Following is my sixth report since Oct 3rd on the proposed High Speed Rail System, CHSRA. It’s beyond comprehension when proponents of high speed rail sell us a bill of goods and many voters accept their data without a challenge. While it is true that the majority of Orange, San Diego and Riverside County voters opposed Prop 1A, the initial $9.95 billion expenditure for a high speed rail project last November, we were outnumbered by northern CA voters resulting in the start of a massive debt.
We now learn that the projected construction cost is increasing from $33.6 to $42.6 billion dollars, or an increase of nine billion dollars. Oh, they used 2008 dollars rather than time of construction costs, which we should have been told before casting our votes. I say that because ridership costs are increasing even before we lay the first mile of track. So their business plan will now reflect higher commuter ticket costs resulting in 14 million fewer riders due to a simple cost/benefit analysis by potential riders.
In selling Californians to support Prop 1A voters were deceived in being told that the cost of a high-speed train ticket from San Francisco to LA was to be $55 yet their latest projected cost is pegged at $105.
In one of my prior CHSRA posts I mentioned the existing Caltrain system that currently serves the Bay Area peninsula taking commuters and visitors from San Jose north through San Jose and Palo Alto to San Francisco. Will part of the proposed CHSRA ridership take away from Caltrain? Was that impact factored in? I do not recall seeing any discussion of that impact.
Is there a plan B in the event we are unable to get between $17 to $19 billion in federal funds to aide construction of this project?
As I re-read my prior posts I see that “federal funding is projected to provide 25-33 percentage of construction costs $10-$12 billion.”
And what about costs of design, equipment, and use of eminent domain?
As we are discussing a “3P,” also known as a “private-public-partnership,” do Juice readers truly believe that investors will not be seeking a reasonable ROI before kicking in billions of dollars to a subsidized rail system?
Let me also share text from a prior post where I quote from Section 2704.09 of the Prop 1A ballot Measure. “By law, state funds will not be made available until matching funds from additional non-state sources are obtained.”
That being a vital commencement criteria I guess they expect to get money from Vallejo, San Diego and LA whose reserves are each busting at the seams.
The following paragraphs are from the San Mateo County Times. I am adding the story link at the end of this post where you can read the entire report.
State high-speed train rides to be costlier, ridership lower than promised to voters
By Mike Rosenberg
San Mateo County Times
Those hoping to ride the state’s high-speed train next decade will have to dig much deeper into their wallets than officials originally thought, a harsh reality that will chase away millions of passengers, according to an updated business plan released Monday.
The average ticket on the bullet train from San Francisco to Los Angeles is now estimated to cost about $105, or 83 percent of comparable airfare. Last year, the state said prices would be set at 50 percent of comparable airfare and predicted a ticket from San Francisco to Los Angeles would cost $55.
As a result of the higher fares, state officials now think the service will attract 41 million annual riders by 2035, down from last year’s prediction of 55 million passengers by 2030.
Finally, the cost of the project — recently pegged at $33.6 billion in 2008 dollars — is now estimated at $42.6 billion in time-of-construction dollars.
The gloomy forecasts are included in the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s updated business plan, which the state Legislature required the authority to submit by today?.The authority last produced a business plan in 2008. State officials had used what turned out to be optimistic ridership and ticket price forecasts in presenting a $9.9 billion bond measure called Proposition 1A, which voters approved in November 2008.
Authority Deputy Director Jeff Barker said while the numbers have changed, the “spirit of what the people voted for” with Proposition 1A remains the same.”What they voted for was to put $9 billion toward construction of a high-speed rail system,” Barker said. “That’s still what we have today. We’re not asking the voters for additional money.”With higher fares and fewer passengers, the rail authority will actually churn a higher profit, according to the 142-page business plan.
Officials expect annual revenues to hit $2.87 billion by 2035 and insist that under the newest model their system will be profitable.”The point of this business plan is to prove that it’s a viable project,” Barker said. “This is a scenario in which increasing the ticket (price) and having fewer riders, you reduce your operations and maintenance costs such that your profits are higher.”Barker cautioned that the figures are still subject to change in coming years.”Any type of ticket price or ridership numbers, they’re all estimates until the day the thing opens,” he said.
The new business plan expects 120,700 riders per day in 2035, with 31,800 boarding in the Bay Area along the Caltrain line where the high-speed train will operate from San Francisco to San Jose. The authority predicts 2,500 daily boardings at the Millbrae station, 7,600 at the San Jose stop and 24,100 at the San Francisco Transbay Terminal, the line’s northern terminus. The plan also assumes 3,900 daily riders at Redwood City, although the authority may not include a stop there, or may move the station to either Palo Alto or Mountain View.
http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_13997677?nclick_check=1
Gilbert note: As I read another Juice post regarding the potential sale of the OC Fair Grounds let me steal from that headline and call this “derail the train.” It’s not to late to put the Genie back in the bottle. The fact that voters approved almost $10 billion for the first phase of this train does not mean that we are compelled to move foreward. Our insurance policy is the matching fund mandate.
Let’s not overlook the fact that Lord Pringle of Curtness is running the high-speed train debacle these days — a perfect job for a Schwarznegger-appointed RINO — trying to sell a bill of goods that justifies the edifice he’s trying to build for himself in Anaheim. His legacy train station is completely unnecessary, except that CHSRA is supposed to come through there. He’ll also probably tell you that a maglev will be running to it from Las Vegas. The Register recently reported that the private investment he was pleading for to build ARTIC has dried up, so of course it’s now up to Measure M that he also told us was so crucial to solely fund it to get his name on this boondoggle.
Gimme a Break.
You had to mention Measure M
where I was one of the co-authors opposing the 30 year TEMPORARY tax extension.
Take note that the Measure M extension was a “tax increase” promoted by the Mayor.
Back to the post. A dozen years ago I spoke with a well connected member of the Lincoln Club who discussed having access to private Asian funds for a high speed train from Vegas to Orange County. In our follow up discussions he said that the train would need to have its terminus in Victorville as the track to Anaheim presented too many roadblocks.
I also notice that the mayor is termed out in 2010 with Lucille Kring and Tom Tait in the running. I do intend to contact each of them to get their thoughts on this proposed train.
Your column reflects a basic ignorance of rail operations on the Caltrain corridor between San Francisco and San Jose (actually, Gilroy). Just like the trains through Orange County, the construction of high speed tracks will mean faster service for the local commuter trains. Bridges and underpasses will be built for both the highspeed and existing trains. Curves, freight track crossings and railyards will be eliminated.
The highspeed service will complement the commuter trains, not compete with them. Metrolink and Amtrak service between OC and LA will be faster, and connect with the highspeed trains to points north. Win, win, win.
Finally, you quote an article from a newspaper up north that is home to a bunch of NIMBYs that do not want highspeed trains near their upscale houses. That article fundamentally misunderstood what the rail board voted to do last week.
The decision was to base the entire budget on higher ticket prices, so that more money would be generated by setting fares at 83 percent of average plane tickets. That will cut ridership by 5 percent, but generate more money from private investors. You see, dear Mr. Gilbert, the “non-state” funds that you fundamentally misunderstand are PRIVATE INVESTMENT FUNDS, not money form other governments.
I think if you are going to write a series of reports, you owe it to yourself to get the facts straight on this.
Mr. McNary. Welcome to the Juice where we accept supporting and opposing comments from all sides of every topic.
My reference to Caltrain was based on an existing system providing for the commuters in that area in which the train makes multiple stops between Gilroy and San Francisco.
Part of my opposition relates to the argument that the new CHSRA bullet train will exceed 200 MPH which in itself is a leap, especially if you will be stopping to pick up and discharge passengers at the max 24 stations along the overall system.
As to a NIMBY newspaper. Are you stating that the San Jose Mercury News is not a reputable and viable newspaper?
Have you looked at the Amtrac Acela bullet trains serving the Boston and NYC to Phil and DC corridor and their current ticket prices? Peak travel time TODAY, between NYC and Washington, DC is $200 one way! Let’s be realistic in projecting future passenger cost unless there is a massive subsidy paid for by taxpayers who will most likely never board these trains.
Here is a recent article from the east coast that warrants our consideration.
“Acela’s floor is reinforced to protect against debris on the tracks. Unlike Europe’s high-speed corridors, the Northeast Corridor is only partially fenced; it even crosses some highways at grade. Amtrak wanted to run a push-pull configuration, but the FRA under the Clinton administration said a cab car did not meet crashworthiness standards, so another locomotive was added at the other end. The train is overpowered. Even with a single locomotive, the Acela can run at 200 mph, but FRA rules do not allow speeds above 150 mph on tracks shared with freights and slower passenger trains. Acela averages just 80-some mph, and rarely goes faster than 130 for small stretches. Its speed is limited by curves, tight confines in tunnels—especially in Baltimore—freight traffic, and other drawbacks that make true high-speed performance impossible. The high-speed corridors in Europe and Japan are straight, level, sealed from intrusion, and set aside solely for fast passenger trains. To create such a corridor in the Northeast with its dense population would cost tens of billions of dollars and require the purchase or condemnation of more land and neighborhoods.” Source: http://www.chelseagreen.com/content/the-acela-express-aboard-americas-fastest-train/
Have you benchmarked your dream ride against exisiting experience on the east coast?
Readers. I have sent a copy of this post to Chairman Curt Pringle and await his feedback.
With the current financial challenges at both the federal and state levels I do support utilizing the “3P” concept for future transportation solutions. My angst is that, after voting for a tax increase earlier this year, our state anticipates our having a $20 billion budget deficit over the next 18 months yet voters have burdened their children and grandchildren with a massive Bond debt that when combined with our existing debt obligations may reach 10 percent of future CA budgets.
We also have the hurdle of exceeding a preset dollar amount before we qualify for the massive matching federal aid we are seeking as stated in the Prop 1A Ballot.
Looking forward to your rebuttal.
Merry Christmas! Larry Gilbert
More to the point of funding problems is section 2704.08 (K), which I copy below.
All of the Authority’s stimulus construction applications, when completed will not result in completed useable segments or corridors.
Therefore, they are not eligible for Prop 1A funding. Yet the Governor and the Authority promised Prop 1A funds would match any stimulus funds the State receives. This is a commitment under the Prop 1A law, they cannot fulfill.
========
Prop 1A/AB-3034
Section 2704.08 …
(K) The authority has completed all necessary project level
environmental clearances necessary to proceed to construction.
(d) Prior to committing any proceeds of bonds described in
paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2704.04 for expenditure
for construction and real property and equipment acquisition on each
corridor, or usable segment thereof, other than for costs described
in subdivision (g), the authority shall have approved and
concurrently submitted to the Director of Finance and the Chairperson
of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee the following: (1) a
detailed funding plan for that corridor or usable segment thereof
that (A) identifies the corridor or usable segment thereof, and the
estimated full cost of constructing the corridor or usable segment
thereof, (B) identifies the sources of all funds to be used and
anticipates time of receipt thereof based on offered commitments by
private parties, and authorizations, allocations, or other assurances
Let me add, I advised the Authority of this problem, before the Application for Stimulus funding was approved and also in a letter to the Authority on Nov 30th. No response from the Authority on any of this correspondence. They apparently are going to ignore this condition, which will probably lead to legal action.
As a voter approved proposition, the terms cannot be changed without approval of the legislature and approval of the voters of California.
Mr. Brown.
Welcome to the debate. Thank you for your supporting comments on how we are being misled by the proponents.
Merry Christmas!
Larry Gilbert
And from UC Berkeley
Environmental Trade-offs
While many consider high-speed rail an environmental silver bullet for transportation in California, Arpad Horvath, Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Director of the Consortium on Green Design and Manufacturing, punctured those assumptions.
“Our transportation decision-making is based on atrocious environmental data,” he told the audience. Decisions about which transportation modes are greenest must be made not only the basis of tailpipe emissions, but rather, a total life-cycle assessment of the various modes.
These must include manufacturing of the vehicles themselves, their required infrastructure, and the fuel used to power them. High-speed rail will produce some 10 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year during its construction, said Horvath. It will need to run very full trains almost immediately to offset the emissions expended in building tracks, stations, rail cars to “compete environmentally” with air or road travel.
In addition, if the train’s electricity is produced by coal-fired or natural gas-fired plants there will be substantial, harmful emissions produced until cleaner, alternative fuel sources, such as wind power, are available for use.
The bottom line, he said, was high-speed rail “only outperforms other modes if there is a very high passenger load or a very clean energy source, neither of which is assured at the moment.”