News

High-Speed Rail Authority proposes higher fares

New business plan considers funding sources, revises ridership figures for rail line

The California High-Speed Rail Authority is banking on billions of private dollars, extensive federal support and riders willing to shell out more than $100 to take the new train between San Francisco and Los Angeles, the agency's new 145-page business plan reveals.

The plan, which the rail authority released this week, lays out the agency's strategy for transitioning from the planning stage of the project to actual implementation. It includes the rail authority's newest estimate of how many people would ride the 800-mile line and its strategies for acquiring funds -- plans that have met with skepticism from its opponents.

California voters approved a $9.95 billion bond for the high speed rail system in November 2008, but many Peninsula residents and city officials have since grown disenchanted with the project. State legislators criticized the agency's previous business plan and mandated a new one before further state funding is issued.

Among the most significant changes detailed in the new business plan are the agency's proposed fares for traveling between Bay Area and Los Angeles. The rail authority had previously projected train fare to be about $55, or half the price of the average airfare between the two regions. The new plan, however, raises the ticket price for the same trip to about $104.75, or 83 percent of an average airline ticket.

The authority acknowledged that raising the fares would lower the number of riders from a previously estimated 58 million passengers in 2035 to 41 million passengers. But because lower ridership would require fewer trains and less maintenance, the higher fares would increase the system's revenues by 13 percent in 2035, when the 800-mile system is scheduled to be completed.

Jeff Barker, the rail authority deputy director for communications, said the new numbers don't signify a policy change but merely present one alternative business model. He also said the rail authority will continue to use the "50 percent of airfare" model in its environmental reviews because this model allows the rail authority to plan for the impact of a higher number trains.

"We are years and years away from setting up the ticket prices and our Board of Directors, legislators and the community will have a chance to discuss it," Barker said. "What we've done is present one scenario under which this is a viable project that doesn't need government subsidy."

The plan also notes that the projected cost of the new rail line has ballooned from $33.8 million to $42.6 million, though 80 percent of that increase was attributed to inflation and the new methodology used to calculate costs.

The new plan highlights the rail authority's efforts to raise the needed funds and to boost its outreach efforts as it transitions from planning to implementing the new line. It also identifies a variety of risks including financial and political that could derail the controversial project.

According to the new business plan, the California High-Speed Rail Authority hopes to acquire more than $17 billion from the federal government for the project, which has attracted waves of skepticism and opposition in the Peninsula. The agency also hopes to get more than $4 billion in local grants and $10 billion to $12 billion in private funding.

Steve Emslie, Palo Alto's deputy city manager who has been working with a coalition of Peninsula cities to track the progress of the controversial project, said the agency's anticipation of private funds is one of the most problematic aspects of the new business plan. Emslie characterized the agency's plans for private investments as "optimistic."

"It really doesn't give a lot of definition of where the private money will come from," Emslie said. "I don't think in the last 100 years there has been a public transportation system that actually made money without a lot of subsidy."

The business plan bases its projections for private contributions on its assumption that the rail system, unlike most transit services, "is expected to generate significant operating surpluses."

The new business plan is the Rail Authority's response to criticism from state officials who characterized its previous business plan as not being rigorous enough. In March, the state Legislative Analyst's Office criticized the agency's existing business strategy and its organization, which relies on a small core staff that delegates most of the work to consultants. The state Senate Budget Subcommittee subsequently required the rail authority to create a new business plan as a condition for future funding.

Sen. Joe Simitian, who was on the Budget Subcommittee that reviewed the rail authority's funding request last spring, said legislators were also concerned about insufficient community engagement by the rail authority. He recalled one committee hearing in which more than 30 Palo Alto residents asked state legislators to require more public outreach by the rail authority.

"There was concern regarding the rigor of the High-Speed Rail Authority's business plan and, more specifically, about its plans for community engagement," Simitian said. "It's not just about listening but also about responding to and considering the concerns that people raised."

In November, the agency approved a multi-million-dollar contract with Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide.

The new business plan vows to increase and improve its outreach efforts by "refocusing its outreach teams," upgrading its Web-based outreach tools and strengthening its partnerships with legislators and local government agencies. The document also acknowledges the rail authority's acceptance of the "context-sensitive solutions" approach to designing the Peninsula segment of the line.

The approach, which gives stakeholders a greater say in the design process, was accepted after extensive lobbying by the group of concerned Peninsula residents who have since formed the group, Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CAARD).

Simitian said the plan will be carefully reviewed by various legislators and committees in the coming month. Simitian also said he and Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), who chairs the Senate Transportation Committee, plan to hold a public meeting in Palo Alto on Jan. 21 to discuss the business plan and other high speed rail-related developments with area residents.

Comments

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Max
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 18, 2009 at 6:00 pm

This subject entails readily available background data that offhand or rhetorical commentators often ignore, or don't even know. I wish that this and other articles included more of it, for balance and perspective. Thus, P.A. Dep'y City Mgr. Emslie's assertion "I don't think in the last 100 years there has been a public transportation system that actually made money without a lot of subsidy" is unchallenged despite overlooking a basic motivation for California's HSR project: "high-speed train lines worldwide generate surpluses from their operations, unlike traditional passenger service."

www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/faqs/other-systems.htm

The article dwells on the billions HSR would cost, neglecting the greater billions California would have to spend anyway on HSR's alternative: future airport facilities (another point very public via the HSR site above). The article asserts "many Peninsula residents [are] disenchanted with" HSR, but omits to add that Pensinsula residents voted strongly for it. It claims HSR "has attracted waves of skepticism and opposition in the Peninsula" but overlooks the related waves of wildly inaccurate fear-mongering misinformation flooding the Peninsula in the past year (about speeds, tracking, structures, Caltrain aspects), despite easily available accurate data. It does not cite the few names that appear repeatedly in anti-HSR rhetoric (in opinion pieces and online sites) that presume to speak for "the Peninsula," nor the cranks with enough leisure to advocate ideas like tunneling underground 800 miles (but inadequate leisure to discover that it would be economically absurd).

HSR is a serious complex issue that may affect many of us, and it deserves more thoughtful, _informed_ attention and far less rhetoric.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 19, 2009 at 3:15 pm

Nothing complicated about it. HSR is a multi-billion project that this bankrupt state cannot afford. We already have cars, buses, and planes which do a perfectly adequate job of getting folks around California.

You can slice and dice this however you want, but you can't get around the fact that it is a complete and utter waste of money, and demonstrates how broken the CA proposition process truly is.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike Laursen
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 19, 2009 at 8:42 pm

Not to mention that we also have good passenger rail train serving the corridor between San Jose and San Francisco, and this whole high-speed rail boondoggle is a major distraction from improvements that could be made to this existing system.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by k
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 21, 2009 at 2:41 pm

"The new plan, however, raises the ticket price for the same trip to about $104.75, or 83 percent of an average airline ticket."

If this is a one-way ticket they're talking about, isn't Southwest still cheaper? I've paid $170 for a round trip ticket from SJ to LA before (...and Southwest gives you snacks!). Sadly fail to see how they're going to get that much business if airfare is still cheaper -and- faster. Sigh. I like trains too, but I'm not willing to shell out extra cash for a longer trip, and I have a feeling others won't be so willing either.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Tin Pot Creamery expanding to Los Altos
By Elena Kadvany | 1 comment | 5,060 views

reThink Farming Planet Enemy #1
By Laura Stec | 15 comments | 2,874 views

Truly Loved
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 2,114 views