California's controversial and increasingly expensive high-speed-rail system will be the subject of a public hearing hosted by Assemblyman Rich Gordon in Palo Alto next Tuesday (Nov. 15).
Gordon, D-Menlo Park, will lead a discussion on the California High Speed Rail Authority's newly released business plan, which shows the project's estimated price tag rising to $98.5 billion from an initial projection of $37 billion and its timeline for completion extended from 2020 to 2033. The business plan also lays out the rail authority's proposal to phase the construction of the rail line and its strategy for getting the needed funding. The strategy relies largely on federal grants and tax credits, along with $11 billion in private investment. State voters had approved a $9.95 billion bond measure for the project in 2008.
Gordon, who earlier this year championed a "blended system" under which high-speed rail and Caltrain would share tracks on the Peninsula, chairs the Assembly's Budget Subcommittee 3, which oversees Resources and Transportation agencies. He said in a statement that the hearing will serve as a forum for the rail authority to "present the business plan, receive public input, and identify key areas of concern that may require further analysis."
Gordon was one of many state officials who expressed concern about the rail project's swelling price tag in the new business plan.
"I find the business plan comprehensive, but there are still questions that remain unanswered -- including how the Authority plans to pay for the nearly $100 billion project," Gordon said in a statement. "Myriad concerns have been relayed by residents locally and across the State, and I look forward to their comments and the Authority's presentation at next week's hearing."
Jim Hartnett, a member of the rail authority's board of directors, is scheduled to join Gordon at the meeting, which will take place between 3 and 4:30 p.m. on Nov. 15 at City Hall (250 Hamilton Ave.).
The plan is widely viewed as a major improvement over the rail authority's 2009 effort, a plan that was panned by a host of nonpartisan agencies and watchdogs.
The local watchdog group Californians Advocating for Responsible Rail Design (CARRD) also blasted the new plan for using the same methodology for the rail system's ridership projections as the earlier version. The group has consistently argued that the agency's methodology is flawed that that its numbers are inflated. The Institute for Transportation Studies at UC Berkley has also criticized the rail authority's earlier ridership projections, which are largely unchanged in the new document.
Nadia Naik, a co-founder of CARRD, said her group "strongly encourages the public to take advantage of this wonderful opportunity to speak directly to legislators about the California High-Speed Rail project.
"The project is at a critical juncture and attendees can both hear testimony about how things are going and offer their own ideas and comments to lawmakers," Naik said in a statement.
Related story:
• Price tag swells for high-speed-rail project (Tuesday, Nov. 1)
Comments
Blossom Valley
on Nov 8, 2011 at 3:11 pm
on Nov 8, 2011 at 3:11 pm
It seems the main idea behind high speed rail was to get from the Bay Area to LA, perhaps to compete with the airlines.
The proposed path zig zags through the state, and goes over high mountains. Plus it divides communities and farmland.
A rail line already exists between the Bay Area and LA. It goes along to coast through Santa Barbara. Why not just upgrade it? The land is already dedicated and it goes all the way to San Diego and up to Seattle.
Rex Manor
on Nov 8, 2011 at 4:46 pm
on Nov 8, 2011 at 4:46 pm
Let's face it. We really do need HSR in the state. But to see it finished in 2033 instead of 2020, I may be dead by then as I will be 88 then. In 2020 I could still use it.
Blossom Valley
on Nov 8, 2011 at 5:24 pm
on Nov 8, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Heard an interesting comment today re: HSR in this state
compared to like systems in other countries - there are very few, if any, vehicle crossings along their corridors. And, the initial "dream"(??) was to build this thing down the Peninsula.
No concern for pedestrians and vehicle traffic here!!
As I've noted here in the past, thank the Committee and send them
on their way. Nuf' said!!!