Proposition 1A "contains such strict safeguards that the authority may not be able to comply at all, in which event the High-Speed Rail project may never go forward."

They make it sound like a bad thing that the state won't sink $100 billion into this project while complaining they don't have enough tax revenue to fund all the government services that we can't live without.

But President Obama has shown the way with Obamacare. All the governor has to do, using his imperial authority, is to announce that since the rules are too strict we will just ignore the rules. Can't let the voters get in the way of progressives.

"Follow the money."
WHO will be getting all of these billions of dollars?
It appears to be primarialy "government agencies" (the Rail Authority) and their cronies.
Then, later on, the employee unions will have a whole new empire of people to "represent" (think about the BART strikes).

Where is the logical "Business Plan" for this boondoggle, slush-fund project?
How many people are really going to use this system, once built? How often? How much will they pay?
Will it ever pay for itself?
Will it ever justify its existence?
Is it a great transportation system to solve the transportation problems of us, Californians?
What problem is it solving? How many transportation problems does it solve?
At what cost per mile? At what detriment to other vital needs?

Congratulations to our attorney, Stuart Flashman, on his success in forcing the state to comply with the voter-approved ballot measure regarding the funding for the high-speed rail.

We expect him to have similar success in getting a judge to order Danville to follow the voter-approved ballot measure S, the Danville General Plan, and CEQA as they relate to the SummerHill Homes' 69+ home Magee Ranch development. Governments cannot be allowed to defy the people in favor of special interests.

Where is the logical "Business Plan" for this boondoggle, slush-fund project?

How many people are really going to use this system, once built? How often? How much will they pay?

Will it ever pay for itself?

Will it ever justify its existence?

Is it a great transportation system to solve the transportation problems of us, Californians?

What problem is it solving? How many transportation problems does it solve?

At what cost per mile? At what detriment to other vital needs?

So, are you asking these questions about the Bay Bridge, or about BART?

Congratulations to Stuart Flashman on his court victory to slow down or hopefully derail the "High-Speed" rail project. The Democrats favor this travesty because it allegedly will provide jobs and "improve" the environment. It will be the ultimate "Railroad to Nowhere." Once a hypothetical passenger boards the train in San Francisco and gets off at Union Station in Los Angeles, what does he or she do now, rent a car? If a car rental is the ultimate course of action, why not fly? Who WILL use the taxpayer subsidized boondoggle?

We also wish Mr. Flashman the same success in court against the Town of Danville in another unfortunate high-handed government action, Summerhill. Why does the Town Council simply say Measure S "doesn't apply?" We hope the Courts will support the will of the people when Measure S was passed.

Los Angeles actually has an extensive system of public transit, including Metrolink regional trains, subways, buses and cabs which use Union Station as a hub. It's entirely possible to do business in LA without getting in a car - once you get to Union Station. I recognize that Tony is just repeating soundbites without actually bothering to find out any facts relevant to his argument, but it just demonstrates a lack of knowledge about actual transit planning and the demand that the future will bring.

I understand that folks who have lived in the suburbs forever and are living in the past may be unaware of the fact that it's possible - and even desirable - to get around without a car, but don't worry - your kids "get it." That's why they want to live in the city and use BART, Muni, bikes and cabs rather than driving everywhere they want to go. It's actually a pretty enjoyable alternative to the auto-centric lifestyle the boomers grew up in, and the state is smart to recognize that demographic shift and plan for it. The old-time auto and commercial jet paradigm is shifting - even if you don't see it. Not everyone is a hidebound old-school suburbanite.

Thank GOD for Mr. Flashman!!! Seems the only way to stop corruption in this state is to sue! Prop 1A funds need to be returned to the tax payers and this plan should be scrapped. The HSR is not even rated for speeds over 80mph and will be placed in the middle of nowhere. Talk about a train to nowhere. Diane Feinstein and her corrupt husband were going to get the bid. Not a surprise. Just follow the money. DiFi and her husband are as corrupt as it gets.

Finally some justice for the people of California.

Huh? said: "So, are you asking these questions about the Bay Bridge, or about BART?"

I'm not sure what your point is? I'm asking these questions about the High Speed Train (HST).
If you're suggesting that the same questions be asked about other projects, like the Bay Bridge and BART, then I agree whole-heartedly. These are basic questions that should be asked and answered by any government project.
I think that BART and the Bay Bridge are both needed transportation systems for the Bay area. (Although I don't know if I was ever convinced that the old Bay Bridge needed to be demolished....or that this new design is the best, safest, most economical, or most desired design by the public for the new bridge?)

Union Station is a hub (of sorts), although it is missing being directly connected with an airport.
Nevertheless, that fact doesn't alter the real questions here or resolve the problem.
The HST is a very limited usage idea. It will only serve a small percentage of people.
It would be nice to see the actual projections of people who are anticipated to use the HST and what they will pay to ride (and what the real, unsubsidized ride costs will be).
Further it would be nice to understand HOW VALIDLY these projections are established. (I'd bet that they are poorly done.)
This is just government trying to do more social engineering.
This is build-it-and they-will-come, pie-in-the-sky dreaming, but done with money needed elsewhere for vital programs.
IMO, it is not the Government's correct function to create jobs, let alone "busy work" jobs with a crushing cost to us all. The Capitalistic Free Market System will create the right amount of jobs for the current economic situation without the Government's meddling and interference.

Actually, I was referring to the original Bay Bridge project, from the 30's. Who needed a bridge? We had cheap, fast ferries. And in the 60's BART was opposed vehemently, and even voted down in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties (which has caused many problems since.) Many people felt, like you, that it "wasn't needed." And it wasn't really needed - then.

The point is that if you only view how things are today, major public works rarely seem to make sense. Sensible planning takes into consideration reasonable economic and demographic projections for the future, and here's two of them: (1) California will have a lot more people 30 years from now than it does today, and (2) energy costs will continue to go up, particularly mobile fuels - gas, diesel, jet fuel. That means that investing in means to transport people between our major population areas at a low energy cost per mile, and do it with means that can be powered by multiple energy sources, including non-mobile ones like hydroelectric, nuclear, wind or solar, is something out grandchildren are likely to thank us for.

On the other hand, if all you're interested in is what's in it for me today, you're probably right. It won't pencil out. And Chevron thanks you for your support.

>>(1) California will have a lot more people 30 years from now than it does today

Extremely doubtful, given the mass local CA government bankruptcies which are coming and which will probably end up driving taxes sky high to be able to continue to pay the bloated government pensions which politicians agreed to in exchange for campaign contributions from said government unions.

>>(2) energy costs will continue to go up, particularly mobile fuels - gas, diesel, jet fuel.

This is probably true because a good progressive always lays a heavy dose of fear onto any new technology like fracking or even old technologies like PIPELINES so as to continue to maintain our dependence on foreign sources and be able to keep beating that old drum.

>>That means that investing in means to transport people between our major population areas at a low energy cost per mile, and do it with means that can be powered by multiple energy sources, including non-mobile ones like hydroelectric, nuclear, wind or solar, is something out grandchildren are likely to thank us for.

I am sure our grandchildren will be pretty unhappy being saddled with all the debt that is piled up, dramatically reducing their quality of life. The fact that they can get on a train and ride to LA won't make up for their lower standard of living to pay for all of these wonderful programs which just never seem to work...just like Obamacare.

>>On the other hand, if all you're interested in is what's in it for me today, you're probably right. It won't pencil out. And Chevron thanks you for your support.

Actually, I'm just not willing to saddle the next generation with all these great ambitions that we cannot afford and which have not been well thought out.

Amtrak's New York to D.C. line still does not pay for its operating costs. It is far shorter than the proposed rail line in CA and serves a far greater population per square mile of line. Honest numbers show that the CA line will never pay for itself.

Gov. Brown wants this project because those that will gain financially from it put him in office.

Always nice to hear from the right wing echo chamber, Bill. Of course you're right: the future will always look exactly like 1980, and nothing will ever change as long as the Kenyan socialist and his fellow travelers can be prevented from their Gestapo tactics destroying America. And since no problems of any sort could possibly arise from ever-increasing reliance on burning more and more fossil fuels, why even think about any alternatives to doing so? </sarcasm> Chevron thanks you, too, for your support. I hope you're paid for it. (How did you like 2008, by the way? Or were you in a coma then, too, like the rest of the Fox-bots?)

PSM: Union Station can be reached by Metrolink from Burbank Airport, although it requires <gasp!> walking out of the terminal, down the sidewalk past the parking lot, and crossing the street. (The train takes 25 minutes, which is actually faster than the freeway.) It's possible to fly to Burbank and do a day of business in downtown LA at a total ground transportation cost of $11, although it takes some planning and the ability to walk a couple of blocks.

But Union Station is the central hub, and well-situated for that task, as no airport can be due to the logistics of landing planes (which is a pretty insoluble problem.) If you could travel directly there you would cut out a lot of logistical issues.

I'm interested in "stop corruption"'s definition of "honest numbers." The truth?

in 2011 Acela Express Service recovered 168 percent of its operating costs through revenues, about $204.9 million above expenses. Northeast Corridor Regional Service recovered 110 percent of its operating costs through revenues, about $44.6 million above expenses.

There's a lot of money at stake for the "mobile fuel" companies if alternatives to gas, diesel and jet fuel get any more competition for transportation energy sources. Do you suppose that's where "stop" got his (phony) figures?

It's true that capital costs for rail transportation exceed that profit even in the lucrative Northeast corridor, because while the nation has spent tens of billions every year for the past 60 years on freeways and airports railways have been left to private enterprise for freight hauling for most of that time. That means some serious upgrading and line separation needs to be done and that takes money.

Oh, but wait - "The benefit of that expenditure will accrue to our kids and grandkids. What's in it for me?" That seems to be the current argument being repeated by the folks above.

Bill's comment about the US continuing to be dependent on "foreign sources" is mistaken if he is referring to oil. We now produce about 7.5 million barrels per day of oil in the US. We import only about 4.5 MBD. So, we already produce more than enough for our own needs. The only reasons that we import oil are because the multinational oil companies export much of what is produced in the US, and because the types of oil produced domestically don't always match the types needed domestically.

Huh? is correct. Bill is still locked into 1980s thinking.

Random Comments:
kids get it and like to live in the urban areas and use Bart; yes,til they grow up and make some money and then want to have a suburban home!

Love to have a high speed reliable transportation system, just can't trust that government can do it ( the new Bay Bridge, the Boston dig.,,,)

Most if not all mass transit systems in the world have to be subsidized. The pay off is in the benefit in other areas, i. e. less road construction, less congestion, better use of commute and travel time,...

I am shocked that gambling is going on in these premises! as I am shocked that the government(at all levels) is ignoring the law!

Huh?,

Your whole ploy of implying how great and valuable the High Speed Train (HST) is because it ends in a "hub" (Union Station), is weak? Of course, the train ends in a hub. It would be even better if it connected with more hubs, like airports (and maybe it will since little is disclosed about it's specifics).
All of your commentary about the connection between Burbank Airport is wasted on me (I already knew about such indirect connection). I had merely pointed out that the HST wasted DIRECTLY connecting into the airport system (that I know of) which is somewhat of a major flaw, IMO. Why not connect?

For all of your extensive knowledge and presentation of numbers, figure, and "facts," why have you spent so much time on SIDE ISSUES here and haven't answered the basic underlying questions regarding the HST:
What are the projected numbers of people who will ride the train weekly (and how were these projections derived)?
What will be the actual cost per person of a ride? What price will that person have to pay? How much of the cost will "subsidized" and who will pay for that subsidization?
Each of us should be asking ourselves (not to be selfish, but as a reality check on what an average person will do): Do I plan to use the HST? How many trips per year? To where and for what purpose? What price will I pay?
I used to go to LA fairly often during the year, both driving and flying. Yet I don't know that I would ever use the HST more than one time (for curiosity and entertainment).

I would be much more interested in an EXPRESS FERRY TRAIN--a system more like BART for cars and trucks, not just people.
You would drive to a station (say every 50 or 100 miles and say a station in Pleasanton) and wait for a train going to your destination station (say a station in Glendale). Then you drive your car (or it otherwise gets placed) onto the train and you ride to your destination where you embark, with your car available to proceed to more specific destination.
Or you still have the option to travel as just a non-car passenger on that train.
Maybe the train has to go slower than a HST, but you nevertheless get to kick back during the "ride".
Additionally, this EXPRESS FERRY TRAIN should be able to handle freight trucks. Imagine getting many of the long-haul trucks off of the CA highways. They hop the train to the closest station and then proceed from there.
This type of train solution WOULD solve a lot of problems and would make for a "greener" solution as well.
Why is there no advocacy for this type of idea?

The HST train concept is such a limited, single-purpose idea at an exorbitant cost!
It is not an idea designed to "service" the needs and wants of the people (who like cars, planes, and maybe someday flying cars).
Instead, it an idea spawned by car-haters (and Chevron haters) and individual vehicle-haters designed to force people into a mass transit (and probably government run) centralized transportation system.
When that non-individual system crashes (due to mechanical problems, or more dramatically, due to strikes or terrorism), then we are all so screwed for a long time and the economy is in extreme peril.

I understand that the "government is always bad" theme has been driven into pretty much everyone's head (I was 40 years old before I realized the extent to which I'd been basically brainwashed by Reader's Digest as a child) but look:

"Love to have a high speed reliable transportation system, just can't trust that government can do it ( the new Bay Bridge, the Boston dig.,,,)"

Can you point us to any "high speed reliable transportation system" which wasn't designed and built by "government?" Do you have inside information about some privately-owned commercial airports somewhere that don't use federal air traffic control? Privately owned bullet trains?

And do you honestly believe that there are no cost overruns or other flaws in private enterprise? Forget Pets.com and Enron - the only new privately built and owned public transit operation I'm aware of is the Las Vegas monorail - a poorly designed, buggy, fiscally insane boondoggle that went bankrupt and will eventually be subsidized by the taxpayers.

Knee-jerk "government is bad" thinking is no better than any other mindless philosophy. Private enterprise is best for some things, government for others, and in many cases, some hybrid of both serves best. If you really want a transit system you're going to need government to build it. We're lucky to have the ones we've got now, but they won't be enough for the future.

My husband drives to LA on business every other month. His destination varies. We also travel there for family purposes occasionally, especially when our kids have been in school in the vicinity.

In comparison to plane travel, we almost always choose to drive. My husband finds that with the extra time involved in getting to the airport, waiting to board (without having to check luggage, either), flying time, then disembarking and renting a car to drive to his destination, taking a plane requires as much time as driving! He would never ever take the proposed rail. It would involve probably as much time, or nearly so, be more expensive (he has a fuel-efficient car, and the extra rental expense would be a lot) and more of a hassle.

When we take family trips we always take the car. Multiple tickets multiplies the cost, and again there is the savings of not having to rent a car when you arrive.

We would probably take the proposed rail once out of curiosity. We took AMTRAK to San Luis Obispo once for just that reason.

PSM, I know you want to take your car with you to LA - you've said that before. But you're living in the past. You might as well lobby for a "horse-train." The idea that 30 years from now everyone is going to be driving everywhere like the have in the recent past is probably simply wrong. When you and I were young, everyone got their drivers license on their 16th birthday, and it was a big deal. Now many young people don't bother until they're in their 20's, or at all.
Nobody is making young people do things differently. It isn't "top-down." Their world view is just different. They communicate on their smart phones 24/7. They are in touch with everything, all the time. The idea of cetting in a metal can and spending long periods devoted to the job of transporting themselves from point A to point B - all the while divorced from their connection to the world - isn't attractive, if there's an alternative available. And they're taking those alternatives. That won't magically change when they're older. People got along without cars for millenia, and they can get along without cars now, as long as there are other means of taking care of business - and increasingly, there are. While I suspect there will be a place for private cars for a long time, the domination of American culture by automobiles will change.

You're living in the past, PSM. You just don't know it.

Anyone who disagrees with you lives in the past.

No @Bill. What Huh? is trying to convey is that, at the end of the day, a high speed rail line is not being built for anyone that was driving during the Ford administration or earlier. Virtually everyone who takes an opposing (i.e. conservative) view to the proposition of a public works on this scale places their experiences of today into what life will be like 10 to 15 years down the road.

I would argue with anyone that if in 1972, any one of us tried to convince a depression era relative that cars would get well over 25 MPG, cost of mailing a letter had crept near 50 cents, we all carried a device in our pockets with access the world's knowledge & made phone-calls on the side AND newspapers were virtually a thing of the past...you would "who would use that", "are you a red communist?" (yesterday's socialist) and "i prefer leaded ink in paper, like lead in my Chrysler as opposed to reading a small electronic device".

Clearly, silly examples. However, think about it for just a moment to realize that our children and their children who are beginning to come of age see this world very different from our day. I believe that this is what Huh? is trying to get into our thick (and old) skulls.

High speed rail would lock California into a technology that could quickly become outdated and costly.

Rail systems have long lifespans. Once a rail technology is selected, it is expensive to replace with something that is more energy efficient and less carbon intensive.

In contrast, buses have relatively short life cycles, modest capital costs, enabling relatively rapid integration of state-of-the-art technology.

An integrated rapid bus system linking SF and LA would provide flexibility to incorporated new energy efficient technology, such as Google’s driverless systems, fuel cells, new light-weight materials, solar cells, or whatever may be developed in the coming decades.

The high speed rail plan assumes that Menlo Park, Palo Alto, and many dozens of other tony communities throughout the state will ultimately bend to the will of Sacramento politics and allow the high speed rail lines to be built through their communities. Most seasoned observes envision costly lawsuits that will drag on for decades, ultimately causing construction costs to increase exponentially, not unlike what happened with the Bay Bridge, or the plan to build large power lines through Livermore, which was ultimately defeated after fierce local opposition.

Dave says, “The only reasons that we import oil are because the multinational oil companies export much of what is produced in the US.”

That is incorrect. The Energy Policy Conservation Act of 1975 makes it illegal to export crude oil out of the U.S.

"The Energy Policy Conservation Act of 1975 makes it illegal to export crude oil out of the U.S."

If true, how do you explain this graph -- specifically the "Crude Oil Exports line? Web Link

Just curious.

It’s an exception to the rule for specific fields, as explained in the footnote.

The chart you posted shows ~2 million barrels a month being exported, or less than 1% of U.S. annual oil production of 2.4 billion barrels.

@spct,

Out of curiosity, you see the Deutsch ICE and the Japanese Shinkansen as outdated and technologically irrelevant? I suppose if you are an ardent proponent of superconductivity enabled mag-lev trains, your point is well founded. However, I see your point as not well founded in comparison to eco-friendly buses on the interstate highway system.

As far as the 'tony' communities of today accepting high-speed rail terminals, I think your right. TODAY, if you have a choice of taking train or climbing into an S-class sedan or a stylish Caddy, I greatly suspect that one will choose the latter. Perhaps, I would as well. However, at some point (i.e. TOMORROW), the retirees that dot the landscape of those tony communities will eventually give way to subsequent generations and their acceptance (or not) of these types of public works.

While it is quite likely that we will never agree on how life is unfolding for all of us, I suspect we can agree that subsequent generations rarely apply the same solutions and corresponding outcomes to the age old challenges of transportation and migration less we all take an Amish oath.

Spcwt -

Whether the oil is exported as crude or as refined products doesn't change the conclusion that it is not available to satisfy domestic needs -- because of the business decision by multinational oil companies to send it elsewhere, and not because of any policy by the federal government to limit or discourage domestic production of oil.

@Huh: You are missing the real point of the story: the VOTERS passed a construction bond measure that required a showing of where the operating expenses would come from. Apparently, the HRA has not produced such an operating funding plan yet. Ergo, the building cannot begin.

You seem to be arguing that such a plan is a ridiculous condition precedent to construction and that it does not matter if the project can't pencil out. That is a fundamental difference between us. I don't believe government should blindly assume the obligation of a mind-bogglingly expensive rail line that may be the biggest white elephant in history, sucking money from a failing state until the tracks are covered in dust.

No, "realist," I'm not making your straw man argument. I don't know the details of the lawsuit, any more than you or any of the other posters here do. I'm discussing the general concept, dismissed with such disdain by the majority of the "what's in it for me" crowd, that government funding of a transportation alternative to current methods which (a) use a lot more energy per passenger mile traveled, and (b) require mobile energy sources (generally, petroleum based products) should be automatically scoffed at.

I'm aware that corporations have sophisticated, well-funded PR operations. And I'm aware that the major participants in the status quo of personal transportation - oil companies, auto manufacturers, airplane manufacturers and operators - are adept at flooding the public with slick soundbites designed to erode support for anything that will make the nation a better place for future generations but hurt their bottom lines in the short term. That's why I bring up facts that those of you who have drunk the adroitly served corporate KoolAde don't think about: bottom line, high speed rail transit is more efficient than cars and planes, energy-wise. There's really no question about that, or any way that can change given realistic projections for advances in technology. The physics of the matter is immutable.

If we invest in the infrastructure to make it possible, every single human being who travels from the Bay Area to the Los Angeles basin using that train will get there using less energy than they possibly could using any other means of transportation. And a lot of people will be making that trip in future decades. That's a lot of energy saved and available for other uses. Building the tracks is an investment in the future - and those of us who have children care about the future.

Now, will someone invent a transporter beam? Yeah, that would change things (maybe.) But barring that level of paradigm shift, a high speed train is the Bay Bridge/BART/interstate highway of the 21st century. That's pretty simple. Is there room to quibble over the details? Always is. But the folks posting above aren't discussing details. They're just indulging in stale government bashing and repeating corporate soundbites. "Drill, baby, drill!"

This isn't the 20th century anymore. That tired routine is played out. Planning for last century isn't smart - it's selfish.