Any other 'typos' the rail authority may wish to disclose now?

What with the huge change in ridership projections (down) and pricing forecasts (up) pre-vote versus post-vote, I am beginning to detect an odor coming from this project's management. What are their credentials?

Keep digging.

unacceptable-
they'd sure like to keep digging-
like they did in boston-
what a sham

So, the numbers used to crunch the ridership model were correct, but there was a typo (that made the project look bad) in the numbers sent to the analyst?

That's the best Palo Alto NIMBYs have got?

Is it me or does it seem like the costs are often underestimated in major infrastructure projects like this in California?

A few years from now, there will be some excuse made that will explain why the cost went up by another $20 Billion or more.

Any "typos" the "Global Warming" cabal wants to fess up to? Now is the time! Clear the air!

I still question why we need a high speed train when anyone that wants to go to LA can jump on a Southwest flight for as low as $39 and be there in an hour. Are there really that many commuters that would make this viable on a daily basis?

"Typo", lol.

CHSRA = incompetent

I'm with you, John. It doesn't cost much money at all to fly to cities around California. I can fly to LA for $39 or to Fresno for $59. Something tells me that those tickets on that train are going to be as expensive (or more expensive) -- even though the travel will be slower, more dangerous and somewhat limited.

I think that the proponents of the HSR are arguing that it will be less expensive than flying to certain smaller cities. First of all, the HSR will not pass through every minor city in California. From what I understand (and correct me if I am wrong), the HSR will initially run from LA to San Jose to Sacramento. Another line will run from Modesto to Fresno to Bakersfield to LA. In other words, it connects only a handful of hubs (just like airports).

However, they aren't accounting for the $46 Billion in costs -- which come from our tax dollars. In other words, we are paying for it. If the ultimate cost was exactly $46 Billion (which is probably grossly underestimated) and there are 370 Million people in California (even though a large portion who are exempt from actually paying taxes due to income limits), then the cost of this initial estimate would come down to $1243.24 per person (including every man, woman and child...and including the poor). That is enough money to pay for more than 25 plane tickets from San Jose or San Francisco to LA. Of course, in addition to these costs, you would also have to pay for the HSR tickets too. If CalTrain is any indication, those tickets will be quite pricey.

I hear the argument that "forward thinking nations" (*cough cough) have HSRs. However, most of those nations do not contain the transportation infrastructure -- including safe air transportation, safe buses, vehicles, quality free highways and interstates and/or inexpensive travel costs -- as compared with the United States. I think that there is a valid argument that the HSR is actually "backward thinking" (expensive "backward thinking" it is).

I would rather NOT SPEND our money (since our state economy is a mess anyway). However, if we want to spend money, why not spend it on schools or improving our roads?

Just a thought.

=)

Regarding $39 flights - the rail project is not based on current conditions, but on 100 year projections. My (limited) understanding is that they looked at how many new runways and freeway lanes would be needed statewide in the next 50 - 100 years and concluded that there were too many to be built (SFO for example, has no more space for runways). Hence the rail line as a supplement.
How long do you think those $39 prices will last when oil goes up again?

I haven't studied the CHSR project, so, I'm not commenting on it specifically. But, there are two things that should be kept in mind. First, the cost of all liquid fuels will go way up in the coming decades, and HSR is somewhat more efficient fuel-wise than the best airplanes, and, vastly more efficient than single-occupancy cars. Second, take-off/landing slots are already scarce, and, expected to become more so, even with higher fuel costs. At some point, flights of highly-efficient Boeing 787's carrying cross-country passengers will displace less efficient local passengers in 737's. So, those cheap Southwest 737 flights will dry up-- guaranteed. Now, whether the CHSR project will be part of the solution-- I don't know.

Understood Judith and I see the benefit of HSR, I've ridden it in France and in Japan. It is very cool. My concern I guess has to do with how viable and practical it is the next say 10-30 years. Can we and our kids afford this given our current economy and knowing that like all public work projects it will be horribly over budget and way off schedule. I'm not sure I want to burden my kids and theirs with having to pay for this. I like Nayeli's idea, spend it on our schools.

So...in effect...the HSR will be less safe, more expensive and a bit slower than airplanes. Plus, we will be paying $46+ Billion to build it.

However, it might be beneficial in 50-100 years?

Something tells me that people are pushing this without really listening to educated voices of dissent.

"How long do you think those $39 prices will last when oil goes up again?"

Real vs. Nominal. Let's not mix up the two.

Of course, we don't know how long the $39 ticket prices will last. However, we don't even have an estimate about how expensive a HSR ticket will be either. Something tells me that it will always be more expensive than plane flights.

And...will this be a government corporation? If the USPS or California Bridge tolls are any indication, the government has a difficult time balancing a budget with service that doesn't require rate hikes that exceed the growth of inflation.

comparing HSR to a $39 HSR ticket makes as much sense as comparing it to a $1 ticket on Megabus (not sure if they still serve that route though: Web Link

The CA Air Resources Board lists HSR as one means to reduce GHG .....the idea is to get away from regional airlines (BTW, did you see that Frontline special on the safety issues associated with them:
Web Link

and use the much safer HSR - safety record on these grade-separated rail lines is superb....unlike the supposedly Continental flight crash that sparked the Frontline report.

>>>>Any "typos" the "Global Warming" cabal wants to fess up to? Now is the time! Clear the air!

Right-on!

Typos it was, you say?? Right, I got cha.

.... If this level of honesty keeps up I don't know if I am getting the full gallon when I pump my gas or how much Palo Alto will smooth my electric bill next month (of course in their favor).

If my doctor has me on the right amount of BP medication or is the nitinol in my stint was heat treated to the right temperature.

... Lying should have consequence and the truth rewarded with gratitude.

Hi Irvin...

Do you know what the estimated cost for traveling on the HSR will be? I can't seem to find it ANYWHERE.

How can we make a vote for a government-funded HSR paid for our tax dollars when we don't know if it will be cost effective?

Like I said, this thing is supposed to cost $46 Billion. This is California, and I have a strong suspicion that this figure is grossly underestimated. Regardless, if we divided that number by the every man, woman, child and elderly person (a total of just under 37 Million people) -- the cost will be $1243.25 per person.

$46 Billion / 37 Million = $1243.25 per person.

I don't know if this figure ($1243.25 per person) along with the cost per ticket (anybody's guess) will justify the overall price to taxpayers.

If every single California man, woman and child (37 Million) rode the high speed train once per year with a ticket costing $50, it would raise $1.85 Billion in income. At this rate (and without deducting any operational costs [salaries, maintenance, fuel, etc...] whatsoever), it would take more than 25 years to pay for the initial cost of the HSR.

37 Million x $50 = $1.85 Billion.
$46 Billion / $1.85 Billion = 24.86 years

We already have adequate transportation to towns throughout California (including those "small hubs" like Fresno and Bakersfield). Unfortunately, our state's economy is a mess of red ink. Is this the time to be spending so much money?!? Still, could you imagine what would happen if invested $23 Billion into our schools and $23 Billion into our state highways?

;-)

According to an article in the Daily Post recently, Alexis has claimed that the model used for ridership estimations is "secret". Either this is true, or it isn't. The Weekly article does not make mention of her claim. Wonder why?

It really is time for the local cities to "lawyer up". If they don't, maybe it's time to get those "Recall" petitions out, and start looking for some city council members who will represent the town, and not just special interests.

Nayeli - last business plan puts one way ticket from SF to LA at $105.

Here's the thing. It seems like they're saying it will take about 9 years to build THE WHOLE THING. (That's what AB3034 says - completion by 2020).

So, IF its only 8 years to build, why are we doing this now - based on a lot of gloom and doom predictions about some future world where gas is gone, suddenly in that future there seems to be no electric autombile (?), and we all of a sudden all have to get to LA every day for some inexplicable reason (certainly NOT identified in the ridership studies).

We're staking alot of tax payer dollars we don't have now, risking CHSRA's politically inbred studies and prediction methodologies, for something that might happen fifty? a hundred? two hundred? years from now...

How about we wait until we're about 8 years away from this freakish armegeddon scenario, and then built it? We'd probably save a ton with all the political red tape that would be cut through in that emergency state.

Actually, HSRA has made it clear the business plan numbers for fares are a "snapshot" of what it might be. They don't actually know. Why? Because they expect that an eventual franchisee (like Amtrak) would be the one to actually run HSR and therefore set fares. So when Prop 1A said $55 fares one-way to from SF-LA - that wasn't really true. And now when they say fares will be at 83% of airfare - they don't really know.

The big question here is who is really in the business of HSR? Will the State build it and then run it? Will the State build and let someone else run it?

Shouldn't we demand to know the answers to these questions NOW?! If someone else is going to run it then we should involve them in key operating decisions - like where the maintenance facility will be located. That is an operational decision and if we don't know who will run operations - why are we making those decisions now??

Wow -- it isn't as if AMTRAK is any example of how to effectively run a rail business!

*sigh

I agree. Let's put this thing on hold until we actually have money to balance the current budget mess BEFORE we decide to spend an extra $46 Billion for a pet project that isn't really necessary yet.

AMTRAK has run on subsidies for years--after Penn Central, the passenger carrier of the time, went bankrupt in the 1970's and was converted to AMTRAK, as a US government supported enterprise.

Rail on all levels makes a ton of sense on the eastern seaboard between Boston and Washington, DC. And it does not make money there.

The left coast has less density, less population, fewer trips between urban destinations.

Why are we considering this? Apart from the questionable notion of HSR on the Peninsula for other reasons, this thing is untenable up and down the State of California because it does not pencil out. Ridership will not meet the projections, ticket prices will not meet the projections.

This is a very bad idea, and we need to stop it before it goes any further.

We need a ballot on the next election to reverse what was favorably voted in 2008. The more we learn, the more it becomes clear that the 2008 vote was a mistake. Voters now know that, and a significant number who voted in favor in 2008--enough to kill this thing--will vote against it in another referedum.

All countries subsidize their transportation systems. Our HSR won't be any different.

Since HSR will be more than 20 miles from over half the population, some form of transportation to get to a station will be needed. Probably cars, not bicycles. This means parking lots for thousands and thousands of cars. Where will the land for these lots in San Jose, San Francisco, et al, come from? As at airports, car rental will be a big business. These secondary, important questions need to be considered also.

We voted this thing in. When the HSRA board members go to Sacramento and Washington DC to represent us and they do frequently, they say that because we voted it in they are mandated to give it to us! They do not mention all of the controversy going on about it now that we have more details about it. We need to do that. This project needs to be approved by the government. Ray LaHood, the head of Transportaion in DC is enamoured by the HSR that he saw in Spain last summer. Pls take the time to write to senators, Ray LaHood, the White House. It can be a short letter just explaining that you are against this project and give just one or two reasons. Posting here is not enough. Thanks!

Web Link

More Info - thanks for posting that link, which is a thorough discussion of why the ridership study STILL stinks to high hell, even though the CHSRA is claiming (loudly) that this one single data point was 'just a typo'.

And for another eye opener, take a look at Clem's analysis of why the 'stacking' alternatives presented to Palo Alto last week are ludicrous.

The CHSRA is getting MORE, not LESS brazenly arrogant and destructive as they move through this process. Every Peninsula resident should be up in arms right now.

This 'context sensitive solutions' crap is just a way to lull the residents into thinking everything will be OK, just keep quiet and wait and see.. Until the morning they show up with the bulldozers and earthmovers to rip your community open at the gut.

Sorry, here's link to above mentioned, analysis from Clem:
"Stacked Nonsense"
Web Link