Introduction for Ba105w
-
Upload
leticia-garcia -
Category
Documents
-
view
8 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Introduction for Ba105w
INTRODUCTION: HSR AND THE PURPOSE OF IT
The High Speed Rail is a project that is planned by the California High-Speed Rail Authority.
The California High-Speed Rail Authority was created in 1996 and is responsible for planning,
designing, building and operation of the first high-speed rail system in the nation. The California
high-speed rail will connect with mega regions of the state to contribute a cleaner environment,
create jobs, and preserve agricultural lands. This study is to analyze the benefits of the High-
Speed Rail on the city of Fresno and to California. This study seeks answers to these questions:
How will the High-Speed Rail Authority fund the project?
What other countries have the HSR system?
What are the benefits of the HSR train to California and to the city of Fresno?
BACKGROUND: THE HSR AUTHORITY’S PLAN TO IMPLEMENT THE PROJECT
SYSTRA are planners and experts in developing master plans, grant management and review,
program management, strategic planning and facilitation. By using their skills in data collection
and assessment, conceptualization, prioritization, and implementation they will help bring this
project of the High Speed rail to a successful completion. “SYSTRA prepared a multi-decade
implementation plan for the $37 billion, 800-mile California high-speed rail line.
Recommendations included the state and private sector organization, timing, segment phasing,
and specific actions to complete environmental permitting, project financing, procurement and
federal safety approval of high-speed rail vehicles and systems, acquisition of right-of-way,
design and construction of the high-speed rail line, tunnels, stations and related facilities, and
operation of the services” (CAHSRA Implementation Plan par. 1). “SYSTRA recommended an
organizational structure led by the Authority directing the project management and specialty
consultants to ensure the state’s interests were protected while allowing flexibility as staffing
1
needs evolved during the project implementation. SYSTRA’s recommended procurement
strategy helped California maintain high-speed technology competition among suppliers while
facilitating federal and state approvals for the specific high-speed systems selected” ( CAHSRA
Implementation Plan par. 2).
In a plan developed by the CAHSRA, the federal commitment was expected to be $12 to $16
billion while private sectors would invest 7.5 billion, leaving an additional of $10 billion to come
from the local government. “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.
On October 28, 2010, the federal government awarded the Authority 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. While the CHSRA recognizes the federal government's desire for the
initial segment to be built in the Central Valley, the Authority 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 Authority for use on the
initial Central Valley leg of the project. 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 Authority 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
2
from Fresno to the Chowchilla Wye, which will provide a connection to San Jose to the West
and Merced to the North. The California High Speed Rail Authority issued a draft Business Plan
on November 1, 2011, for public review and comment. 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” (Wikipedia par. 9). The
continents of Africa, Asia, and Europe are all under construction for the high speed rail project.
DISCUSSION: BENEFITS THAT ARE FINANCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND
SOCIAL TO CALIFORNIA AND THE CITY OF FRESNO BY HAVING A HSR TRAIN
This research presented here falls into four categories: (a) financial, (b) funding’s (c)
environmental, and (d) social benefits of the HSR train.
FINANCIAL
“California voters approved a $9.95 billion bond to support high-speed rail, the entire project
cost was $33 billion. In the 2009 business plan, the cost increased to $43 billion, and then
increased again in the draft 2012 business plan to $98.5 billion. The final 2012 business plan
reduces the cost to $68.7 billion. It focuses on beginning construction in the Central Valley while
simultaneously making investments in the “bookends” — the urban areas in the Los Angeles
Basin and the Bay Area — to improve regional rail service and take a blended system approach
to the construction and operations by putting initial high-speed service on existing (and
upgraded) commuter rail facilities. This approach saves both time and resources, as it has fewer
environmental impacts” (Terplan & GAO par.4). Figure one shows the construction cost by
geographic segment in 2011 connecting the high desert town of Palmdale into Los Angeles and
from Merced in the Central Valley over the Pacheco Pass into San Jose account for over half the
3
cost of the rail system. The long stretch from Merced to Bakersfield in the Central Valley
accounts for less than 1/5 of the total cost.
Figure 1
Funding’s
Funding sources include the federal, state and local governments as well as private sources,
particularly a potential operator of the train system. The plan is for $13 billion investment comes
from a private operator who will invest once the trains begin operation around 2022. If the
business plan is correct then the private operator will not require any additional operating
subsidy and could provide more than $230 million from net cash flow for further investment in
finishing the construction of the system. The remaining $38 billion would come from the federal
government in the form of grants, loans and other financing support. Figure 2 will compare the
funding sources in the latest business plan with those in the SPUR plan.
4
Figure 2
“Paying for California's high-speed rail system California can afford high-speed rail without
future federal support. The sources of funding for high-speed rail identified here can generate
over $43 billion towards the state's $68 billion high-speed rail project. The most significant
sources of revenue are a dedicated six cent per gallon gas tax, a 15 percent share of the state's cap
and trade auctions and the creation of $4 tolls on a few of California's highways” ( Terplan &
Goa par. 5)
Environmental
The high speed rail can improve the environment and save money. “When analyzing the
environmental effects of planes, trains or automobiles, the normal approach is to measure
5
tailpipe emissions. Researchers can estimate these emissions with a variety of methods, and then
combine the emissions data with information about typical vehicle occupancy. The
environmental costs of cars, for example, will vary with drive cycles, technology, age, and the
composition of the fleet. So while it may be tempting to say that one mode is simply better than
another, environmental policy should recognize that no mode is universally good or bad, and that
environmental impacts will depend heavily on context. Second, the conventional approach to
evaluating modes depends heavily on estimates of ridership or occupancy. But calculating
ridership is always hard, and for an entirely new system, such as California's high speed rail, the
task is particularly challenging. Because the system doesn't exist yet, ridership estimates are less
certain, forecasted from surveys and travel demand models rather than extrapolated from existing
data. But even small adjustments to ridership estimates (or, for cars, occupancy estimates) can
substantially change an environmental impact analysis” (Chester & Horvath par.3). Figure 3
illustrates the Life Cycle Energy Consumption for On-Road, Rail, and Air Modes.
Figure 3
6
Social
The 2012 business plan to create the HSR train estimates that this construction will generate
20,000 over the next five years. In 2009 the Authority project created 450,000 permanent jobs
through the commuters that will use this system and by 2023 the revenue would rise to $2.23
billion. Fast trains are profitable than slow trains since traveling a short distance will reduce staff
costs and customers would be willing to pay higher ticket prices for traveling in a short amount
of time. “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. By 2040, the system will reduce vehicles miles of
travel in the state by almost 10 million miles of travel every day. Over a 58 year period (from the
start of operations in 2022 through 2080), the system will reduce auto travel on the state’s
highways and roads by over 400 billion miles of travel.” (Wikipedia par.6).
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Analysis of financial, funding’s, environmental, and social research leads to the following
conclusions and recommendations about the impact of the High-Speed Rail on California and the
city of Fresno.
1. To support high-speed rail the entire project cost is $68.7 billion, which it focuses on
beginning construction in the central valley.
2. Funding sources that can contribute to this project of the train system include the federal,
state and local governments as well as private sources.
3. Improvement in the environment and saving money can come from the completion of the
high-speed rail.
7
4. The high-speed rail in 2009 created 450,000 permanent jobs and by 2023 the revenue
would rise to $2.23 billion.
Based on these findings, it is recommended that California and the city of Fresno authorize the
development of the high-speed rail because it will stimulate the economy and bring a cleaner
environment. It will also create more jobs, which is beneficial for the people.
8
REFERENCES
"California High-Speed Rail." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 11 Dec. 2013. Web. 12 Nov.
2013.
Chester, Mikhail, and Arpad Horvath. "Fall 2010 ACCESS #37." University of California
Transportation Center. N.p., 2010. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.
Jacobs, Jim, and Katie Daniels. "Getting High-Speed Rail On Track." SPUR. N.p., 2013. Web.
12 Nov. 2013.
"Strategic Business & Master Planning." California High Speed Rail Authority (CAHSRA)
Implementation Plan. SYSTRA NET, n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.
9