# California HSR Plan Revised



## Blackwolf (Apr 1, 2012)

No details are publicly available yet, but the CHSRA board is scheduled to unveil the most recent changes to the state-wide high-speed rail plan.

Key points being reported are:


A reduction in the quoted price tag from $98 billion to $68.4 billion.
Changes in the design and track plan for the first segment, which legally has to begin construction before the end of this year.
Report: Questions Remain Despite Revisions For California Rail Plan


----------



## Anderson (Apr 1, 2012)

Hmm...sounds like the first segment would now actually involve a meaningful link to LA, if I read things right?


----------



## Blackwolf (Apr 2, 2012)

Press Release from CHSRA on the new Business Plan:

California High-Speed Rail Authority Publishes Revised Business Plan



> "The plan is realistic, credible and transparent," said Authority Board Member Mike Rossi. "This plan is responsible from a business perspective and is a solid investment for Californians. There is no need for operating subsidies and the system will attract private capital once the *operating segment stabilizes ridership in 2022*."


Looks to be much more ambitious, especially with the new 10 year window for the first operational line. It should be interesting, and no doubt controversial, to see if 10 years are enough for such a huge project. To put things in perspective, the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge eastern span replacement project is (IMHO) pretty small in comparison to this HSR system, and yet it has been more than 20 years in design and construction with several years more work needed until it is finished. If the CHSRA can make it happen (and I most seriously hope they can as both a Californian taxpayer and avid rail traveler) then we will really have a gem to be proud of.

I'm still supportive, none the less.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Apr 2, 2012)

Blackwolf said:


> Press Release from CHSRA on the new Business Plan:
> 
> California High-Speed Rail Authority Publishes Revised Business Plan
> 
> ...


I'd still be supportive if (and I know I've linked this before) this plan happens.

California Rail News January/February 2010

This plan just makes endless amounts more sense (sorry if grammar is off, but you get what I mean).


----------



## Anderson (Apr 3, 2012)

Though all I've seen is a brief summary, I like what I see so far. Unfortunately, the "2012 Business Plan" on the website still has a November release date next to it (though I'm still poking around at the links there), so I don't have enough to definitively comment. Still, I like what I'm seeing more than what came up before, and it's good to see that they _probably_ brought the price tag under control...though the PR still has signs of weaseling around with the math ("·Cutting $30 billion in costs, through the blended approach, cost savings* and inflation assumptions*").


----------



## Anderson (Apr 3, 2012)

Ok, I'm looking over the new plan (it's just not in what seemed like the most obvious place). So, a few questions come to mind:

1) Does the document actually outline where money is likely to come from? I know some mention was made of cap-and-trade funding, but I'm not finding how much that will be able to provide. Also, are there any other clear sources?

2) "In California’s most populous counties, voters have approved a combined $140 billion of investments in local transportation improvements. Los Angeles County, with its $40 billion Measure R program, is in the midst of the largest transit expansion program in the country." Could I get a link to some information on the other initiatives in CA?


----------



## trainfan969 (Apr 10, 2012)

Looks like the HSR project may be investigated by a congressional panel: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-rail-probe-20120410,0,4494270.story


----------



## Ben (Apr 19, 2012)

Is there a deadline for the state to sell bonds in order to match the $3.3 billion in federal funds?


----------



## leemell (Apr 19, 2012)

Ben said:


> Is there a deadline for the state to sell bonds in order to match the $3.3 billion in federal funds?


I don't know about those bonds, but the Federal money is dependent on shovel in ground before the end of 2012.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 19, 2012)

leemell said:


> Ben said:
> 
> 
> > trainfan969 said:
> ...


Perhaps if America's anti-rail party can delay things in California just a few more months it could be _hasta la vista baby_ for high speed rail nationwide for decades to come.

No matter how you slice it that would be an amazing accomplishment after all the major pro-rail initiatives being proposed in recent years.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 19, 2012)

I hate to say this, but if the project collapses, then a fair share of the burden falls (IMHO) to the idiots at CAHSR for letting the cost get out of control in the first place. The project is good, yes, but there was _no_ excuse for tripling the project cost like they did and thinking that they would just get the check cut (let alone the fact that IIRC a couple of billion dollars of the increase were to be spent dealing with a sudden edifice complex that required miles-long viaducts).

I've probably said this before, but it's pretty clear that the original numbers were pie-in-the-sky figures. Of course, a lot of this comes from the incessant habit surrounding major projects: Sell one set of numbers and then, once you're too far in to kill things, raise the estimate to the _real_ cost. If that's what happened (and I really suspect that it is), then I consider that behavior to be immoral (just as it is with any other sort of project).


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 19, 2012)

Anderson said:


> I hate to say this, but if the project collapses, then a fair share of the burden falls (IMHO) to the idiots at CAHSR for letting the cost get out of control in the first place. The project is good, yes, but there was _no_ excuse for tripling the project cost like they did and thinking that they would just get the check cut (let alone the fact that IIRC a couple of billion dollars of the increase were to be spent dealing with a sudden edifice complex that required miles-long viaducts). I've probably said this before, but it's pretty clear that the original numbers were pie-in-the-sky figures. Of course, a lot of this comes from the incessant habit surrounding major projects: Sell one set of numbers and then, once you're too far in to kill things, raise the estimate to the _real_ cost. If that's what happened (and I really suspect that it is), then I consider that behavior to be immoral (just as it is with any other sort of project).


So if I'm understanding you correctly...

If the HSR project collapses it's because CAHSR was willing to set their budget figures unreasonably high.

If this project somehow succeeds it's because CAHSR was willing set their figures too low in order to commit fraud.

It's basically "damned if you do and damned if you don't" at this point.

Which part(s) of the budget do you consider to be "idiotic" and/or "out of control?"

Are there other HSR systems built from scratch for substantially less money than California's version?


----------



## Anderson (Apr 20, 2012)

1) I'll cite the San Jose viaduct as a shining example of "out of control" spending. There was some lovely analysis that I cited back in the fall on this point.

2) The most comparable line I would offer is the Tōkaidō Shinkansen line from the 1950s, which ran about $1bn (the cost was around 380 billion yen per this link and as confirmed elsewhere; please remember that this was under a far different exchange rate regime). I'm not _entirely_ sure what this would translate into in current dollars (again, funky exchange rates stink), and I think the land in question _was_ flatter (in spite of it being Japan), but I doubt the multiplier would be 50x+. _Now_, I can't speak to the pre-existing infrastructure, but IIRC they're using basically the same lines they set up in the initial project now, and this line was even more revolutionary then than CAHSR is now.

I could also point out that the first TGV line ran, in real present day terms, around $4-5 billion (accounting for inflation and exchange rate differences, I believe). Mind you, that line is shorter...but again, even scaling the project up a few times still gives wiggle room to come in cheaper.

3) And actually, taking the Tōkaidō Shinkansen again for a moment, the chairman of the project pulled this same lowball pricing trick...and resigned when the real cost became clear.

4) Finally, on the damned if they do damned if they don't: Really, they doubly damned themselves. They lowballed the initial cost and then were shocked when tripling the cost (for _whatever _reason) on a project this size jolted a lot of people and had to scramble a new project plan together to fix the damage that had done. If they had come out with a higher number to begin with, then it is true that the project might have died...but at least then there wouldn't be $3 billion in federal funds tied up in it right now that could be funding other projects (notwithstanding the FL meltdown, there are _plenty_ of places that money could be going). And if they had come out with the $60 billion-range numbers in November instead of the $90-100 billion range numbers, yes, there would have been shock...but I doubt it will have been _quite_ as bad.

So if it succeeds, yes, it will be because they bent the estimates as far as they could to one side and then kept the project together in spite of the surprise when those numbers snapped back into place...the success will be in spite of borderline fraud being revealed. I find it telling that the spike in estimated costs came _after_ funding was committed. And if it fails, then it will be because of the same games being played...only that they were being played in a hostile political environment instead of a friendly one where this stuff is gotten away with.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Apr 21, 2012)

I am really annoyed that they continue trying to start HSR instead of starting a regular SFO-LAX corridor. Either get the HSR construction started RIGHT NOW or try something else.

This is not gonna go anywhere!


----------



## Trogdor (Apr 21, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> I am really annoyed that they continue trying to start HSR instead of starting a SFO-LAX corridor.


Umm....The HSR plan in California *is* a San Francisco-Los Angeles corridor.

There's no way you'd get a true, viable corridor out of the current route, which basically takes 12 hours to go from one to the other. At most, you'd get maybe two extra trains out of it (one in the daytime that serves San Francisco, and one overnight train).


----------



## leemell (Apr 21, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> I am really annoyed that they continue trying to start HSR instead of starting a regular SFO-LAX corridor. Either get the HSR construction started RIGHT NOW or try something else.
> 
> This is not gonna go anywhere!


CA HSR is under a mandate to put shovel to ground by the end of this calendar year to receive Federal HSR funds. They have working toward that time for about three years. Designing anything this large and technically complex takes time, a lot of it to do it right.


----------

