tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post9143447172319785292..comments2023-10-30T09:03:07.163-07:00Comments on California High Speed Rail Blog: The Sierra Club Loses FocusRobert Cruickshankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06906581839066570472noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-90539884412002775402008-08-06T11:42:00.001-07:002008-08-06T11:42:00.001-07:00That should read "please explain to me how HSR is ...That should read "please explain to me how HSR is going to return if we DON'T pass it this year..."Robert Cruickshankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06906581839066570472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-78661151977494519292008-08-06T11:42:00.000-07:002008-08-06T11:42:00.000-07:00Pat, please explain to me how HSR is going to retu...Pat, please explain to me how HSR is going to return anytime soon if we pass it this year. Do you really misunderstand the politics that deeply? It's taken years just to finally bring it to ballot. If you think it will return in 2010 after being shot down in 2008 you're out of your mind.<BR/><BR/>Nobody has shown that the Pacheco alignment is inherently bad - they instead argue it's not as good as Altamont. What you and the others are doing is using a small objection to try and block the larger project.<BR/><BR/>You don't seem to realize that the endless tweaking you prefer will mean the project never gets built. The best way to ensure we go over budget is to delay approval of the bonds and delay the construction.<BR/><BR/>I have to question your commitment to sustainable transportation in California. Obviously you don't realize that we don't exactly have a great deal of time to waste with these perfectionist objections. Gas prices are soaring, the airlines are in crisis, the climate is already changing - and you want us to do nothing because you didn't get the alignment you wanted.<BR/><BR/>You're almost as bad as the LA County Board of Supervisors.Robert Cruickshankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06906581839066570472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-47169366813529774972008-08-06T10:37:00.000-07:002008-08-06T10:37:00.000-07:00Honestly, with all this arguing,JUST MAKE A $*#&am...Honestly, with all this arguing,JUST MAKE A $*#&! DECISION ALREADY!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-70332591955142712602008-08-06T02:15:00.000-07:002008-08-06T02:15:00.000-07:00@robert -- did you BOTHER to actually ask anyone a...@robert -- did you <I>BOTHER</I> to actually ask anyone at the Sierra Club why they would oppose the Pacheco Pass? Or at The Nature Conservancy? Or the Audubon Society? Or any other environmental group? <BR/><BR/>Probably not. Seems like in your view anyone who is not a rah rah cheerleader of the current HSR project is just backwards and not with it.<BR/><BR/>Sorry to say that building HSR will not help with global warming. People <I>riding</I> the train will help. But this project will go overbudget as it is currently "designed". Going over budget means other projects cannot be built. Money is not infinite. I rather have it defeated this year if that means Morshad is gone and we can have a decent HSR that actually goes where the people are.<BR/><BR/>You actually *need* something called passengers for the train to be anything other than a ribbon cutting ceremony.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-9196789275813566002008-08-04T19:02:00.000-07:002008-08-04T19:02:00.000-07:00Those who are convinced that BART to SFO is the mo...<I>Those who are convinced that BART to SFO is the model for ALL passenger rail projects in California are guilty of some of the worst cherry-picking imaginable.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree that it's definitely cherry-picking, which is why it's even more remarkable that BART to SFO isn't nearly as bad as the revisionists attempt to portray it. You'd think that since they're cherry-picking a bad project, they wouldn't have to resort to falsifying the data to make their point - its badness should be able to stand on its own merits! (e.g., the Big Dig)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-77338094339201112392008-08-04T18:28:00.000-07:002008-08-04T18:28:00.000-07:00Robert..you guys better about Asburn...he tried to...Robert..you guys better about Asburn...he tried today and failed<BR/>to delay that proposition..he says he will try again later this weekAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-24993384813556620502008-08-04T18:26:00.000-07:002008-08-04T18:26:00.000-07:00BART to SFO and HSR from SF to LA are completely d...BART to SFO and HSR from SF to LA are completely different projects. Those who are convinced that BART to SFO is the model for ALL passenger rail projects in California are guilty of some of the worst cherry-picking imaginable.Robert Cruickshankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06906581839066570472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-11215411238653236592008-08-04T16:06:00.000-07:002008-08-04T16:06:00.000-07:00bikerider - Thanks for the cite - the funny part i...bikerider - Thanks for the cite - the funny part is that there is still ~$54 million of SFO operating surpluses tucked into the Warm Springs extension funding plan (though it's irrelevant to this conversation, I should note that I'm not a fan of BART to SJ).<BR/><BR/>So how do you think the BART SFO experience will map into HSR? Are you just concerned that it will mirror SFO's experience: 25% over budget with only 56% of ridership projections? I think that is certainly a plausible scenario, but, again, it would still generate a handsome operating surplus at that rate. Are you truly concerned that they are actually planning a subterranean railway with totally different terminuses than currently proposed? Or is it simply that you really wish they had picked Altamont instead?<BR/><BR/>I guess another way to put it is, what is your proposed alternative system (a la the above ground BART to Millbrae only that you prefer) that would cut capital costs by $20 billion and/or double the potential ridership?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-9092722212945540702008-08-04T15:30:00.000-07:002008-08-04T15:30:00.000-07:00"BART/SMCo dispute imperils Fremont BART extension..."BART/SMCo dispute imperils Fremont BART extension", San Mateo County Times, March 13 2004 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATN/message/16819)<BR/><BR/>"What is now clear is that BART's next extension -- to Fremont's Warm Springs -- could fall victim in the legal crossfire. The $634 million project depends on a $145 million contribution from<BR/>SamTrans, which would come from operating surpluses on the SFO line."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-77321424312648117712008-08-04T14:47:00.000-07:002008-08-04T14:47:00.000-07:00Don't build a station there and you don't get spra...Don't build a station there and you don't get sprawl, right? Is it that difficult to comprehend?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-23615780069010458192008-08-04T14:02:00.000-07:002008-08-04T14:02:00.000-07:00bikerider - Okay, so you agree that the project wa...bikerider - Okay, so you agree that the project was nowhere near 100% over budget, but you would have preferred that a different project be built than the one that was selected. Fair enough.<BR/><BR/>Now, how does that map into your HSR concerns? Are you just saying, "I wish they would have chosen Altamont over Pacheco."? Or are you saying, "Right now this project is a 90% above-ground project with stations at Transbay and an LA Union Station, but I expect that after the bond passes it will be a 90% underground project with stations at Fisherman's Wharf and Rancho Palos Verdes."? That doesn't seem like a realistic scenario to me, but I don't know how else to interpret what you are saying.<BR/><BR/>"Note that the BART SFO-extension was supposed to have such high ridership, that it would be profitable, and pay for future BART projects. (Sound familiar?)"<BR/><BR/>No, it doesn't sound familiar at all. I did read that they were hoping it would cover its operating costs, but I never read any claim by BART (or any other authority) that it would provide a significant funding source for future capital expansion projects. Please provide a citation for this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-57790380281613995712008-08-04T13:07:00.000-07:002008-08-04T13:07:00.000-07:00"You take a 56% of projected estimated ridership o..."You take a 56% of projected estimated ridership on HSR, and where have your guaranteed profits gone?"<BR/><BR/>Oh, that's very easy: It will merely be quite profitable as opposed to really, really profitable. With 56% of the optimistic projections, I would forecast revenue of around $2.3 billion/year (in today's dollars). I'm assuming an <I>average</I> SF-LA fare of $55 (lower fares are of course available with advanced, non-refundable booking, etc.), but not all trips will be SF-LA, so the average overall fare would be $30-40. The HSR detractors would predict revenue of $9.8 billion because they seem to believe that the average high speed passenger in Europe pays $100-200 each way, but that is untrue, so I won't consider the $9.8 billion figure.<BR/><BR/>Costs are the other part of the equation. We have a 1400 track-mile system with probably 800-1000 train-hours of operations per day to carry 65 million pax/year. One obvious comparison is the NEC, which is a ~1200 track-miles with 500 train-hours of operations per day. That cost Amtrak $568 million to operate in FY06 (most recent figures), so if we double that to get 1000 train-hours then we are talking $1.1 billion in operating costs. This may be an overestimate since the NEC is in much worse condition than the HSR system would be and requires a lot more upkeep. Erring on the side of caution, though, you're probably talking about an operating profit on the order of $1 billion/year or more ($2.3-1.1). Which should be no surprise since every HSR system in the world is profitable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-34684798629192440352008-08-04T12:54:00.000-07:002008-08-04T12:54:00.000-07:00Um, $585 million is for a "basic above-ground line...<I>Um, $585 million is for a "basic above-ground line that does not enter the airport." That is not what they chose to build, nor is it what they budgeted for.</I><BR/><BR/>$585m was the preferred option that the professional transportation planners recommended. Then Quentin Kopp got involved (as Chair of the Transportation Committee) and threatened to withhold funding for the project. Ergo, it became a $1.55 BILLION project.<BR/><BR/>From any standpoint (convenience, travel time, and cost), the original $550m intermodal station plan was the most desirable, because it put the PeopleMover, Caltrain, BART, (and one day HSR) at the same stop. But now look what we have instead: to transfer from HSR to the airport, one first has to buy a BART ticket and take a 1-stop ride to SFO, and only then transfer to the PeopleMover to get to your final terminal. Brilliant!<BR/><BR/>For those of us who followed the whole fiasco, Kopp's involvement in HSR is like seeing a bad movie all over again. Note that the BART SFO-extension was supposed to have such high ridership, that it would be profitable, and pay for future BART projects. (Sound familiar?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-48228800586876077322008-08-04T12:38:00.000-07:002008-08-04T12:38:00.000-07:00jason32 -Um, $585 million is for a "basic above-gr...jason32 -<BR/><BR/>Um, $585 million is for a "basic above-ground line that does not enter the airport." That is not what they chose to build, nor is it what they budgeted for. You can't go overbudget on something you never built. The budget was for the preferred underground line that does enter the airport. That would be the $1.2 billion figure.<BR/><BR/>I mean, come on, trying to use the $585 million figure for the comparison doesn't even pass the laugh test. The above-ground line that doesn't enter the airport doesn't even meet most people's definition of what a BART SFO extension would be. Lots of people might think that an SFO extension would actually, you know, serve the airport.<BR/><BR/>Ultimately, your argument is equivalent to saying, "I know CA HSR will be 100% over budget because someone once proposed a line that ran only from San Jose to Santa Clarita for less than $20 billion, and compared to that we know the actual system will be at least twice as much!" You're free to say that, but do you think anyone is seriously going to find it convincing? I really don't understand what your goal is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-21935562367942835142008-08-03T23:13:00.000-07:002008-08-03T23:13:00.000-07:00"If it cost $50 million that is $16,666 per page. ..."If it cost $50 million that is $16,666 per page. WOW!!! Not even on gold leaf."<BR/><BR/>Yeah. They should have used a coupon.Spokkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03244298044953214810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-55112657907083411332008-08-03T22:38:00.000-07:002008-08-03T22:38:00.000-07:00Talk about expensive. How in the world did the CH...Talk about expensive. How in the world did the CHSRA manage to spend $58 million for the study and EIR for this project? The EIR is 3000 pages.If it cost $50 million that is $16,666 per page. WOW!!! Not even on gold leaf.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-73449499155183861352008-08-03T22:31:00.000-07:002008-08-03T22:31:00.000-07:00An article in the SF Chronicle has quite a lot of ...An <A HREF="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/06/15/MN47BAR.DTL" REL="nofollow">article</A> in the SF Chronicle has quite a lot of data on BART to SFO.<BR/><BR/><I><B>it has been a bumpy ride for BART to finance the $1.5 billion airport extension.<BR/><BR/>The federal government pledged $750 million in 1997, but each year BART must compete for money with other transit projects around the nation. BART has not fared well, and at the same time the price tag has grown from the original estimate of $1.1 billion. <BR/><BR/><BR/>1992: Release of first environmental report on BART-SFO extension. Costs range from $585 million for a basic, above-ground line that does not enter the airport to $1.2 billion, depending on the design and route.</B></I><BR/><BR/>I guess it depends on what point you want to start from, as to what the original cost was supposed to be. In any case, it was well over cost when completed, just like all projects seem to be, and it certainly is a disaster in terms of ridership.<BR/><BR/>You take a 56% of projected estimated ridership on HSR, and where have your guaranteed profits gone? This project just like all "pie in the sky", "peaches and cream" promises will fail to deliver and California will be left footing annual deficits of a large magnitude. That's if, of course, they will ever be able to get it built in the first place, as cost over runs of at least 100% develop.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-52217437089778127402008-08-03T21:32:00.000-07:002008-08-03T21:32:00.000-07:00bikerider - How could the budget be only $750 mill...bikerider - How could the budget be only $750 million? That doesn't even make sense. The Federal government pledged $750 million in June 1997 before construction began. Since Federal funds are <B>matching funds</B>, it would literally be impossible for BART to secure $750 million in Federal funding with a budget of only $750 million (or, even more incredibly, $550 million).<BR/><BR/>As for ridership numbers, they do NOT include Daly City (which has much higher ridership than Colma). That is absolutely false. They do however claim Colma. Omitting Colma changes the trend to 38,000 in 2010, or about 56% of the most optimistic projections. Note that this is still far better than the less than 33% you claim. For comparison, if CA HSR came in at 56% of its most optimistic projections, it would still attract 65 million riders. I believe that, in today's terms, that would make it the 3rd highest ridership in the world (after Japan and France - it would basically be tied with Germany).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-85297340675285776832008-08-03T20:24:00.000-07:002008-08-03T20:24:00.000-07:00Supposedly the groups have 30 days to file suit af...Supposedly the groups have 30 days to file suit after the final approval (which occurred July 9), so if they are going to do so, they will have to do it this week.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-73949563544639767002008-08-03T20:18:00.000-07:002008-08-03T20:18:00.000-07:00Mike:Budget for BART-SFO started out at $750m (act...Mike:<BR/>Budget for BART-SFO started out at $750m (actually $550m if you want to be picky about it). As they kept going over, the "official" budget kept getting revised upwards. And in any case, it is absolutely absurd to be spending over $1 billion for a mere 8 miles of track on an EXISTING railroad ROW. By comparison, Spain builds hundreds of km of new HSR track (on completely new ROW) for that amount.<BR/><BR/>Note that with regard to ridership, BART inexplicably and fraudulantly includes Colma and Daly city (i.e. all San Mateo county stations), even though the EIR only looked at the 4 new stations actually built. Counting only those 4 stations (i.e. apples-apples), the ridership has been hovering around 25,000. I don't see 20k new riders materializing in the next two years at the current growth rate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-5937834324763640392008-08-03T20:03:00.000-07:002008-08-03T20:03:00.000-07:00bikerider -SFO BART was 25% over budget ($1.167B b...bikerider -<BR/><BR/>SFO BART was 25% over budget ($1.167B budget, $1.488B actual). I have no idea where you came up with the "100% over budget" figure.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, ridership is currently on track to hit around 45,000 in 2010. That will put it at 66% of the most optimistic projections (68,000 by 2010), which is certainly a shortfall. But it's nowhere near the "less than 1/3rd than predicted" that you claim.<BR/><BR/>I've said it before and I'll say it again: the fact that "it might turn out to be as bad as BART to SFO!!!" is the worst case scenario for HSR basically guarantees that HSR will be a success.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-65825447103928625952008-08-03T19:32:00.000-07:002008-08-03T19:32:00.000-07:00The PCL has done good work on other issues, such a...The PCL has done good work on other issues, such as the Delta. But their strange opposition to high speed rail - which is what they'd be doing by suing - stands in contrast to that legacy. HSR is smart planning and promotes environmental conservation. If there were truly serious environmental damage that HSR would cause I'd understand their concerns, but it won't, and as I explained the concerns regarding Gilroy don't hold water.<BR/><BR/>The Sierra Club's problem is deeper. They also continue to do some excellent work, but have totally failed on global warming. They eschew a broad-based agenda of change and focus on small-scale issues, while the environmental movement and the crises it now faces are demanding a more visionary and holistic approach.<BR/><BR/>Both these groups should be lined up strongly behind Prop 1. That they are not suggests they have lost focus on what the core issues are that face our state.Robert Cruickshankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06906581839066570472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-12016124835912166452008-08-03T17:50:00.000-07:002008-08-03T17:50:00.000-07:00The Sierra Club has alot bigger problems coming up...<I>The Sierra Club has alot bigger problems coming up.. oil drilling and Nuclear power (Mccain)</I> <BR/><BR/>You are confusing the National group with the California State chapter. In terms of relative importance, a $40 billion plan that determines all passenger rail and ALL discretionary transit spending for the next 4 decades is going to be the highest priority for the State chapter.<BR/><BR/><I>If they fight this they have no resaon to complaine if someday there is a freeway between 101 and I5</I><BR/><BR/>The Club has actually been very much involved in preventing new highway construction through that sensitive habitat, most recently Richard Pombo's 2004 plan to tunnel a new freeway through Henry Coe (it seems the highway has been replaced by a rail line to make it more palatable to Democrats).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-54139489410030299272008-08-03T17:29:00.000-07:002008-08-03T17:29:00.000-07:00@ Brandon M. FarleyYou write:"PCL is easy to addre...@ Brandon M. Farley<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/><I>"PCL is easy to address... who are they?<BR/><BR/>To me, they sound like another trumped up advocacy group... 'ad hoc'."</I><BR/><BR/>I doubt that Rafael or Robert take that attitude.<BR/><BR/>PCL (www.pcl.org) has a huge presence in Sacramento; they have been responsible for much environmental legislation. They are a "heavy weight"; they should not be taken lightly.<BR/><BR/>In point of fact, they were the driving force behind Prop 116 some years ago, which enabled CalTrain to buy up the UPRR in the North.<BR/><BR/>Others on this blog ,must know more than I about them; but they are extremely respected and in many cases, more active than the Sierra Club on legislative issues effecting the environment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-5751521414914637552008-08-03T17:02:00.000-07:002008-08-03T17:02:00.000-07:00I am going to fall into the camp that ... the Sier...I am going to fall into the camp that ... the Sierra Club and PCL will be non-factors on Proposition 1.<BR/><BR/>PCL is easy to address... who are they? <BR/><BR/>To me, they sound like another trumped up advocacy group... 'ad hoc'. <BR/><BR/>So many groups seem to come and go that the general public doesn't know if they are legit or not. The PCL wil fall into this group and I doubt if we'lll ever see "PCL" in the headline of a daily paper... maybe a free weekly.<BR/><BR/>The Sierra Club... I do appeciate them. I am considering becoming a member as I have some environmental values. <BR/><BR/>But, what has the SC done lately?<BR/><BR/>To me, there should be a public referendum on the Sierra Club. They should come forward and express why they are legitimate. <BR/><BR/>And of course, they are not doing themselves any favors from the public perspective by supporting a project in one hour... and in the 11th claim foul. <BR/><BR/>The time for them to weigh in was by supporting AB 3034 more virgorously. And instead of faulting Prop 1 by picking up their marbles and going home, they should be outspoken about those that blocked AB 3034 from moving forwad.Brandon in Californiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14796810137823230737noreply@blogger.com