# New Scathing Report Slamming Cal HSR



## guest

Link to LA Times article follows brief summary:

State-mandated panel concludes that the high-speed rail program 'is not financially feasible.' Gov. Jerry Brown's office signals that he isn't likely to be swayed by the findings.

By Ralph Vartabedian and Dan Weikel,

Los Angeles Times

January 4, 2012

Advertisement

In a scathing critique that could further jeopardize political support for California's proposed $98.5-billion bullet train, a key independent review panel is recommending that state officials postpone borrowing billions of dollars to start building the first section of track this year.

Gov. Jerry Brown has said he will ask the Legislature in the coming months to issue the first batch of $9 billion in voter-approved bonds for a high-speed rail network that backers say will create jobs, help the environment and transform the state's economy.

But in a report Tuesday, a panel of experts created by state law to help safeguard the public's interest raised serious doubts about almost every aspect of the project and concluded that the current plan "is not financially feasible." As a result, the panel said, it "cannot at this time recommend that the Legislature approve the appropriation of bond proceeds for this project."

Although the panel has no legal power to stop the project, its strong criticism, coupled with recent polls showing public opinion has shifted against the proposal, is giving some key political leaders pause.

here's link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bullet-train-report-20120104,0,3258448.story


----------



## Anderson

Looking over the story, I'd like to see what the report's criticisms actually are. Does anyone have a link to the primary document itself?

On just a stab-in-the-dark guess, though, any project that sees its projected cost nearly triple like this (even if most of the increase is due to a longer project timespan) is bound to get into trouble on all fronts. I support the valley line for a whole host of reasons, but outside of that...I'd like to see something more modest and workable hammered out. Bakersfield-LAX is probably the hardest segment here (and the most necessary), but I see no reason that we couldn't find a way to get a conventional-speed alignment through the mountains coupled with a high-speed corridor through the valley that would get you both a net time cut LAX-SFO and a direct, regular train link there. No, it won't get you the three hour train ride...but even a six-hour ride seems bound to attract passengers in substantial numbers (especially compared with some of the longer bus trip times...you've got almost a one hour variation on bus times LAX-Bakersfield, but on the shorter side you have a total trip time of about 8:30 LAX-EMY/9:25 LAX-San Francisco Caltrain), and I would be more surprised than not if you couldn't get that with the valley project as it stands plus something (really...something, anything) connecting LAX and Bakersfield directly.


----------



## guest

Anderson said:


> Looking over the story, I'd like to see what the report's criticisms actually are. Does anyone have a link to the primary document itself?
> 
> On just a stab-in-the-dark guess, though, any project that sees its projected cost nearly triple like this (even if most of the increase is due to a longer project timespan) is bound to get into trouble on all fronts. I support the valley line for a whole host of reasons, but outside of that...I'd like to see something more modest and workable hammered out. Bakersfield-LAX is probably the hardest segment here (and the most necessary), but I see no reason that we couldn't find a way to get a conventional-speed alignment through the mountains coupled with a high-speed corridor through the valley that would get you both a net time cut LAX-SFO and a direct, regular train link there. No, it won't get you the three hour train ride...but even a six-hour ride seems bound to attract passengers in substantial numbers (especially compared with some of the longer bus trip times...you've got almost a one hour variation on bus times LAX-Bakersfield, but on the shorter side you have a total trip time of about 8:30 LAX-EMY/9:25 LAX-San Francisco Caltrain), and I would be more surprised than not if you couldn't get that with the valley project as it stands plus something (really...something, anything) connecting LAX and Bakersfield directly.


It's not just the ballooning costs that worry the panel but ridership projections, job estimates and the like. And there's the problem of the first segment, which really is from nowhere to nowhere when you consider the price tag.

For considerably less money, think what you could do for improving conventional rail in the the LA-SAN corridor and the SAC-OAK-San Jose corridor, which ridership levels are at the point where higher speeds are cost-effective. Those corridor running times would become truly superior to those of driving.

That's what so frustrating about the CSHR. Improving passenger rail becomes all-or-nothing, and the CSHR would suck up every available dollar that could be better spent improving rail in the SoCal and SF Bay areas where rail passengers already use the existing hum-drum service. Already, several projects have been delayed by Caltrans because of the need to look for every last cent to pour into an increasingly dubious CSHR project.


----------



## CHamilton

NARP's take on the new report is, I think, pretty balanced, but has this to say:



> ...there is an inconsistency in the way the Los Angeles to San Francisco rail corridor is being treated, as compared to other transportation expenditures. And the legislators involved are certainly on the hook to consider the cost of the alternatives: the cost of more congestion, more roads, and more airports and runways. The current estimates put that cost at as much as $171 billion, for an additional 2,300 lane-miles of highways, 4 runways, and 115 airline gates.


----------



## Anderson

CHamilton said:


> NARP's take on the new report is, I think, pretty balanced, but has this to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...there is an inconsistency in the way the Los Angeles to San Francisco rail corridor is being treated, as compared to other transportation expenditures. And the legislators involved are certainly on the hook to consider the cost of the alternatives: the cost of more congestion, more roads, and more airports and runways. The current estimates put that cost at as much as $171 billion, for an additional 2,300 lane-miles of highways, 4 runways, and 115 airline gates.
Click to expand...

I've noticed that. It did, however, just hit me that _total_ mutual exclusivity is a bit of a fallacy here: At least some highway expansion will be necessitated as some of the metro areas grow (presuming they do, at least), and I don't see congestion going away. So spending close to $100 billion on HSR won't drop that $171bn to $0, I suspect.

If Amtrak could run a 5-6 hour express train from LA-SF (assuming basically no stops between the LA metro area and San Jose), I have to wonder if that might not get substantial amounts of business, particularly if you allow for a suburban stop or two on your way out of town (therefore saving folks the trouble of having to get to LAUS...and potentially getting "between" parts of the San Fernando Valley and Bob Hope International). You might not get ten million riders on that, but I wouldn't be surprised if you could get two or three million.

Worth considering: Why doesn't CA petition to run a few trains on one of the two existing LA-Valley lines and then when they get a billion dollar "get lost" response, ask them "Cash or check"? Honestly, I think there's a neutral case for increasing capacity on those lines, passenger rail or not, because of how loaded they are already.


----------



## AlanB

Anderson said:


> I've noticed that. It did, however, just hit me that _total_ mutual exclusivity is a bit of a fallacy here: At least some highway expansion will be necessitated as some of the metro areas grow (presuming they do, at least), and I don't see congestion going away. So spending close to $100 billion on HSR won't drop that $171bn to $0, I suspect.


No, you're misunderstanding the numbers Anderson.

Caltrans, assuming no increases in annual funding (highly unlikely) and currently $13B per year, will spend $286 Billion over the next 22 years for highways. Some of that money is for general maintenance, but some is for normal "needed" expansion.

Failure to spend $100B for this train will result in the need to boost that $286B with a large chunk of that $171B; the rest going to the airport.


----------



## PRR 60

AlanB said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that. It did, however, just hit me that _total_ mutual exclusivity is a bit of a fallacy here: At least some highway expansion will be necessitated as some of the metro areas grow (presuming they do, at least), and I don't see congestion going away. So spending close to $100 billion on HSR won't drop that $171bn to $0, I suspect.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're misunderstanding the numbers Anderson.
> 
> Caltrans, assuming no increases in annual funding (highly unlikely) and currently $13B per year, will spend $286 Billion over the next 22 years for highways. Some of that money is for general maintenance, but some is for normal "needed" expansion.
> 
> Failure to spend $100B for this train will result in the need to boost that $286B with a large chunk of that $171B; the rest going to the airport.
Click to expand...

They quote 4 runways and 100+ gates just to handle intra-state travel that would have been on the train? Seriously? Of course, that is is in addition to the umteen thousand lane-miles of highways, also just for those who would have been train riders. Those numbers are, quite frankly, a joke. Maybe NARP believes it, or maybe they just made it up. Sorry, I'm not buying.


----------



## AlanB

PRR 60 said:


> They quote 4 runways and 100+ gates just to handle intra-state travel that would have been on the train? Seriously? Of course, that is is in addition to the umteen thousand lane-miles of highways, also just for those who would have been train riders. Those numbers are, quite frankly, a joke. Maybe NARP believes it, or maybe they just made it up. Sorry, I'm not buying.


While I don't think that I've ever seen, or perhaps just didn't pay attention to just what that $171B brought, I have seen that $171B from several other sources. The number doesn't come from NARP; they're just reporting it.

And keep in mind that this would be spread out over 22 years, building for the future. I can't speak as well to the airline numbers as you can, but I could see it for the roads. They mention 2,300 lane miles. With a distance of 380 miles between LA & San Fran, just adding two more lanes in each direction to the existing highways would account for more than half those miles or about 1,520 lane miles.

Now of course the odds are that more lane miles would be added closer to the big cities and less out in the central valley, but still I could see that 2,300 number being probable.


----------



## leemell

guest said:


> Link to LA Times article follows brief summary:
> 
> State-mandated panel concludes that the high-speed rail program 'is not financially feasible.' Gov. Jerry Brown's office signals that he isn't likely to be swayed by the findings.
> 
> By Ralph Vartabedian and Dan Weikel,
> 
> Los Angeles Times
> 
> January 4, 2012
> 
> Advertisement
> 
> In a scathing critique that could further jeopardize political support for California's proposed $98.5-billion bullet train, a key independent review panel is recommending that state officials postpone borrowing billions of dollars to start building the first section of track this year.
> 
> Gov. Jerry Brown has said he will ask the Legislature in the coming months to issue the first batch of $9 billion in voter-approved bonds for a high-speed rail network that backers say will create jobs, help the environment and transform the state's economy.
> 
> But in a report Tuesday, a panel of experts created by state law to help safeguard the public's interest raised serious doubts about almost every aspect of the project and concluded that the current plan "is not financially feasible." As a result, the panel said, it "cannot at this time recommend that the Legislature approve the appropriation of bond proceeds for this project."
> 
> Although the panel has no legal power to stop the project, its strong criticism, coupled with recent polls showing public opinion has shifted against the proposal, is giving some key political leaders pause.
> 
> here's link:
> 
> http://www.latimes.c...0,3258448.story



Here is the Times rebuttal to this report, and specifically this piece is particularly telling:

"The point is, you can take the long view or the short view toward the bullet train. The expert panels are taking a short view; we prefer the long. In the end, if Californians have the patience and the political will to stick with it, they'll have a project with extraordinary environmental, economic and transportation benefits. If they don't, they'll have worsening congestion, rising pollution and soaring transit expenses as gasoline prices continue their inevitable rise. We like the first vision of the future better. "


----------



## johnny.menhennet

AlanB said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They quote 4 runways and 100+ gates just to handle intra-state travel that would have been on the train? Seriously? Of course, that is is in addition to the umteen thousand lane-miles of highways, also just for those who would have been train riders. Those numbers are, quite frankly, a joke. Maybe NARP believes it, or maybe they just made it up. Sorry, I'm not buying.
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't think that I've ever seen, or perhaps just didn't pay attention to just what that $171B brought, I have seen that $171B from several other sources. The number doesn't come from NARP; they're just reporting it.
> 
> And keep in mind that this would be spread out over 22 years, building for the future. I can't speak as well to the airline numbers as you can, but I could see it for the roads. They mention 2,300 lane miles. With a distance of 380 miles between LA & San Fran, just adding two more lanes in each direction to the existing highways would account for more than half those miles or about 1,520 lane miles.
> 
> Now of course the odds are that more lane miles would be added closer to the big cities and less out in the central valley, but still I could see that 2,300 number being probable.
Click to expand...

Living in Southern California but having my grandparents in the Bay Area, we drive the 5 up the Central Valley each Christmas. You would not believe how crazy congested that freeway is. If there were an award for "most-congested highway in least populated area," the 5 would take that. it is not unreasonable at all to want or need a doubling of capacity between LA-San Fran. You wouldn't believe how quickly I would switch if they had any service from SoCal-San Jose in under 7 hours


----------



## Anderson

johnny.menhennet said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They quote 4 runways and 100+ gates just to handle intra-state travel that would have been on the train? Seriously? Of course, that is is in addition to the umteen thousand lane-miles of highways, also just for those who would have been train riders. Those numbers are, quite frankly, a joke. Maybe NARP believes it, or maybe they just made it up. Sorry, I'm not buying.
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't think that I've ever seen, or perhaps just didn't pay attention to just what that $171B brought, I have seen that $171B from several other sources. The number doesn't come from NARP; they're just reporting it.
> 
> And keep in mind that this would be spread out over 22 years, building for the future. I can't speak as well to the airline numbers as you can, but I could see it for the roads. They mention 2,300 lane miles. With a distance of 380 miles between LA & San Fran, just adding two more lanes in each direction to the existing highways would account for more than half those miles or about 1,520 lane miles.
> 
> Now of course the odds are that more lane miles would be added closer to the big cities and less out in the central valley, but still I could see that 2,300 number being probable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Living in Southern California but having my grandparents in the Bay Area, we drive the 5 up the Central Valley each Christmas. You would not believe how crazy congested that freeway is. If there were an award for "most-congested highway in least populated area," the 5 would take that. it is not unreasonable at all to want or need a doubling of capacity between LA-San Fran. You wouldn't believe how quickly I would switch if they had any service from SoCal-San Jose in under 7 hours
Click to expand...

Well, this hits what I'm getting at: The super-fast connection from LA-SF is probably unnecessary. Is there any idea what the timetable on the Coast Daylight, assuming it went through San Jose, would look like vs. the Coast Starlight? Is there a way that some of the San Joaquins could be rerouted to run up to Oakland/Emeryville via San Jose instead of running through Sacramento?

As to the numbers, my point is that I don't think the HSR program would avoid as many other projects being necessary as is being talked about. Also, to add to that, I suspect that at least in part, those extra gates (if added) would be effectively charged to the airlines (and their customers) through higher gate fees and so forth.


----------



## johnny.menhennet

4 of the 6 San Joaquins already go to Oakland Jack London and Emeryville. They split from the 2 daily Sacramento-Bakersfield trains at Stockton, and Stockton has two stations, one for each of them. In the 70's and 80's, when there was only one train a day on the route (go to timetables.com, it is just the San Joaquin) it also ran via Oakland. The Coast Daylight is scheduled to be somewhat of a Pacific Surfliner. It will leave LA a few hours earlier than the Starlight, around the time of the first SLO RT. The reason I say it will be like a Pacific Surfliner is because it is going to stop at all Pacific Surfliner stops as well as CS stops and more. It should arrive San Jose around 6 and San Fran at almost 8 (because I know that Amtrak will add padding).

The stops should be:

LA

Glendale

Burbank-Bob Hope

Van Nuys

Chatsworth

Simi Valley

Moorpark (optional)

Camarillo

Oxnard

Ventura

Carpinteria

Santa Barbara

Goleta

Lompoc-Surf

Guadalupe

Grover Beach

SLO

Paso Robles

Soledad

Salinas

Castroville

Pajaro (Watsonville)

Gilroy

San Jose

indefinite # of stops between San Jose and San Fran

San Fran

I know that Soledad is trying to get a purpose-built station specifically for this train. Castroville and Pajaro (right next to Watsonville) have stations in the planning stages regardless of the Coast Daylight. This is because of the proposal to extend one or two Capitol Corridor trains to Salinas.

I cannot 100% guarantee this to be correct, but AFAIK, this is what I believe to be true


----------



## jis

Anything on the Coast Line will be agonizingly slow. There is no reasonable and cost effective scenario to speed anything on it up significantly.

A properly scheduled service through the valley even to San Jose via Oakland will probably be faster.


----------



## Anderson

jis,

This is why I ask. So we're down to building a new high-speed alignment over the mountains (always a mess, and extremely expensive), building a new conventional (i.e. 50 MPH-ish) alignment over the mountains (less expensive but slower), or working out some [probably very messy] deal to get at least some trains over one of the existing lines (undoubtedly expensive, though the question of a relative basis is always there).

I'm sure someone can answer this for me: Both of the lines north out of LA are double-tracked, right? I ask because I'm wondering if there's not a way to add a bunch of passing sidings to make something work. Yes, I know we all want dedicated (or time-separated) alignments, but I'm trying to think of _some_ way to get _something_ out of this mess. Likewise, is there a way that the signaling could be updated (at state expense) to increase capacity/shorten blocks in exchange for being able to pick up a few slots?

Likewise, what do the existing connections between San Jose and Merced (or thereabouts) look like? That's another key section IMHO, since if you run a train "direct" to San Jose (that is, not looping around through Stockton), you'd both likely cut some time off the trip _and_ allow either a run up the Caltrain line (preferable) or be able to run a transfer from the main line to Caltrain (may be necessary for some trips).


----------



## leemell

Anderson said:


> jis,
> 
> This is why I ask. So we're down to building a new high-speed alignment over the mountains (always a mess, and extremely expensive), building a new conventional (i.e. 50 MPH-ish) alignment over the mountains (less expensive but slower), or working out some [probably very messy] deal to get at least some trains over one of the existing lines (undoubtedly expensive, though the question of a relative basis is always there).
> 
> I'm sure someone can answer this for me: Both of the lines north out of LA are double-tracked, right? I ask because I'm wondering if there's not a way to add a bunch of passing sidings to make something work. Yes, I know we all want dedicated (or time-separated) alignments, but I'm trying to think of _some_ way to get _something_ out of this mess. Likewise, is there a way that the signaling could be updated (at state expense) to increase capacity/shorten blocks in exchange for being able to pick up a few slots?
> 
> Likewise, what do the existing connections between San Jose and Merced (or thereabouts) look like? That's another key section IMHO, since if you run a train "direct" to San Jose (that is, not looping around through Stockton), you'd both likely cut some time off the trip _and_ allow either a run up the Caltrain line (preferable) or be able to run a transfer from the main line to Caltrain (may be necessary for some trips).


A couple of years ago, before the recession, the local cities offered up enough money to add several new sidings on the coast route between SBA and SLO. It was turned down by the state. The proposal was to have materially speeded up the CS and the Surfliner through this segment.


----------



## Trogdor

leemell said:


> A couple of years ago, before the recession, the local cities offered up enough money to add several new sidings on the coast route between SBA and SLO. It was turned down by the state. The proposal was to have materially speeded up the CS and the Surfliner through this segment.


What local cities are there between SBA and SLO? Also, why would the state be involved if the locals had enough money on their own? It should have been just between the cities and the UP.

Where they really need a siding is Carpinteria, but my understanding is that it was the local NIMBYs that killed that.


----------



## johnny.menhennet

Anderson said:


> jis,
> 
> This is why I ask. So we're down to building a new high-speed alignment over the mountains (always a mess, and extremely expensive), building a new conventional (i.e. 50 MPH-ish) alignment over the mountains (less expensive but slower), or working out some [probably very messy] deal to get at least some trains over one of the existing lines (undoubtedly expensive, though the question of a relative basis is always there).
> 
> I'm sure someone can answer this for me: Both of the lines north out of LA are double-tracked, right? I ask because I'm wondering if there's not a way to add a bunch of passing sidings to make something work. Yes, I know we all want dedicated (or time-separated) alignments, but I'm trying to think of _some_ way to get _something_ out of this mess. Likewise, is there a way that the signaling could be updated (at state expense) to increase capacity/shorten blocks in exchange for being able to pick up a few slots?
> 
> Likewise, what do the existing connections between San Jose and Merced (or thereabouts) look like? That's another key section IMHO, since if you run a train "direct" to San Jose (that is, not looping around through Stockton), you'd both likely cut some time off the trip _and_ allow either a run up the Caltrain line (preferable) or be able to run a transfer from the main line to Caltrain (may be necessary for some trips).



Both lines north out of LA are NOT double-tracked. The Coast Line is double-tracked up to Chatsworth, but after that, it's only single tracked with a very occasional passing siding. It is not even completely single tracked until San Jose itself. Going north via the Inland route is not a good move at all, either. It is double tracked until Sun Valley-ish (northern end of San Fernando Valley) and then single track with occasional passing sidings along a super busy freight and Metrolink corridor through the mountains. Double tracked from Palmdale to Lancaster, and then single tracked with sidings up to Mojave, double to Tehachapi, and single through Tehachapi Pass to Bakersfield. In Bakerfield, the lines split. I personally don't like the routing the San Joaquins take. I feel that the old SP line is better, it passes through more town centers rather than outskirts and it is more arrow straight than the BNSF line. Either way. With the now-UP line, it could connect in Lathrop to the Altamont route. With a news crossover west of Tracy, it would connect with the ACE route, and take that into San Jose, or over Dumbarton to get to the Peninsula


----------



## Anderson

Johnny,

Well, that explains a lot of the problems right there. Ok, going back to the drawing board, could most or all of one of those alignments be double-tracked most or all of the way through? Doing so would definitely relieve the capacity problems that I understand both UP and BNSF are facing; with that said, I know that there's likely to be a bottleneck _somewhere_ in the system (at Techiapi Pass proper, for example), but could double-tracking be expanded in a practical sense?

Trog,

There may have been some state involvement needed (perhaps on the permitting side; CA can be a bit crazy about this stuff). I'll agree that the local governments should have just cut a deal and let the state do their thing. Also, "offer[ing] up enough money" might have involved matching in some form.


----------



## Trogdor

The problem with the Coast route is that it winds its way through mountains, tunnels, and along the coast. There isn't really any place where you can put a second track for some good distance. It would cost tons, and wouldn't be worth the investment because, for the number of curves you have, you'll never get a particularly fast railroad out of it.


----------



## leemell

Anderson said:


> Johnny,
> 
> Well, that explains a lot of the problems right there. Ok, going back to the drawing board, could most or all of one of those alignments be double-tracked most or all of the way through? Doing so would definitely relieve the capacity problems that I understand both UP and BNSF are facing; with that said, I know that there's likely to be a bottleneck _somewhere_ in the system (at Techiapi Pass proper, for example), but could double-tracking be expanded in a practical sense?
> 
> Trog,
> 
> There may have been some state involvement needed (perhaps on the permitting side; CA can be a bit crazy about this stuff). I'll agree that the local governments should have just cut a deal and let the state do their thing. Also, "offer[ing] up enough money" might have involved matching in some form.


Caltrans and the California Transportation Commission have planning and funding jurisdiction. For a complete view of the corridor and plans see this document.


----------



## johnny.menhennet

Anderson said:


> Johnny,
> 
> Well, that explains a lot of the problems right there. Ok, going back to the drawing board, could most or all of one of those alignments be double-tracked most or all of the way through? Doing so would definitely relieve the capacity problems that I understand both UP and BNSF are facing; with that said, I know that there's likely to be a bottleneck _somewhere_ in the system (at Techiapi Pass proper, for example), but could double-tracking be expanded in a practical sense?


The entire route from basically south of San Jose to a little south of Paso Robles, basically throughout the Salinas Valley (with maybe an exception between Watsonville and Gilroy). The entire route along there is relatively flat, passing through farms, etc. However, there would not be much of a benefit to doing this, because south of Paso Robles, it would be relatively hard to double-track completely for most of the way, and all of the traffic along the Coast Route is through-traffic. On the Inland route, Tehachapi, Altamont, Newhall (San Fernando Valley-Santa Clarita), and Soledad (Santa Clarita-Palmdale) Passes are all impossible to double track at this moment. Single track with occasional sidings is the best that can be achieved at this time.


----------



## Blackwolf

Lawmakers in Sacramento are moving forward with legislation that would kiss the HSR in California for good.

Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, has introduced a bill titled "The Lemon Law" which would suspend all construction and planning for the route, force the state to forfeit the Federal money already awarded while placing a moratorium on spending any of the Measure 1A money set aside for the project. AB-1455, as the bill is officially called, is under deliberation as of this writing on the Assembly floor.

Hopefully it does not pass, or if it does, Gov. Brown vetoes it. Otherwise, HSR in California looks to be Dead on Arrival.


----------



## leemell

Blackwolf said:


> Lawmakers in Sacramento are moving forward with legislation that would kiss the HSR in California for good.
> 
> Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, has introduced a bill titled "The Lemon Law" which would suspend all construction and planning for the route, force the state to forfeit the Federal money already awarded while placing a moratorium on spending any of the Measure 1A money set aside for the project. AB-1455, as the bill is officially called, is under deliberation as of this writing on the Assembly floor.
> 
> Hopefully it does not pass, or if it does, Gov. Brown vetoes it. Otherwise, HSR in California looks to be Dead on Arrival.


Brown has put his stamp in CAHSR and appears to be positioning himself to make this his legacy like his father did with the state water project. It is very unlikely he would not veto it if it gets to him. He will try to get it killed behind the scenes so that he doesn't have to do that.


----------



## Anderson

On the one hand, I hope he kills the bill. On the other hand, I hope he fires the people over at CAHSR and tells them to come back with a plan where the costs are under control.


----------



## noname

Anderson said:


> On the one hand, I hope he kills the bill. On the other hand, I hope he fires the people over at CAHSR and tells them to come back with a plan where the costs are under control.


There are a couple that should go, but he should not throw the baby out with the bath water.

The main thing driving the cost through the sky is every two-bit politician anywhere near the line trying to shove thing around and add his pet ideas to the project.


----------



## AlanB

noname said:


> The main thing driving the cost through the sky is every two-bit politician anywhere near the line trying to shove thing around and add his pet ideas to the project.


That and adding years to the project due to lack of a steady flow of money to get the project done in a more timely manner.


----------



## Anderson

AlanB said:


> noname said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main thing driving the cost through the sky is every two-bit politician anywhere near the line trying to shove thing around and add his pet ideas to the project.
> 
> 
> 
> That and adding years to the project due to lack of a steady flow of money to get the project done in a more timely manner.
Click to expand...

All of the above are true to varying extents, I will readily grant. With that said, there's enough concrete pouring being added to the plan in places like San Jose that I'm wondering if the Cartels aren't trying to take up a more Italian way of disposing of all their victims.* I agree that timeframe issues are part of the problem...but I keep getting the feeling that the HSR people are _letting_ this turn into a Big Dig-type program with some of those add-ons.

*Sorry, couldn't resist a Jimmy Hoffa joke.


----------



## leemell

leemell said:


> Blackwolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lawmakers in Sacramento are moving forward with legislation that would kiss the HSR in California for good.
> 
> Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, has introduced a bill titled "The Lemon Law" which would suspend all construction and planning for the route, force the state to forfeit the Federal money already awarded while placing a moratorium on spending any of the Measure 1A money set aside for the project. AB-1455, as the bill is officially called, is under deliberation as of this writing on the Assembly floor.
> 
> Hopefully it does not pass, or if it does, Gov. Brown vetoes it. Otherwise, HSR in California looks to be Dead on Arrival.
> 
> 
> 
> Brown has put his stamp in CAHSR and appears to be positioning himself to make this his legacy like his father did with the state water project. It is very unlikely he would not veto it if it gets to him. He will try to get it killed behind the scenes so that he doesn't have to do that.
Click to expand...

Brown urges Legislature to OK initial high-speed rail spending

SACRAMENTO

January 18, 2012 11:02am

* • Says only alternative is enlarging airports *

* *

*• 'The critics were wrong then and they're wrong now' *

* *

This report on the CA State of the State address seems to support what I was saying.


----------



## DET63

johnny.menhennet said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They quote 4 runways and 100+ gates just to handle intra-state travel that would have been on the train? Seriously? Of course, that is is in addition to the umteen thousand lane-miles of highways, also just for those who would have been train riders. Those numbers are, quite frankly, a joke. Maybe NARP believes it, or maybe they just made it up. Sorry, I'm not buying.
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't think that I've ever seen, or perhaps just didn't pay attention to just what that $171B brought, I have seen that $171B from several other sources. The number doesn't come from NARP; they're just reporting it.
> 
> And keep in mind that this would be spread out over 22 years, building for the future. I can't speak as well to the airline numbers as you can, but I could see it for the roads. They mention 2,300 lane miles. With a distance of 380 miles between LA & San Fran, just adding two more lanes in each direction to the existing highways would account for more than half those miles or about 1,520 lane miles.
> 
> Now of course the odds are that more lane miles would be added closer to the big cities and less out in the central valley, but still I could see that 2,300 number being probable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Living in Southern California but having my grandparents in the Bay Area, we drive the 5 up the Central Valley each Christmas. You would not believe how crazy congested that freeway is. If there were an award for "most-congested highway in least populated area," the 5 would take that. it is not unreasonable at all to want or need a doubling of capacity between LA-San Fran. You wouldn't believe how quickly I would switch if they had any service from SoCal-San Jose in under 7 hours
Click to expand...

Critics of HSR would argue that a better solution would be to add lanes in each direction to I-5 and CA 99. Actually, once you get over the mountains, I-5 is a straight, level shot for a couple of hundred miles through the central valley. The only thing congesting the road is truck traffic, where a truck going 60 mph passing one or more others going 55 mph can slow down motorists wishing to travel 70-75 mph (the speed limit is 70, despite only two lanes in each direction).


----------



## johnny.menhennet

DET63 said:


> johnny.menhennet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They quote 4 runways and 100+ gates just to handle intra-state travel that would have been on the train? Seriously? Of course, that is is in addition to the umteen thousand lane-miles of highways, also just for those who would have been train riders. Those numbers are, quite frankly, a joke. Maybe NARP believes it, or maybe they just made it up. Sorry, I'm not buying.
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't think that I've ever seen, or perhaps just didn't pay attention to just what that $171B brought, I have seen that $171B from several other sources. The number doesn't come from NARP; they're just reporting it.
> 
> And keep in mind that this would be spread out over 22 years, building for the future. I can't speak as well to the airline numbers as you can, but I could see it for the roads. They mention 2,300 lane miles. With a distance of 380 miles between LA & San Fran, just adding two more lanes in each direction to the existing highways would account for more than half those miles or about 1,520 lane miles.
> 
> Now of course the odds are that more lane miles would be added closer to the big cities and less out in the central valley, but still I could see that 2,300 number being probable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Living in Southern California but having my grandparents in the Bay Area, we drive the 5 up the Central Valley each Christmas. You would not believe how crazy congested that freeway is. If there were an award for "most-congested highway in least populated area," the 5 would take that. it is not unreasonable at all to want or need a doubling of capacity between LA-San Fran. You wouldn't believe how quickly I would switch if they had any service from SoCal-San Jose in under 7 hours
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Critics of HSR would argue that a better solution would be to add lanes in each direction to I-5 and CA 99. Actually, once you get over the mountains, I-5 is a straight, level shot for a couple of hundred miles through the central valley. The only thing congesting the road is truck traffic, where a truck going 60 mph passing one or more others going 55 mph can slow down motorists wishing to travel 70-75 mph (the speed limit is 70, despite only two lanes in each direction).
Click to expand...


You're correct that they need to add lanes and that it is primarily trucks that slow it down, but I'd like to point out that there are a huge amount of motorists who travel at a lot more than 70-75 though.


----------



## Anderson

DET63 said:


> johnny.menhennet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They quote 4 runways and 100+ gates just to handle intra-state travel that would have been on the train? Seriously? Of course, that is is in addition to the umteen thousand lane-miles of highways, also just for those who would have been train riders. Those numbers are, quite frankly, a joke. Maybe NARP believes it, or maybe they just made it up. Sorry, I'm not buying.
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't think that I've ever seen, or perhaps just didn't pay attention to just what that $171B brought, I have seen that $171B from several other sources. The number doesn't come from NARP; they're just reporting it.
> 
> And keep in mind that this would be spread out over 22 years, building for the future. I can't speak as well to the airline numbers as you can, but I could see it for the roads. They mention 2,300 lane miles. With a distance of 380 miles between LA & San Fran, just adding two more lanes in each direction to the existing highways would account for more than half those miles or about 1,520 lane miles.
> 
> Now of course the odds are that more lane miles would be added closer to the big cities and less out in the central valley, but still I could see that 2,300 number being probable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Living in Southern California but having my grandparents in the Bay Area, we drive the 5 up the Central Valley each Christmas. You would not believe how crazy congested that freeway is. If there were an award for "most-congested highway in least populated area," the 5 would take that. it is not unreasonable at all to want or need a doubling of capacity between LA-San Fran. You wouldn't believe how quickly I would switch if they had any service from SoCal-San Jose in under 7 hours
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Critics of HSR would argue that a better solution would be to add lanes in each direction to I-5 and CA 99. Actually, once you get over the mountains, I-5 is a straight, level shot for a couple of hundred miles through the central valley. The only thing congesting the road is truck traffic, where a truck going 60 mph passing one or more others going 55 mph can slow down motorists wishing to travel 70-75 mph (the speed limit is 70, despite only two lanes in each direction).
Click to expand...

Just wondering, but for comparison, how much would those lanes cost? And of course, I feel compelled to ask yet another variation on this...any idea what a highway-hugging not-technically-HSR line would cost? I ask because if you're looking to ultimately add 4-6 lanes of highway in each direction total (i.e. add at least two lanes to one side of a highway), dropping a rail alignment in there (even one that runs slower over the mountains but which can "open up" once it hits the valley) still seems to make more sense to me.


----------



## johnny.menhennet

Anderson, we really do need more lanes. If you go to calrailnews.com, click on the California Rail News feature halfway down the links on the left. It is a quarterly issued newspaper, free of course, that is passed along to all staffed stations. It is an eight page newspaper, and focuses solely on California's rail system and projects. If you look back to this issue specifically, it is very interesting. A pro suggested a different route, that sure makes a lot of sense to me. I suggest that you all take a look.


----------



## Anderson

...cue yet another facepalm from me.


----------



## leemell

DET63 said:


> johnny.menhennet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They quote 4 runways and 100+ gates just to handle intra-state travel that would have been on the train? Seriously? Of course, that is is in addition to the umteen thousand lane-miles of highways, also just for those who would have been train riders. Those numbers are, quite frankly, a joke. Maybe NARP believes it, or maybe they just made it up. Sorry, I'm not buying.
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't think that I've ever seen, or perhaps just didn't pay attention to just what that $171B brought, I have seen that $171B from several other sources. The number doesn't come from NARP; they're just reporting it.
> 
> And keep in mind that this would be spread out over 22 years, building for the future. I can't speak as well to the airline numbers as you can, but I could see it for the roads. They mention 2,300 lane miles. With a distance of 380 miles between LA & San Fran, just adding two more lanes in each direction to the existing highways would account for more than half those miles or about 1,520 lane miles.
> 
> Now of course the odds are that more lane miles would be added closer to the big cities and less out in the central valley, but still I could see that 2,300 number being probable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Living in Southern California but having my grandparents in the Bay Area, we drive the 5 up the Central Valley each Christmas. You would not believe how crazy congested that freeway is. If there were an award for "most-congested highway in least populated area," the 5 would take that. it is not unreasonable at all to want or need a doubling of capacity between LA-San Fran. You wouldn't believe how quickly I would switch if they had any service from SoCal-San Jose in under 7 hours
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Critics of HSR would argue that a better solution would be to add lanes in each direction to I-5 and CA 99. Actually, once you get over the mountains, I-5 is a straight, level shot for a couple of hundred miles through the central valley. The only thing congesting the road is truck traffic, where a truck going 60 mph passing one or more others going 55 mph can slow down motorists wishing to travel 70-75 mph (the speed limit is 70, despite only two lanes in each direction).
Click to expand...

One problem is that the trucks are limited to 55 mph. You frequently get them passing each other with one doing 55 mph and the other doing 55.01 mph. Ahhhhgh!


----------



## johnny.menhennet

Anderson said:


> ...cue yet another facepalm from me.


Anderson, unlike what I said earlier, you can't fire all 50,000,000,000 (yes, that high) number of people that drive through the Central Valley, and I never indicated that we did.


----------



## Hotblack Desiato

If you add more lanes of highway, the traffic just comes to fill it up, and you're back where you started. That's been the case since the beginning of the highway system. There are probably lots of people who don't make that drive simply because it's so congested. If you add lanes, those people will start driving because it's less congested, and the result is that you have the same level of congestion, but with more lane-miles that are congested. The only places where this doesn't happen are where they tear down so much to make room for the highways that they wind up tearing down the reason people go there in the first place.

We've also learned over the years that closing highways doesn't result in traffic Armageddon. So, therefore, I'd say let's not spend money on more highway capacity.


----------



## Alice

Two reasons to have a good travel alternative to cars: smog and fog.

The San Joaquin Valley is considered highly polluted and is the first area in the nation to face federal fines for lousy air quality. I'm against further curtailing of agriculture and manufacturing (and other smog-causing activities) in order to add freeway capacity.

Tule fog occurs often fall through early spring, and reduces visibility to a few hundred feet at best, and under 10 feet at worst. I think the average is around 36 days per year. Every year there are fatalities because people do not slow down enough when they drive from clear visibility into an opaque wall. Just what is a safe speed when the fog is too dense to see any road in front of your car so you are steering by the stripe illuminated in your fog lights ... but you'll surely be rear-ended if you stop on the freeway?


----------



## Long Train Runnin'

I know I'm coming in a little late to this thread, but I read all the posts and a couple of the documents that were linked in the thread. My question would be who would operate the new intra state air service if they built all of these runways and gates. The only first hand experience I have with intra state California flights was watching a Jet Blue Oakland to Long Beach flight leave the gate with a about 12 folks on stand by who didn't make the flight. Are those routes making money for the airlines? It seems that air lines are cutting routes all over the place, so what would the cost of a ticket be on all these new intrastate flights? Is the air travel demand high enough that if they built all those gates airlines would start filling them? I just wonder if that air market is that lucrative over there.


----------



## Hotblack Desiato

Given that United, Southwest, JetBlue, American (I think), Alaska/Horizon, Virgin America and maybe one or two other carriers are all competing in the intra-California market, there must be some reason airlines want to fly those routes.


----------



## johnny.menhennet

Yes, there is plenty of demand. From San Diego alone, Southwest has almost 15 daily departures to Oakland and 10-12ish each for San Francisco, San Jose, and Sacramento. I always fly Southwest out of SAN, so I cannot vouch for other airlines.


----------



## TCRT

Long Train Runnin said:


> what would the cost of a ticket be on all these new intrastate flights?


I am not an expert, but I believe airport improvement costs are often passed on to airlines in the form of landing fees. This means, for example, that a new and improved CA airport would cost airlines a new and larger amount to operate flights from, meaning that fares would go up. A very good example of this phenomenon is to compare service at Burbank and Ontario airports in the LA area - Burbank has very low costs, and as a result enjoys far more service than Ontario, which built a larger-than-needed terminal, staffed it with an unnecessarily high number of employees, and as a result has costs which are far higher than are appropriate for a smaller regional airport. The punchline here is that while a new, larger terminal may make more flights possible, it will also make them more expensive and therefore influence demand for said flights.


----------



## Alice

Not disagreeing with TCRT's statement about costs, but Ontario is kind of a special case. It is operated by Los Angeles Airport Commission, poorly according to Ontario area officials, who were in the news last year trying to convince Los Angeles to give it back to local control.


----------



## PRR 60

Just to add a little fun to this discussion, the estimate being publicized by the CHSRA for the cost of highways and airports if the rail line is not built is being called called "exaggerated", "misleading", "erroneous", and "divorced from reality." This does not come from "rail haters", it comes from independent sources including the University of California Institute of Transportation Studies.

From the Los Angeles Times, 1/17/2012:



> As the price tag for California's bullet train has soared to nearly $100 billion, a central argument for forging ahead with the controversial project is an even loftier figure: the $171 billion that promoters recently estimated will be needed for new roads and airports if no high-speed rail is built. Without a fast-rail network, they warn, the state would have to add 2,300 miles of highway and roughly the equivalent of another Los Angeles International Airport to handle a projected surge in future travel.
> Now, that alternative is coming under attack by a state-appointed panel of experts, who will soon release an assessment of the rail project's business plan and cast doubt on the accuracy and validity of the $171-billion figure, The Times has learned.
> 
> ..."There is some dishonesty in the methodology," said Samer Madanat, director of UC Berkeley's Institute of Transportation Studies, the top research center of its type in the nation. "I don't trust an estimate like this."


The full article is HERE.

Often, the last gasps of a project heading down the drain is resorting to dishonesty. Could that be happening with this project?


----------



## TCRT

Alice said:


> Not disagreeing with TCRT's statement about costs, but Ontario is kind of a special case. It is operated by Los Angeles Airport Commission, poorly according to Ontario area officials, who were in the news last year trying to convince Los Angeles to give it back to local control.



Right, I forgot about that. I guess I should have been more specific in that it isn't Ontario's fault that they are in their current predicament.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

While :help: :help: flying home :help: :help: (I probably now have a file with TSA becuase they are using the new 'backsplatter' machines and, well.... let's just say I did not deal with it well, and they ended up patting me down anyway) yesterday from LAX I came across this article in the LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap-train-20120206,0,3152471.column

Here is Mr. Skelton's conclusion:



> Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), who sits on the Senate transportation and high-speed rail panels, long has advocated much of the redesign that's in the works.
> "If the authority and administration are nimble enough to put a carefully crafted proposal before the Legislature, we're open to hearing it," Simitian says. "But it'll be tough. This is a pretty big ship to turn in a matter of months."
> 
> Richard says there's "a pretty big attitude change" at the agency.
> 
> Maybe he can turn a boondoggle into a boon.
> 
> It's worth watching.



I've not been following CA HSR lately and I found it to be an interesting read about how things are evolving. What do you 'Lower Left Coasters' think? :hi:


----------



## Anderson

I'll be interested to see what comes out of this. If nothing else, I think the backlash to the price tag jump _might_ be good in the long run (even if the project went forward with the higher tag, I'm getting a feeling that it might run even higher later on and that even a successful operation might not be enough to attract any other projects). Glad to see that Brown appears to have zapped them into getting a better plan together.


----------



## George Harris

Anderson said:


> Likewise, what do the existing connections between San Jose and Merced (or thereabouts) look like? That's another key section IMHO, since if you run a train "direct" to San Jose (that is, not looping around through Stockton), you'd both likely cut some time off the trip _and_ allow either a run up the Caltrain line (preferable) or be able to run a transfer from the main line to Caltrain (may be necessary for some trips).


There isn't one. Thanks to mountains, if you want to go from San Jose to Merced by rail, you go through Stockton. The High Speed Route will go south to Gilroy and then turn east and go through/under Pacheco Pass and hit the existing line a few miles south of Merced.



johnny.menhennet said:


> I personally don't like the routing the San Joaquins take. I feel that the old SP line is better, it passes through more town centers rather than outskirts and it is more arrow straight than the BNSF line. Either way. With the now-UP line, it could connect in Lathrop to the Altamont route. With a news crossover west of Tracy, it would connect with the ACE route, and take that into San Jose, or over Dumbarton to get to the Peninsula.


BNSF line Calwa Crossing to Kern Jct: 109.7 miles

UPRR line Calwa Crossing to Kern Jct: 104.5 miles

Assuming that the UPRR could achieve the same average speed as the BNSF line, the time saving would be no more than 5 minutes. When the UPRR route had passenger service, the speed limit was 70 mph. That and the general non-cooperative attitude of Southern Pacific versus that of ATSF were factors, if not the main factors in the San Loaquin trains now being on BNSF.

Via Lathrop and Milpitas would certainly be fastere to San Jose whether up the valley on UPRR or BNSF. It would probably not be faster to Emeryville. The Dumbarton Bridge is out of service and a lot of people in the area want it to stay that way. If open, it would be nice to be able to go directly from the valley into San Francisco. However, there are currently a lot of people getting on the trains in Emeryville that did not come across the bay from the San Francisco side.


----------

