SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The California High Speed Rail Authority responded strongly on Monday to a Federal Railroad Administration intent to cancel funding and seek the return of federal grants, calling it “unwarranted, unprecedented, and harmful” to the state and nation.
Those were the words of Brian Kelly, CEO of the authority, in a statement accompanying the two letters in response to the FRA’s announced plan to cancel $929 million in funds and seek the return of another $2.6 billion in grants. [See “Will California have to return high speed rail money to feds?” Trains News Wire, Feb. 22, 2019.]
In a 10-page letter to Jamie Rennert, director of the Office of Program Delivery at the FRA, Kelly responded to each of the points laid out in the FRA notice. A separate letter to Administrator Ron Batory emphasized that “Governor Newsom is committed to building a transformative, visionary high speed rail project in full compliance with federal grant requirements.” Kelly also stated that the authority is “making progress” and has “met its commitments” in accord with the terms of the federal grants.
Kelly outlined the state’s commitment to completing a high speed rail link from downtown Bakersfield to Merced as an early operating segment. He warned that termination of federal funding would put at risk 2,600 jobs in the Central Valley and impact 488 small businesses that have worked on the project.
“It is hard to imagine how your agency — or the taxpayers — might benefit from partially constructed assets sitting stranded in the Central Valley of California,” Kelly wrote. “This infrastructure legacy would be a travesty forever.”
Sean Jeans-Gail, vice president of policy for the Rail Passengers Association in Washington, told Trains News Wire that they hoped the U.S. Department of Transportation would approach California’s response “with an open mind.” But, he added, “It certainly seems like they had already made up their mind on which way the project was trending based on their initial letter.”
Charles Landey, with all due respect, I disagree. There is a lot of HSR infrastructure in California’s central San Joaquin Valley that has already been built. The latest plan is to construct between Bakersfield and Merced – a distance of 171 rail miles based on the route chosen.
It doesn’t make sense to let the infrastructure already built go unused. I say finish construction between those two city pairs and let Amtrak “San Joaquin” trains run in that section. By my calculations there will be enough money secured based on estimated proceeds from the Cap-and-Trade auctions (California HSR gets 25% of auction proceeds) to complete that 171 miles. It should be noted that 119 miles between Shafter (north of Bakersfield) and Madera (south of Merced) is estimated to cost $10.6 billion, according to what I remember reading in the 2018 California High-Speed Rail Business Plan.
Provided the 171 miles gets built and Amtrak “San Joaquin” trains are allowed to use what will be a dedicated double-track, fully grade separated right-of-way, with presumed diesel-powered trains operating at a maximum of, what, 125 miles per hour, there is no question in my mind that with the upgraded, faster, smoother service provided, not only will current ridership numbers be preserved, but a whole slew of new riders will thus add to the existing ridership ranks. Keep in mind the Valley’s population is growing at an annual rate of 1.29 percent. As such, area roads will be harder- and harder-pressed to keep up with the road-based public travel demand.
Incidentally, in 1974 when Amtrak service in the San Joaquin Valley first began, there was but one round trip per day. Today that figure has ballooned to seven if not eight daily and as far as I’m aware, passenger train travel in the Golden State is expanding, not the opposite.
Finally, I wholeheartedly believe that once train riders see first-hand the benefits of enhanced, higher-speed train travel, the demand to have the service expanded farther north (to Modesto, Stockton and perhaps Sacramento if not west to San Francisco Bay Area points) will be there.
Connecting The Los Angeles Basin to The San Joaquin Valley by rail is something that California should have done years ago as it is a glaring omission in the state’s transportation system. This should be done now with conventional trains with the hope that in the future California can get its’ act together and choose a viable route for access to LA. Having a couple of The San Joaquin trains originate at Barstow to connect with The Southwest Chief would be a start and would provide valuable connections. Another option of cooperating with Union Pacific for use of The Palmdale-Colton cut-off should be investigated as well. High Speed Rail from The San Joaquin Valley to LA would be great and hopefully,someday it can come to fruition,but until it can,there are other ways to connect the two areas and no more time should be wasted in doing so.
Charles: No need to apologize. The mistake was mine. My apologies to you. Thank you for clarifying.
That said, I would like to add that more Californians looking at the state high-speed rail project need to come forward and argue for its continuation. If this were a highway being built, facing similar hurdles, residents would be advocating in droves for its furtherance.
If this project isn’t advanced and California high-speed rail doesn’t ultimately come to fruition, then a tremendous opportunity will have been missed and the book on high-speed rail in the Golden State will be forever closed.
As I see it, California high-speed rail is not too big to fail.
I am so sick of California talking out of both sides of its mouth on this issue. I am so sick of California blaming the federals for its own mess, and acting like a spoiled teenager having the car keys taken away.
As far as I’m concerned California can take a hike and we can permanently revert to the 49-star flag we so briefly had for a few months in 1960. Or else we could take Guam/ Northern Marianas as a 50th state giving us (hopefully) two Republican senators to replace the two departing Democrat senators from California. Also redistributing California’s 50 or so members of the House of Representatives among the other states would allow the Republicans to take back the house.
California keeps telling us how rich and prosperous it is, and how much they contribute to the wealth of the nation as a whole. That’s nonsense. If they are so rich and prosperous they can go off on their own and become Northern Venezuela in a couple of months.
I’m also sick of RPA (I’m a NARP member for close to 50 years) supporting those socialist thugs in Sacramento.
I’ve not been to California in 24 years, haven’t missed it for a minute. If I ever have the misfortune to return, I have a valid USA passport.
In 1860-61 we couldn’t let South Carolina and the other ten traitor states go, because that would have perpetuated the problem of slavery. This is a different issue. Traitor California can leave and we will be better off without it.
ALAN _ Your first sentence is that “with all due respect you disagree with me”. I’m sorry if I mis-spoke or wasn’t clear. What you post is pretty much the way I see it. Best day to you!
So he is saying – “we lied about the price to get the funding and now, when the available money only gets it half done, you should give us the money even though we lied because leaving it half done would be a shame.” What’s that saying “fooled once, shame on you, fooled twice, shame on me”.
He’s also saying – “Hey all you taxpayers across the nation, give us money so we can keep our California people employed”. The way I look at it, I’m a taxpayer and that’s my money. I’d rather spend it in my locality and keep my friends and neighbors employed. I don’t want you to take my money and spend it in California.
“Transformative” and “visionary.” Right… . When anyone uses them, beware. These words typically are used to describe any impractical, “pie-in-the-sky” project. It would be more convincing to try to defend CHSR in meaningful, realistic terms.
I thought Gov. Newsom cancelled the project ….
Memo to California. We owe you nothing. You owe us a refund on the money we already gave you.
Memo to California. If your state is as rich and as dominant as you claim to be, then build the thing with your own money.
BTW I surely hope it’s NOT unprecedented for the government to withhold money from a rotten project.
But, but, but, you can’t take the money back, it would bu bu bu be a travesty! It’s unprecedented!
Actually it isn’t.
There is a $2b dollar hole in central Texas where the US cancelled the new particle accelerator (SSC). Projected to cost $4.4b costs skyrocketed to $12b. The money was reallocated to cover the costs of the International Space Station redesign.
I think we can survive this “travesty”.
Using a line from the movie: “Bourne Legacy”
To Mr. Brian Kelly (the CEO): “You were given a Ferrari, you treated like a lawn mover. You break it, you bought it! It was ever thus.”
Let me explain it to high speed rail CEO this way, your Great Uncle has given you the money to buy a new Cadillac, and you decided instead to buy a Ford Focus, would you be surprised if your Great Uncle asked for a least part of his money back? Seems right to me!
Gerald, about once a day I post that California has done a great job with Amtrak, more than any other state. Compare a 1971 Amtrak timetable to a 2019 Amtrak timetable, the difference in California is beyond stunning. Nor is Amtrak the whole story. Add in the commuter trains Metrolink, the Coaster, ACE, etc.
Unfortunately, geography has created some gaps: the San Joaquin Valley to San Jose and San Francisco; and Bakersfield to Los Angeles. I’d love to see those gaps filled in with decent train service at reasonable headways and travel times. My confidence in CalHSRA to accomplish that is zero.
California was on the right path with incremental improvements but blew it with CalHSRA. Sadly, Governor Brown, who is a man of great character, great accomplishment, and fine intelligence, simply lost his way. The minority Republicans told him so, but unfortunately no one in the majority party had the guts to take Governor Brown aside and say, Jerry, you can do better than this.
Gerald, rather than defend your California, why don’t you just admit they have made an awful mistake.
How many millions in overruns were they aiming have to begin with?
The Governor shut down the project for very good reasons but these bureaucrats want the gravy train (other people’s money) to keep right on rolling along. If the Governor cancelled this project, then CHSR should be disbanded.
So, it appears many of you seem to know exactly how our government works in relation to money. In reality a half dozen states provide over 50% of the Federal budget, but don’t get their investment back, in fact they are in negative territory(for those that say California should fund HSR itself). Those half dozen states provide all the money that is funneled into all of the Southern states(they couldn’t afford to pay their way out of a wet paper bag).
Ridership…let’s take Charles example, I believe he was using LA – SD as saying it has adequate(note: ADEQUATE, his word, not mine) service and the current numbers of rider is “100.0”. If anyone has been between those two cities during a normal work week anytime between the hours of 0500 – 2000(aka 5 am to 8 pm) then you would know vehicular traffic is horrendous(there’s a reason carpool hours in Southern California are 24/7). Could ridership in HSR on this route reach a hypothetical “125.0, 150.0 or even 200.0”. Certainly it could, would it, that is something you really can’t answer until you have the service, but you have to factor in these conditions: cost of the vehicle + vehicle operating expenses + convenience vs. ride share + relaxation + cost of service + being able to work while commuting + reduced vehicle operating expenses. The question you have to ask yourself is this: why does anyone choose to take what would essentially be transit over their personal vehicle? If you can answer that then you know whether or not the service would be used by more than the current clientele.
As much as it pains me suffer the loss and get on with. I don’t expect HSR as long as the freeways are running!
One more thins about the ridership “projections” (or outright lies, whichever term you use). Parts (admittedly, parts) of the HSR route already have adequate service. Like the San Diego trains. The question is, how many ADDITIONAL riders. Let’s call the existing San Diego riders “100.0”. It’s a very, very, very good number. My question is, no matter how many $$$$$ California pours into that portion of the corridor, how high can that number get. Can it get to 125.0? Or 150.0? I don’t know.
Admittedly San Diego is a low priority compared to currently less served or unserved portions of the route, like the Central Valley to San Jose and on to downtown SF. Or Bakersfield to the LA Basin. In those portions, there’s plenty of room for growth. Nonetheless, San Diego was part of the snow job to get this boondoggle past the voters. I didn’t put San Diego on the list; Governor Brown did.
California broke the deal. They should give the money back on a platter. Clearly the lack the honor to deal honestly
This is awesome. I don’t have to comment at all. You guys say it so much better than I could.