California High-Speed Rail Authority Board of Directors Meeting, March 16, 2023
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 มี.ค. 2023
- 1. Consider Approving the February 16, 2023, Board Meeting Minutes
2. Expenditure Authorization Request
3. Economic Impact Analysis Report
4. CEO Report
- Program Update
- Federal Grant Strategy
5. Finance and Audit Committee Report
6. Closed Session
The Authority will meet in closed session pursuant to Government Code section 11126(e)(1)&(2)(A) and (B) to confer with counsel with regard to the following litigation:
- Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority v. California High-Speed Rail Authority (Sacramento Superior Court Case No.34-2022-80003821)
- City of Millbrae v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District; Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board; California High-Speed Rail Authority (San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 22-CIV-02713)
- City of Brisbane v. California High-Speed Rail Authority (Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2022-80004010)
- Baylands Development, Inc. v. California High-Speed Rail Authority (Sacramento Superior Court, Case No. 34-2022-80004009)
- City of Millbrae v. California High-Speed Rail Authority (Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2022-80004016)
- Arbitration in the matter of HSR13-57- Construction Package (CP) 2-3 Dragados/Flatiron Joint Venture
To the CHSRA staff, can you please link the slide shows in the agenda area?
4:20 Public Comments
10:00 2. Expenditure Authorization Request by Brian Annis and Daniel Horgan
1:18:35 3. Economic Impact Analysis Report by Derek Boughton
1:35:18 4. CEO Report by Brian Kelly
- Program Update
- Federal Grant Strategy
1:59:40 5. Finance and Audit Committee Report
We need to crash some billionaire’s dinner party and convince them to donate a few of their billions to high speed rail after a few bottles of wine.
That's a great idea! Sell them 'ego' naming rights for stations, tunnels, bridges, plazas, lounges, platforms, engines, cars, and even restrooms.
No major changes in the budget compared to the presentations made at the last Board Meeting, but at the very least this is a case of no news being good news. I just wish the FRA wasn't such a black box when it comes to federal grant processes or even grant timelines. All anyone knows is that the decisions are expected sometime within the coming months which just sounds unnecessarily difficult for project managers to deal with. On a related note, 10/10 chart design at 1:41:58. I know it was in the last meeting, but it really does help the public get an idea of the Authority's Federal Grant Strategy.
I think the figure is meant to convey the many steps and relative closeness of merced-bakersfield completion (pending grants only)
Why should federal taxpayers across the country pay for these idiots failure?
@@rickhicks6833 California pays $7 billion more in federal taxes than the state receives in benefits every year. If this project gets the $1.6 billion per year for 5 years from the federal government like it's requesting, California will still be a net donor to the US national budget by over $5 billion per year. In other words, Californians are more than paying for this entire project including the federal funding they are requesting.
@@brandonk9706 There is a lot of competition for the grants. CAHSR may get $4.5 B with $3.5 B going to Brightline West or others (*)for iinstance. * Cascades HSR, Texas Central, Midwest HSR, Utah's Frontrunner or NM's RailRunner. PS --Think how much of the military budget goes to California. That alone would offset your argument.
@@davidjackson7281 California contributes 15% of the total GDP of the United States. The IIJA (where this grant money is coming from) allocated $103 billion for rail and public transit projects. California is asking for $8 billion here which is 7.8% of the funding that was made available. If anything, they should ask for a more equal slice relative to what the state is putting into to the national budget.
Regarding the military and national defense work, that's a nationwide benefit that isn't allocated by state. If there were better research, development, training, and national defense opportunities in some other state then I would fully expect the military to allocate its budget where it makes the most sense. Complaining that the military spending money in California is somehow unfair is like getting upset that most software engineering companies choose to setup shop in Silicon Valley. It's not unfair, it's a competitive economy driven by the best opportunities for the organizations which includes the military and its contractors.
Imagine if we funded 10,000 workers. Just build it, and the benefits will come.
Imagine if CAHSR had a construction budget of $5+ B/yr vs $1 B. The San Joaquins ridership decreased from 1.2 M in 2014 to 1 M in 2019.
Imagine if the IOS ridership doubled this route's ridership to a realistic 2 M rather than the original inflated ridership projection of 8 million, hence reduced last month to still a fantasy of 6 M.
When are one of these multi-billionaires like Bill Gates going to take a small loss and donate a few of their billions to CAHSR? Even if he became a multi-millionaire he would still have enough money to live out the rest of his days in luxury and would still never have to worry about not affording anything.
@@davidjackson7281 this aged poorly
@@darthmaul216why
Ok, the cost increases hurt, but you can't do much about inflation. Overall, the future looks pretty bright for CAHSR. Hopefully, they keep making solid progress like they have in the last couple of years.
yes
Hahaha, they still need a $100 billion to finish it. And they are already admitting they lied about ridership and costs. What a joke.
@@rickhicks6833 Infrastructure is expensive, but compare that to last quarter's military budget. The freeway system got built frankly because "defense" was in the title of the bill
@lucaspadilla4815 and how much freeway could have been built for the cost of just what's already been spent. They've already reduced expected ridership by 1/3, and increased expected ticket prices by 1/3. They moved the dates of operation out to 2030, just for 117 miles in the middle of the valley. With total completion not until 2040. Hell we'll have flying cars first.
@@rickhicks6833 They've spent just under $10 billion as of March 2023. A simple ten mile highway bypass in an urban area ca cost 10-20 billion.
So probably no more than 10-20 miles of highway for the cost of the 80+ miles of CAHSR right of way that they have built so far in the Central Valley. More CAHSR work has been done on the Caltrain corridor alone, which is a tiny fraction of the CAHSR budget.
These calculations have all been done before. Highways are insanely expensive. Most people seem to forget that. Look up I-76 construction for a good example of a multi-decade highway project. It ain't pretty to say the least. CAHSR is a paragon of efficiency compared to highway construction.
Oneday the naysayers will be proud of California when the train starts running at 200 m/hr. Patiently waiting for that!!! 👍
It won't run at 200 mph, a lot has already been designated for slower speeds. And that the design of the track, not actual train speed.
@@rickhicks6833 What I understand it will not run at 200 mph where it is using the existing tracks. But new tracks are designed for max speed. Is that wrong? What prevents them from designing the new tracks for max speed (220mph)?
@@sabymondal becuse of the safety factor. Your car is designed for much more than 100 mph, but you don't drive at that speed.
@@rickhicks6833 Even the old Eurostar train has operational speed of 186 mph on most of its track. In china, japan they have even much higher operational speed. If a high speed train cant have high speed, why are we spending tens of billions on dollars on it? It does not make sense. Do you have the actual info, or this is your assumption?
@@sabymondal The design speed of the track being built right now in California is 250 mph. There is a safety factor as Rick mentioned which is why the operational speed is being planned for 220 mph in the Central Valley.
"50 BILLION DOLLARS... OR 11 DAYS WORTH OF DEFENSE SPENDING" POP OFF KING
dude get it done!
Today in English class I did a Ted talk on CAHSR
Edit: th-cam.com/video/pzTtzEBbTso/w-d-xo.html
That's great! For it or against it? Any deadline predictions?
@@davidjackson7281 for it, Deadline predictions: phase 1 estimated completion of 2033. Caltrain electrification completion of 2024. I recorded it so I might post it on youtube. Hopefully I didn’t say anything wrong
@@readyredpanda127 I am sure you could not have said anything wrong lol. Why not post it on TH-cam? That would be nice to see. When you refer to 'phase 1' do you mean SF-LA or Merced-Bakersfield?
@@davidjackson7281 phase 1: sf-la
@@readyredpanda127 Oh oh, I was afraid of that. But that's OK for a talk because it can sound reasonable to most since it is still so far off timewise. 2033 might be tough because 55 miles of tunnels will need to be built. Some may disagree with me, anyway. The newest projected updated range date for the IOS 171 mile section is 2030-2035. Phase 1 is 500 miles. Atleast at your age you have a chance to ride it. lol
We the high speed rail is done
My worrisome concern is CAHSR's $8 Billion grant request from the BIL. Though $66 Billion seems like a lot and it is the largest ever by far for passenger rail service it has a lot of pent-up demand and competition for funding.
$22 Billion will be for the NEC to repair and replace 125 year-old tunnels and bridges and upgrade some track north of NY to increase speed. Also, south of NY infrastructure work will upgrade track to achieve higher speeds. $22 Billion will go to national Amtrak projects ranging from improving existing routes to reestablishing old discontinued routes and for creating much needed new routes. That leaves $22 Billion (maybe less) for all of the other state, regional, intercity, and local transit needs.
A lot agencies will be submitting grant requests. I think the most CAHSR can hope for being granted is $4.5 Billion over a 5-10 year period. The balance will have to come from the state, making the build-out slower. Last thought: The cap and trade tax credit program sunsets in 2030. What is the likelihood it will be extended? What will the revenue be? Will companies even need to purchase such tax credts by then?
First of all, we've all seen you commenting on these rail videos. You're a certified Brightline concern troll. We all know that you are just trying to stir up some crap concerning CAHSR.
Second, the NEC has already got more money than it can absorb. They have enough money to upgrade a ton of the NEC to 160 mph and maybe even some sections to 180 mph in some mid-term future. They simply cannot apply for more Federal funds because they don't have the matching funds necessary for most of these grants. They're all full.
The money that CAHSR will compete for will be for non-NEC projects. CAHSR is the only HSR project under construction in the country. And it's the only rail project funded by the state to the tune of 80-85%. It is an extremely strong contender simply because none of the other states are willing to put their money where their mouths are. California is the state that is the most serious about rail expansion. It's only fair that California gets the bulk of the money.
Sounds about right to me. The number one thing for me about wanting to extend cap and trade allocation to 2050 is that its a tacit admission that they won't be done by then.
@@LucidStew So you concede that you just want to cancel this project and are basically just trolling? Lol 😁😁😁
I look foward to riding on the CAHSR from the SF Transit Center to Disneyland in less than 3 hours for $101 by 2025.
Don't you also look forward to riding Brightline West by "the second half of 2024" at 150mph?
No? Just me?
You need to look up there projected time line. You may be able to make that trip in 2035. And the already said the cost for tickets was under estimated.
@@rickhicks6833 The cost for tickets will be market rate. This is what the voters wanted when they approved this project.
The cost of tickets on CAHSR will depend on flight prices and gas prices. Given that our airports are dramatically over capacity already, the projected cost of CAHSR tickets may be going up.
But again, this is what the voters wanted and what they passed in the bond measure.
@TohaBgood2 the administration lied to them in the bond measure. And their data said they would save 19.8 gallons of gas per round trip. But have since reduced ridership expectations by 1/3rd. So between that and electric cars, they won't be saving anything.
@@rickhicks6833 The electric car transition will take decades. All of Musk's deadlines have come and passed. The trains that they buy will be fully retired before all the existing and still being sold gas cars are fully retired. Plus, battery cars are less than 50% as efficient as catenary powered trains because they have to carry and entire car's weight in batteries. This analysis was done for battery trains too. Same result.
And where did you get the "1/3rd" reduction in ridership from? What is your source exactly? I can't find that number anywhere except a few right wing propaganda outlets, but no source.
Did you all just make that number up like usual? Or is there at least some, however tenuous, relationship to reality this time?
I eagerly await the finger pointing once the lawsuits fly when this fails................and it will
See Big Dig in Boston, corruption never dies, it just has a tan in California
sound is really bad, economic analysis does not include loss of local economic growth in millbrae and brisbane.
“45-day holiday”. Ah.
What?
Not to speculate but perhaps Ernie Camacho was disappointed in the system's 'progress' and resigned until he was persuaded to rejoin.