tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post8438478024020349702..comments2023-10-30T09:03:07.163-07:00Comments on California High Speed Rail Blog: Does Ashburn Deserve Cheers or Jeers?Robert Cruickshankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06906581839066570472noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-25056042701209334302008-08-16T10:18:00.000-07:002008-08-16T10:18:00.000-07:00The price of oil is based on supply and demand. U...The price of oil is based on supply and demand. Users got whalloped over the past few months and demand for driving autos has taken a holiday of late. <BR/><BR/>Ironically, users increasingly used alternative transportation as we have seen rail and other transit use spike.<BR/><BR/>Your argument has no merit.Brandon in Californiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14796810137823230737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-26274609962341012422008-08-16T10:11:00.000-07:002008-08-16T10:11:00.000-07:00Oil fell to its lowest price in three months Frida...Oil fell to its lowest price in three months Friday, briefly touching the $111 level after the dollar muscled higher and OPEC predicted the world's thirst for fuel next year will fall to its lowest point since 2002.<BR/>The <A HREF="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080815/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices;_ylt=AkREb3LNM4rqJ_qXY1._KaRu24cA" REL="nofollow">article</A> from AP, suggests that "<BR/><B>Oil fell to its lowest price in three months Friday, briefly touching the $111 level after the dollar muscled higher and OPEC predicted the world's thirst for fuel next year will fall to its lowest point since 2002."</B><BR/><BR/>So now in spite of what has been written here regarding always expanding needs for oil nad <BR/>constantly rising oil prices, we will be headed back 7 years in consumption.<BR/><BR/>YOu raise prices enough and the market reacts. By the time the project would ever get built,<BR/>autos coming off the line will be at 40 GPH and above. The project proposed savings in CO2 <BR/>and less fossil fuels burning, will prove to be bogus. The state will be saddled with operating losses and <BR/>debt service payments for generations to come.<BR/><BR/>The project has no merit. Its time to get the word out. Don't take what available funds can be had which would go to mitigate existing traffic and congestion, and spend<BR/>them on this ill conceived project.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-63118311213224153472008-08-15T17:02:00.000-07:002008-08-15T17:02:00.000-07:00Rafael,By rail operators I was referring to public...Rafael,<BR/>By rail operators I was referring to public transit operators that provide fixed-guideway service on rails. That does not include Amtrak or the Caltrans administered intercity services.<BR/><BR/>By the way, the other $190 million will go to Caltrans, it looks like, for capital improvements to corridors that they administer intercity services. But, I believe they contract with Amtrak to run some of those services... and along rails that Amtrak already operates along.<BR/><BR/>Examples would be the LOSSAN corridor from San Diego up to San Luis Obispo or the Joaquin from Folsom area into Oakland or San Jose. I am sketchy on the latter.<BR/><BR/>About what what public transit rail operators would do with those funds... that is not going to be spelled out anywhere between now and Nov 4th. Planned projects would likely be embedded in operator Capital Improvment Plans already, or maybe they'd come up with new projects dependant on, and intended to be complimentary to, what the legislature or California Transportation Commission, or CHSRA develops as guidelines. ... I suspect.Brandon in Californiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14796810137823230737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-51500133007983107692008-08-15T14:21:00.000-07:002008-08-15T14:21:00.000-07:00@ brandon m. farley -ah, I see what you mean now. ...@ brandon m. farley -<BR/><BR/>ah, I see what you mean now. By "rail operator", you were referring to commuter rail operators other than Amtrak California. Thx for clearing that up.<BR/><BR/>I'd still like to see an itemized list of how these funds will be spent and how that spending will specifically improve access to the future HSR service. So far, it looks as if all of these operators, Amtrak included, will be permitted to interpret the concept of "HSR feeder service" very loosely.<BR/><BR/>While it does make sense to upgrade the existing services in the near term, doing so also creates an excuse for the road lobby to raid the transit funds in the regular state budget. Giving with one hand while taking with the other is not an acceptable strategy for dealing with growing transit demand.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-37134463034351148232008-08-15T12:31:00.000-07:002008-08-15T12:31:00.000-07:00Harry & Mike,Could your difference of opinions...Harry & Mike,<BR/><BR/>Could your difference of opinions really be over semantics?<BR/><BR/>I note, it is my belief that voters and our legislature have the objective that the CHSR system would generate operating surpluses.<BR/><BR/>That is correct, right?<BR/><BR/>But, voters and the legislature believe/feel that all costs should be taken into account.<BR/><BR/>Right?<BR/><BR/>It looks to me that the French SNCF system meets that objective if, and only if, the cost of owning/maintaining the tracks are born by another organization. <BR/><BR/>Right?<BR/><BR/>I think this is an interesting topic and has crossed my mind previously because it relates to PPP's. Or, Public Private Partnerships. <BR/><BR/>As I recall, it's been discussed that the private sector could purchase the tracks and lease them back to the operator. The leasing costs to the operator become part of the operating budget while lease payents to the private sector investor go to managing the tracks and any of their debt. <BR/><BR/>Additionally, the private sector investor gets tax credits that should not be dismissed as being nominal and not worth the investment.<BR/><BR/>I look forward to the busniess plan and vetting this topic further.Brandon in Californiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14796810137823230737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-51284189274514944382008-08-15T10:43:00.000-07:002008-08-15T10:43:00.000-07:00Rafael,I have reviewed language in previous versio...Rafael,<BR/>I have reviewed language in previous version that make up Prop 1 right now that spoke to a formula breakdown of who/where non-HSR funding would be apportioned.<BR/><BR/>I reviewed AB 3034 (the 8/6/08) last night for the same. See this link:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_3001-3050/ab_3034_bill_20080806_amended_sen_v93.pdf" REL="nofollow">AB 3034 - version 8/6/08)</A><BR/><BR/>Hopefully my html was right!<BR/><BR/>Go to pdf page 17 (doc page 93). See line 34 near bottom of page.<BR/><BR/>Essentially, the bond mesure breakdown is:<BR/><BR/>$9 billion for HSR<BR/>$190 million for intercity rail<BR/>$760 million for rail operatorsBrandon in Californiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14796810137823230737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-87350168848463428662008-08-15T08:51:00.000-07:002008-08-15T08:51:00.000-07:00@harryLOL. One of the top three economics departme...@harry<BR/><BR/>LOL. One of the top three economics departments in the world saw fit to give me a PhD in economics, so I'm pretty confident that I have a firm grasp of the subject. ;-)<BR/><BR/>Please post a credible cite showing that one of the three systems I mentioned does not currently generate an <I>operating</I> profit.<BR/><BR/><I>Your last post is just as false as was your post in an earlier thread that 60 feet was enough ROW for a 4 track system.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, this is true in that both are true and can easily be verified by anyone with an Internet connection and an understanding of Google's search engine and maps.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-66088203300558781012008-08-15T07:44:00.000-07:002008-08-15T07:44:00.000-07:00@ brandon m. farley -where did that $760 million f...@ brandon m. farley -<BR/><BR/>where did that $760 million figure come from?Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-86582727252758177782008-08-14T22:42:00.000-07:002008-08-14T22:42:00.000-07:00By amount of funding:Agency & Service Prop 1 F...By amount of funding:<BR/><BR/><B>Agency & Service Prop 1 Funding</B><BR/>SF BART $246,716,744<BR/>LA Metrolink $133,406,304<BR/>LA Light Rail $65,805,707<BR/>SD MTS Trolley $59,378,027<BR/>SF Muni $56,348,179<BR/>LA Heavy Rail $49,295,276<BR/>SF Caltrain $41,247,490<BR/>Sac RTD $30,437,632<BR/>ACE $24,953,910<BR/>SJ VTA $23,543,247<BR/>SD NCTD Coaster $15,013,845<BR/>SF Cable Car $8,099,595<BR/>SD NCTD Sprinter $5,754,044<BR/><B>Total $760,000,000</B>Brandon in Californiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14796810137823230737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-62862954242593075342008-08-14T22:38:00.000-07:002008-08-14T22:38:00.000-07:00For giggles I ran some numbers on the portion of P...For giggles I ran some numbers on the portion of Prop 1 funding that would be provided to existing rail operators, i.e. LA MTA that operates heavy rail (Subway/Red Line) or light rail services. <BR/><BR/>Of the $950 million for non-HSR activities, $760 million will be made available. And, it would be based on a formula comprised of annual ridership, track miles, and vehicle miles operated. It's specified in AB 3034 and previous versions.<BR/><BR/>It took some spreadsheet work and a little digging for information. I used the National Transit Database FY 2006 figures. Only a couple agencies had their FY 2007 figures available. A single year was used for consistency.<BR/><BR/>I also added in NCTD's Sprinter service that just started; however, it remains to be seen that that service would be elligible. Nevertheless, it made up less than 1% of the total. No big deal.<BR/><BR/>A dislaclamer, instead of using 'all vehicle miles' I used 'revenue' vehicle iles. The difference is deadhead miles.... err, pullout from depot to where service begins/ends. - Should be no big deal. <BR/><BR/>The results:<BR/><BR/><B>Agency & Service Prop 1 Funding</B><BR/>ACE $24,953,910<BR/>LA Heavy Rail $49,295,276<BR/>LA Light Rail $65,805,707<BR/>LA Metrolink $133,406,304<BR/>Sac RTD $30,437,632<BR/>SD MTS Trolley $59,378,027<BR/>SD NCTD Coaster $15,013,845<BR/>SD NCTD Sprinter $5,754,044<BR/>SF BART $246,716,744<BR/>SF Cable Car $8,099,595<BR/>SF Caltrain $41,247,490<BR/>SF Muni $56,348,179<BR/>SJ VTA $23,543,247<BR/><B>Total $760,000,000</B><BR/><BR/>I apoligize in advance if the alignment confuses the message.Brandon in Californiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14796810137823230737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-26977752602651250082008-08-14T21:36:00.000-07:002008-08-14T21:36:00.000-07:00@mikeYou had better got back and learn something a...@mike<BR/><BR/>You had better got back and learn something about economics. Your last post is just as false as was your post in an earlier thread that 60 feet was enough ROW for a 4 track system.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-73521746121973811902008-08-14T21:15:00.000-07:002008-08-14T21:15:00.000-07:00rob:SNCF is not a HSR system, it is a national rai...rob:<BR/><BR/>SNCF is not a HSR system, it is a national railway. There is cross-subsidization of many, many low speed and commuter services. TGV <A HREF="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/challenge-to-tgv-as-ryanair-brings-budget-air-travel-to-france-798407.html" REL="nofollow">makes tons of operating profits</A>. Shinkansen has been <A HREF="http://republicans.transportation.house.gov/Media/File/Testimony/Rail/4-19-07-Matsumoto.pdf" REL="nofollow">making profits for a long, long time</A>. Taiwan HSR was making <A HREF="http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2006/11/30/afx3215855.html" REL="nofollow">operating profits within the first 12 months</A> even though average fare is only around $25 US.<BR/><BR/>Are you sure that you're not conflating operating profits with total profits? (i.e. profits after accounting for the cost of capital) For sure HSR won't be profitable enough to repay its total cost of capital at market interest rates. (What transportation system can? Possibly freight rail...certainly nothing else.) But there is simply no reasonable scenario in which it doesn't earn operating profits. Even if ridership is only half of projections and operating efficiencies per train hour are no better than Amtrak, they'll still make hundreds of millions per year easily, more likely one-billion-plus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-83354120522900378272008-08-14T20:18:00.000-07:002008-08-14T20:18:00.000-07:00The Northeast corridor like the rest of Amtrak boo...The Northeast corridor like the rest of Amtrak books annual state subsidies as passenger revenue.Rob Dawghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10042154106850545479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-67130799855465959722008-08-14T18:35:00.000-07:002008-08-14T18:35:00.000-07:00The reason Alexander Kummant (Amtrak CEO) makes th...The reason Alexander Kummant (Amtrak CEO) makes those statements is because he is trying to justify the annual subsidy of Amtrak despite accusations by some conservatives that it is unprofitable and therefore should not exist in its current state (whether that means reform for better or worse or complete liquidation). His argument should not necessarily be applied to HSR.<BR/><BR/>About passenger rail profitability in general, I would argue against that. I don't know anything about SNCF or DB, but I do know that the English rail system has been privatized (all though the tracks are still government owned). I'm not sure if these companies necessarily make a profit or if they are paid with interest to run these trains by the government.<BR/><BR/>One thing I do know for sure is that the Northeast Corridor (which is a quasi high-speed rail operation and a heavy duty passenger rail corridor) makes a regular profit, as does the Auto Train. There's another Amtrak corridor service somewhere that breaks even in the midwest I think.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-19862025489332715612008-08-14T17:52:00.000-07:002008-08-14T17:52:00.000-07:00mike said... Every HSR system that I am aware of m...<I> mike said...<BR/> Every HSR system that I am aware of makes a large operating profit. </I><BR/><BR/>Name it. Sure ain't SNCF. SNCF was specifically singled out for their claim of operating profit being accounting trickery.Rob Dawghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10042154106850545479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-3781798588023645092008-08-14T15:32:00.000-07:002008-08-14T15:32:00.000-07:00rob - The Amtrak CEO was referring to conventional...rob - The Amtrak CEO was referring to conventional passenger rail. Every HSR system that I am aware of makes a large operating profit. Even SNCF as an entire entity is currently making an operating profit: the magnitude of TGV profits is so huge that it actually more than offsets the big losses made by their commuter/low speed passenger rail. Fortunately CHSRA would not be saddled with subsidizing an unprofitable low speed system.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-80988500528861676962008-08-14T15:03:00.000-07:002008-08-14T15:03:00.000-07:00Still, if UPRR continues to refuse to sell part of...<I>Still, if UPRR continues to refuse to sell part of its ROW, that may well have an additional impact on construction cost - especially in built-up areas. If CHSRA feels that it will not, the new business plan should include credible arguments for such cheery optimism.</I><BR/><BR/>This is one of those good/bad issues. Understand, UPRR is playing a game they mastered much more than a century ago. If you ask me the answer is obvious; quietly suggest that Prop 13 might not apply to their land. Absent that they are negotiating. That's their job. They are supposed to do that as a fudiciary responsibility to their shareholders. CAHSRs problem is that UPRR is right. The r-o-w they are being asked to cede are worth far more than is being offered in the business plan. <BR/><BR/>A corollary; the municipalities are going to do their duty in most cases and won't be "donating" land they don't own for station infrastructure. Personally I think that's insane. Throw up a parking structure and rake in the money for but one issue but try to convince a cash strapped muni laying off police and fire that a parking lot is a good idea. Anyway, the business model is not going to look so good on these points (and Federal funding matches). Advocates better hope ridership projections are increased enough to make up the difference. <BR/><BR/>On a related note the Amtrak CEO said this morning on CNBC that no passenger rail anywhere makes money (operating costs). That's not good for the out year business model that promises an operating profit.Rob Dawghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10042154106850545479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-69455753419802597272008-08-14T13:10:00.000-07:002008-08-14T13:10:00.000-07:00I have not really given an updated/revised busines...I have not really given an updated/revised business plan much thought. At least not enough to comment on it prior to now.<BR/><BR/>With that said, an updated plan will obviously provide new information and revised figures. Whatever those updates and figures are, they will certainly be scrutinized. They will also likely be exploited by HSR naysayers.Brandon in Californiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14796810137823230737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-6844704096815280502008-08-14T12:34:00.000-07:002008-08-14T12:34:00.000-07:00@ rob dawg -an old Arab proverb seems to haunt all...@ rob dawg -<BR/><BR/>an old Arab proverb seems to haunt all planners everywhere:<BR/><BR/>"He who speaks about the future lies, even when he tells the truth."<BR/><BR/>That said, I do hope CHSRA had the good sense to quietly begin the process of updating its business plan some time ago. If they don't start until the Governor signs AB3034 to force their hand, the update will amount to no more than rough estimates of the impact of construction cost escalation.<BR/><BR/>It is important to be realistic about that. The state senate report suggested the bond measure ought to have been raised to $13.3 billion just to compensate for inflation since 2002. The decision to stick with the original $9.95 billion may make it easier for the electorate to approve, but it will also mean matching funds - if they materialize - will be that much smaller. Perhaps CHSRA will resort to adding up all state, county and city contributions and try to persuade Congress and private investors to match this "in-state public funding", rather than strictly funds raised at the state level.<BR/><BR/>Still, if UPRR continues to refuse to sell part of its ROW, that may well have an additional impact on construction cost - especially in built-up areas. If CHSRA feels that it will not, the new business plan should include credible arguments for such cheery optimism.<BR/><BR/>Next, now that the route has been finalized, CHSRA should revisit the relevant ridership data in the context of expected future inflation, oil prices, GHG certificate trading, demographic trends, fare structures, etc. The most credible approach would formulate at least half a dozen scenarios of how California might possibly develop through 2030. That should yield number ranges associated with rough confidence intervals, not single numbers.<BR/><BR/>Both journalists nor the general public would likely latch onto those as either gospel or humbug. Both responses would be inappropriate. Instead, voters deserve a sense of the share of the ridership risk they are being asked to assume.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-71439604176706727262008-08-14T10:40:00.000-07:002008-08-14T10:40:00.000-07:00Is anyone going to be happy with a Sept Business p...Is anyone going to be happy with a Sept Business plan? Clearly there will be some major cost increases and decreased expectation of Federal, local and private participation. On the plus side ridership is likely to revised upward. <BR/><BR/>Then there's the details. Will the price of Central Valley electrification be explicitly accounted for in this version? Will the 2000 timetable merely get 8 years added to it of will there be an acknowledgement that the Legislature is likely to stretch out the build phases? <BR/><BR/>Both sides are going to savage the Sept Business Plan.Rob Dawghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10042154106850545479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-52042361233130571002008-08-14T10:23:00.000-07:002008-08-14T10:23:00.000-07:00@ anon @ 9:50am -... and Sen. Ashburn didn't need ...@ anon @ 9:50am -<BR/><BR/>... and Sen. Ashburn didn't need to wait for a formal hearing of AB3034 to warn CHSRA that he and others would insist on an updated business plan.<BR/><BR/>Your argument cuts both ways.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-36918225244072906472008-08-14T09:50:00.000-07:002008-08-14T09:50:00.000-07:00Senator Ashburn didn't simply "wait until July" to...Senator Ashburn didn't simply "wait until July" to voice his concerns. He voiced them at the approriate time when AB 3034 was heard in the Senate Transportation Committee. The bill may have been introduced in February, but the Senate didn't hear it until it passed out of the Assembly -- the hearing was in July. And the Senate committee had only recently completed a thorough analysis of the current HSRA status and found deficiencies.<BR/><BR/>It is a ridiculous argument to say that he should have passed it sooner so that the Authority could have more time to complete its business plan. Are they incapable of working on it without a law commanding it in a timely manner? They don't need legislation to complete one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-59431497459061974642008-08-14T04:30:00.000-07:002008-08-14T04:30:00.000-07:00@ robert -the most recent version of AB3034 is act...@ robert -<BR/><BR/>the most recent version of AB3034 is actually quite convoluted with regard to what portion of the bond CHSRA is permitted to spend at which time and when offers of private investment may be accepted <BR/>(emphasis added):<BR/><BR/>2704.04.<BR/>[...]<BR/> (b) (1) Net proceeds received from the sale of nine billion<BR/>dollars ($9,000,000,000) principal amount of bonds authorized<BR/>pursuant to this chapter, upon appropriation by the Legislature in<BR/>the annual Budget Act, shall be used for (A) planning and engineering<BR/>for the high-speed train system and (B) capital costs, as described<BR/>in subdivision (c).<BR/>(2) As adopted by the authority in May 2007, Phase 1 of the<BR/>high-speed train project is the corridor of the high-speed train<BR/>system between San Francisco Transbay Terminal and Los Angeles Union Station and Anaheim.<BR/> (3) Upon a finding by the authority that expenditure of bond<BR/>proceeds for capital costs in corridors <B><I>other</I> than the corridor<BR/>described in paragraph (2)</B> would advance the construction of the<BR/>system, would be consistent with the criteria described in<BR/>subdivision (f) of Section 2704.08, and would not have an adverse<BR/>impact on the construction of Phase 1 of the high-speed train<BR/>project, the authority may request funding for capital costs, and the<BR/>Legislature may appropriate funds described in paragraph (1) in the<BR/>annual Budget Act, to be expended for any of the following high-speed<BR/>train corridors: [...]<BR/><BR/>This suggests that CHSRA will have a relatively free hand in spending bond money as it sees fit for the spine of the system but not other parts.<BR/><BR/>However, CHSRA will still have to go back to the legislature for appropriations each and every year. Since the total bond volume is fixed and reserved exclusively for HSR and HSR feeder services, it's unlikely that legislators will be able to divert these particular funds to completely unrelated pet projects.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, they could hold HSR appropriations hostage to getting those pet projects funded in the general budget. The usual you-scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours. Moreover, process-related delays could present major problems all by themselves.<BR/><BR/>The gory details are hidden in section 2704.07, which spells out what CHSRA will have to do to get all its ducks in a row - i.e. present an updated business plan, ridership projections, third-party funding etc. It must do so each and every time it wants to break ground on one of the corridors itemized in section 2704.04, i.e. before awarding the construction contracts. Getting all that reviewed and perhaps modified will result in significant lead times.<BR/><BR/>Private investors in particular will be quite reluctant to commit funds to a long-term project whose execution can be held up every 12 months by politicians who want to grandstand or are preoccupied with the general budget.<BR/><BR/>In practice, therefore, I'd suggest the legislature get creative in how it interprets the oversight provisions in this bill. In particular, CHSRA should be asked to make its appropriation requests at least 9 months before the nominal state budget deadline. This gives the Director of Finance, the peer review board and the Governor's office plenty of time to make their recommendations to the legislature.<BR/><BR/>The Assembly and Senate can then approve actual appropriation of the already reserved bond funds months before the annual fracas over the general budget. In essence, a small fraction of the annual Budget Act would be passed well before the rest is dealt via a suitable vehicle. This special treatment would be justified by the following:<BR/><BR/>a) the funds for HSR are limited to those explicitly reserved by prop 1A/2008<BR/><BR/>b) the nature of the appropriations hurdle is highly technical and precisely circumscribed<BR/><BR/>c) the success of the entire project is predicated on obtaining matching funds from private investors. These will not materialize at all if the legislature needlessly saddles project execution with the risk of completely unrelated delays.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-65718347072601551152008-08-14T00:45:00.000-07:002008-08-14T00:45:00.000-07:00Robert..smell the Coffee..Ms Asburn has set this a...Robert..smell the Coffee..Ms Asburn has set this all up..it knows that Arine has to kill HRS.<BR/>Now ..when are we going to get The YES ON PROP-1 going?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com