HSRA Approves Pacheco Yet Again
04/19/12 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
On April 19, in
accordance with writs issued by the Sacramento
Superior Court in response to litigation by TRANSDEF
and its allies, the CA High-Speed Rail Authority
rescinded its previous certification of the 2010
Revised Final Program EIR for the Bay Area to Central
Valley portion of its HST project, and rescinded its
approval of the Pacheco route.
After that action, the Board certified a Partially Revised Final Program EIR and adopted the Pacheco route. While the result was the same as its 2010 action, this time was different. Authority Board members went to great lengths to appear to seriously consider the Altamont route. This was a striking change from the arrogance of past Boards. Nonetheless, the outcome was the same: nothing has changed.
The Board heard strong testimony from environmentalists as to the merits of the Altamont route. The Board heard strong testimony from environmentalists as to the merits of the Altamont route. TRANSDEF provided this testimony, which criticized the EIR and called out the EIR preparers’ underhanded tricks: Read More...
After that action, the Board certified a Partially Revised Final Program EIR and adopted the Pacheco route. While the result was the same as its 2010 action, this time was different. Authority Board members went to great lengths to appear to seriously consider the Altamont route. This was a striking change from the arrogance of past Boards. Nonetheless, the outcome was the same: nothing has changed.
The Board heard strong testimony from environmentalists as to the merits of the Altamont route. The Board heard strong testimony from environmentalists as to the merits of the Altamont route. TRANSDEF provided this testimony, which criticized the EIR and called out the EIR preparers’ underhanded tricks: Read More...
Senate Holds Fiery HSR Hearing
04/18/12 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
On April 18, Budget
Subcommittee #3 conducted a hearing on High-Speed
Rail. Chairman Joe Simitian asked many pointed
questions as to the viability of the proposed 130
mile Central Valley project. Compelling testimony
from the Legislative Analysts’ Office cast strong
doubts on assertions in the HSRA Business Plan that
the Authority would be able to access cap and trade
revenues as a backstop for 20+ billion in missing
funding for its Initial Operating Section (IOS).
Without a fully-funded IOS, opponents of the Central
Valley project assert that the Authority cannot
legally access Proposition 1A Bond funds. TRANSDEF
provided the following testimony: Read
More...
Another Day, Another HSR Business Plan: First Impressions
04/02/12 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
Yes, the High-Speed
Rail Authority did listen to comments on the last
Plan, and yes, they actually did add several desirable elements to
the Plan, but in the end, it is still a bad joke:
“The key initial operating segment from the Central
Valley to the Los Angeles Basis is fully funded.” (p.
7-25) This seemingly good news is new since the last Business Plan.
But the punchline is that the newly identified fund
source is $20.2 billion from the feds! How fully
funded is that, given the current Congress? The
Governor claims he can use cap and trade revenues as
a backstop, when the hoped-for funds don’t arrive.
Good luck fighting off all the other interest groups
trying to keep their programs alive in this time of
budget austerity! Doesn’t sound to me like the IOS is
funded...
A nastier joke is the commitment to using blended systems--sharing tracks with commuter railroads in the Los Angeles area and the Bay Area. This is commonsense policy--one which TRANSDEF fully supports, once the Authority has demonstrated that a train can travel from Los Angeles to San Francisco within the statutory 2 hours 40 minutes with a blended system. Perhaps this is a formality, but the validity of the Business Plan rests on it.
The major problem with the blended approach is that the ridership estimate assumes 9 trains per peak hour (p. ES-13) or the internally inconsistent 6 trains per peak hour (p. 5-12). The 9 trains/hour greatly exceeds the HSR capacity of Caltrain in blended mode and may be a typo, while Metrolink’s HSR capacity in blended mode is unknown. In other words, ridership and revenue, which are the foundation of a viable Business Plan, may be overstated, casting doubt on the claim that all ridership scenarios result in a positive cash flow (p. 7-5), so that no ridership subsidy is needed. Compare this to the analysis by financial professionals associated with CC-HSR. Read More...
A nastier joke is the commitment to using blended systems--sharing tracks with commuter railroads in the Los Angeles area and the Bay Area. This is commonsense policy--one which TRANSDEF fully supports, once the Authority has demonstrated that a train can travel from Los Angeles to San Francisco within the statutory 2 hours 40 minutes with a blended system. Perhaps this is a formality, but the validity of the Business Plan rests on it.
The major problem with the blended approach is that the ridership estimate assumes 9 trains per peak hour (p. ES-13) or the internally inconsistent 6 trains per peak hour (p. 5-12). The 9 trains/hour greatly exceeds the HSR capacity of Caltrain in blended mode and may be a typo, while Metrolink’s HSR capacity in blended mode is unknown. In other words, ridership and revenue, which are the foundation of a viable Business Plan, may be overstated, casting doubt on the claim that all ridership scenarios result in a positive cash flow (p. 7-5), so that no ridership subsidy is needed. Compare this to the analysis by financial professionals associated with CC-HSR. Read More...