# CAHSRA Releases 2014 Draft Business Plan



## Blackwolf (Feb 7, 2014)

In response to the legal challenge against the California High Speed Rail plan, the Authority released the brand-new 2014 Business Plan this evening in its draft form.



> The Authority is required by Public Utilities Code Section 185033 to prepare, publish, adopt, and submit anupdated Business Plan to the Legislature on May 1, 2014. Statute also indicates that, at least 60 days prior tothe submittal to the Legislature, the Authority must publish a draft Business Plan for public review and comment.


The full draft plan can be found here: http://hsr.ca.gov/About/Business_Plans/Draft_2014_Business_Plan.html


----------



## Anderson (Feb 8, 2014)

I'm looking at it now. This should be entertaining.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 8, 2014)

Ok, thoughts:
(1) The IOS is now indicated as roughly Burbank to Merced. Hopefully this kills off any plans of running solely in the Central Valley.
(2) The RoDs for the LAX-BFD-Merced sections should all be done by next fall, per the plan.
(3) The IOS is expected to run around $27-28bn in present dollars, or $31.2bn in YOE dollars. One thing that isn't clear is where the "missing" $14-18bn is going to come from, though there are hints of Cap and Trade being used.

Other notes:
-It looks like CAHSR is still being as decisive as a cat on Anaheim...it's back in now, and part of Phase I.
-There's explicit mention of TOD options, presumably in conjunction with stations. Smart move.

Edit: Honestly, as far as I can tell, the state is realistically going to be issuing the bonds for at _least_ the IOS on their own. With that in mind, if Brown wants to make this happen, he really just needs to get authorization for a non-1A bond issue to cover pretty much all of the costs for the IOS, arrange for a bond issue, and lock the project down in such a way that this missense becomes nonsense.

Edit 2: I'm not sure that I buy all of the ridership/revenue projections. The implied PPR is around $55/passenger in 2013 dollars for 2025, and in the $45-50 range for 2040. For comparison, the Lynchburger's PPR was $72.05 for the last three months. Granted, the numbers are higher in year of expenditure terms, but I find these numbers to be unrealistically low. Likewise, I find the O&M numbers to likely be a bit on the low side as well...but that's more my gut than anything.

The ridership numbers also feel a bit high...ridership is expected to get close to an average of 100k/day by 2040. Assuming 700-seat trains and 1.5 tickets per seat due to turnover, you'd need no less than 92 trains per day (46 in each direction) to achieve this. Going with a need of about 120% of this to provide the seats for regular peak flows (not all days are created equal, after all), you're looking at 110 frequencies (55 in each direction) to provide the seats...so you would probably need 130-140 trains total once you account for variable load factors (i.e. less people on the earliest and latest trains of the day), even assuming you could get fairly high load factors. 70 in each direction would basically dictate 4-5 departures per hour.

I'm going to read between the lines for a moment on all of this. What seems likely is that not all trains go through from end to end. Instead, probably about 2/3 do, with the remaining 1/3 being "turnbacks" at either Palmdale or Bakersfield on the LA end, and possibly somewhere like Gilroy on the SF end. Why? If fares are being held at $45-55/passenger on average, that seems to imply a lot of short-hop traffic, and the main places for that are going to be in the Anaheim-Palmdale area on the south and possibly in the Bay Area as well. Those tickets are likely to come in at a lowball price compared to LA-SF tickets and you're likely to see commuter passes become a "thing". Additionally, if anything gets going to Vegas, you may wind up with a cross-platform transfer at Palmdale/Lancaster.

Also, while the system is supposed to be limited to something like 24 stations, I question whether you might not get some deal going between Metrolink and CAHSR wherein some added stations would technically not be CAHSR stations (and therefore dodge the 1A station limit). It would be an expensive mess, but I don't think Metrolink would mind not having to deal with the freights, and they might well be able to get better track access numbers. Something not entirely dissimilar could also happen on the Caltrain end of things, particularly if the HSR trains clobber Caltrain's speeds by a big enough margin. But I digress...

Basically, the high ridership numbers and low implied PPR numbers tell me that someone is assuming a non-trivial commuter shift.


----------



## Paulus (Feb 8, 2014)

The state cannot issue $21 billion in bonds without a voter referendum authorizing it and that won't fly at all. CAHSR is effectively a dead project now.


----------



## CHamilton (Mar 4, 2014)

CAHSR interview talks about their market niche, and possible cooperation with airlines.

Southwest Airlines meets high-speed rail? Bay Area rail boss on $68B project





> On a recent Wednesday at the San Jose headquarters of eBay Inc., the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s Bay Area point man was breaking down detailed air travel stats for area business executives.
> 
> Ben Tripousis said that 5 million annual passengers currently fly from the Bay Area to Los Angeles, and he sees short-haul flights as a major rail market opening.
> 
> ...


----------

