How Florida Beat California to High-Speed Rail

In 2023, 171 miles are environmentally cleared and 119 miles are under construction, with 52 miles in advanced design.  The HSR Authority has environmentally cleared 422 miles of the Phase 1 section. Here’s a look at the progress and the Legislative Analyst’s Office assessment for 2023:


California's Rocky Rail Road

The California High-Speed Rail is a major infrastructure project by the state of California, United States. It is designed to be a high-speed rail system that connects major cities in California, offering a faster and more efficient mode of transportation compared to traditional rail and road options.

The original voter proposition for the California High-Speed Rail Project was known as Proposition 1A. It was a bond measure that appeared on the ballot during California's general election on November 4, 2008. Proposition 1A authorized the issuance of $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds to help fund the development and construction of a high-speed rail system in California. Here are some of the key conditions and requirements outlined in Proposition 1A:

  1. Funding Allocation: The proposition specified how the bond funds would be allocated, including $9 billion for the high-speed rail system, $950 million for the development of regional and local rail systems that connect to the high-speed system, and $50 million for planning and environmental studies.

  2. Route and Connectivity: Proposition 1A identified the initial route of the high-speed rail system, connecting major cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Sacramento. It emphasized the need for the system to be connected to other transportation networks, including airports and local transit systems.

  3. Travel Times: The proposition set certain performance standards, including travel times. It stipulated that the high-speed trains should be able to travel between San Francisco and Los Angeles in under 2 hours and 40 minutes.

  4. Financial Viability: Proposition 1A required that the high-speed rail system be financially viable, with a goal of covering its operating costs without a public subsidy.

  5. Environmental Compliance: The proposition mandated compliance with environmental laws and required the completion of environmental impact reports and studies.

  6. Independent Oversight: It established the California High-Speed Rail Authority to oversee the project and required independent audits of the bond funds' use.

  7. Private Investment: Proposition 1A encouraged the involvement of private-sector investment in the project.

  8. Cost Controls: The proposition included provisions to control costs, including limits on the use of bond proceeds for administrative and land acquisition costs.

 It is apparent that one by one, the state government and program administration have failed to meet these key conditions and requirements (Except maybe #5, but more time and money seems to have been spent on this than budgeted.), but they now have migrated to a new plan with no apologies to the voters. The voters and bond holders sole recourse seems to be to sue the state. 

The California High-Speed Rail program has faced several legal challenges and lawsuits since its inception. These lawsuits have come from various parties, including individuals, organizations, and government agencies, and have raised a range of concerns and issues related to the project. Please note that my knowledge is based on information available up to September 2021, and the status of these lawsuits may have evolved since then. Here are some key lawsuits and challenges related to the California High-Speed Rail program up to that point:

  1. Property Owners and Eminent Domain: Some property owners along the proposed rail route have filed lawsuits challenging the project's use of eminent domain to acquire land for the rail tracks. They argue that the project's impact on their properties was not adequately considered, and they have raised concerns about compensation for the loss of their land.

  2. Environmental Lawsuits:

  3. Funding and Financial Challenges

  4. Federal Funding Disputes with the Trump administration

  5. Local Government Opposition

  6. Challenges to Project Phases: construction of the Central Valley segment, which was intended to be an initial operational segment.

The outcome of these lawsuits has varied, with some being resolved in favor of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, while others have resulted in delays, changes to project plans, or increased costs. The legal landscape surrounding the California High-Speed Rail program has been complex and evolving, with ongoing litigation shaping the project's trajectory.

The state courts have denied all suits so far. The last pending civil lawsuit seeking to stop the California high-speed rail project hit a wall when a state appeals court affirmed a lower court ruling that the project did not violate the California Constitution by adopting a segmented approach (in the Central Valley) to building the system.

Here are some key points about the current status of the California High-Speed Rail project:

  1. Background: The idea for a high-speed rail system in California dates back to the 1980s, but significant planning and development efforts began in the 2000s. After voters approved Proposition 1A  narrowly in 2008, the High-Speed Rail Authority found itself woefully understaffed and spent a small fortune on outside consultants, who wrote lots of reports and hired lots of other consultants but did not get the line built. Even today, progress consists of just a handful of new viaducts and bridges, along with most (but not all) of the necessary land purchases and environmental approvals.

  2. Route: The planned high-speed rail route was sold to the voters to connect major cities in California, including San Francisco, Los Angeles, Anaheim, and Sacramento. The ultimate goal is to create a system with multiple interconnected routes throughout the state. Despite 14 years of work and about $5bn spent, the 2008 promise of quick transport between Los Angeles and San Francisco has not materialized

  3. Speed and Technology: The high-speed rail system is designed to operate at speeds of up to 220 miles per hour (354 kilometers per hour). It will use advanced train technology and dedicated tracks to achieve these high speeds.

  4. Environmental Benefits: One of the key objectives of the project is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by providing an alternative to air travel and automobile commuting. It is seen as a step toward reducing traffic congestion and improving air quality.

  5. Phases: The California High-Speed Rail project is divided into several phases. As of  September 2021, construction had begun on a portion of the project in the Central Valley, which is often referred to as "Phase 1." However, the project faced significant delays and cost overruns, leading to ongoing debates and discussions about its future.

  6. Funding Challenges: Funding the project has been a significant challenge. The estimated cost of the complete high-speed rail system has increased over the years, leading to concerns about its financial viability. It has relied on a combination of federal, state, and private funding sources.

  7. Criticism and Controversy: The California High-Speed Rail project has faced criticism from various quarters, including concerns about its cost, the feasibility of completing it as planned, and its potential impact on communities and the environment. There have also been legal challenges and political debates over the project's future.

In the 2023 report,  the authority concentrates on selling the virtues of the Central Valley Phase 1 Bakersfield to Merced phase, while requesting more time and more money. Completion of the entire system is not really discussed. Funding of the current effort is from various sources. It is highly doubtful that any potential income from the system if it grows to the full system configuration would pay for interest on the program at the current interest rates, let alone amortize the bonds.

California bills its system as the first U.S. high-speed rail project and aims to complete it in the 2030s. The cost was estimated at $80 billion in 2020 but could ultimately be as high as $99.8 billion.

California voters approved the initial $10 billion bond for the project in 2008, and $3.5 billion in federal money was allocated two years later. California previously received $2.5 billion.

The project is under construction on the first 119-mile section in California’s Central Valley with 35 active job sites. The authority said it expects to have trains on the ground testing by mid-decade and in passenger service by 2029. (Reporting by David Shepardson Editing by Chris Reese and David Gregorio)

Payback is a B*tch - Ridership estimates down, costs up

The LAO’s 2023 report revised the high-speed rail ridership estimate for the first time since 2020. It now estimates the Valley-to-Valley (San Francisco to Anaheim) segment will have a ridership of 11.5 million annual passengers by 2040, down 39% from the previous estimate of 18.4 million passengers per year.

The 2023 HSRA report projects the full 500-mile system will have 31.3 million riders a year by 2040.

If the high-speed rail system averaged 11.5 million people a year paying $86 for a ticket, it would take 108 years to break even:

11.5 million people a year is an average of about 31,000 per day. The Pacific Surfliner trains averaged about 7,300 people per day before the pandemic.

It would take more than 1.25 billion people paying that $86 a ticket for the estimated $107.6 billion high-speed rail system to break even (pay capital costs, without any interest or operating costs). That is the equivalent of 32 times the population of California in 2023.

 

  • The $86 ticket is an estimate from 2015.
  • The drive from Los Angeles is about 6 1/2 hours with one 15-minute stop.
  •  A flight, not including security wait times, is a little more than an hour.
  • The high-speed rail is expected to be a little more than three hours.

Currently there are 10 ways to get between these destination.  The bus journey time between Anaheim and San Francisco is around 9h 15m and covers a distance of around 426 miles. Operated by Greyhound USA and Flixbus USA, the Anaheim to San Francisco bus service departs from Anaheim and arrives in San Francisco Bus Station. Typically 11 buses run weekly, although weekend and holiday schedules can vary so check in advance. Cheapest price is $35.
 
Southwest Airlines offers Flights from Santa Ana to Oakland with average. Duration 1h 24m Every day with an Estimated price $100 - $330. The high speed rail will fall in the middle in time and cost, but these set limits on what it can charge to be competitive.

theguardian.com

Train to nowhere: can California’s high-speed rail project ever get back on track?

Andrew Gumbel

In the depths of the 2008 recession, Californians were sold on a beautiful dream: a bullet train that would whisk them between Los Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.

The project was to be the start of a new era of high-speed rail that would eventually stretch the full length of the west coast, from San Diego to Vancouver, across the desert to Las Vegas, and, eventually, all across the continental United States.

California voters that year approved the sale of $9bn in state bonds, on the understanding that the LA to San Francisco line would be up and running by 2020. It was not long before the incoming Obama administration upped the ante, with a national plan for 8,600 miles (13,840 km) of high-speed rail lines, later increased to 12,000 miles (19,312 km), that would help kick-start a dormant economy and wean a highly mobile nation off the fossil fuels threatening to destroy the climate.

Fast-forward to the present, and the dream is all but dead. The Obama plan collapsed, falling victim to a combination of inexperience, mismanagement and furious opposition from several key Republican legislators and state governors. The California project is still technically up and running, but it is so far behind schedule that it has yet to lay a single mile of track, despite 14 years of work and about $5bn spent.

California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, is no longer talking about the 500-mile stretch from LA to San Francisco, because the projected price tag has skyrocketed far out of reach. Instead, his office is focusing on a 172-mile segment connecting a handful of medium-sized cities in the flat agricultural Central Valley. Even if the stars align, though, and a restive legislature can be persuaded to release the necessary funds, the segment still might not start serving passengers until 2030.

Florida's Head Start

Florida has the advantage of being flat and not seismicly active, so it starts out ahead in building railroads. Of course, there are those pesky hurricanes, and a lot of swamp. The East Coast has a long history of train service to Florida, at one time all the way down to the keys. The hurricane in 1935 wiped out the rail line to the keys, so now they have a highway.

The history of rail service in Florida is intertwined with the state's development and growth. Railroads played a significant role in shaping Florida's economy and transportation network. Here is a brief overview of the history of rail service in Florida:

  1. Early Railroads:

    • The first railroad in Florida, the Florida Railroad, was chartered in 1834, but construction didn't begin until the late 1850s. It connected Fernandina on the Atlantic coast to Cedar Key on the Gulf of Mexico.
    • The Civil War disrupted rail development in Florida, but after the war, several new railroads were built, connecting various parts of the state and promoting economic development.

  2. Henry Flagler's Florida East Coast Railway:

    • One of the most influential figures in Florida's railroad history was Henry Flagler. He was a co-founder of Standard Oil and a wealthy industrialist.
    • In the late 19th century, Flagler embarked on a project to extend his Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) down the eastern coast of Florida, eventually reaching Key West. This railway facilitated tourism and development in Florida.
    • The completion of the Overseas Railroad to Key West in 1912 was a remarkable engineering achievement, involving the construction of numerous bridges and viaducts over the Florida Keys.

  3. Other Major Railroads:

    • Several other major railroads operated in Florida during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, including the Atlantic Coast Line, Seaboard Air Line, and the Florida East Coast Railway. My grandfather worked for the Seaboard Line.
    • These railroads transported passengers, agricultural products, and industrial goods, contributing to the state's economic prosperity.

  4. Decline and Transformation:

    • The mid-20th century saw a decline in passenger rail travel in Florida as automobiles and air travel became more popular. Railroads shifted their focus to freight transportation.
    • Many passenger rail services were discontinued, including the famous "Orange Blossom Special" train that once connected New York City to Miami.
    • The creation of Amtrak in 1971 brought some passenger rail service back to Florida, albeit on a reduced scale.

  5. Modern Rail Developments:

    • In recent years, there has been a resurgence of interest in passenger rail service in Florida.
    • The Brightline (formerly known as All Aboard Florida) is a private high-speed rail service that began operations between Miami and West Palm Beach in 2018, with plans to expand to Orlando.
    • Commuter rail systems like SunRail in the Orlando area and Tri-Rail in South Florida provide commuter options for residents.

 It is no wonder that private enterprise saw opportunity here. They are starting small, serving an immediate need, and planning for growth. This is quite different from the California approach.

  1. Brightline: Brightline is a private passenger rail service that initially operated in Florida, connecting Miami with Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach. It has plans to expand further, including the development of a high-speed rail line from Miami to Orlando. The project was expected to use the existing Florida East Coast Railway tracks, with upgrades to accommodate high-speed trains.

  2. Virgin Trains USA: Brightline was formerly known as All Aboard Florida and was affiliated with Virgin Trains USA. The rebranding to Brightline occurred in 2018.

  3. Miami to Orlando High-Speed Rail: The Miami to Orlando high-speed rail project was expected to significantly reduce travel time between these two major Florida cities. It was seen as a significant infrastructure investment in the state's transportation system.

  4. Extension to Tampa: There were discussions and plans to extend the high-speed rail service from Orlando to Tampa, further expanding the rail network in Florida.


 

Miami-Orlando Brightline Might Be the Future of Private Passenger Rail

reason.com

Miami-Orlando Brightline Might Be the Future of Private Passenger Rail

Natalie Dowzicky

Trains

How Florida Beat California to High-Speed Rail

One company is betting that it can run a commercially viable passenger rail service without massive federal subsidies.

|

HD Download

In 19th century America, trains symbolized modernity. Passenger rail connected the east and west coasts and helped settle the frontier. By 1916, rail accounted for 98 percent of intercity travel.

As it became easier to drive or fly, passenger rail use plummeted. In 1971, the government created Amtrak, which survives on federal subsidies. And most recently the Biden administration gave Amtrak $66 billion in federal subsidies as part of the federal infrastructure bill.

But in Florida, Brightline is showing that it's still possible to run a viable, privately operated passenger rail line under certain conditions. The company is starting service from Miami to Orlando on September 22.

Not only is Brightline the first privately funded intercity rail line in the U.S., but it's also the fastest train in the country outside of the northeast corridor. Topping out at 125 mph in Florida, it will travel from Miami to Orlando in about three hours. For comparison, the Amtrak in the area takes about six and a half hours to complete that same trip.

Mike Reininger, CEO of Brightline, told Reason that passenger rail makes commercial sense under specific conditions, such as the case in Florida, where it connects two populous, tourist-friendly cities that are about 250 miles apart. At that distance, Reininger says, "It is too far to drive and too short to fly. You can approximate the time of flying significantly, improve the time of driving, and you can offer it at a price point that makes it an economic proposition."

There has been one other ambitious effort to build high-speed rail in the U.S.—in California. But that project turned into something so "foolish" that it's "almost a crime," according to Quentin L. Kopp, the former state senator who was crucial in rallying support for a $10 billion bond measure to build high-speed rail in California. He became a fierce opponent of the project when it ran out of money and the agency in charge, he says, broke its promises to voters.

The 520-mile railway between San Francisco and Los Angeles was supposed to be completed by 2020. But after fifteen years of construction, they've only laid track for a 170-mile stretch in the Central Valley. The project, which has received more than $20 billion in state and federal subsidies, is now projected to cost over $128 billion.

Following on its success in Florida, Brightline is also starting to develop a high-speed rail line out west—connecting Las Vegas to Los Angeles. The 218-mile line will have just a handful of stops and plans to reach speeds over 186 mph. But the company is pursuing about $3 billion worth in federal subsidies to complete the project, or about a third of the total estimated cost. Though not even close to the amount of money California needs to finish its project, Robert Poole, the director of transportation policy at Reason Foundation, is "skeptical" once federal money gets involved at all in large infrastructure projects.

"It becomes far less of a business venture. And much more of this attitude that we can do grand things because we don't have to worry about what it costs," says Poole. 

But Brightline's Florida project remains a true test of whether there are narrow cases in which American travelers value passenger rail enough to pay for it with their own money.

Photo Credits: akg-images / Paul Almasy/Newscom; Chris Kleponis—CNP/Newscom; Ron Sachs—CNP/Newscom; DPST/Newscom; Everett Collection/Newscom; Everett Collection/Newscom; Everett Collection/Newscom; National Motor Museum / Heritage Images/Newscom; Gary Reyes/TNS/Newscom; Gary Reyes/TNS/Newscom; Gary Reyes/TNS/Newscom; Underwood Archives/Universal Images Group/Newscom; Underwood Archives/Universal Images Group/Newscom; Underwood Archives/UIG / Universal Images Group/Newscom; Darryl Heikes/UPI/Newscom

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CPUC Sets Schedule on AT&T Request to Relinquish ETC

CPUC Sets Schedule on AT&T Request to Relinquish ETC AT&T's California CPUC Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC) designation is a complex topic with recent developments, so I'll break it down for you: Current Status: AT&T is currently an ETC in California: This means they're eligible to receive federal Lifeline support funding for providing discounted phone service to low-income residents. However, AT&T is seeking to withdraw its ETC designation: They filed a request with the CPUC in March 2023 to do so. Reasons for Withdrawal Request: Declining demand for landlines: AT&T argues that demand for traditional landline services, which are a key requirement for being a COLR, is declining rapidly. Financial burden: Maintaining landline infrastructure in rural areas is expensive, and AT&T claims it's no longer financially viable for them. CPUC's Response: Public hearings were held in October 2023: The CPUC held public hearings to g...
Read more

Walters: California's economy surges, but the future is cloudy

Walters: California's economy surges, but the future is cloudy eastbaytimes.com Walters: California’s economy surges, but the future is cloudy Dan Walters, CalMatters 4–5 minutes Last year was a strong one for California’s $3.4 trillion economy. The state added 621,400 jobs, finally regaining the nearly 3 million that were initially lost during the COVID-19 pandemic as Gov. Gavin Newsom shut down major economic sectors. The year ended with a near record-low 4.1% unemployment. “California continues leading the nation’s economy,” Newsom boasted after the December employment report was issued this month. Earlier he projected that if California were a nation, it would be close to surpassing Germany as the globe’s 4th most powerful economy. All good. In fact, some economists believe that California’s job growth is so strong that only a shortage of workers – due to a decline in the...
Read more

Japan’s Largest Helo Carrier DDH-184 JS Kaga Headed to San Diego for F-35B Testing

Image
This Halloween, a Japanese flat-top bearing an illustrious name of one sunk at the battle of Midway may be sighted off Point Loma flying stealth jets onto North Island Naval Air Station. But this is not a ghost ship, and there is no need for San Diego's own  USS Midway to get underway. Japan's largest warship, the Izumo-class carrier JS Kaga (DDH-184), will conduct F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter developmental tests off San Diego, California from October 5 to November 18, 2023. This is part of Japan's effort to convert its two Izumo-class ships (Izumo and Kaga) from helicopter carriers to F-35B-capable aircraft carriers. Kaga has already undergone the first stage of conversion, including modifying its flight deck from a trapezoid to a rectangular shape, similar to US amphibious assault ships. The trials will help determine the optimal interior configuration for F-35B operations on these ships. Japan has ordered 42 F-35Bs, with 6 expected to be delivered by th...
Read more