California High-Speed Rail

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
California High-Speed Rail

FLV California train.jpg


California High Speed Rail.svg

Artist's rendering CHSR trainset and livery
Background
Locale California
Transit type High-speed rail
Daily ridership 260,000 (CHSRA projection)[1]
Website www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov
Operation
Operator(s) TBD
Technical
System length 800+ mi (1,300+ km) (proposed)[2]
Top speed 220 mph (350 km/h)[3]

The California High-Speed Rail project is a planned high-speed rail system in the state of California and headed by the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA). Initial funding for the project was approved by California voters on November 4, 2008, with the passage of Proposition 1A authorizing the issuance of US$9.95 billion in general obligation bonds for the project. The CHSRA is currently tasked with completing final planning, design, and environmental efforts. The system would serve major cities including Sacramento, Stockton, San Francisco, San Jose, Fresno, Bakersfield, Palmdale, Los Angeles, Anaheim, Riverside, Irvine, and San Diego.

On July 6, 2012, the California legislature approved construction financing for an initial stage of the project. Gov. Jerry Brown signed the bill on July 18.[4] The funding approved includes $4.5 billion in bonds previously approved by voters, which, in turn, freed up $3.2 billion in federal funding that would otherwise have expired after July 6. $2.6 billion will be used to build an initial 130-mile (209 km) segment of high-speed line from Madera to Bakersfield in the Central Valley. This initial operating segment will be used when completed for Amtrak's San Joaquin service. Another $1.9 billion will be used to improve existing commuter rail systems, Caltrain (Gilroy-San Francisco (Gilroy-Tamien new trackage due to existing right-of-way being freight-owned)) in the San Francisco area, and Metrolink in LA (Los Angeles-Anaheim (new trackage would have to be built since the existing trackage between the two cities is the BNSF Railway-owned Southern Transcon)), which will later be used to carry the high speed trains into the respective city centers.[5] This blended approach was adopted in a revised CHSRA business plan approved in April 2012, and is expected to reduce construction costs while providing one seat city to city service sooner. The revised plan promises to give priority to closing the gap in passenger rail service between Bakersfield and the Los Angeles area.[6] The plan estimates final cost at Year-Of-Expenditure (YOE) $68 billion for the Phase 1 project, connecting San Francisco with Los Angeles via Central Valley and Palmdale.[7]

Contents

History[edit]

1980s

Plans for a high speed train system linking Northern and Southern California were proposed by Governor Jerry Brown in the 1980s.

1990s

In 1996, the California High-Speed Rail Authority was established to begin formal planning in preparation for a ballot measure in 1998 or 2000.

2000s

The ballot measure was originally scheduled to be put before voters in the 2004 general election, however, the state legislature voted twice to move it back, first to 2006, and finally to 2008 when voters approved the issuing of bonds with 52.7% voting in favor.

The cost of the initial San Francisco-to-Anaheim segment was originally estimated by the CHSRA to be $33 billion (2008) / $35.2 billion (2013),[8] but a revised business plan released in November 2011 by the CHSRA put the cost at $65.4 billion (2010) / $68.9 billion (2013) / $98.5 billion (YOE). The latest plan has revised the costs down to $53.4 billion (2011) / $54.5 billion (2013) / $68.4 billion (YOE).[9] An implementation plan approved in August 2005 estimated that it would take eight to eleven years to "develop and begin operation of an initial segment of the California high-speed train."[10] It would have also shared tracks with Caltrain and Metrolink using a quadruple track configuration.

2010s

On December 2, 2010, the CHSRA board voted to begin construction on the first 54 mi (87 km) of the system 3 mi (4.8 km) south of Madera at Borden, and continue through downtown Fresno to Corcoran.[11] On December 20, 2010, with the infusion of an additional $616 million in federal funds reallocated from states that canceled their high-speed rail plans, the initial segment of construction was extended to Bakersfield. Another $300 million was reallocated on May 9, 2011, extending the funded portion north to the future Chowchilla Wye, so that the train can be turned.[12] Construction is expected to begin in July 2013.[13]

In September 2012, the Obama administration gave California's high speed rail project the green light. President Obama put the project on a fast track. President Obama's plan would streamline the permitting process for the 114-mile (183 km) section of the project which starts just North of Fresno in Madera County and runs South to Bakersfield. The White House says it will shave six months off the construction time.[14]

Route[edit]

Map of proposed route, also including the planned XpressWest (formerly DesertXpress) to Las Vegas
Proposed route
Sacramento
Stockton
Modesto
Merced
San Francisco
SFO Airport (via Millbrae)
Redwood City/Palo Alto/Mountain View
San Jose
Gilroy
Fresno
Hanford (proposed)
Bakersfield
Proposed XpressWest to Las Vegas
Palmdale
Sylmar
Burbank
Los Angeles
Norwalk
Anaheim
Irvine
Industry
Ontario
Riverside
Temecula/Murrieta
Escondido
University City
San Diego
References:[15]

The system will extend from San Francisco and Sacramento, via the Central Valley, to Los Angeles and San Diego via the Inland Empire. As planned, the track from San Francisco to Los Angeles would be 432 miles (695 km) long.[16] Proposed stations are shown on the right,[17] with stations on the initial San Francisco-Los Angeles-Anaheim route given in bold.[18] San Diego officials have expressed desire to have the route potentially extend to its South Bay cities and border with Tijuana to capitalize on the economic opportunities.[19] On July 2, 2009, U.S. transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced extension of the California high-speed rail XpressWest corridor to Las Vegas, Nevada.[20] In January, 2012, CHSR released a study, started in May 2011, that favors a route through Antelope Valley over one that parallels Interstate 5.[21]

Diablo Range crossing track alignment[edit]

One issue initially debated was the crossing of the Diablo Range via either the Altamont Pass or the Pacheco Pass to link the Bay Area to the Central Valley. On November 15, 2007, CHSRA staff recommended that the High Speed Rail follow the Pacheco Pass route because it is more direct and serves both San Jose and San Francisco on the same route, while the Altamont route poses several major engineering obstacles, including crossing San Francisco Bay. Some cities along the Altamont route, such as Pleasanton and Fremont, opposed the Altamont route option, citing concerns over possible property taking and increase in traffic congestion.[22] However, environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, have opposed the Pacheco route because the area is less developed and more environmentally sensitive than Altamont.[23]

On December 19, 2007, the CHSRA Board agreed to proceed with the Pacheco Pass option.[24] Pacheco Pass was considered the superior route for long-distance travel between Southern California and the Bay Area, although the Altamont Pass option would serve as a good commuter route. The CHSRA plans conventional rail improvements for the Altamont corridor, to complement the high-speed project.

The choice of alignment has been the subject of litigation and according to the Revised 2012 Business Plan, the CHSRA plans to "consider the entire record" and "make a new decision on the network alternative for connecting the Bay Area with the Central Valley." (Ibid. p. 2-35)

Segments[edit]

San Francisco to San Jose[edit]

The 50-mile (80 km) bookend from San Francisco to San Jose currently used by Caltrain is scheduled to be electrified by 2020. High speed trains will run at reduced speeds on this segment beginning with Bay to Basin in 2026, and then on dedicated HSR infrastructure for Phase 1 Blended in 2029.

San Jose to Merced[edit]

The 125 miles (201 km) from San Jose to Merced, crossing the Pacheco Pass, will run on dedicated HSR tracks for Bay to Basin in 2026 (since the current right of way south of Tamien is freight-owned).

Merced to Fresno[edit]

The 60-mile (97 km) segment from Merced to Fresno in the Central Valley will run on dedicated HSR tracks for the Initial Operating Section in 2022.

Fresno to Bakersfield[edit]

The 114-mile (183 km) Fresno to Bakersfield segment in the Central Valley will run on dedicated HSR tracks for the Initial Operating Section in 2022.

Bakersfield to Palmdale[edit]

The 85 miles (137 km) from Bakersfield to Palmdale, crossing the Tehachapi Pass, will run on dedicated HSR tracks for the Initial Operating Section in 2022.

Palmdale to Los Angeles[edit]

The 58-mile (93 km) bookend from Palmdale to Los Angeles, crossing the San Gabriel Mountains, will run on dedicated HSR tracks for Phase 1 Blended in 2029. XpressWest has plans to connect to Palmdale, and have passengers transfer to the Metrolink system to access the Los Angeles area, for their Los Angeles to Las Vegas high speed service in 2016.

Los Angeles to Anaheim[edit]

The 29 miles (47 km) from Los Angeles to Anaheim will run on an upgraded Metrolink corridor for Phase 1 Blended in 2029.

Los Angeles to San Diego[edit]

The 167 miles (269 km) from Los Angeles to San Diego will be built in Phase 2.

Merced to Sacramento[edit]

The 110 miles (177 km) from Merced to Sacramento will be built in Phase 2.

Travel times[edit]

High-speed trains will provide door-to-door travel times comparable to airplanes and less than one-half as long as car travel. Below is a sample of travel times throughout the state.[25]

Segment Distance Travel Time Average Speed
San Francisco to San Jose 48 miles (77 km) 30 minutes 96 mph (154 km/h)
San Jose to Los Angeles 400 miles (644 km) 2 hours 21 minutes 170 mph (274 km/h)
San Francisco to Los Angeles 432 miles (695 km) 2 hours 38 minutes 164 mph (264 km/h)
Sacramento to Los Angeles 412 miles (663 km) 2 hours 17 minutes 180 mph (290 km/h)
San Francisco Airport to Fresno 174 miles (280 km) just over an hour 161 mph (259 km/h)
Bakersfield to Los Angeles 142 miles (229 km) less than 1 hour 155 mph (249 km/h)
Los Angeles to Riverside 68 miles (109 km) 33 minutes 124 mph (200 km/h)
Los Angeles to San Diego 167 miles (269 km) 1 hour 18 minutes 129 mph (208 km/h)
Ontario to San Diego 125 miles (201 km) less than 1 hour 136 mph (219 km/h)

Development schedule[edit]

Animation showing the train in action.

California and Federal ARRA funds are available to complete a 130-mile (209 km) initial segment from Fresno to Bakersfield in the Central Valley by 2017. This segment would connect with BNSF tracks at each end to allow the Amtrak San Joaquin trains to use the line, saving 45 minutes to an hour. The selection of this segment for initial construction was dictated in part by the requirements of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) funding, which stipulates that funding terminates in 2017 and that it be used for “rail passenger transportation except commuter rail passenger transportation." (p. 2-12)

The 2012 Revised Business Plan (Exhibit 2-6)[26] projects the following completion dates for high speed rail segments, assuming additional funding can be obtained:

  • 2021 Merced–Fresno and Bakersfield–Palmdale. Improved Metrolink service would connect Palmdale to Los Angeles Union Station (however, dedicated tracks between Downtown Burbank and Lancaster would have to be built due to the tracks being freight-owned). The Bakersfield–Palmdale segment must cross the Tehachapi Mountains. Currently rail freight between these cities uses a highly circuitous route through the 4000 foot (1200 m) Tehachapi Pass, including the 540 degree Tehachapi Loop. The 2012 Revised Business Plan states that the electrified trains planned for high speed service can follow a more direct route because they can climb steeper grades than Diesel engines.(p. 2-17)
  • 2026 San Jose–Merced. High speed trains would then be able to run between San Francisco, using an electrified Caltrain right of way, and San Fernando Station. Passengers would take Metrolink between San Fernando Station and Los Angeles Union Station. BART, which has plans to extend its service south, would connect San Jose to Oakland. CHSRA calls the resulting level of service "Bay to Basin."
  • 2028 Palmdale–Los Angeles and San Francisco–San Jose. These segments, when complete, will allow a single seat, high speed ride from San Francisco to Los Angeles Union Station. CHSRA calls the resulting level of service "Phase 1 Blended."

No dates are given for the final Phase 1 segment, Los Angeles–Anaheim, or for the Phase 2 segments, Merced–Sacramento and Los Angeles–San Diego.

Benefits[edit]

The 2012 Revised Business Plan estimates that the first segment's construction will "generate 100,000 job-years of employment over five years," with the Phase 1 system requiring 990,000 job-years over 15 years, averaging 66,000 annually.[27] In 2009, the CHSRA projected that construction of the system will create 450,000 permanent jobs through the new commuters that will use the system,[28] and that the Los Angeles-San Francisco route will generate a net operating revenue of $2.23 billion by 2023,[28] consistent with the experience of other high-speed intercity operations around the world.[29] Even Amtrak's semi-high-speed Acela Express service generates an operating surplus that is used to cover operating expenses of other lines.[30] Generally fast trains are more profitable than slow trains since shorter travel time reduces staff costs and customers are willing to pay higher ticket prices for shorter travel times.

Since the trains will be completely grade-separated, there is no threat of interfering with automobile and pedestrian traffic. The project also involves grade-separation for existing rail lines with which it will share rights-of-way along part of its length, further improving safety on these lines and eliminating car traffic delays.(p. 2-7)

Since high-speed trains based on fossil-fuel electricity generation use one-third the energy of airplanes per person and a fifth of that used by cars with one person,[31] California High-Speed Rail will eliminate 12 billion pounds (5.5 million tonnes) of greenhouse gas emissions each year by reducing passenger car and airplane use. This is the equivalent of removing more than one million vehicles from the state's roads and freeways. It will lessen California's dependence on foreign oil by up to 12.7 million barrels per year.[citation needed]

The CHSRA projects that the system will "alleviate the need to spend more than $100 billion to build 3,000 miles (4,800 km) of new freeway, five airport runways, and 90 departure gates."[28]

Criticisms[edit]

In September 2008, Reason Foundation, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the Citizens Against Government Waste groups published "The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report". The report projected that the final cost for the complete system would be $65.2 to $81.4 billion (2008). This is significantly higher than estimates made for the CHSRA by Parsons Brinckerhoff,[citation needed] an American engineering firm. It also projected fewer riders by 2030 than officially estimated: 23.4 to 31.1 million intercity riders a year instead of the 65.5 to 96.5 million forecast by the CHSRA and later confirmed by an independent peer review.[32] The report stated that no existing high-speed rail train currently meets the proposed speed and safety goals, although the safety systems have not been fully specified, and that the reduction in CO2 emissions would be inconsequential. The time required to reach the proposed speeds, the distances between stops, and the fact that for part of the route the high speed trains will travel on regular freight train tracks rather than upgraded high speed rail tracks indicates that attaining the proposed speeds would be difficult between the majority of stops.[33]

The following people were listed in the official voter information guide [34] as opponents for the November 2008 vote: Hon. Chuck DeVore, California State Assemblyman, Richard Tolmach, President California Rail Foundation, Mike Arnold, Ph.D., Co-Chair Marin Citizens for Effective Transportation, Hon. Tom McClintock, State Senator, Hon. George Runner, State Senator, and Jon Coupal, President Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

The California Legislative Analyst's Office published recommendations on May 10, 2011, which they said will help the high-speed rail project be developed successfully. They recommended that the California legislature seek flexibility on use of federal funds and then reconsider where construction of the high-speed rail line should start. They also recommended that the California legislature shift responsibility away from the CHSRA and fund only the administrative tasks of the CHSRA in the 2011–12 budget.[35]

The CHRSA released a revised business plan for the system on November 1, 2011, with a new cost estimate of $65.4 billion (2010 dollars), almost double the initial budget of $33 billion (2008 dollars) approved by referendum, along with a revised completion date was pushed from 2020 to 2033.[36] This latest price estimate by CHSRA of $98.5 billion also says the ultimate price could go as high as $117.5 billion, depending on route and construction features.

The Legislative Analyst's Office published a new report in December 2011 indicating that the incremental development path outlined by CHSRA may not be legal.[37] According to the State Analyst, "Proposition 1A identifies certain requirements that must be met prior to requesting an appropriation of bond proceeds for construction. These include identifying for a corridor, or a usable segment thereof, all sources of committed funds, the anticipated time of receipt of those funds, and completing all project-level environmental clearances for that segment. Our review finds that the funding plan only identifies committed funding for the ICS (San Joaquin Valley segment), which is not a usable segment, and therefore does not meet the requirements of Proposition 1A. In addition, the HSRA has not yet completed all environmental clearances for any usable segment and will not likely receive all of these approvals prior to the expected 2012 date of initiating construction."

In January 2012, an independent peer review panel published a report recommending the Legislature not approve issuing $2.7 billion in bonds to fund the project.[38] The panel of experts was created by state law to help safeguard the public's interest. The report said that moving ahead on the high-speed rail project without credible sources of adequate funding represents a financial risk to California.

Prior to the July 2012 vote, State Senator Joe Simitian, (D-Palo Alto), expressed concerns about financing needed to complete the project, asking: "Is there additional commitment of federal funds? There is not. Is there additional commitment of private funding? There is not. Is there a dedicated funding source that we can look to in the coming years? There is not."[5] The lobbying and advocacy group Train Riders Association of California also considers that Bill SB 1029 "provides no high-speed service for the next decade".[39]

By March 2013, according to a Public Policy Institute of California poll, only 43 percent of likely voters supported the project, a decline of 10 percent from when the measure passed in 2008. [40]

Funding[edit]

On November 4, 2008, California voters approved Proposition 1A, a measure to construct the initial segment of the network. The measure provides $9 billion for the construction of the core segment between San Francisco and Los Angeles/Anaheim, and an additional $950 million for improvements on local railroad systems, which will serve as feeder systems to the planned high-speed rail system.

Financing plans to complete the initial segment require as-yet-unsecured support from federal and local governments, as well as significant investment from the private sector. In a plan developed by the CHSRA in conjunction with Goldman Sachs, the federal commitment was expected to be $12 to $16 billion, while private investors would invest up to $7.5 billion, leaving an additional $10 billion to come from local governments.[41] Construction costs are projected to be approximately $98.5 billion (year of expenditure). The CHSRA projects the initial operating segment to produce a budget surplus which will be used to finance extensions to Sacramento and San Diego.

On October 2, 2009, then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger unveiled California's official application for ARRA high-speed rail stimulus funding. The total amount of the application was $4.7 billion, representing more than half of the $8 billion set aside for high-speed rail. The application included:

  • $2 billion for high-speed train facilities at Los Angeles Union Station, Norwalk Station and the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center; right-of-way acquisition, grade separations, utility relocation, environmental mitigation, earthwork, tunneling and track work between Los Angeles and Anaheim.
  • $1.28 billion for station improvements, grade separations, electrification and other work between San Jose and San Francisco;
  • $819.5 million for right-of-way acquisition, grade separations, utility relocation, environmental mitigation, earthwork and track between Bakersfield and Fresno;
  • $466 million for similar work between Fresno and Merced

On January 28, 2010, the White House announced that California would receive $2.35 billion of its request, of which $2.25 billion was allocated specifically for California High Speed Rail, while the rest was designated for conventional rail improvements.[42]

On October 28, 2010, the federal government awarded the CHSRA a further $900 million for passenger rail improvements, including $715 million specifically for the high speed rail project, but with the requirement that it be used for the Central Valley segments from Merced to Fresno, or Fresno-to-Bakersfield.[43] While the CHSRA recognizes the federal government's desire for the initial segment to be built in the Central Valley, the CHSRA states that it will evaluate the starting segment according to its own criteria. This announcement brings the federal government's funding commitment to high-speed rail projects in California to $4.3 billion.

On December 10, 2010, the Department of Transportation reallocated $1.2 billion in federal high speed rail funding from states that had rejected the stimulus funds, including Wisconsin and Ohio. Nearly half of this funding, $624 million, was redirected to the CHSRA for use on the initial Central Valley leg of the project.[44]

On May 9, 2011, the Department of Transportation reallocated $2 billion in federal high speed rail funding from Florida, which had rejected the funding. The DOT awarded $300 million to the CHSRA for a 20-mile (32 km) extension along the Central Valley Corridor. The work funded in this round will extend the track and civil work from Fresno to the Chowchilla Wye, which will provide a connection to San Jose to the West and Merced to the North.[45] The California High Speed Rail Authority issued a draft Business Plan on November 1, 2011, for public review and comment.[46] The Business Plan will shape the financial and operational implementation of the HSR project, and must be adopted and submitted to the Legislature by January 1, 2012 and every two years thereafter.[47]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Cambridge Systematics Inc. (July 2007). "Bay Area/California High Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study" (PDF). California High-Speed Rail Authority. pp. 71–72. Retrieved 30 December 2012. 
  2. ^ California High-Speed Rail Authority. "Implementation Plan" (PDF). pp. 23, 25. Retrieved July 17, 2008. [dead link]
  3. ^ "Project Vision and Scope". California High-Speed Rail Authority. 2008. Retrieved November 26, 2011. 
  4. ^ Michael Martinez (Thursday, July 19, 2012). "Governor signs law to make California home to nation's first truly high-speed rail". CNN. Retrieved 3 September 2012. 
  5. ^ a b Judy Lin (July 6, 2012). "California High Speed Rail Funding Approved". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 3 September 2012. 
  6. ^ Note: Rail freight uses a circuitous route through the Tehachapi Pass.
  7. ^ California High-Speed Rail Authority (April 2012). California High-Speed Rail Program Revised 2012 Business Plan (.PDF). State of California. p. ES-13. Retrieved 3 September 2012. 
  8. ^ California High-Speed Rail Authority. "California High-Speed Train Business Plan November 2008" (PDF). Retrieved April 4, 2013. 
  9. ^ http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/challenges-remain-calif-high-speed-rail-plan-16743474#.T_v1mY7qs1I[dead link]
  10. ^ California High-Speed Rail Authority. "Implementation Plan" (PDF). pp. 23, 25. Retrieved March 29, 2012. 
  11. ^ "California High-Speed Rail Authority Approves Starting Point for Statewide Construction" (Press release). California High-Speed Rail Authority. December 2, 2010. Retrieved December 5, 2010. 
  12. ^ "High-Speed Rail Authority Approves State Matching Funds to Extend Backbone of Statewide System" (Press release). California High-Speed Rail Authority. December 20, 2010. Retrieved January 8, 2010. 
  13. ^ "High Speed Rail works to attract help from Valley businesses". ABC. March 26, 2013. Retrieved May 6, 2013. 
  14. ^ http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=8820269
  15. ^ "Interactive Map". California High-Speed Rail Authority. 2010. Retrieved December 19, 2010. 
  16. ^ http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/trip_planner.aspx
  17. ^ CA High-Speed Rail Authority. "Interactive Map". Retrieved March 29, 2012. 
  18. ^ California High-Speed Rail Authority. "Phasing Plan" (PDF). Retrieved March 29, 2012. 
  19. ^ "California High Speed Rail Blog". Retrieved March 20, 2011. 
  20. ^ Federal Railroad Administration. "California Corridor". U.S. Department of Transportation. Retrieved November 26, 2011. 
  21. ^ "California HSR Authority releases study". Railway Age. January 10, 2012. Retrieved January 13, 2012. [dead link]
  22. ^ CHSRA Staff Recommendation Presentation
  23. ^ Michael Cabanatuan (Thursday, November 15, 2007). "High Speed Rail Authority staff advises Pacheco Pass route to L.A.". The San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 1, 2011. [dead link]
  24. ^ The Associated Press (February 9, 2011). "State Picks Pacheco Pass For High-Speed Rail". CBS 13. Retrieved March 1, 2011. 
  25. ^ "California High-Speed Rail Authority, "Relieving Traffic and Improving Mobility"". 
  26. ^ 2012 Revised Business Plan
  27. ^ 2012 Revised Business Plan Fact Sheet
  28. ^ a b c California High-Speed Rail Authority (December 14, 2009). "December 2009 Business Plan Report to the Legislature" (PDF). pp. 109–110. Retrieved June 24, 2011 
  29. ^ Druce, Paul (Monday, June 6, 2011). "High speed rail operational surplus". Reason & Rail. Retrieved November 26, 2011. 
  30. ^ Yarow, Jay. "Amtrak Loses $32 Per Passenger". Business Insider. 
  31. ^ Lytton, Dennis (October 22, 2008). "High-speed rail would save lives, fuel". Daily Breeze. p. 15A. "Trains consume only one-third of the energy used by an airplane and one-fifth the energy of an automobile trip." [dead link]
  32. ^ "Final Report: Independent Peer Review of the California High-Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Process" (pdf). August 1, 2011. "We are satisfied with the documentation presented in Cambridge Systematics, and conclude that it demonstrates that the model produces results that are reasonable and within expected ranges for the current environmental planning and Business Plan applications of the model. We were very pleased with the content, quality and quantity of the information." 
  33. ^ Cox, Wendell; and Vranich, Joseph (2008–09),The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report September 2008, Reason Foundation, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation, and Citizens Against Government Waste
  34. ^ "Voter Information Guide: Arguments and Rebuttals". California Secretary of State. 2013-03-13. 
  35. ^ "High-Speed Rail Is at a Critical Juncture". California Legislative Analyst's Office. 
  36. ^ "Californian high speed plans revised". Railway Gazette International. November 2, 2011. Archived from the original on November 3, 2011. Retrieved November 3, 2011. 
  37. ^ Dan Walters (Thursday, December 15, 2011). "Legal trap could snare bullet train". North County Times. Retrieved March 8, 2012. 
  38. ^ Buchanan, Wyatt (January 4, 2012). "High-speed rail shouldn't be funded, report says". The San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved January 4, 2012 
  39. ^ Tolmach, Richard F. (August 2012). "High Speed Bait and Switch: $8 billion bill to produce zero miles of HSR". California Rail News 24 (2) (Sacramento, CA: TRAC). p. 1. 
  40. ^ "Poll: Fewer Than Half of Californians Support High-Speed Rail". Transportation Nation. 2013-03-28. Retrieved 2013-03-28. 
  41. ^ Infrastructure Management Group; Barclays; Goldman Sachs; Sperry Capital (October 27, 2008). Financial Plan for the California High-Speed Rail Authority San Francisco to Anaheim Segment (.PDF). Infrastructure Management Group. Retrieved March 1, 2011. 
  42. ^ "Fact Sheet: High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program: California" (Press release). The Whitehouse. January 27, 2010. Retrieved March 1, 2011. 
  43. ^ "California High-Speed Rail Awarded $715 Million" (Press release). California High-Speed Rail Authority. October 28, 2010. Retrieved November 17, 2010. 
  44. ^ "U.S. Department of Transportation Redirects $1.195 Billion in High-Speed Rail Funds" (Press release). U.S. Department of Transportation. December 9, 2010. Retrieved December 10, 2010. 
  45. ^ "U.S. Transportation Secretary LaHood Announces $2 Billion for High-Speed Intercity Rail Projects to Grow Jobs, Boost U.S. Manufacturing and Transform Travel in America" (Press release). U.S. Department of Transportation. May 9, 2011. Retrieved November 26, 2011. 
  46. ^ "Business and Funding Plans". California High-Speed Rail Authority. November 1, 2011. Retrieved December 9, 2011. 
  47. ^ Berkowitz, Paul; Andrew Herring; Jeremy Meier (October 14, 2011). "California's High Speed Rail Project: Still on Track for 2012". The National Law Review. Retrieved November 26, 2011. 

External links[edit]
High-speed trains
300 km/h (186 mph) or more
250–299 km/h (155–186 mph)
200–249 km/h (124–155 mph)
By country

planned lines in italics
Other
Technologies
Common carriers
Flag of California
Passenger carriers
Private carriers
Former carriers
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_High-Speed_Rail&oldid=557850507"