No on Prop 1A Crowd Reunites To Attack HSR
Much as I expected, the 2009 Business Plan has become fodder for all the usual suspects to try and rehash their tired anti-HSR arguments. Although they failed completely in their efforts to use those arguments to block Prop 1A in 2008, they see an opportunity to reverse that outcome with any news that the HSR plan has changed, even if those changes are logical, necessary, or even beneficial to the project.
And so it is with Jon Coupal, who is the head of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, a right-wing organization determined to oppose government spending because somehow, somewhere, it might lead to someone’s taxes going up. Coupal ran the No on 1A campaign in 2008, such as it was, and had a decent amount of success getting pliant reporters to repeat his often errant claims.
He’s resurfaced as an HSR critic this week with a post at Fox and Hounds Daily, a conservative website focusing on California politics. The post repeats many of the same claims as in the debunked MNG and San Diego Union-Tribune editorials, but also introduces a few new ones, so it’s worth taking apart Coupal’s nonsensical attacks on HSR.
For purposes of full disclosure, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association ran the unsuccessful campaign against Prop 1A (not to be confused with 2009’s Prop 1A, an attempt to raise $16 billion in new taxes). Our most potent weapon was a devastating study by the Reason Foundation which revealed that the proponents’ representations regarding costs, fare price and profitability were pure fantasy. But, from the start, we had an uphill battle convincing voters how poorly thought out this measure was. The California Legislature had already stacked the deck by providing such a biased title and summary for the measure that the issue of that deception is still the subject of litigation today. The deceptive ballot material, in addition to the campaign contributions from those who would profit from the project, was enough to ensure victory at the polls – albeit by a very small margin.
In other words, Coupal is saying California voters were stupid and fell for politicians’ tricks instead of believing what the Reason Foundation said. Of course, this blog thoroughly debunked that report, which was full of misleading statements and bad analysis. He cannot bring himself to accept the fact that Californians saw through his claims and voted to approve HSR in spite of his arguments.
Coupal claims the new business plan proved their claims that HSR somehow wasn’t viable:
Although this revised plan calls into question the entire viability of the project, the news is bound to get a lot worse. In short, even these revised figures by the Authority were born in dreamland.
But this is just plain wrong. The revised plan shows how HSR is viable. It calls nothing into question. It shows that even with the federally-mandated cost calculation shift, HSR can still pay back private investors and meet its operating expenses by attracting enough riders even with higher fares than previously anticipated. The business plan shows a resilient system that meets pent-up and significant demand for this service. I personally don’t like the higher fares, but they do show a system that is financially viable. Coupal is wrong to claim otherwise.
Another fantasy: “The cost of the project — recently pegged at $33.6 billion in 2008 dollars — is now estimated at $42.6 billion in time-of-construction dollars.” Sure, that’s a projected increase of about $10 billion, which is jaw-dropping by itself. But the Reason study suggests the final costs will be more than twice the revised projection. Many who analyze the trend lines of these megaprojects think that, if it is ever built, the cost will far exceed $100 billion.
Coupal here omits the explanation for the increase, which is that the federal government mandated a shift to “year of expenditure” accounting. In 2008 dollars, the cost only increased by $1 billion, owing to the adoption of a tunnel for part of the LA-Anaheim segment. That’s a small increase, and certainly disproves Coupal and Reason’s argument of inherent cost increases in megaprojects. They still have no explanation or justification of how it would ever cost $100 billion – it’s just a number they’re throwing out there because it looks and sounds big.
Those are familiar arguments from Coupal. He has a new one though: an argument that somehow HSR won’t actually help the environment. This is a case of what is often called “concern trolling,” where someone pretends to share an ideological view merely in order to raise “concerns” to others of that view. In this case Coupal, who normally is a strong opponent of laws and programs to help the environment, pretends to be interested in the issue in order to raise “concerns” about how HSR would reduce carbon emissions:
But it turns out that, from an environmental perspective, this is not so simple. Recent studies by the University of California regarding the environment life-cycle assessment of various passenger transportation systems cast specific doubt on California’s high speed rail project. In reporting on those studies, the Institute for Transportation Studies noted that “if high-speed rail draws only half the ridership it says it will attract, its environmental performance will be twice as bad per passenger mile traveled. And, if compared to typical aircraft travel in situations where 70 percent of rail passenger seats are filled, high-speed rail performs worse (the crossover occurs when high-speed rail achieves 65 percent of estimated ridership compared against current aircraft utilization rates at 70 percent).”
This refers to research presented at a HSR forum in Berkeley earlier this year. We’ve written about this before, particularly about the extremely biased way the forum was reported by the Institute for Transportation Studies.
Coupal is specifically citing the work of UC Berkeley professor Arpad Horvath, who claimed at the forum that HSR wouldn’t generate the carbon reductions it needed without “very high ridership.” But Horvath’s claims, based on research that hadn’t been peer reviewed at the time it was presented at the forum, makes some curious assumptions:
These must include manufacturing of the vehicles themselves, their required infrastructure, and the fuel used to power them. High-speed rail will produce some 10 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year during its construction, said Horvath. It will need to run very full trains almost immediately to offset the emissions expended in building tracks, stations, rail cars to “compete environmentally” with air or road travel.
In addition, if the train’s electricity is produced by coal-fired or natural gas-fired plants there will be substantial, harmful emissions produced until cleaner, alternative fuel sources, such as wind power, are available for use.
The bottom line, he said, was high-speed rail “only outperforms other modes if there is a very high passenger load or a very clean energy source, neither of which is assured at the moment.”
There are two problems with this: specific and conceptual. The specific problem should be obvious, that HSR will indeed by powered by renewable energy, by official policy of the California High Speed Rail Authority.
The conceptual problem is this: Horvath is assuming that the cost of doing nothing is zero, that if we just sit on our hands and don’t build HSR, that global warming won’t cause any kind of crisis. Yes, the construction of HSR will generate carbon emissions, but we have no other choice if we are going to build long-lasting infrastructure that will reduce carbon emissions. I agree with Horvath that the state should maximize the reductions by maximizing ridership, but that’s not what Coupal wants – because to maximize ridership means using more public money to construct the system, which he opposes.
And perhaps that’s the greatest irony of all. The new business plan shows higher costs largely because that’s what’s needed to help attract private investment – which is what Coupal and Reason Foundation have been saying all along, that the private sector should be doing this. CHSRA has no apparent plans to seek more money from the state of California, so Coupal should be dancing a jig that even though he lost the Prop 1A battle, he’s winning the subsequent battle to prevent more state money from helping build the thing.
But, as we know, Coupal isn’t interested in something that helps private enterprise. Like many right-wingers, he’s internalized the false argument that passenger rail is anti-conservative, doesn’t help anyone except the poor, doesn’t help business, and is just plain bad.
There’s a reason the California Chamber of Commerce has joined the Sierra Club and the California Labor Federation in support of high speed rail – unlike Coupal, they actually understand that HSR will be a major economic boon to the state at a time when we desperately need it. If Coupal wants to avoid tax increases, he needs to support the creation of jobs, which in turn generates tax income for the state. High speed rail will accomplish it, in spite of Coupal’s ideological and misinformed objections.
UPDATE: Jeff Barker of the California High Speed Rail Authority has a response to Coupal up at Fox and Hounds Daily, pointing out the ways in which high speed rail is actually gathering momentum, instead of losing it as Coupal claimed.
to say nothing of accounting for the cost of manufacturing all the cars and airplane and attendant service, maintainance and emergency vehicles necessary for the non-HSR alternatives.
the howard jarvis wingnuts are a plague upon california.
Im so sick to death of these right wing trashbags running their smarmy lying mouths. Hopefully they’ll die off faster than they can recruit their young.
missiondwller Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Let’s not make this into a partisan issue. I’m a “right wing” HSR supporter. There is nothing about HSR that is “liberal” or “conservative” except perhaps whether this is a good use of funds. We should redirect the conversation to “yes, it is an excellent and cost effective way of dealing with future growth”.
*First time commenting here. I don’t exactly know this topic well, but just want to voice my opinion.*
No doubt, there are risks involved in HSR projects, but when did Americans become so risk-aversive?
Risk-taking is what make (made) America great!
Andre Peretti Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Proverb: when you make decisions you may be wrong some of the time, but when you make no decisions you are wrong all the time.
Copy/paste this every time the Reason Foundation study is brought up:
“ry Reply:
December 9th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Oh, that ol’ “Reason” report again. Hey, here’s the original language:
http://reason.org/files/1b544eba6f1d5f9e8012a8c36676ea7e.pdf
Capital costs have risen from the CHSRA’s 1999 business plan estimate of $30.3 billion for the entire system to a $45.4 billion estimate in 2008 for Phases I and II alone. Depending upon future plans, costs could increase to between $51.4 billion and $82.3 billion (all in 2006$.) It is likely that HSR will require substantial additional taxpayer funding to complete Phase I, Phase II, the “Missing Phase” and the “Implied Phase.”
Where did these numbers actually home from?
Start with the COMPLETE San Francisco AND Sacramento to Anaheim AND San Diego via Los Angeles system (as opposed to the SF-ANA-via-LA system that’s now being designed for operation in 2020). The report states that the the CAHSRA figure for 2006 is $45.4B; then tacks on a segment that’s NO LONGER PART OF THE PROJECT (Oakland-San Jose) to get $50.2B. This is as close as I can get to figuring out where the $51.4B comes from (because I have no idea where the extra $1.2B comes from if they’re working in same-year numbers).
Then they get out, not a calculator or a slide-rule– BUT A STRAIGHTEDGE, and track out a linear cost inflation (could someone with an actual degree in statistics please explain how stupid this is?), brining us to $68-$75.3B in 2030 (10 years after Phase I should be running, I might add). Oh, and the upper number is to account for the nonexistent Oakland section, btw– this will be important in my next paragraph.
But the summary talks about “between $51.4B and $82.3B”. I still can’t figure out where they get that $80B-ish number from (sometimes it’s “$82.3 (all in 2006$)” and other times it’s “$81.4 billion (2008$)”. Is this deflation??). The best I can come up with is that they took their own “Oakland” number (75.3-68=7.3), added it onto the “cost inflation” number (which already included it), and called it “$82.3 billion including the Missing Phase.”
In other words, the numbers used in the “Reason” report are for novelty use only.”
Spokker Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:59 am
To sum, even if the CHSRA’s numbers were born in dreamland, the Reason Foundation practically took a tab of acid and saw their numbers in a flashback.
The numbers in the Reason report now become even more obviously accurate than anything the Authority has yet to produce. Robert keeps writing these long winded manifestos (it is his blog, so that is ok), but they never say anything different. Always, the Authority is like a God and this project is just wonderful. (and yes, Morris is denier)
As I have written before, Prop 1A was sold to the voters with deception. Exaggerated claims about ridership (after all before the NOvember 2008 election, Kopp claimed 117 – 120 million passengers by 2030), and low balled cost estimates.
It wasn’t until the Lowenthal committee started looking, that it started to become obvious this project was a boondoggle.
Now we have the reality, that funding is nowhere to be found, the private public partnerships will not appear and we have a project that has 9 billion to build a 43 billion project (using the Authority’s own numbers now.
Now we have the Authority for political reasons applying for Federal stimulus funding promising to deliver Prop 1A matching funds, and they will face a legal challenge if the legislature ignores the full funding for complete segments that is laid down in prop 1A.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23635316
The latest effort by Kopp to promote the project is exclaiming that rail cars will be built in the Fremont auto plant and we need those jobs. Let’s see. construction not to start for 3 years, won’t need cars for another 4 years after that, but those jobs are a very long way off aren’t they?
Spokker, just look at the doubling in cost of the LA to Anaheim segment and extrapolate that to the whole system,; you should get the picture. Standing out like a soue thumb is the $4.2 billion number they still use for SF to San Jose. No reality there. Talk to CalTrain and see that they say $5 billion just for their 2 tracks with grade separations (45 of them)
Rafael Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 10:26 am
Where do I even begin? The 117 million figure has always referred to the ultimate capacity of the entire network, not to forecast ridership for 2030. Of course ridership is going to be markedly lower if the fare strategy has to be based on 83% of air fares rather than 50%.
morris brown Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:20 am
Rafael, you should begin by listening to what Kopp was telling the voters in 2008. He was saying passenger ridership would be 117 – 120 million. Kopp was who the voters will listening to, not obscure documents, which I have yet to find.
However, in testimony Joe Vranich had plenty to say about this:
See:
http://transdef.org/HSR/HSR_assets/Vranich%20Senate%20testimony.pdf
So be critical of Vranich’s numbers, but also look (page 3) at the UC numbers and FRA numbers, even lower.
What we know is that about 8 million air passengers and 8 million auto passengers in 2007 went from the Bay area to So. California.
BTW, Rafael, you know a lot more than I, but I wonder what the average wage earner on the Spanish HSR system gets. I believe that BART averages about $97,000 per year. I wonder if in Spain the average worker get $15.000, but I don’t have the numbers. All I am saying is to make this system operationally profitable in California, is a whole different ballgame, from Spain or China etc.
Joey Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:18 pm
How many times are you going to neglect intermediate trips?
Joey Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Also I’ve heard some dispute about that 8 million air passengers number. Care to cite it?
lyqwyd Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 3:58 pm
His numbers are completely made up.
The number of people traveling by air between the SF Bay Area, and Los Angeles is about 13 million (taken from my prior calculations here: http://cahsr.blogspot.com/2009/08/wapo-joins-hsr-stupidity.html?showComment=1251160874469#c2438657623958699777).
Driving is way more than this, my estimation is 80-100 million auto trips between LA & the Bay (interpolated from this: http://www.bts.gov/publications/america_on_the_go/long_distance_transportation_patterns/html/figure_02.html)
Joseph E Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Morris, BART employees do not make $97,000 a year on average. According to management, total wages and benefits are about $90,000. BART workers make more than those at Muni and in Amtrak, where costs average $50,000 a year.
In Spain, average transit worker wages were about $36,000 a year. A little less, but not substantially so.
This is proportional to the generally higher wages and living costs in the USA vs Spain. The average personal income here is $32,000 a year, and in Spain it is $21,000, about a 3 to 2 ratio, similar to the difference in transit wages between Spain and California.
Furthermore, wages are not as big an expense for long-distance rail. While a transit system (like Long Beach Transit) may spend 80% of expenditures on wages and benefits, Amtrak spends only 50%. With faster trains, HSR will have an even lower percentage of labor costs (with more spent on energy, capital expenses, etc). The future price of energy, steel and concrete is more important to future HSR fares than the costs of labor. Fortunately, rising energy prices will cause many people to switch from planes and cars to the trains.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:29 am
Make that clearer. 12 trains an hour running 24 hours a day every day of the year, each of them carrying around 500 passengers gets 117 million passengers a year. There aren’t going to be a lot of people boarding trains at 3 in the morning.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:55 pm
where did my other comment go?
Robert wrote in his posting
“There’s a reason the California Chamber of Commerce has joined the Sierra Club and the California Labor Federation in support of high speed rail ”
Now maybe they changed their minds, but before the November 2008 election, The California Chamber of Commerce opposed HSR
http://laist.com/2008/09/09/california_chamber_opposes_high_spe.php
Indeed not everyone approves of this project, in fact let us not ignore that passage was by a narrow 52.5 vs 47.5 vote. Do a new vote today, and it fails big time, after all, why should we be spending funds that State needs for other much more pressing needs?
Daniel Krause Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 8:03 am
Why do you claim there is no money to be found. There is tremendous momentum nationwide building for HSR. Correspondingly there is more and more support for additional federal funding for HSR. How can you continue to ignore that there is serious consideration of a $50B fund for HSR in the transportation bill. The naysayers of this project are the ones that are working to eliminate California’s opportunity to get much of these funds. Get out of the way and let progress happen. There are many people, especially the younger generation that are sick to death of this culture of NO. Most developed countries have great transportation networks (including auto and rail). But not us. Most people from around the world get that we have third world rail system. What insanity rules in this country that transport infrastructure is not worth investing in. Please consider moving to the country if you don’t believe in anything but auto-based infrastructure. Great urban areas have mass transit and high speed rail. It is a standard feature, except in this country.
morris brown Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 8:37 am
You can cite all the outlooks for funding that you want, the fact is very little funding has actually appeared.
In fact, the Authority would have you believe that funding will be no problem. Look at the press release they put out with the new business plan. Diridon proclaims we have the funding. They have only the $9 billion right now. They expect some funding from the stimulus package, but as I have shown above, matching those funds with Prop 1A bond funds is illegal under the restrictions in Prop 1A.
David Crane, the only financial expert on the Authority’s board, makes it quite clear that funding is their number one problem. The original plan was for fully 1/3 of the cost to come from public/private partnerships. That funding is just not going to appear as he notes.
So you are left with Federal funds, and trying to grab local funds. The 50 Billion you cite is pure fantasy. They finally approved 2.5 billion for next year for the whole country.
California right now is in a huge struggle to just stay afloat financially. The already issued and authorized bond debt cannot be te sustained as stated by Bill Lockyer, treasury secretary, and selling more bonds at any kind of reasonable rate is very problematic.
Daniel Krause Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:01 am
Yes California is in trouble financially and that is why the HSR project is so important to the state finances. It allows us to access billions of dollars to create jobs and improve our economy with jobs now, and a better more efficient transporation system later. Investments in infrastucture use to be a bi-partisan activity because both parties understood it was an investment. The right-wing anti-tax hysteria unfortunately has turned republicans and especially the tea-party wing of the republicans into anti-infrastructuralists. All credible economists and businesses folks acknowledge that not investing in infrastructure is hurting our competitiveness with the rest of the world in this global economy. Fortunately there are still some Republicans who believe in infrastructure though they may be purged soon so American can be lead back to the stone age by Sarah Palin types. Contrary to anti-HSR folks and tea-party types, this poject is the best thing for CA economy.
You are right that the 50B has not been allocated yet. However, there is great momentum to create a large national HSR fund in the next 6-year transportation bill, which will almost certainly be renewed next year. It would be economic suicide for CA to take itself out of the running now right before an HSR fund is developed. No can say what the exact number will be, but in my view, it is extremely pragmatic to push HSR hard to CA is positioned to reap a good percentage of whatever fund does materialize. It is sad how folks have become so cynical due to the anti-gov right-wing harping machine that has been filling peoples head with lies about how evil all government is for the last 20 years. Now we see the results. Many folks can’t even see opporutunity for great economic benefit right in front of their eyes.
The 2.5B is actually just for one year and was originally only of 1B. When you add the 8B to the 2.5B and to whatever is developed in the transportation bill, things are looking quite good for federal funding.
I totally agree with you about the difficulties CA economy, but the response should include supporting big infrastrure to create jobs, not abandoned a project that promises to bring lots of federal funding. If the billions don’t come and go to other states, how does that help our economy? Does not compute in my mind. And on the bond difficulties, I am sure smart people that work with our federal partners will ensure we can arrange the finances so we can leverage the federal money. There are always diffuculties but government people actually do have smarts and can work things out. Happens all the time regardless of the right-wing spin machine.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:10 am
1A was passed a paltry 13 months ago. Should big funding have arrived already? Furthmore, it’s not necessary until and when construction is ready to commence. Are we there yet… mmmm… nope, we’re not.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:08 am
I think your argument that if returned to voters that they would reject this bond measure is incorrect and absolutely ridiculous. Maybe it’s wishful thinking? Neverthess, it shows your state of mind and your development.
If anything, if returned to voters it would win with greater numbers. Why, simply put, more people know about the project. Awareness of this project only increases support for it. A
Additionally, for your information, when surveyed, voters are more concerned about the economy and jobs… and not the short-sighted argument concerning a deficit… as reported by CNN. I cannot imagine anybody against 600,000 jobs.
Nevertheless, the argument is old. 1A was passed. It would be more healthy to accept that.
jimsf Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
people also say 52 47 is narrow if they lose, but a landslide if they win. won by how much is not relevant. whats relevant is the prop1a passed and is law.
Poor, poor, Morris. Still holding out hope that HSR won’t be built. It must really hurt deep down. Just some advice: the sooner you accept the reality of our future high-speed rail system, the sooner the “pain” will go away. Merry Christmas everyone!
synonymouse Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:31 am
Prop 1A would get creamed if it were put to a vote again. The power elite, the 1% that has most of the money in California, will see to it that a fortune is spent on propaganda in favor of the water bond issue next fall, vastly more than was spent on Prop 1A, but it still has a good chance of going down to defeat. Hopefully the majority will realize that it is just a trick to send what little is left of Norcal water to LA. That defeat would send a message to the power brokers and influence peddlers.
Rafael Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:50 am
The water bond is an entirely separate issue from HSR. Let’s not conflate the two.
The poster boy of “risk aversive” is Palmdale-Tehachapis.
The reason for the growing disenchantment with the hsr is that the CHSRA plan sucks. Sacramento and San Diego are vastly more important to the success of the hsr than Bakersfield and Fresno but they have been excluded in order to pander to LA County and Palmdale developers. Antelope Valley sprawl – that’s real eco-friendly. The Sierra Club should stick its head in an oven for going along with such an idea. Unlimited population growth is the true train wreck.
It is crucial that the hsr try to remain as private and self-sustaining as possible. The reason is obvious – if it is government-run and meandering and stopping in every podunk it will require a significant and on-going public subsidy. Despite oft-repeated protests on this site to the contrary, this need and this demand for public subsidy will put the CHSRA is direct competition with urban transit systems. That would be BART, MUNI, AC Transit, etc. in the Bay Area. There are only two money troughs: state and federal. And the state is drying up – Schwarzenegger is seeking emergency help from the feds to prevent cuts to existing state transit funding as we speak. There is no such as earmarked in a cash crisis – everything is on the table and BART has a sterling track record of scoring funds. Its passenger counts way exceed any the hsr could hope for. The scramble for scarce money could get really ugly – I suspect that is one of the reasons the Europeans set ticket prices on the high side. The urban transit market is poorer and more deserving of subsidy than the intercity.
To rub in the salt, the hsr, after slowing down the San Joaquin Valley line with a gratuitous detour, tries to make up the time with an overbuilt Caltrain and demands for unrealistic speeds on the Peninsula. Places like Palo Alto are generally vastly more sympathetic to the concept of hsr and anti-auto than the Reaganite Central Valley and Orange County. Yet you deride them as nimbys for wanting to keep their towns pleasant. If you haven’t noticed the Bay Area is in the midst of a crime wave, The good citizen more than ever just wants to keep his place, his back yard, protected from social decay, ie blight.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:45 am
Why is the tunneling report wrong, what are your cost numbers that show the line, as proposed, is wrongly planned?
troll.
Walter Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:53 am
People in the Central Valley–at least the 90% or so of them that live in cities that will get stations–are ecstatic for high speed rail. Can you imagine being a student or a young professional in Fresno, Stockton or Bakersfield who will finally be connected to SF and LA?
Orange County might want a tunnel but it makes more sense and is far less obnoxious than the idiocy taking place on the Peninsula.
I agree that Sac and SD should be connected as soon as they feasibly can be but it seems like you are throwing arguments at the wall to see what sticks. Most of the state is firmly in favor of HSR. That’s why they voted for it.
Rafael Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:57 am
Fresno is not a podunk town, it has 500,000 residents. The MSA has a million. Bakersfield itself has 250,000. Palmdale has 150,000. Maybe they’re not all as rich as you and none of them is as well served by the airlines, but that’s no reason to exclude them from the HSR route. Quite the contrary, in fact.
The whole point of trains is that they can easily stop along the way, creating a fast connection between a whole string of cities in a way that neither cars nor planes can match. Nothing would make less sense than an HSR line through California that only had stops in SF and LA.
However, not every train needs to or is planned to stop at every station. Apparently you have yet to learn how to read a railroad map.
jimsf Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Fresno is a very important city in california and the central valley is as vital to the state as silicon valley or hollywood or any place else.
New estimates from the California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit ( http://bayareanewsgroup.com/multimed…ort_050207.pdf ), for January, 2007:
1. Los Angeles – 4,018,080 hsr stop
2. San Diego – 1,316,837 hsr stop
3. San Jose – 973,672 hsr stop
4. San Francisco – 808,844 hsr stop
5. Long Beach – 492,912 hsr stop within 5 miles
6. Fresno – 481,035 hsr stop
7. Sacramento – 467,343 hsr stop
8. Oakland – 415,492 hsr stop within 5 miles
9. Santa Ana – 353,428 hsr stop within 5 miles
10. Anaheim – 345,556 hsr stop
looks like things are going the way they should.
oh notice how anaheim is smaller than fresno by 200k people. guess anaheim is really a backwater.
whats missing on this list? antelope valley – over 500k there too and an hsr stop.
have to deal with reality.
Joey Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Have you considered the fact that Bakersfield and Fresno happen to be more or less on the way from SoCal to NorCal?
jimsf Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Those aren’t “detours” and the plan, as is, as a comprehensive transport core, is just right the way it is. as many have pointed out over and over, it goes where the riders are.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 4:44 pm
synonymouse…. pull out a state map and the answer should be obvious.
Layer #1: It’s a state project connecting north and south and planned to mitigate some need to expand freeways and airports and decrease reliance on polluting fossil burning fuels. Map-wise….Bakersfield, Fresno, Merced and Stockton are pearls on the string connecting LA & SF.
Layer #2: Serve population centers of today…. and tomorrow. If you did not know… the Central Valley is among the fastest growing parts of the state. That trend will continue because land is more plentiful and cheaper in the Central Valley.
dejv Reply:
December 24th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
@synonymouse
Sacramento and San Diego are vastly more important to the success of the hsr than Bakersfield and Fresno
They’re not en-route, adding them to first phase would drive costs up. Stations in Bakersfield and Fresno mean adding more potential passengers while keeping costs at the same level.
It is crucial that the hsr try to remain as private and self-sustaining as possible. The reason is obvious – if it is government-run and meandering and stopping in every podunk it will require a significant and on-going public subsidy.
I think you mix several independent points into one statement:
First: the slower trains stopping each 5-20 km (3-6 miles) will require subsidies. Regardless of operator ownership (there are many such private operators that operate such routes dependent on subsidies). The same goes for faster trains. They don’t need operational subsidies despite the fact that most of them are operated by government-owned company.
Second: you seem to assume that all trains do have to run at the same speed. This is only true in bottlenecks. In other sections, the track can accomodate train of three to four stopping patterns. In case of CA HSR, the slow trains are unlikely to run on its track (because of low intensity of commuter trains or quadruple tracking) leaving room for more expresses.
There is no such as earmarked in a cash crisis – everything is on the table and BART has a sterling track record of scoring funds. Its passenger counts way exceed any the hsr could hope for.
Every commuter rail system has higher ridersip compared to long-distance operations from the same city. Yet the long-distance operations are more profitable. So BART revenue numbers say have no relation to future HSR numbers. By the way, commuter rail systems were profitable in the USA to 1950’s coinciding with “great american streetcar scandal” and building of government-paid interstate system.
To rub in the salt, the hsr, after slowing down the San Joaquin Valley line with a gratuitous detour, tries to make up the time with an overbuilt Caltrain and demands for unrealistic speeds on the Peninsula
The 200 km/h ain’t no unrealistic speed. I’ts top speed of conventional train operations. By the way much quieter than diesel trains operating at 40 mph.
<quote.Places like Palo Alto are generally vastly more sympathetic to the concept of hsr and anti-auto than the Reaganite Central Valley and Orange County. Yet you deride them as nimbys for wanting to keep their towns pleasant.
When somebody supports anything as long as it out of sight, it’s NIMBY by definition. No matter what the actual thing is. In this particular case, much of the opposition is determined by the fact that most of those people have never seen electric rail operations.
The good citizen more than ever just wants to keep his place, his back yard, protected from social decay, ie blight.
Do I understand well that you suggest that HSR drives crime rates up? If so, what do you base it on?
dejv Reply:
December 24th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
sorry for formatting, is somebody coud replace quote tags with blockqoute, it would help much. :)
http://foxandhoundsdaily.com/blog/jeffery-m-barker/6141-momentum-builds-high-speed-rail
Alon Levy Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 3:37 pm
That article reads like an O’Toole screed in reverse: our system pays for itself by definition, and everything else is just a subsidy hog. There’s very little additional information in the article.
Newspapers will allow any racist comments about illegal immigrants and things like that, but when I try to tell people who great it will be to poop on a high speed train at 220 MPH, they delete it! Man, the world is topsy-turvy.
synonyRAT!
“Growing disenchantment”? This must only exist within your well-to-do, right-wing, taxes for nothing inner circle. Bay Area in the midst of a crime wave? Didn’t realize that the Bay Area had become a massive, walled prison ala “Escape from New York.” Protecting your back yard (which you purchased knowing full well about the existing railroad) from social decay? WOW! Has someone gone off the deep end or what! Oh well, it’s your world.
Who needs “swelling population”? Certainly not the Chinese, who have taken the necessary measures to stabilize their massive population.
All you growth-mongers are accomplishing is revving up the pace of environmental degradation. California’s malaise is overpopulation more than anything else. You are equating growth with progress. Not. “They paved paradise and put up a parking lot”. A parking lot in Palmdale for the wage slaves bound for LA under a pall of smog.
Joey Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:34 pm
This is just stupid. People will reproduce with HSR or without HSR. Growth will happen, one way or another, HSR will just push it in a more sustainable direction. If you think that Palmdale is at risk of sprawl, then you should be fighting against the station itself. It does not discredit the technical superiority of the Tehachapi route as a whole. And don’t even think about saying Palmdale was the only reason for that choice without coming up with some HARD EVIDENCE for it.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 24th, 2009 at 11:31 am
No, China does have massive population growth, in its cities. It comes from people migrating from the country, just like California has population growth coming from people immigrating from Mexico.