You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘High-Speed Rail’ tag.

In 2010, California State Auditor Elaine Howle indicated that the financing for high speed rail, California’s most expensive infrastructure project ever, was “incredibly risky”, adding that the oversight for this massive project was lacking. Responding to such criticisms, the California High Speed Rail Authority (Authority) was tasked with drafting another business plan that took a more realistic look at the fiscal costs for the project. Released in November, Howle has stated that even the newer, revised version depends on ambiguous sources for capital and that “the program’s overall financial situation has become increasingly risky.”

It isn’t just Howle who has been raising concerns about the nearly $100 billion High Speed Rail (HSR) project.  Since the passage of Prop 1A, which allocated nearly $10 billion of general fund money toward HSR in California, several critiques have come out. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) recommended withholding nearly all funding until the Authority distributed a comprehensive business plan and ridership study; meanwhile, the Authority’s own peer review group just released its own report that suggested the project be reconsidered and funding not be authorized by the Legislature.

Despite this mounting criticism…or perhaps because of it…the Governor has redoubled his support of the HSR project. Even with myriad of critical issues facing California, he spent significant time discussing the need for California to be a leader on high speed rail in his State of the State address.

He is also starting to put his stamp on the project in a major way – while not confirmed, many speculate that the change in leadership at the Authority over the past few weeks is, in fact, a move by the Brown Administration to take more ownership of HSR and address the concerns that have been plaguing this project. This month has seen the resignation of the Authority’s CEO Roelof Van Ark and Deputy Director Dan Leavitt, while Thomas Umberg announced he is stepping down as Chairman, though he will remain on the Authority’s Board. Dan Richard, who has been Brown’s point-person on HSR (and is a featured panelist at PCL’s upcoming Symposium), will be stepping into the role as Chair.

Governor Brown taking leadership of HSR is viewed by many (including PCL) as a positive development, and it is our hope that he will be open to addressing concerns raised by environmental and community groups to ensure we move forward with a project that will achieve its touted benefits of lessening Californians’ dependence on highways and air travel; reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other impacts to our lands, air and water; and providing critically-needed jobs in this state.

As the 2012 legislative session picks up, we can expect to see a myriad of HSR bills brought by the Governor as well as legislative proponents and opponents of the project, and the Planning and Conservation League will keep you up to speed with all the developments as they occur.

With the beginning of the New Year, the Legislature reconvenes today to tackle California’s projected budget deficit of nearly $13 billion (through June 2013), 2011 legislation that was rolled over to the second year of this two-year legislative session, as well as new bills that will be introduced this session.

For environment protection, this means important 2011 bills like the banning of plastic grocery bags and polystyrene take-out containers, as well as requirements to force oil and gas firms to publicly list chemicals pumped into the ground during a drilling process known as hydraulic fracturing or “fracking”, will get a second chance in 2012.

While balancing the state budget and the potential fiscal impact of new legislation, the Legislature will also face critical decisions whether to repeal, delay or reduce the $11.14 billion water bond currently slated for the November ballot; whether or not more state parks should close and if so, which ones; and whether or not to appropriate more funds for California’s proposed $100 billion high speed rail system.

Complicating matters further, 2012 will be the first election year with independently redrawn and highly competitive district lines, as well as a Top 2 Open Primary System that allows voters to vote for any candidate (regardless of party affiliation) in each race during the primary, with the top two vote-getters then qualifying for the General Election. With so much uncertainty, some fear this may prevent the Legislature from passing meaningful legislation this session. Democratic leadership assures Californians that this is not true. Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez recently stated, “What you’ve seen over the last year is an ability for the Governor and the Legislature to come together and make very tough decisions – and I think you’re going to see more of the same.” With so many critical issues facing our state, it is PCL’s hope that the Speaker is correct in his assessment; and that when tackling these pressing matters, the Legislature acts deliberately, thoughtfully and transparently.

In recent years, legislation and voter-approved bonds have changed the way California addresses transportation and land-use planning.  In 2008, the Legislature passed SB 375, which focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles travelled through the adoption of regional Sustainable Communities Strategies. That same year, voters approved nearly $10 billion in funding for High Speed Rail project, with billions more earmarked by the federal government. But how have these measures actually changed development practices in California to be more sustainable? Two panels at the PCL/PCLF Symposium will help answer this question, and focus on what we should do next:

SB 375: Where the Rubber Meets the Rail (CLE)

This panel includes information on the early adoption of the San Diego Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and strategies for what must occur next to make the promise of integrated and sustainable planning a reality.  Participants will examine current SCS efforts as case studies, gain knowledge of the tools needed to engage in the SCS process, and learn about new legislative efforts to promote good growth and integrated/transit friendly development.

  • Mike McKeever, Sacramento Area Council      of Governments (moderator)
  • Laurel Impett, Shute, Mihaly and      Weinberger LLP
  • David Mogavero, Mogavero Notestine      Associates
  • Eliot Rose, UC Berkeley Center for      Resource Efficient Communities

Boondoggle or Beacon? The Future of High Speed Rail in California

California’s High Speed Rail (HSR) system has long been discussed, and remains one of the most expensive and controversial infrastructure projects in California’s history. HSR proponents see a vital project that will change California’s transportation landscape, reducing the need for new and expanded highways, and resulting in fewer greenhouse gas emissions…all while putting Californians back to work. Opponents of the current plan have been critical of its routing, financing plan, skyrocketing price-tag, and the ridership and business plan assumptions that have been made in developing the proposal.

  • Elizabeth Alexis, Californians      Advocating Responsible Rail Design
  • Denis Douté, SNCF America Inc.
  • Dan Richard, California High-Speed      Rail Authority Board Member

The Annual Environmental Legislative Symposium will take place on Saturday, January 28, 2012 at the Sacramento Convention Center.  Early bird (discounted) registration is available through December 31.  We’ve secured a room block at the Citizen Hotel; room reservations must be made by January 6, 2012 to receive the discounted rate.

The California High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) released its most recent business plan this morning during a press conference held at the Sacramento Railroad museum. The business plan, which reassesses the costs of the proposal and provides updated ridership numbers, is the first to be released under the direction of Roelof van Ark, who became Chief Executive Officer of the Authority in June 2010. When voters approved the initiative to allocate $9.95 billion towards the project in 2008, the cost of the system was estimated at $43 billion. With the release of the newest business plan, the projected cost to build the first segment- from San Francisco to Anaheim- has now skyrocketed to $98.5 billion after the Authority “looked more deeply at engineering costs”. 

Questions of how to afford the project were raised during the question and answer portion of the press conference as many noted that the original $9.95 billion given through the 2008 ballot initiative is now only one tenth of the funding needed. The plan assumes that nearly 20 percent of the total cost will come from private investment, leaving the majority of the investment coming from public borrowing. California has received approximately $3.5 billion from the federal government after states like Florida gave back their high speed rail funding, which helps defray costs to California taxpayers. However, money set aside in the federal budget for high speed rail (HSR) was cut entirely this year, and many speculate whether California will actually receive the funding necessary to create a true HSR system in California and not just a “train to nowhere”. 

The Planning and Conservation League (PCL) supports high speed rail if it reduces reliance on highways and air traffic, is linked with urban rail projects to promote infill development and discourage sprawl, is properly financed, and is sited to maximize environmental and ridership benefits without causing unacceptable impacts to local communities, farm and ranch lands, or natural resources. With the release of this plan, PCL will be using the 60-day comment period to assess whether this iteration moves us in the direction of an HSR project in California that is feasible and will safeguard our environment while providing critical jobs for Californians. One of Governor Brown’s two appointees on the California High-Speed Rail Authority, Michael Rossi, indicated at the press event that he welcomes a vigorous debate and dialogue over the next 60 days to help better the project. To this end, PCL has already met with Mr. van Ark and others at the HSRA to hear about their future plans and voice our concerns, and plan to continue our discussions with leaders on this project.

Also speaking at the press event was Brown’s other recent appointee, Dan Richard, who stressed that, “This is not a promotional document. This is not a political document. This is a business plan.” Now that the Governor has put his stamp on the largest infrastructure project the state of California has ever seen, it is only a matter of time before we see whether the most recent projections outlined in the business plan are accurate and whether this project will move forward.

Connect with PCL


PCL on Twitter

  • The Planning and Conservation League is being recognized by Friends of the River! PCL will receive an award for... fb.me/YJiXq8Sc 2 days ago
  • Prepping for our San Diego Fundraiser! You’re invited to join us June 14th in La Jolla! To purchase tickets visit pcl.org 2 days ago
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.