC (Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center).
“And I think one possibility that could come out of that is a monorail between that station and the resort corridor where Disneyland is.”
(2)A recent article about the long endeavor to get Las Vegas and California connected via high-speed train can be read here:
www.examiner.com/a-627295~Proposed_Victorville_to_Las_Vegas_high_speed_train_gets_traction.html
(3)Some remnants of the Red Car track are still visible in this area. On a hillside at Glendale Boulevard and Fletcher Drive are stone protrusions with political messages painted on them. These originally were part of a bridge that the Red Car crossed. “They were pilings that the posts sat on,” said a veteran activist in Echo Park.
www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/
|
|
|
Post by jeffe77 on Apr 6, 2007 11:39:13 GMT -8
Article on the OC Register www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1643925.phpFriday, April 6, 2007 High-speed train inches ahead Segment of a $40 billion, 700-mile route through the county will undergo study. By ELLYN PAK The Orange County Register A state rail agency this week began moving forward on an extensive study for a high-speed train route that would whisk commuters between Anaheim and Los Angeles. The California High-Speed Rail Authority is leading the charge for the $21 million analysis to examine the Orange County-to-Los Angeles segment of a $40 billion, 700-mile system that would eventually stretch from the Bay Area to San Diego. "It really goes into the deeper level of environmental analysis," Darrell Johnson, Orange County Transportation Authority's director of transit project delivery, said of the next round of studies that will last about three years. In addition, the rail authority is looking to study other segments of the system, including one that could connect Los Angeles to Palmdale and another linking the central part of the state to the Bay Area. Officials envision a system that would move commuters from Anaheim to Los Angeles in 20 minutes. Meetings are being held to gather public input. Last September, transportation officials in Orange County agreed to contribute $7 million to the study that would include considering right-of-way requirements and noise issues. The rail authority is funding the rest. The city of Anaheim is already preparing to be a pit stop for the high-speed train and hopes to integrate the service into a full-scale transit hub that would be built by 2010. The transit hub would bring bus and different rail services together at one location. Anaheim's current Metrolink and Amtrak station would move from Angel Stadium's parking lot the site. The Orange County-to-Los Angeles leg would cost $1.5 billion and go alongside the Metrolink tracks, said Dan Leavitt, deputy director of the rail authority. Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle, a rail authority board member, said Anaheim is a convenient and central point for commuters who wish to shuttle between different counties. Officials said the high-speed train service would be financed through state funds – though a plan to place a bond measure onto the 2008 ballot was recently delayed, pushing the tentative schedule back. "I'd really like to see if there are private-sector options," Pringle said of possible funding sources. Contact the writer: 714-704-3788 or epak@ocregister.com
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Apr 7, 2007 16:19:05 GMT -8
The Norwalk Station means they'll soon be extending the Green Line from the 605 and to LAX, right At least before the High Speed Rail groundbreaking ?
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 7, 2007 17:18:45 GMT -8
Too bad the vote for the HSR couldn't be this year. High gas prices seem conducive to getting support for rail projects.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Apr 7, 2007 18:43:06 GMT -8
On what basis besides your opinion are you making your statement? Have you've looked at any of the polling or are you aware about how little High Speed Rail is supported statewide? And, I am not trying to be mean or harsh towards you, but I believe some explanation is in order here. To win an election requires many specific steps. The Center for Transportation Excellence has prepapred a number of reports on winning an election and CA High Speed Rail is on the DERAILMENT path, if it doesn't start following the basic rules and taking the very simple steps to win. First, CAHSR needs political champions. Big ones like Arnold, Antonio and Gavin. And other elected figures completely across the state. Second, it needs multiple millions of dollars to fund a campaign war chest. Third, it needs complete support and buy in from labor, environmental, business and planning groups. One of the key things that members of The Transit Coalition learned from attending the CFTE Transit Initiatives Conference, was the critical importance of early planning. You need to have all elements in place about 18 months in advance, if you want to win. There are many opponents and critics out there waiting to drag this down to defeat. So, I suggest that all of you posters spend some time looking over the CFTE website and learn what is involved in WINNING an election. It is complicated and there are exact rules and formulas that must be followed. One point you explicitly missed: In the months coming up to ANY major election, gasoline prices drop way down. With the Presidental election and primary in 2008, this will be especially true, so $3.50/gallon was fine in 2007, but look for $1.95/gallon at key election points in June and November next year. Again, I don't really want to be harsh to you guys, but please don't make simple statements about why something could win, when oil companies and others will alter conditions as necessary to guarantee that this CSHSR doesn't pass. You also need to check out the work of Peter J. Haas and Richard Werbel, which is the case studies on the Factors Influencing Voting Results of Local Transportation Funding Initiatives with a Substantial Transit Component: Case Studies of Ballot Measures in Eleven Communities (San Jose, CA: Mineta Transportation Institute). I hope this opens a lot of eyes here.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 7, 2007 19:48:26 GMT -8
On what basis besides your opinion are you making your statement?Mostly on my personal observation of how it works with local rail. Ridership increases seem to often coincide with gas spikes. The "rail buzz" is in the air for a while until either gas prices go back down or people adjust to the new higher prices. As driving between LA and SF gets more and more expensive I don't see any reason why it wouldn't follow the same model. Have you've looked at any of the polling or are you aware about how little High Speed Rail is supported statewide?Yes I've seen the polls, but to be fair they've not spent much effort to market it. Most people know very little about it. ...and CA High Speed Rail is on the DERAILMENT path, if it doesn't start following the basic rules and taking the very simple steps to win.I agree. HSR rail is on life support. Frankly as one of your articles implies we need to either pi** or get off the pot. First, CAHSR needs political champions. Big ones like Arnold, Antonio and Gavin. And other elected figures completely across the state. Very true! There are many opponents and critics out there waiting to drag this down to defeat. So, I suggest that all of you posters spend some time looking over the CFTE website and learn what is involved in WINNING an election. It is complicated and there are exact rules and formulas that must be followed. I'll check it out, but I don't believe that there are exact rules that garuantee victory. And the rules such as they are seem to change all the time. Gotta go with the flow... One point you explicitly missed: In the months coming up to ANY major election, gasoline prices drop way down. With the Presidential election and primary in 2008, this will be especially true, so $3.50/gallon was fine in 2007, but look for $1.95/gallon at key election points in June and November next year. Well gas prices always go down after labor day. Supply and demand. The extra dip for the Presidential election is all the more reason not to have the vote at that time. Again, I don't really want to be harsh to you guys, but please don't make simple statements about why something could win, when oil companies and others will alter conditions as necessary to guarantee that this CSHSR doesn't pass.No problem, but I stand by my original post in that rising gas prices help gather support for rail. If you interpreted that to mean that I believe that is all that is needed for it to win the election then you have misinterpreted my intention. I support all of the other activities that you have described. I'm just saying that if we could be doing all that and have high gas prices that would help. You also need to check out the work of Peter J. Haas and Richard Werbel, which is the case studies on the Factors Influencing Voting Results of Local Transportation Funding Initiatives with a Substantial Transit Component: Case Studies of Ballot Measures in Eleven Communities Good suggestion. I'll do that.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Apr 8, 2007 13:36:50 GMT -8
High-speed rail plan back on track for 700-mile route by HARRISON SHEPPARD and SUE DOYLE, Staff Writers Los Angeles Daily News: Sunday, April 8, 2007 Article Last Updated: 04/07/2007 08:20:39 PM PDT SACRAMENTO - Supporters of a $40 billion high-speed rail line in California are revitalizing their decade-long battle for a 700-mile route that could help relieve the state's jammed freeways. The plan for the transit corridor has languished for years, unable to overcome weak political support and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag. But last week's record-breaking run by a French TGV train that hit 357 mph has revived interest in the route that could whisk passengers between Los Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours. "I think this is the future for California," said Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, one of several state lawmakers who traveled to France to witness the speed record. "I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time, tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets," Ma said in a phone interview, shortly after riding on the record-breaking French train. "I think Californians are frustrated with all that. High-speed rail, to me, is the solution." The California High-Speed Rail Authority is set to hold public meetings in Los Angeles this month on a proposed Southern California route that promises 27-minute rides between Union Station and Palmdale. And California voters next year could be asked to vote on a bond measure that would provide about $10 billion to build a statewide high-speed rail system. Still, the plan faces significant challenges.
"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle," said Robert Poole, director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los Angeles.
"The entire huge cost of building the system would be paid for by the taxpayers of California. That's true of no other large-scale infrastructure. If we build another north-south highway, it would be paid for by gas tax and tolls. ... It makes no sense to me whatsoever from the taxpayer or traveler standpoint."
Poole thinks the Rail Authority is being overly optimistic in projecting ridership of 100 million by 2030 and operating revenue of $1 billion a year.
Californians, he said, prefer driving their cars regardless of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a reasonable price. Slashing the budget Meanwhile, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed slashing the Rail Authority's budget next year to just $1.2 million - down more than $13 million from this year's level.
Kicked off the ballot in 2004 because of the state's shaky economy, funding for the train was bumped off again in 2006 when lawmakers instead pushed for billions of dollars in bonds to fund freeway improvements. Now, Schwarzenegger wants to postpone the ballot measure for a third time, instead proposing more borrowing for prisons, schools, courts and natural resources.
Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Sabrina Lockhart said the state does not have the bonding capacity to include high-speed rail. The proposal has a history of stops and starts after an initial private effort in the early 1980s was abandoned for lack of funding. After riding high-speed rails overseas, former state Sen. Quentin Kopp in 1994 introduced a bill to establish a commission to study the state's need for the supercharged rail system. That gave birth to the California High-Speed Rail Authority. The state agency has struggled for political support ever since. The current route plan would zip passengers between San Diego and Sacramento at speeds up to 220mph, with stops and extensions throughout the Inland Empire, Orange County, Los Angeles County, Central California and the Bay Area. Cheaper than planes In Los Angeles, stops would include Union Station, Sylmar, Burbank and Palmdale Airport. A trip from Union Station to San Francisco is estimated to cost about $70, about 70 percent of the airfare, said Mehdi Morshed, executive director of the rail agency. Unlike conventional trains that run on diesel, high-speed trains run on electricity that's continuously fed through overhead electrical lines and on specially built tracks. The state agency wants to run it off existing power grids. Trains could carry up to 800 passengers, and the agency is now homing in on where it wants to lay the tracks where an estimated 100 trains a day could run. Attendance was sparse at two recent public meetings for the rail system at the Glendale Public Library. With a tight budget, the state agency has little money for publicity so the few meeting attendees were mainly high-speed rail groupies. "I can't wait for it to happen," said 73-year-old Vic Scheffer, who has followed the rail line's tribulations for the past four years. "Anything on wheels and rails, I'm excited about." Some tout highways
But critics contend the project is not a good investment for the state.
Norm King, director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal State San Bernardino, said there is no assurance the system would draw private investors, averting the need for taxpayer subsidies.
"If we want to transfer people who are now paying their own money to take a trip from L.A. to San Francisco to be heavily subsidized by the taxpayer, I guess it is a good thing," King said.
King said money would be better invested in highway projects because roads would create more congestion relief to residents than a high-speed rail could ever provide. Kopp said it's a misconception to think that a high-speed rail would need subsidies. He said private money will come after investors see the reality of the project, which will arrive when voters approve a bond. He cited successful high-speed rails in Japan and France. "They are money-makers," said Kopp, board chairman for the state agency. "They are run privately." Pointing to China, Argentina, South Korea and Taiwan - countries where high-speed rails run or are being built - Kopp said America's resistance to the innovative system is keeping it behind the times with transportation. State Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster, whose district would include the potential line's station in Palmdale, said the high-speed rail would boost economic development in the region, particularly the long-sought expansion of Palmdale Airport. But he also warns the current plan may be too expensive and ambitious. Runner said he would prefer to see shorter regional lines financed with bonds that are repaid with revenue from fares. "I'm certainly supportive of the concept and the issue of high-speed rail," Runner said. "The hurdles we have before us right now are the expense, and I think we're adrift in terms of what the strategy is." Ultimately, whether the plan can surmount current challenges will depend on the economy during the next two years and whether opponents and competitors emerge, said Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, a Los Angeles-based nonpartisan research organization. "If there is no other competition, the economy is OK, and a lot of money is spent educating the voters, then I think it has a chance," Stern said. harrison.sheppard@dailynews.com (916) 446-6723 Public meetings The California High-Speed Rail Authority has scheduled public meetings on the high-speed rail proposal. The sessions all will be held 3 to 5p.m. and 6 to 8p.m.: Tuesday, Sylmar Recreation Center, 13109 Borden Ave. Thursday, Palmdale City Hall, 38300 N. Sierra Highway. April 17, Los Angeles River Center & Gardens (Atrium), 570W. Ave. 26, Los Angeles. For more information, go to www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov.
|
|
jomiy
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by jomiy on Apr 11, 2007 22:27:00 GMT -8
I attended the HSRA Scoping Meeting in Anaheim today. The meeting was similar to the description offered by jeffe77, however no councilman or political leader was there to offer support for the idea. Attendance was scarce (maybe 10 people including myself?).
I video and presentation was made by the HSRA's lead consultant PM. The meeting focused on the Anaheim/Irvine to Union Station corridor, and the scoping is to be used for the project level EIR. This is estimated to be completed within 3 years.
I also spoke with Roderick Diaz. He mentioned there is no current phasing plan for the 700-mile route. Their alignment assumes grade separated crossings and an additional 4th track along the Surfer track ROW.
As a transportation consultant, I do realize politics play an extremely important rule in gathering public influence. Bart, thanks for the links, I'll be sure to read that info.
By the way, is the Maglev Orangeline coordinating anything with the CA HSRA?
|
|
|
Post by jeffe77 on Apr 12, 2007 7:09:41 GMT -8
Article From the OC Register www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1650022.phpThursday, April 12, 2007 O.C. to L.A. in 20 minutesBackers hope voters will agree to finance 700-mile high-speed train system estimated to cost $40 billion. By ELLYN PAKTHE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER Imagine a high-speed train that could whisk people from Anaheim to Los Angeles' Union Station in just 20 minutes. Backers of the concept say it's not a pipe dream. Millions of passengers could be shuttled on a 700-mile high-speed route that would stretch from the Bay Area to San Diego, easing congestion on the state's traffic-choked freeways. The California High-Speed Rail Authority is leading the effort for the $21 million analysis of an Orange County-to-Los Angeles segment of a $40 billion system. The extensive round of studies is expected to be finished in late 2009. In addition, the rail authority is looking to study other segments of the system, including one that could connect Los Angeles to Palmdale and another linking the central part of the state to the Bay Area. The agency is seeking public comments about the plans. The last of a series of meetings will take place today in Norwalk. A high-speed train ride between Orange and Los Angeles counties – at speeds of 100 mph or more – would take less than half the time Metrolink takes to drop its passengers off between the destinations. Trains could go up to 220 mph in certain segments of the high-speed route, particularly in more rural areas of the state. A Metrolink ride from Anaheim to Union Station takes 45-50 minutes, depending on the number of stops, speed limits and crossings. The trains can go up to 80 mph, said Denise Tyrrell, a Metrolink spokeswoman. "I think it's something we all need to look at just because of transportation issues we already have, especially the overcrowding on our freeways," said Gail Eastman, an Anaheim planning commissioner who attended a public meeting Wednesday in Anaheim. "Now the way it is, you can't just take Amtrak to get (to the Bay Area)" she added. "And I don't like driving to San Francisco. It's a long, boring drive. But yet it's a place I love to visit." Last September, transportation officials in Orange County agreed to contribute $7 million to the study that would include considering right-of-way requirements and noise issues. The rail authority is funding the rest. Anaheim is preparing to be a pit stop for the high-speed train and hopes to integrate the service into a full-scale transit hub that would be built by 2010. The transit hub would bring bus and rail services together at one location. Anaheim's current Metrolink and Amtrak station would move from Angel Stadium's parking lot to the new multimodal site. The Orange County-to-Los Angeles leg would cost $1.5 billion and run concurrently with existing Metrolink, Amtrak and freight services. "The improvements would not only serve the high-speed trains but would support existing trains," said Dan Leavitt, deputy director of the rail authority. In addition, the need for grade crossings would be eliminated, ultimately improving air quality, controlling noise levels, reducing vehicle emissions and easing freeway and surface street congestion, Leavitt said. Officials said the project would be financed through a mixture of sources, including federal, state and private funds. It will be up to voters next year to decide if $10 billion in bonds should go toward financing such a project. Contact the writer: 714-704-3788 or epak@ocregister.com
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Apr 28, 2007 23:38:41 GMT -8
Los Angeles Times: Sunday, April 29, 2007
THE STATE: High-speed rail system may be derailed Schwarzenegger moves to slash funding for the system, citing other transportation needs.
By Marc Lifsher, Times Staff Writer
SACRAMENTO — For more than a decade, policymakers have debated, studied and scoped out a high-speed rail line that would whisk travelers between downtown Los Angeles and San Francisco in 2 1/2 hours.
But, this year, the $40-billion dream of building a Japanese- or European-style bullet train through the Central Valley may find itself stopped in its tracks.
Even as state lawmakers visited France earlier this month for a glimpse of a passenger train as it set a world rail speed record of 357 mph, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was applying the brakes to California's plan for a high-speed system.
The governor wants "to quietly kill this — and not go out and tell the people that high-speed rail isn't in the future," said state Sen. Dean Florez (D-Shafter). The lawmaker from the southern San Joaquin Valley is counting on the trains to help bring jobs to his district.
Schwarzenegger asked the Legislature in his 2007 budget to slash money for the California High-Speed Rail Authority. The governor also wants lawmakers to postpone indefinitely a $9.95-billion rail bond issue that is slated to appear on the November 2008 ballot.
Adam Mendelsohn, a spokesman for the governor, said Schwarzenegger still wanted to build a bullet train — just not any time soon: "Right now, the voters are crying for relief from congested freeways. That's the immediate priority."
The governor's moves come as the rail authority, which already has cleared its first environmental hurdles, is about to begin some crucial steps, including engineering, right-of-way acquisition and financial planning.
At stake is a 700-mile rail corridor with no potentially dangerous vehicle crossings. It would follow several routes from Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay Area south through Bakersfield to Los Angeles and San Diego.
Rolling along at up to 220 mph, the electricity-powered train would zip passengers between Los Angeles' Union Station and downtown San Francisco as fast as the fastest plane trip, planners say — factoring in the time to get to the airport and go through security.
And commuters could speed from Anaheim to downtown L.A. in 20 minutes, instead of today's 45-minute Metrolink journey.
Critics see the high-speed train as a potential boondoggle that would be a drain on the state treasury and a loser that would never pay for itself. Consider, they say, the poor performance of most long-distance U.S. passenger rail service.
They also note that an effort to build a bullet train system between San Diego and Los Angeles in the early 1980s collapsed after coastal residents balked at environmental problems with a route close to the ocean.
Subsequent attempts to link Southern California and Las Vegas with high-speed rail have failed to gain traction.
Supporters disagree. They cite the train's speed, convenience and its less-controversial route. Backers say that based on ridership estimates, the train could rack up an annual operating surplus of as much as $2 billion by 2030.
California's bullet trains should wow passengers when they take a ride, said Quentin Kopp, chairman of the High-Speed Rail Authority. "Now, when you say trains, people think of Amtrak. But Amtrak is pitiful."
Although slow, three heavily subsidized Amtrak trains crisscross the state. The routes, operated jointly with the California Department of Transportation, have grown in popularity and in fares collected.
The big increases in the three lines operated by Amtrak and Caltrans have not been shared by Amtrak's Coast Starlight train between the Pacific Northwest, the Bay Area and Los Angeles.
Ridership dropped 34% from 1999 to 2006 on the legendary train that offers dramatic views — and notoriously long delays. The Bay Area-to-Los Angeles portion is scheduled to take just over 11 hours but consistently runs from five to 11 hours late.
For her part, Kathryn Hardy, a daily commuter on Amtrak's lumbering San Joaquins line between Sacramento and Modesto, is more than ready for high-speed rail.
"If it's fast and more on time, people would take it because driving is becoming more and more of a hassle," she said.
"A nice, long train ride is romantic and nostalgic, but it's not what people want," Hardy said as she and hundreds of other passengers on a nearly full San Joaquins crawled through the outskirts of towns at 10 mph and repeatedly stopped for passing freight trains.
Rail travel in California could remain Amtrak-slow for years to come if the governor succeeds in putting off the bond vote, said Jo Linda Thompson, a lobbyist for the Assn. for California High-Speed Trains.
"It would be the kiss of death for the train," she said.
If the Legislature goes along with the governor, it would be the third time a state rail bond has been delayed, and boosters said another postponement could kill the measure for good.
Schwarzenegger, who is gaining an international reputation as an environmentalist, recognizes that a network of high-speed trains could help combat global warming, his spokesman said.
But work on the train should wait for improved highways, new dams and prisons, Mendelsohn said. "There are millions of millions of working families who use freeways and roads in California. It's a reality."
Schwarzenegger's budget would reduce the authority to an office with no more than six full-time employees — without the 75 consulting firms with 300 employees it has now. Outside contracts would need to be canceled, route planning put on hold and environmental and engineering work frozen.
The time is now to make the train a reality, said Assemblywoman Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco), who heads the Legislature's informal "high-speed rail caucus." Ma said her recent ride on the speed-record-setting French train made her a believer.
"It felt like we were ready to take off on a jet, but we kept on going faster," she said just after getting off the train.
Another member of the delegation, Assemblyman Bob Huff (R-Diamond Bar), said high-speed rail would be a good transportation alternative for California, but as a fiscal conservative he was worried about the cost.
Ma's supporters in the Legislature and in local governments want to get Schwarzenegger to change his mind. Failing that, they'll try to allocate about $100 million for the rail authority that the governor wants eliminated. They also oppose his plan to strike the rail bond proposal from the 2008 ballot.
But a top aide to Schwarzenegger says the governor doesn't want to commit state money before lining up private financing.
Asking voters to approve nearly $10 billion in state borrowing, without first lining up at least $20 billion in private capital investments, is like the "tail wagging the dog," said David Crane, a former investment banker whom Schwarzenegger recently appointed to the rail authority board.
High-speed rail advocates agree that they'll need to attract billions of dollars from the private sector. However, they caution that investors are unlikely to risk their money without first seeing state dollars upfront.
"We've got to put enough public investment in to see if there is a system that others find appealing" to invest in, said Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle, a Republican and another new Schwarzenegger appointee to the rail authority.
However it's financed, the idea of streaking from Sacramento to Southern California in a few hours sounded great to Bill Cullifer and his 16-year-old daughter, Katie, as they slowly cruised through Stockton on a 10-hour train and bus trip to Disneyland.
"We could watch a movie on the train and then we'd be there," Katie said before nodding off to sleep.
* ------------------------------------------- marc.lifsher@latimes.com
* Proposed high-speed train
A proposed high-speed train that would link Northern and Southern California would be competitive with air travel by 2020 and would relieve pressure on air and highway corridors, according to proponents. Here are the proposed routes and estimated door-to-door times between selected cities.
Sample trip Auto Air High-speed train* Los Angeles to 7 hours, 3 hours, 3 hours, San Francisco 36 minutes 26 minutes 30 minutes Fresno to 4 hours, 3 hours 2 hours, Los Angeles 18 minutes 33 minutes San Diego to 2 hours 2 hours 2 hours Los Angeles 41 minutes 46 minutes 16 minutes Burbank to 6 hours, 3 hours 3 hours San Jose 32 minutes 8 minutes 2 minutes Sacramento to 2 hours, No 1 hour San Jose 33 minutes service 53 minutes
* Express times, including travel time to and from train station.
Note: Air travel includes time needed to get to and from airports and to pass through airport security.
** Source: California High-Speed Rail Authority
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on May 4, 2007 5:38:21 GMT -8
Los Angeles Times: Wednesday, May 2, 2007
EDITORIALS: Believe in the bullet train Even though it's a gamble, high-speed rail would help California cope with its transportation problems.
IT'S TEMPTING to write off California's bullet-train enthusiasts as overgrown kids begging Mom and Dad for cash to build the world's coolest train set; only in this case, Mom and Dad are the taxpayers, and the set would cost at least $40 billion. And yet what looks today like an overpriced toy might someday become one of the state's best weapons for fighting gridlock and pollution.
Rail boosters and transit realists have been butting heads for more than a decade over plans for a bullet train from Sacramento to San Diego, a 200-mph electric-powered rocket that could go from Los Angeles to San Francisco in 2 1/2 hours. Plans to put the train project before voters have been put off twice, and if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger gets his way, a ballot measure planned for November 2008 might once again be deferred. The governor also wants to slash funding to $1 million for the California High-Speed Rail Authority, which says it needs $103 million next fiscal year to keep the project on track.
The project would represent a huge gamble for state taxpayers. Even assuming that planners are right about the total price tag — a big assumption given variables such as the price of land — there are no guarantees that all the money can be raised or that rosy projections about the line's ridership and revenue would be met.
The rail authority wants to ask voters to approve $9.95 billion in bonds next year. Backers say the rest of the money would come from private investors, the federal government and other local sources. But it's possible that investors would shun such a risky project or that the federal money wouldn't materialize. California could conceivably be stuck with a partly built train to nowhere for years or decades. And there are serious questions about whether a high-speed train is such a high priority at a time when the state is already groaning under a perilous debt load and still has many infrastructure needs unfunded.
Yet critics who reject the train as a boondoggle base their arguments on the past, not the future. It's true that long-distance rail systems in this country attract anemic ridership and usually require bottomless taxpayer subsidies. But the unattractive economics of train travel won't necessarily remain that way forever.
By 2020, the projected completion date for the bullet train, gas will likely be a lot more expensive. State and federal governments by that time should be well underway in cutting back sharply on greenhouse gas emissions, probably translated into increased costs for flying or driving. (The bullet train would be emissions-free.) Train service, particularly the kind that could compete with airline travel on convenience, could be far more economically competitive than it is now.
The rail authority is in the midst of preliminary engineering and environmental work that may need to be started over from scratch if funding is pulled next year. It may not need all of the requested $103 million, but that doesn't justify cutting the project off at the ankles. Voters should get the chance to decide once and for all whether they want their tax dollars tied to the tracks.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on May 4, 2007 23:21:14 GMT -8
Long Story Short:
Governor Ahhhrrrrnold's fund to build more prisons: $8 Billion dollars Money for High Speed Rail funding: $ 0
Appeasing the gigantic Correction Officer's Union, and paranoid Mothers afraid of everybody ....... priceless..
|
|
|
Post by wad on May 4, 2007 23:39:50 GMT -8
How much service does the $40 billion buy? Are we talking clock headways or a handful of trains per day?
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on May 5, 2007 0:36:40 GMT -8
I think $40 billion is the capital cost of building tracks, land, station, and trainsets. Probably start with 4- 6 trips a day, bump that up if the demand rises, also squeeze in some short routes between L.A. to San Diego or San Francisco to Stockton, but right now this is becoming a hypothetical scenario. May never happen in our lifetimes.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on May 5, 2007 5:39:22 GMT -8
The CAHSRA has a sample timetable as part of their implementation plan. It's quite impressive. There is no reason for them not to start up with frequent service like this, barring some future equipment problems. www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/plan/pdf/Plan_8.pdfThe recent LA Times article didn't seem far off when it said Schwarzenegger wanted to kill high-speed rail quietly. His actual stance seems different now that he has finally come into the open with a recent editorial in the Fresno Bee. www.fresnobee.com/287/story/45687.htmlHopefully the legislature, which is supporting the project more and more, will develop a funding plan that puts the governor at ease...
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on May 5, 2007 11:29:44 GMT -8
Here are the Letters to the Editor in reply to the above article:
Los Angeles Times: Saturday, May 5, 2007
Derailing vision for train
Re "State puts brakes on bullet train plan," April 29
In seeking to kill high-speed rail service, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger reveals the vision of a toad and the ethics of a toady. For 50 years, California has been proving that building ever more freeways and few alternatives is a sure formula for ever more traffic jams. But the governor wants to keep right on making the same old mistake over and over.
Of course he brings good news to the auto industry, which put him into office in the first place by financing a rollback of the auto tax. Were it still in effect, it would have been yielding the billions for roads that Schwarzenegger would now steal from the future — which is high-speed and commuter rail.
CHUCK NEWTON, Del Mar
•
We have just returned from Taiwan, where you can travel from one end of the country to the other in less than two hours on the recently completed rapid rail. The trains are clean, comfortable, quiet, convenient, safe and fast. Clearly the Taiwanese have spent their money wisely. How can a country such as Taiwan make significant investments in advanced infrastructure such as bullet trains and subways while we seem to concentrate our resources on widening freeways?
Rail transit does not pay for itself directly any more than freeways do. Rapid rail can be a part of a transportation system that supports a modern economy. Freeways are, of course, an integral part of our transit system, but they have their limitations and are not the future of transit. Canceling plans for a rapid rail system in California is shortsighted and counterproductive.
JEFFREY WILLIAMS, Hollywood
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 5, 2007 22:07:04 GMT -8
That Fresno Bee Op-Ed piece by Arnold at least gives me some hope that this can work. I was beginning to think he was totally against the whole thing. For environmental and mobility reasons, this is a critical investment for the state. I look at this as the same as the subway debate in 90's here in LA, where the majority didn't realize it was a mistake to derail it before it was basically too late.
Gas prices and congestion both on roads and airports are going to dramatically rise in the next 15 years. Hopefully, this can make it to the ballot and it gets a lot of financial support. The advertising campaign should focus on the environment and the fact that additional airport and road capacity will negatively affect certain communities. For instance, I would argue that there will be more pressure on airports like Long Beach, Burbank, LAX, and Orange County with HSR, while an airport like Palmdale suddenly becomes viable with HSR. With that message, people's views may change to support
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on May 6, 2007 6:58:09 GMT -8
I will actually be in Sacramento this Thurday, May 10, 2007, to talk with elected officials and their staff to ask that they fund CA HSR for the coming year. Now this is one type of activity of our nonprofit 501 [c](3), where all of you get some direct representation. But, here's the hitch. The Transit Coalition is drastically underfunded. We need money to pay our expenses. The flight, bus, food and other expenses cost and we need to cover that. Here's where you can help: Donate.It is completely tax deductible and you are helping a good cause. We also take in lieu contributions. For example, do you have an unused Rapid Reward or one that has just expired? We can use them to get to Washington, DC or Sacramento. How about some free time? We need help putting data into our address book. So, think about ways you can help. I am off to Sacramento this Thursday and I hope I can report some positive news Friday, if I can raise enough $$ for a return flight.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on May 7, 2007 5:59:27 GMT -8
L.A. Daily News: Monday, May 7, 2007
Editorial Opinion: Biting the bullet High-speed train plans need proof of political support IT doesn't take a traffic engineer to see that California's freeway system is overtaxed and just a few years away from being maxed out.
Any motoring Californian instinctively knows this from everyday experience. And the few traffic-relief projects planned or in the works are an ultimately futile hedge against the day when, finally, it really will be quicker to walk.
This fundamental acceptance of the inescapable future will be of great benefit to the state's High-Speed Rail Authority, which has begun pitching its plan for a statewide system of super-fast bullet trains rocketing between San Francisco and San Diego. We all know we must do something radical. Maybe a bullet train is the right answer.
The rub, however, is deep: It costs $40 billion to build, and won't start service for about 15 years.
It's going to be a tough sell, any way you look at it. First, backers must garner enough political support. Depending on how things go, the agency plans to be putting the initial funding - about $10 billion - before voters in 2008.
What makes it harder is that the agency hasn't made it very clear where that money is going to come from other than some vaguely plotted formula of public-private investment.
Nonetheless, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has come out in strong support of the project. Although he criticizes the authority for spending 10 years and $40 million and not drafting a clear financing plan, he rightly recognizes that that oversight shouldn't doom a good idea.
This is welcome, because the bullet-train concept needs financial and political support from the governor and Legislature, or it's likely the train will never get past the concept stage.
Despite its high price tag, the bullet train has many benefits, not the least of which is; It would take cars off the roads. As well, it be privately run by a company that knows how to turn a profit while providing good service.
And a bullet train could well be the critical link to regionalization of Los Angeles' airports. Though the trains be in direct competition with airlines for in-state travelers, they actually help longer-distance travelers get to Burbank, Palmdale and Ontario airports.
Still, there are many concerns with the bullet train concept. For one, it require an enormous investment, and returns n't be evident for about 15 years. Though the trains would for the most part rely on existing rail routes and rights-of-way, the authority would would would would would would likely have to use eminent domain to acquire many acres of private property adjacent to existing rail lines.
There's no question that high-speed rail works in Europe and Japan, where it has been used for 40 years. But it's not at all sure that the fast train is the silver bullet for Californians' future traffic woes.
We do know, however, that whether California invests in serious transportation projects or not, people are still going to move here and bring cars with them.
And if we don't bite the bullet and provide sufficient funding from next year's budget for the agency to continue with its work, the state may have missed the best chance it has at keeping California moving through the 21st century. **************
The Fresno Bee: Friday, May 4, 2007
OpEd Piece: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger: State must build high-speed rail
By Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
As the recent Bay Area freeway collapse illustrated -- and as a recent Bee editorial correctly pointed out -- Californians need and deserve a diverse array of transportation options. I absolutely believe high-speed rail should be one of those alternatives. A network of high-speed rail lines connecting cities throughout California would be a tremendous benefit to our state.
Not only would its construction bring economic development and the creation of hundreds of thousands of new jobs, but once completed, we would also see improvements to our air quality, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, congestion relief on our highways and greater mobility for people living in the Valley and other areas of our state currently underserved by other forms of transportation.
Yet it's been more than 10 years, and the state has already spent more than $40 million in initial planning for the rail line. But there is still no comprehensive and credible plan for financing the system so we can get construction under way.
The High-Speed Rail Authority, the commission in charge of developing a plan for high speed rail in California, estimates the cost of building the system to be more than $40 billion.
Yet so far, the only financing party identified with specificity is the state, which the Authority proposes float a $9.95 billion bond. The remaining 75% of the project cost, or more than $30 billion, has yet to be identified with any specificity or confidence.
Before asking taxpayers to approve spending nearly $10 billion plus interest, it is reasonable to expect the authority and its advisers to identify with confidence where we will find the remaining $30 billion.
A perfect example of what I'm talking about is my $5.9 billion water infrastructure package. By using a public-private partnership approach, we've identified a plan that lays out exactly how we are going to pay for every piece of the proposal, from the reservoirs to the groundwater storage to fixing the Delta to our conservation efforts.
For the reservoir portion, the estimated building cost is $4 billion. We've proposed $2 billion in general obligation bonds for the public portion and $2 billion in lease revenue bonds to be paid for by the water users themselves, i.e. water agencies, irrigation districts, cities, etc. And to ensure that this funding materializes, we are requiring that contracts be in place to pay for the lease revenue bonds before public dollars are spent on the projects.
Identifying the exact funding sources for large transportation projects is more problematic, which is why we need the authority to come up with a well-thought out financing proposal before moving forward.
I want to commend the authority for its great progress so far in completing the necessary environmental studies and identifying future rights-of-way that we would need to acquire.
Yet even the authority's executive director, Mehdi Morshed, says the longer the state waits to build a high-speed rail network, the more expensive it will get. I could not agree more.
That's why I have directed my recent appointees to work with the authority and its financial advisers to develop a comprehensive plan for financing the project in its entirety, so we can make high-speed rail a reality in California once and for all.
Last year, my administration increased funds for the authority to continue its work, and this year, my budget proposes additional funding.
I am willing to explore multiple approaches in order to fund the balance and execute this project -- whether through federal grants, local participation, vendor support, co-development opportunities, public-private partnerships or any other realistic financing plans in which the authority expresses confidence.
I look forward to working with the authority and reviewing its proposal as soon as possible.
But let me be clear: I strongly support high-speed rail for California, and especially for the San Joaquin Valley. Increasing the Valley's transportation options, especially after voters passed Proposition 1B to repair Highway 99, would better serve the region's growing population and enhance the Valley's critical importance to our state's economy.
The promise of high-speed rail is incredible. Looking forward to the kind of California we want to build 20 and 30 years from now, a network of ultra-fast rail lines whisking people from one end of the state to the other is a viable and important transportation alternative and would be a great benefit to us all.
With a responsible plan in place, we can feel secure in delivering high-speed rail and bringing greater opportunity -- and a brighter future -- to all Californians.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is the governor of California.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on May 7, 2007 6:22:50 GMT -8
Unfortunately, I have heard this HSR pitch many times before during the Pete Wilson / Gray Davis days. Nothing ever came of it. It has often followed a pattern of public outcry for the environment and gridlock, There was Political momentum to gain support from environmentalists in reelection years, and then towards the end of a term they become resigned to putting it off, alas, nothing could be done w/out raising taxes. We as Californians learned not to get our hopes up.
What can we say ? Is this the time we can actually get it done. What is different about today which makes it more fathomable than those days, when we were actually flush w/ cash ?
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on May 7, 2007 8:50:59 GMT -8
well, this is essentially the same plan; it has just been delayed for so long. and this time around, the HSR authority actually has some nifty maps and plans to show where the thing would go. also, I've been seeing more talk of private investment, which should pacify the "we're spending too much" crowd.
the good news is, I think we've made progress as far as convincing people that the need is there. global warming has gone from a fringe issue to a mainstream one, and as the state keeps growing, the traffic problems just keep getting worse. we may have finally reached that critical moment where the crisis can no longer be ignored.
the bad news is, all of the delays may have caused wariness, if not weariness, among jaded voters.
|
|
|
Post by jeffe77 on May 14, 2007 11:07:40 GMT -8
;D Governor touts benefits of high-speed rail
But advocates are waiting to see if that translates into better funding in his new budget and support for bonds he's opposed in the past.
The Associated Press
SACRAMENTO -- California's Hummer-driving, motorcycle-riding governor may be getting on board the state's ambitious high-speed rail project after years of coolness toward the program.
In a recent op-ed column in The Fresno Bee, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger extolled the virtues of bullet trains, saying they would help relieve freeway congestion, improve air quality and create greater mobility.
"A network of high-speed rail lines connecting cities throughout California would be a tremendous benefit to our state," the governor wrote.
The column appeared three days after an editorial criticized the Republican governor's "curious coolness" toward rail transit and the high-speed rail project, particularly after the collapse of an Oakland freeway overpass demonstrated the vulnerability of the state's reliance on highways.
It seemed to signal a sharp change in direction for the Republican governor, who in January proposed a 2007-08 state budget that would leave the California High-Speed Rail Authority on life support.
Schwarzenegger also asked lawmakers to remove a $9.9 billion high-speed and conventional rail bond measure from the November 2008 ballot. The proposal already has been held up twice with Schwarzenegger's support.
Sale of the bonds would help pay for a high-speed rail line between Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay area. It would be part of a $40 billion, 700-mile system the authority hopes the state will build, linking Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento and Fresno with trains running at top speeds of more than 200 mph.
Supporters say the project would provide a much-need alternative to crowded freeways and airports as the state grows by an estimated 17 million residents over the next 50 years.
A Schwarzenegger spokeswoman, Sabrina Lockhart, said the governor "has always believed that high-speed rail has benefits. But his concern is asking taxpayers to mortgage $10 billion without identifying where the rest of the estimated $30 billion cost will come from."
In the editorial, Schwarzenegger complained that the state's high-speed rail board had not completed a "comprehensive and credible plan for financing the system so we can get construction under way."
State Sen. Dean Florez, a leading legislative supporter of high-speed rail, suggested the governor's column was "an absolute reversal" brought on by criticism, particularly from Central Valley officials, about the governor's lack of support for the rail project.
"It's a tremendous turn of events, obviously," Florez said.
Mehdi Morshed, the rail board's executive director, said the governor's public expression of support for high-speed rail was "a big benefit for the project."
"For the public to see that the governor's behind it makes it a lot more real than it was before," he said.
He said it was reasonable for Schwarzenegger to want to see a financing plan before moving ahead with the project.
A preliminary report prepared by a team of high-speed rail board consultants suggests the system could be funded through a combination of state, federal and local government support and private investment, with as much as 30 percent of the money coming from private sources.
One way to bring in that private financing would be through the sale of revenue bonds that would be paid off with income from fares. Authority officials predict that high-speed rail, unlike public transit, would not need government subsidies and would attract enough ridership at high enough prices to make a profit.
But a significant commitment of government financing would have to be made to attract private investment to help build and perhaps run the system, authority officials say.
The preliminary report also predicts the state could pay off the $9.9 billion in rail bonds plus another $43 billion in bonds sought by Schwarzenegger for prisons, schools, university facilities, courthouses, dams and certain other projects without overburdening the state budget.
The authority expects to complete a financing plan in the next couple of months, but probably not before lawmakers and the governor negotiate a state budget for the fiscal year that starts July 1.
Those negotiations will heat up after Schwarzenegger unveils his revised budget proposal on Monday. His new spending plan could reveal how serious the governor is about supporting high-speed rail.
The proposed budget Schwarzenegger released in January included only about $1.2 million for the authority. That was enough to keep its small staff in place, but left it with nothing to contract for engineering and environmental work that's needed before construction can begin.
"If we're not going to have any work being done, why keep the office open?" Morshed asked.
Instead of the governor's proposal, the authority has asked for a 2007-08 budget of $103 million – about $60 million for engineering work and roughly $40 million to begin buying rights-of-way.
Florez, D-Shafter, predicts lawmakers will press for significantly more high-speed rail funding than Schwarzenegger proposed in January and refuse to take the bond measure off the 2008 ballot if Schwarzenegger continues to balk.
"We're going to say no way," he said. "I think we're going to hold his statements up ... as being an unequivocal supporter of high-speed rail and hold him to that."
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on May 14, 2007 13:07:54 GMT -8
The Governator keeps sending these mixed signals, you don't know what he's thinking.
Does Arnold drive a Hummer on the streets of his native Austria ? Does he ever ride the super trains and trolleys in his European and Asian travels ?
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 14, 2007 13:19:00 GMT -8
I won't take the governor's side on this, but so long as we have a climate in Washington that is so anti-rail, it's difficult to ask Californians (who probably favor HSR in the majority) to pay for this without a matching private/federal commitment when these same Californians would gladly pay $10-20 billion FIRST for more freeways, light rail lines and subways.
We face a Hobson's choice that is nothing short of nightmarish: paying for projects that are 30-40 years overdue, or paying for a 21st-century CAHSR...but potentially not being able to pay for both.
The fact remains that even Democratic pro-HSR promoters can't guarantee the funding for this project...and although those of us on this board would likely vote for such a bond measure, I can't guarantee that this would pass unless it was, say, coupled with $10 billion for more freeways statewide.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on May 14, 2007 20:45:40 GMT -8
the ironic thing about all this is that the political powers-that-be in the San Joaquin Valley are fairly solidly behind HSR. The folks in Tulare County keep bellyaching for a station stop even though it is painfully obvious that a Metrolink-style service (on the anti-passenger Union Pacific, regrettably) would serve the area better and Fresno/ Clovis is probably large enough for light rail. That's probably why the governor chose the Fresno Bee to make that big announcement. the valley sees HSR as a way to escape, or at least as a way to attract business.
the situation is pretty much reversed on the coast: it will be hard to illustrate the benefits of high speed rail to Los Angeles and San Francisco, even though HSR would relieve pressure on local airports. clearly light rail and commuter rail is the bigger draw.
it's not so much Hobson's Choice as a Prisoner's Dilemma. light rail for L.A. + HSR for the Valley should equal a winning combo, if the resulting price tag didn't give everyone sticker shock!
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on May 14, 2007 22:19:44 GMT -8
Every politician / bureaucrat thinks there is some sort of public thermometer for this kind of bill. What does California think ? What do the people want ? A band-aid for the present problems, or a cure for the future ?
Put the HSR on the ballot. See how frustrated people really are about high gas prices and longer commutes. See which way this frustration blows. Put it in front of the people and let them decide, not the politicians, on what our future should look like.
People are not that ignorant about transportation anymore. They are seeing it in a new light outside their SUVs.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 8, 2007 7:43:33 GMT -8
I think one of the biggest benefits of the High speed Rail is that it can allow for improvements and upgrades to Metrolink services and even fill in missing links such as the Green Line to Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs, Creating improved service on the Antelope Valley and San bernandino Lines to run on every 30 minute frequencies.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 8, 2007 11:59:06 GMT -8
one of the best things about the high-speed rail project is that there is a high potential for side benefits, and Metrolink could definitely use a boost.
it should be possible for the HSR trains to share the same tracks as Metrolink, especially as the trains would be operating at lower speeds within the L.A. metropolitan area. obviously you would want to upgrade the Metrolink equipment to be compatible and add more tracks whenever possible to allow the HSR to overtake any commuter trains.
only real problem I could see is that you would be taking a unified Metrolink system and be dividing it into electrified and dieselized lines, but that hasn't been a problem in other cities and eventually you'd want to electrify the whole system (as funds became available for it)
|
|