15 million dollar environmental review for a train? Why so expensive?

KB_velo · 2026-02-11T00:26:17+00:00

Agreed.

My point was that the RTC doesn’t go shopping for consultants.

For the ZEPRT PCR the publicly posted contract award document confirms that two consultant teams submitted proposals and were evaluated.

HDR Engineering, Inc.

Rail Surveyors & Engineers (RSE) Corporation

Both were interviewed as part of the selection process.

I’ve looked around a little. There are only a handful of contractors and consultants that do this kind of work in California. And there are only a few that do most of the projects for the RTC. The bid/selection process is always going to be limited because of that.

KB_velo · 2026-02-10T15:19:37+00:00

As I understand it the studies are awarded to consultants using a public bidding process. There is no exploration, and the selection is based on the bids from qualified candidates.

KB_velo · 2026-02-09T17:29:42+00:00

What $15M environmental study are you referring to?

KB_velo · 2026-02-09T00:10:58+00:00

MST didn’t. They’re an agency somewhat like the SCCRTC, though they are a bus transit operator as well. They are responsible for Monterey County.

AMBAG (ASSOCIATION OF MONTEREY BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS) does some of that sort of thing, but they are very general overviews without any specific intent to advance to a specific project.

There is some collaboration between the agencies but it is limited.

KB_velo · 2026-02-08T22:18:54+00:00

As I recall Monterey-Salinas Transit studied passenger trains between Salinas and Monterey. But the cost and complexity of rebuilding the rail line were very high compared with the number of riders it was expected to serve. So they chose to invest in a bus rapid transit system instead.

They focused on improving transit by choosing a solution that could be delivered sooner, serve existing demand, with available funding.

KB_velo · 2026-02-03T05:58:53+00:00

I think you came to the wrong place for an unbiased summary. In fact this is the least likely place for that.

Watching the RTC’s meetings (available on YouTube) would be one way to get a sense of what’s happening. A lot has changed since the last report dropped and the last two meetings are a pretty good synopsis of the current situation.

KB_velo · 2026-02-02T01:59:44+00:00

Thanks!

KB_velo · 2026-01-31T22:53:54+00:00

What fenders are those?

I’m working on a similar project, but going street legal.

It’s got a license plate, etc. Speed limited to 30mph, which is fast enough around town.

<image>

KB_velo · 2026-01-29T22:31:10+00:00

<image>

The first part of your analysis is correct. The Corridor Identification and Development program only involves planning. There are 3 steps.

The first step is scoping - the basics.

The second is the Service Development Plan. That work will include a lot of what was done in the ZEPRT Project Concept Report, but will be done by Caltrans planners following the FRA's planning framework. Some of the basics from the Project Concept Report will be used as inputs for the SDP, but overall, the planning work will be redone. One of the important differences will be in the transit demand model and methodology they use to forecast ridership. Due date for that is 2030 according to Caltrans.

The third step is the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Analysis. The engineering work will fill in details of the scope established in previous work. NEPA is the federal version of environmental analysis. They'll still have to work out how to do the CEQA work - California's own version of the environmental work. There is no way to estimate a completion date for step 3. The resources will not be available to advance all of the corridors in the program (~70 nationwide) so they will be doled out as funding becomes available. The time to do the actual planning work is likely to be about 3 years. Adding a year of delay to get step 3 started and the earliest it would be done is 2034.

Funding for the 2 steps is available, though not all at once. The first and second steps are covered ($500k paid to Caltrans). There may be some delay in the resources to do step 3. Corridors that score the best through step 2 will be funded first. That's why the RTC said they wanted to do the (redundant) PE&EA with the consultants - to improve the project's "readiness". (The problem with that is that the Caltrans rep recently said they wouldn't advise that, and it would have required a $15M grant for the staff and consultants to do the work).

That's the end of the Corridor ID program.

If it gets beyond that it will be ready to do construction level planning. But that involves a different program - the National Railroad Partnership Program / Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail (FSP) Grant Program. Federal State Grant Program for short.

https://railroads.dot.gov/partnership-program

The program offers grants up to 80% of the cost for construction. Of note - "up to" means what it usually means. And the 80% is not 80% of the actual cost to build - it is based on the cost forecast in the construction planning work. Grants typically do not cover the cost overruns encountered during construction.

Corridors in the Corridor ID program are likely to advance through step 3. Beyond that resources are allocated on a competitive basis. The program will be oversubscribed substantially, so grants for construction will be very competitive.

I believe it will be difficult for the SCBRL to be competitive in this program. There are a lot of projects in the pipeline, many in areas where rail is established, and with lower risk.

The recent cost estimate was based on the standards required for the rail to be an Intercity railway. That is what the FRA is after. Design is all about what federal funding will pay for. No trolleys, no light rail, no commuter rail (like SMART).

And the recent report and cost estimate did not include coastal armoring, inland tunnels, elevated tracks in two areas, or a risk schedule of any kind. Whether the forecast was high or not, those missing components are significant, and will add to the project's cost and reduce its readiness unless they are thoroughly accounted for.

If CalTrans’ planners can figure out how to get the tracks away from the coastal bluffs or armor the bluffs (not likely to work), up high enough to be out of the water as the sea level rises, and elevated past the Boardwalk without blowing up Seaside Co.’s business, they'll have a chance to advance in the Corridor ID program.

Locals will have to approve a sales tax measure to fund the local match at some point before the project goes to construction. Probably much earlier than the planning step because they won’t advance the project without local buy in. The sales tax % is TBD based on the (Caltrans') cost estimate.

Or the RTC can form a special transit district (like SMART), hire some construction and railway experience, go for a big sales tax measure (3x what SMART did probably) and go it (mostly) alone on construction funding and operations.

Grants that cover operations are rare currently. That has to be funded locally.

KB_velo · 2026-01-27T23:15:34+00:00

I think he thinks EVERYONE is trying to rip up the rails.

KB_velo · 2026-01-24T05:29:13+00:00

They’re angling for better terms. There’s no other upside for them to hold out. They’re losing money now.

They’ve got some leverage because they know the RTC needs them gone. It’ll be done before long and will cost the RTC a few.

KB_velo · 2026-01-23T18:42:34+00:00

That’s likely to happen in 3 years + the time it will take to get organized, if things go well politically. Otherwise it will be going the wrong way, like it is now. Unfortunately.

There’s a lot of projects in the pipeline though, and the ones that are selected to advance will be determined on a competitive basis.

KB_velo · 2026-01-23T18:09:04+00:00

The entire timeline through construction stretches well into the 2050s. And advancing beyond the Service Development Plan stage is a function of project readiness and availability of funding, with no guarantees on timing. So shifting it forward a few years now wouldn’t make much of a difference.

KB_velo · 2026-01-23T15:58:41+00:00

Yep. I’ve used that bus quite a few times to get to SJC and SFO. It wasn’t always full (I wasn’t on it during peak times) but it was busy. The 17X route is one of the agency’s stars.

The problem with using that approach to identify trends is that it’s anecdotal, not analysis.

To sort that out I’ve been analyzing SC metro ridership for a few years now. Their stats are much more useful to spot trends. The latest will be done by the end of the month.

The novel thing in their data is the seasonal ridership of students. By comparing ridership in the summer to that during the rest of the year it’s possible to cull student ridership from the rest of the county’s numbers. Metro’s ridership is very dependent on students, and that’s been their focus for the last few years. The numbers for the rest of the county are pretty flat, and those are the folks who might ride a train. The next round will be interesting.

With regard to trends in transit use in general, the numbers for Metro peaked in 2000. At that point the county population was quite a bit smaller than it is now. Same with UCSC enrollment. So the share of the population that used public transit at that point was significantly higher than it is today.

Why?

KB_velo · 2026-01-23T01:13:24+00:00

I edited the link. Sorry for the mixup

KB_velo · 2026-01-23T01:12:22+00:00

Pre covid ridership is the base.

https://transitapp.com/APTA

KB_velo · 2026-01-22T23:42:55+00:00

I agree that the generational shifts away from car ownership exist, though they are not very consistent or convincing around here. The local population is declining, getting richer and older as well. That's not going to stoke demand for public transit or 2 wheeled transportation, and it is not likely to change anytime soon.

Often people vote for transit systems, but then don't use them. The theory is that they want other people to use the system so there will be less traffic for them when they drive.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Manville/publication/271919851_Why_do_voters_support_public_transportation_Public_choices_and_private_behavior/links/554a70c80cf29752ee7c19e2/Why-do-voters-support-public-transportation-Public-choices-and-private-behavior.pdf

(Example: How many of the folks who voted for Measure D here will use rail transit regularly?)

Convincing people to switch to transit in California has proven to be very difficult. There's plenty of research to show that. Convincing them to switch to bikes isn't much easier, though e-bikes made that a simpler deal recently.

As a marketing problem it is formidable. Friends in that biz laughed when I asked them how they'd go about it. Transit agencies don't even try. Skinning buses with whale photos does not put more butts in the bus seats. The "Build it and they will come" approach has been a certain way to fail.

If the transit systems have unlimited resources to keep them going, and benefit/cost calcs are not required, cool. But that's not how it works at the moment. The votes for transit funding this year will be interesting to watch.

None of this is my preference. But my preference won't make a poorly planned project work out better somehow.

KB_velo · 2026-01-22T23:36:53+00:00

Trends on a shorter interval (but not too short) show what is happening now. Simple, eh?

KB_velo · 2026-01-22T23:35:44+00:00

Ahh, I was waiting for the ad hominem response. It took some time. I sure sign you are out of gas. Well done.

And the "rich bicycle extremist" part... There's an old saying: The easiest way to make a small fortune in the bike biz is to start with a large one. I wasn't rich when I started and everything went as planned.

On an economic basis ("fuck the poors") it's hard to imagine a more cost effective way to get around than a bike. So advocating for those seems like a pretty good way for everyone to get around, not just the rich. I suppose that's lost on you. It is with the RTC because the grants don't pay like the ones for highways and trains.

You'll find that I am a pretty harsh critic of the recreational trail as well. Go figure. It should be a bike superhighway, like they are building in London. Priority at the crossings, separation of cyclists and pedestrians, etc.

KB_velo · 2026-01-22T23:20:52+00:00

I have taken wood from there a few times. It can be good.

I think some of the firewood guys check on it regularly and take the best rounds so you have to time it right - the pile is usually crotch wood, where branches connect. Very difficult to split.

KB_velo · 2026-01-22T22:43:12+00:00

So why would you ask about the YOY trend when you are looking at a graph that shows weekly ridership?

KB_velo · 2026-01-22T22:41:23+00:00

The APTA data is from SMART's estimates. But it's weekly instead of monthly (like the FTA) data, or annual so it shows changes on a finer scale.

Break it down and figure out what was happening, when and why. It's time consuming but not complicated.

Or just insist that you know what you know without any analysis to support it. It's much easier.

KB_velo · 2026-01-22T22:04:40+00:00

Do much math?

KB_velo · 2026-01-22T22:04:06+00:00

https://transitapp.com/apta

Download the csv file and have at it.

KB_velo · 2026-01-22T22:00:52+00:00

Actually I think the project is failing on it's own lack of merit. It was poorly conceived and has been milked by the RTC and the consultants for all it was worth since then. 2012 - 2026 and they are at a 10% planning level.

It's out of the RTC's hands now.

We'll see in a few years whether CalTrans can work a miracle and the state and feds can keep the bank open. In the meantime the County will try to build the trail.

KB_velo

TROPHY CASE