The Truth About HSR Bonds and the State Budget
As California’s budget crisis continues, the usual arguments about the $10 billion high speed rail bond are getting dredged up again. The Sacramento Bee’s Dan Walters includes HSR as one of the reasons he says state politicians are digging their fiscal hole deeper:
The state has tens of billions of dollars in unsold bonds, and Treasurer Bill Lockyer has warned that with the state’s lowest-in-the-nation credit rating he may market new debt only sporadically….
The High-Speed Rail Authority is paying a public relations firm $8 million to peddle the deeply flawed project with “a coordinated statewide communications program” because advocates are eager to break ground and commit the state to the project before its deficiencies become toxic.
Walters’ column also includes assumptions that global warming deniers are right (despite the controversy over leaked emails from a British climate research institute, the overall scientific consensus that global warming IS happening has not been dented), suggesting his ideas are really a grab bag of conservative criticisms of efforts to change a failed status quo. His column boils down to “government spending is bad.”
This is despite the fact the only reason there are any signs of economic recovery is because of massive federal deficit spending. When the recession was under way and the scale of the state budget crisis was known in 2008, California voters rejected the arguments of the new Hoovers and agreed that spending $10 billion in bond debt to create jobs via sustainable transportation that wasn’t dependent on ever-rising oil prices was a good thing.
It’s clear that California’s budget mess is ongoing. Without considering the sale of the Prop 1A bond, or the $11 billion water bond on the November ballot, the state still faces an annual $20 billion deficit for at least the next 3 years. Even if we didn’t sell another dime of the Prop 1A bond (and forfeited at least $2.25 billion in federal funds) the state would still be in a deep fiscal hole and would be giving up as much as 160,000 jobs that could help fill the state’s coffers.
Ultimately, California is going to have to raise taxes, mostly on the wealthy and on large corporations, to deal with the budget gap. The alternative is to shut down health care programs, whole education programs ($20 billion is half of the total cost of K-12 education in the state), or other important services that are necessary for a prosperous modern society.
High speed rail would help get us out of the mess by building infrastructure the state needs for a 21st century economy and creating jobs that can put the state back to work and put more tax revenue into Sacramento’s pocket. Those jobs will be created, though it’s possible it won’t be as high as 160,000. Even if HSR doesn’t break even or meet its ridership numbers (a remote though possible outcome), those jobs and the tax revenue it spurs would be there, helping power the state’s recovery. And over time, as the state grows and takes in more money, the annual debt service will become an ever-smaller portion of the state budget.
There’s plenty of precedent for this – it’s how the bay bridges were built in the 1930s, during the depth of the Depression – but embracing the idea of deficit spending to create jobs also means rejecting the status quo. It means refusing to accept long-term unemployment, refusing to embrace 21st century forms of transportation, and refusing to invest in our future.
Which is exactly what some wish to do. Usually these are people who have made enough money off the 20th century that they feel they can continue to prosper here in the 21st century while everything that made 20th century prosperity possible is torn to pieces.
It’s true that there is an upper limit on the state’s bond debt. But during a recession like this, that limit isn’t something we’re anywhere close to, especially when the state leaves billions of dollars on the table through its refusal to effectively tax the fortunes of the wealthy and the enormous profits of its largest corporations.
In fact, California’s bond debt of $83.5 billion is just 4.5% of our state’s $1.85 trillion GDP. In contrast, some of the European nations whose debt levels are generating so much attention have far higher ratios – Greece’s government debt-to-GDP ratio is 112%.
In short, HSR bond money isn’t really a major factor in the state’s budget crisis. California deliberately doesn’t take in as much money as we need to in order to operate our public services at desired levels. We either have to generate new revenue, or accept a lesser level of public services. Punishing one of the few government services that will pay for its ongoing operating costs – high speed rail – strikes me as a very foolish thing to do.
No one is going to take seriously the contention that the hsr won’t require operating subsidies. Its route is too circutitous; it has too many stops; and its labor costs will be high. A newer, faster version of Amtrak. Slavishly following 150 year old railroad routes should be a dead giveaway.
The CHSRA is going to face political problems no matter who is elected governor. Poizner evidently is against the hsr; Whitman certainly will have a problem with berms in her backyard; and Brown probably supports Altamont, as he is a resident of the Eastbay and former mayor of Oakland. Plus at this late point in his political career what does he have to fear about rattling a few cages?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
March 7th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
You DO realize that California’s urban development patterns also follow those 150-year old railroad routes?
How exactly will there be higher ridership and farebox revenue if we bypassed all the people?
Do you have any evidence about Jerry Brown’s position on HSR alignments? I haven’t seen anything to suggest he has a position at all.
Peter Reply:
March 7th, 2010 at 8:20 pm
I think you assume too much with synonyrodent.
Andrew Reply:
March 7th, 2010 at 10:31 pm
I’m starting to think that he’s a troll.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 7th, 2010 at 10:59 pm
Just starting? Memorable quotes like “On ignore la SNCF” (which doesn’t mean what you think it does – “ignorer” means not to know) didn’t clue you in weeks ago?
Andrew Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 4:24 am
The line between troll and legitimate idiot can be fuzzy.
Andre Peretti Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 4:54 am
The French verb “ignorer” has two meanings:
1)- not to know
2)- to affect total indifference. Example: “il m’ignore”= he acts as if I didn’t exist.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
You are assuming he was attempting standard French. Franglish AOLspeak it makes sense.
HSRforCali Reply:
March 7th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Funny, the Acela Express has an average speed of 70 mph, yet manages to turn a hefty profit. CAHSR’s average speed will be almost twice that. Also, the route connects all of California’s major cities in a single route. As for the HSR system having too many stops, have you heard of express and limited stop trains?
And stop trying to form opinions for Whitman and Brown. If you did your homework, you’d know that Brown tried to force a Los Angeles – San Diego Bullet Train down our throats in the early 80s.
Your opinions only get weaker and more pathetic with each post you submit. Do your homework and find VALID INFORMATION.
jimsf Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 10:03 am
according to synomynouse, maybe acela would have higher ridership if skipped all the pesky urban centers and by passed the downtowns all together. They should have run it along the i-95
Tom West Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 11:22 am
Acela Express seats are overpriced to limit demand to available capacity…. if they had extra trains, they oculd cut prices and still make more profit.
Peter Reply:
March 7th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
A high speed train couldn’t possibly cover its operating expenses. Especially not the first TGV, which travelled between Paris and Lyon within 2:40. Oh wait, it was in fact in the black? And its run-time was in fact the same as SF-LAUS, and at a much lower speed? Hmmm, maybe the people designing this know what they’re doing after all…
BTW, they’ve reorganized the Library on the Authority’s website to be more organized. Still waiting for the animations from the San Jose presentation, though.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 7th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
I don’t think the TGV Sud-Est ever did Paris-Lyon in 2:40. It did it in 4:00 first, when it ran on a legacy line for one third of the way, and in 2:00 after the LGV Sud-Est was completed.
Andre Peretti Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 9:59 am
True. When the incomplete line was opened the gain in time was not spectacular but the impact on public opinion was decisive. Up to then, the political world had been divided about the project. Some politicians even urged the government to act as a responsible shareholder and stop SNCF executives wasting billions to gratify their egos.
Everything changed when people (and television teams) had a ride on the TGV. The reactions were enthusiastic: “incredibly fast and smooth”, “this train flies”, etc… From that moment, the SNCF had public opinion on its side and all opposition to extending the line magically vanished.
Reality Check Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Whitman need not worry about “berms in her backyard” … her house about equidistant from Hwy 101 and the Caltrain right of way.
The only way you could claim these lines were profitable is if they received zero government money for any purpose. zippo nada
And don’t come back with crap about the airlines being subsidized. They are because rich and powerful people and corps, the military, want it that way. Same for freeways.
Airlines could build their own damn airports with their own money and ditto for air traffic control. The facilities would be a lot smaller and the fares a whole lot higher. But they would still be patronized by said rich and powerful and they would still make money. There would just not be anywhere nearly as many people of ordinary means flying. If people want something enough they will pay enough to make it “profitable”.
Yáll are convinced that the hsr will be a phenomal success from the start. You will be crowing. But what if it turns out to be a flop, with passenger counts way below estimates and sky high labor costs due to militant, pollitically connected unions? What private operator would want to take over a statewide iteration of a BART or a Muni?
Joey Reply:
March 7th, 2010 at 9:07 pm
What if the world ends in 2012?
Peter Reply:
March 7th, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Then at least we wouldn’t have to listen to synonymouse’s rants and wild speculation anymore.
Peter Reply:
March 7th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
No one is saying they’re going to “profitable”. That’s not the same as saying they cover their operating expenses. No one expects the lines to pay back their development and construction costs. It’s an investment by the state in the state’s future.
wu ming Reply:
March 7th, 2010 at 9:25 pm
why do you persist in pretending that europe and asia do not exist? do you have any idea how silly it makes you look to ignore decades’ worth of real-world examples of HSR covering its operating expenses in every country it’s operating in? for god’s sake, get yourself a better red herring, this one’s painfully embarassing to watch.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 7th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
First define an “operating subsidy”. If you mean General Fund dollars pay for day-to-day costs of HSR than that is an unlikely outcome. I don’t know of any transit agency in California that supplants farebox revenue with General Fund dollars. Of course it is true that some counties have transit agencies which receive tax dollars on top of receipts but that is not money that would otherwise go to state coffers.
Then, recognize that even among pro-HSR types, it’s not a homogenuous group. There is a lot not to like. But on balance, people have to see it for what it is. California is in an economic downturn because the state’s infrastructure and policies are not nuturing sustainable growth. Again and again we hear the chorus about tax cuts and the like, but at the end of the day, we need new infrastructure.
Even if HSR is the biggest debacle of all time financially, it will move the state in the right direction and subsidize California’s future in the best possible way.
You can’t go and tear BART and Muni to shreds without acknowleding that those systems were based on an archaic idea of economic growth. More people work outside of downtown San Francisco than in 2010 and if those transit system reflected that…they would make a lot more money. And even if nothing changes, gas prices are going to encourage more density on their own.
HSR could be operated as a nonprofit corporation and still work just fine. Until we have lawmakers proposing new alignments in the middle of nowhere at state expense (like the Japanese did) it can’t be the boondoogle you proclaim it to be. Will it be expensive, yes. Will there be problems, yes. Does that mean we sit on our hands? No….
Bianca Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 8:51 am
Airlines could build their own damn airports with their own money and ditto for air traffic control. The facilities would be a lot smaller and the fares a whole lot higher. But they would still be patronized by said rich and powerful and they would still make money.
You do realize that the truly rich and powerful don’t fly commercial airlines, right? They have their own planes, and they tend to use smaller airports already.
Without going into the very doubtful proposition that the airlines, those same airlines that have required massive government bailouts to stay afloat, could actually afford to build their own airports and provide their own air traffic control, I’d like synonymouse to explain why on earth that would be a good thing. Currently, we have a transportation network that is accessible to a majority of Americans, and it allows them the freedom to travel easily. Under the scenario that synonymouse proposes, only the rich and powerful would have access to air travel and the rest of us schlubs would have to make do with cars, even for cross-country travel? How is that good from a policy perspective? Mobility is an economic boon, and mobility is in itself enough of a public good that it makes sense for government to invest in it, because the economic growth created by enhanced mobility will redound to its benefit.
synonymouse Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Yours is an argument in favor of subsidizing transport. The highway lobby argues that the auto and the freeway are the most efficient at providing mobility. I don’t agree with that position but not just because the automobile is all that efficient but because I think mobility is way overrated. To hell with population growth ad nauseum. I like the idea of the hsr replacing airplanes and airports with not stops in between so no sprawl.
Nobody on this site has proposed a way to deal with labor costs. Strikes will be a bigger problem for the CHSRA than any earthquake hazard.
Peter Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Has Amtrak California been shut down by strikes? Not that I’ve heard of.
Has the Northeast Corridor been shut down by strikes? Not that I’ve heard of.
Have strikes caused problems in other countries on rail systems? Yes, they have. But they last a couple of days and things go back to normal. Fear of unions is not a valid reason for not building HSR. There’s no reason to get into that issue at this point. We’re not ANYWHERE near deciding who and how to operate the system.
Peter Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
Nothing wrong with subsidizing transportation. That’s how it’s done EVERYWHERE. Airlines, local mass transit, commuter, regional and intercity rail, both lower and high speed, are all subsidized in some way.
“To hell with population growth ad nauseum.” If there ever was a statement that shows your naivete (or insanity), it would be that. Population growth is going to happen whether we want it or not. I know you have some mad scheme to “deal” with that, but it’s certain to be just that: mad.
You really need to look at the world around you and see that your ideas are out of touch with reality.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 10:39 pm
Somehow, France manages to live with SNCF’s trigger-happy unions.
jimsf Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Militant Unions!! gasp! Syn… you sound as if you just WANT hsr to fail. you are HOPING hsr fails. Its like those folks who WANT the president to fail. or who want government to fail in general so that you can be right.
Joey Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 11:55 pm
Who ever said he doesn’t?
The world is not going to end in 2012 – we haven’t even begun to pay off our bonded indebtedness yet.
Has anybody botherd to ask Jerry Brown if he approved of Oakland, etc. losing out on Altamont? Or Meg Whitman if she likes the idea of seeing and hearing blighty berms out her window?
Joey Reply:
March 7th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
Altamont wouldn’t benefit Oakland that much. A Dumbarton crossing would be the most likely scenario.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 7th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
Don’t be so sure. Connecting the HSR (or even ending it) to Oakland would give HSR a host of feeder route options from the airport to BART to Caltrain. The current alignment through the Peninsula is going to create more redundancies on other transit systems.
Joey Reply:
March 7th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
My point is that even i Altamont f were chosen, the probability of HSR going to Oakland would still be slim.
Joey Reply:
March 7th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
*even if
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 7th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Redundant? Like the cable cars that go to Fresno? Or the light rail line that connects Santa Clara to Modesto? Maybe you are thinking about the monorail from Disneyland to Palmdale?
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Um, which of those cities are on the Peninsula again?
The issue with HSR usurping CalTrain’s right of way in Northern California isn’t unique. The entire segment in Los Angeles County shares its alignment with Southern California’s commuter rail system, Metrolink. Therefore, one would think that a judicious use of California’s existing commuter rail and mass transit would be a crucial part of CAHSR’s planning process but of course, I’m not naive.
Peter Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Well, if you can figure out how to integrate HSR with Caltrain and UPRR while at the same time complying with FRA regulations, be my guest.
Unless of course you’re in favor of stopping HSR in San Jose.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
Well no….I’m more in the camp that HSR should run through Altamont and into Oakland. That way, the Capitol Corridor could be upgraded until it was high speed as well (going to Reno) and Caltrain could be left alone but still be a feeder for HSR.
Joey Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
How could CalTrain feed HSR if it only ran in the East Bay? Unless you’re talking about the small percentage of lower peninsula residents who might take it to San José.
Besides, eliminating the single-seat ride into downtown SF is a sure way to kill ridership. In addition to being a center of business and a sure attractor of tourism, nowhere else do you have so many transit connections. The Transbay/Embarcadero area has BART services from all corners of the system, more MUNI lines than I can count, and buses from Marin, the East Bay, and just about every other obscure corner of the Bay Area.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 10:55 pm
I should have said “indirect feeder” since CalTrain would still allow someone to board a high speed rail train in San Jose or connect to BART and subsequently HSR.
But I realize, for some people not having HSR at the TransBay Terminal is unconscionable. But I think it’s overblown big time.
First, the BART ride from downtown SF to Oakland is around 10 minutes. If you cut through Altamont with only a couple stops beforehand (like the Airport/Coliseum and Dublin) you actually get going much quicker. The dog leg through the Peninsula adds a lot of time that isn’t going to be worth it unless a lot of Silicon Valley guys use it to visit LA. Although I haven’t done the math, I have a hunch that using existing options like Cap Corridor to feed HSR is probably faster than cutting through the Peninsula from SF and then breaking into the Central Valley from either Pacheco or Altamont.
Second, the ridership assumptions to me aren’t consistent with what I see when I fly between Northern and Southern California. Most people going to the Bay Area aren’t going to step foot in San Francisco and travelers heading south are not usually headed for downtown LA. Anaheim’s station too is sort of pixie dust. Yes, the city believes in the “Platinum Triangle”, but you are still not within walking distance to Disneyland where probably most of the riders would go.
Joey Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 11:17 pm
Again, transit hubs. You need local feeders.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 12:16 am
That’s not very illuminating. Oakland has the Capitol Corridor, BART, the airport, AC Transit, and the Port. SF has CalTrain, BART, ferries, and MUNI. Cap Corridor serves a much wider area than CalTrain (which would be made redundant if the Peninsula alignment is used). SF and Oakland are very close via BART. AC Transit covers a wider area than MUNI. The ferry people meanwhile, instead of walking five blocks to the TransBay, go two into BART Embarcadero station and transfer in Oakland…..
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Why bother to bring it to Oakland? Everyone could just ride BART to Fremont and get on a train there. Why bother to go to Fremont? They could just build a big intermodal station in Livermore and everyone could schlep out to Livermore. Why bother to do that, just extend the Capitol Corridor to Fresno and everyone can change trains there….
Joey Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Why bother bringing it to Fresno? People can transfer to the San Joaquín at Bakersfield. Why build it at all? We can just extend the San Joaquín down to LAUS. Why do that? People can just take the Coast Starlight.
Oh wait…
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
Feel free to tell me I’m wrong, but I believe that an Oakland through Altamont Alignment takes less time to reach Fresno than San Francisco through Pacheco. And to boot, it allows service to most of the Central Valley on the same train, as opposed to having Bay Area people change trains to visit Merced or Modesto. Sure, it’s an hour ride to Oakland from San Jose Diridon…but isn’t that the same amount of time East Bay will have to navigate to reach Diridon if the current alignment is used?
Joey Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
Some of them. Those above, say, San Leandro can just take BART to SF and catch the train from there. Those below Fremont will probably take BART to SJ once that’s done (if ever, though I’m not overly excited by it). Those in between might use the San Mateo and Dumbarton bridges to reach Millbrae or Redwood City/Palo Alto/Mountain View. If Dumbarton Rail is ever implemented, it will make a good feeder service. The time it takes to get to the nearest station will certainly vary a lot based on location, but I’d say it’s probably considerably under an hour.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 7th, 2010 at 11:33 pm
First, there’s a LOT more to the East Bay (or just to Alameda County) than Oakland. San Ramon, etc, for better or worse, are major business centers.
Next, Altamont, even without the dubious and massive expense of a HSR line directly into Oakland, would be a HUGE win for the city. Consider the (few stops, and almost totally unused except for a couple rush hours a day) BART line (Livermore)-Dublin-Bayfair-Coliseum/OAK-downtown Oakland and then imagine the scope for exceptionally good HSR/BART connection in Livermore (this could even feature dedicated trains) and one can see was the potential for a rather awesomely good service offering.
(And to preempt obvious quibbles, the issue with doing the SF connection this way is that BART is severely capacity constrained Oakland-SF in a way that the Dublin and Fremont lines are not and never will be.)
It could have worked spectacularly well, given the smallest amount of competence or honestly from anybody involved in the CHSRA Bay Area “planning” (ie cost maximization) scam.
Leroy W. Demery, Jr. Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 9:18 am
Just in case any of youse guys have any interest in California’s indebtedness rankings compared to other U.S. states:
Net tax-supported debt per capita:
California ranks 10th, $1,805 per capita. The median is $865, although I caution that this statistic is not weighted for population differences among states.
Number one in the country is Connecticut, $4,490 per capita – that’s 2.5 times the California figure. Close second is Massachusetts, at $4,323 per capita.
Also of interest: Net tax-supported debt as a percentage of personal income.
California ranks 14th in the country, 4.4 percent. The median is 2.5 percent, and again I caution that this statistic is not weighted for population differences among states.
Hawaii ranks 1st in the country at 9.4 percent – more than twice the California figure. Massachusetts is again a close second, at 8.9 percent.
Source: Forbes.com. Information as of January 20, 2010.
URL: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/44/debt-10_Global-Debt-Crisis_Rank.html
And if the hsr doesn’t cover its operating expenses where are you going to make up the difference? Are you going to impose a pay cut on the unions? Are you willing to force a strike to rein in labor costs? Both BART and Muni will have to face this reality and quite soon.
Nothing can possibly go wrong. Right. That’s what they said about California real estate. Or BART to SFO. Most voters simply do not believe the CHSRA scheme can cover operating costs. Does anything run by the state of California cover its operating costs?
Joey Reply:
March 7th, 2010 at 9:48 pm
Most voters simply do not know anything about HSR.
I suppose you could say that the possibility of CAHSR not covering its operating expenses exists, though it is extremely remote, but considering other HSR systems, even the pathetic Acela, this is an extremely remote scenario. Plus, no one who knows a thing or two about HSR has even made that claim.
lyqwyd Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
CAHSR is far more likely to run an operating surplus than deficit.
viz. all other HSR systems.
On “covering operating costs” it might be of interest to you out in CA to know about the new Amtrak Lynchburg, VA-Washington DC train. It isn’t frequent. And it isn’t very fast. But it serves a corridor that the interstates don’t, and therefore – at 3 hours and 42 minutes – train travel is about as fast as car travel. Virginia had committed some money to covering operating expenses, but in recent months this train has been making a profit . Could auto-competitive travel times have something to do with profitability?
Messieurs – la SNCF n’a absolument rien a faire avec la Calfornie. A part le dilemme des syndicats, ce qui est plus our moins semblable.
“the biggest debacle of all time financially”? You really want to impose such a disaster on the suffering people of California? We all have to live here, you know. See if there is a cheaper alternative for a starter line. If you could lay the hsr down the center of I-5 without much work to the overpasses, just re-channeling the freeway lanes it could get the project underway without a lot of controversy and achieve the fastest travel time.
Why does the hsr insist on chasing the UP’s old slow routes all over the state? UP management is right in saying buzz off.
Travis D Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 1:15 am
Fastest travel time for whom? For Modesto? Fresno?
You seem to like to pretend the people in those cities don’t exist.
elfling Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Alternatively – and even worse – such a change would encourage development on the I-5 corridor, where there is no water and no other reason for towns to exist.
In addition to all the people who live there, California has 4 major public universities on the Hwy 99 route, universities full of budget-conscious students without cars who probably would like to travel more often, either home or to destinations in LA or SF. Universities full of research professors and classes and other resources for all of California.
synonymouse Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
They will survive, just like Chico State.
wu ming Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
double the price of gas, and the valley’s really deeply screwed. i know you look down on us from your bay area eyrie, but we’re taxpaying californians too. i just hope the peninsula NIMBYs don’t delay this thing long enough to make the extension to sac get put off even further into the future.
i know people working at UC merced, and they were ecstatic for the possibilities that HSR had for them getting to airports and out of the valley quickly. building a route that inconveniences millions of people and encourages development on the dry selenium soil side of the valley to save 15 minutes and make the map look prettier is beyond asinine.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
In fact, gas prices have been rising steadily in recent days as oil markets react to favorable job reports and the possibility of economic recovery in the US. In short, as we’ve predicted for a long time, oil prices will head back up as soon as we see signs of recovery, and that’s precisely what’s going on.
Just imagine what the price at the pump will be if we get unemployment down to 6%.
wu ming Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
sadly, i don’t think we’re doing to see anything as low as 6% for a while, but if asia and europe start to heat up again, even with us mired in recession, it’ll drive oil up nonetheless. worst possible scenario, really.
HSRforCali Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Wow, that comment just says it all. You’re a selfish (beep) who doesn’t give a crap about the rest of us. I’ve never heard such an absurd and pathetic comment against connecting the CV before. Why don’t you go over to Fresno, Merced, Bakersfield, and the rest of the CV cities and tell them that yourself? I’d love to see you try.
Matthew F. Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 1:26 am
Penny wise, pound foolish. “Let’s cut the cost in half by building a system that will attract a third as many riders”.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
Here’s the deal:
The rail infrastructure in the US has never been publicly owned. It wasn’t until the MTA passed Proposition C, I think, that a public agency in the US started to buy right of ways from the railroads. Now it’s true that in Chicago and NYC had built subways and mass transit it before, but no one had converted private track to public track.
Amtrak doesn’t own any of its track (ironically) and the MTA doesn’t use the converted track for commuter rail…only light rail projects. New, publicly financed railway in the US would be a significant, significant event. That’s why, if you notice…none of the ARRA awards included new alignments that CAHSR is going to have to build only what already exists….
Leroy W. Demery, Jr. Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
HUH?
Amtrak has owned most of the Northeast Corridor, the New Haven – Springfield and the Philadelphia – Harrisburg line since the 1970s. It also owns other segments, notably about 100 miles of the Chicago – Detroit line.
The Long Island Rail Road has been owned by New York State since the 1960s.
Here in the West, The Southern California Regional Rail Authority purchased or acquired easements and operating rights for more than 450 miles of lines in the L.A. area during the early 1990s. These are used by Metrolink commuter rail trains.
And, lest anyone think that “public” ownership of rail lines in the U.S. is something new, Colorado’s Moffatt Tunnel was built during the late 1920s with public funding and is still owned by the state.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 1:27 am
You forgot Conrail. Not that Conrail was or is a good thing. Yes Conrail still exists.
NJTransit and SEPTA own a lot of track. Metra owns the Electric lines and NICTD owns it’s ROW that connects to Metra Electric. There’s lots of government owned ROW that doesn’t have trains or even tracks on it. The Lackawanna Cutoff comes to mind. . .
Peter Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 8:56 am
Amtrak actually even has the statutory authority to exercise eminent domain over the freight railroads it uses for passenger transportation if the track owner does not maintain the tracks in a manner conducive to passenger service.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
Forgive me for being too broad on this.
I don’t dispute that public agencies own track. My point was that I don’t know of any publicly owned track (perhaps the NEC qualifies) that carries freight or is part of the freight rail capacity. And if such track exists, it probably wasn’t constructed using public money, which is the real point I was driving at. Railroads are regulated like a utility, not another type of business. And as a general rule, utilities are not publicly owned but given a specific market area to have a monopoly.
By building CAHSR, we are essentially blowing up that paradigm and creating a brave new world of sorts for rail. And that’s why I was saying…you’ll note that as of yet, we haven’t been awarded any money to build the new track that won’t be part of the existing UPRR and BSNF ROWs.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
Forgive me for being too broad in my statement.
I recognize there is publicly owned track. But I’m referring to track that is used for freight capacity that was built by the government and is used at least part of the time for this purpose. I don’t know if any of the examples mentioned qualify.
In any case, railroads are treated as a utility. Therefore, their assets are usually not publicly owned, but instead part of an monopoly awarded by government within a set service area. This is why CAHSR is so significant, because we are effectively blowing up this paradigm and replacing it with public track. And to that end, the FRA has yet to award us any more for the segments that would be new track, instead concentrating efforts on existing ROWs.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 11th, 2010 at 7:07 pm
I don’t know if any of the examples mentioned qualify.
New York State bought the Long Island Railroad in 1966. It’s carried freight since 1834 and still does.
Conrail owned and operated most of the track in the Midwest and Northeast between 1976 and 1997.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 11th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
The LIRR is almost European-style in that it’s mostly used for passenger traffic, and has low freight modal share. The Brooklyn-Jersey City tunnel idea is meant partly to increase LIRR usage by US-style heavy freight trains.
Fastest time for the great majority of the population: Bay Area-Sac in the north to LA-San Diego in the south. The 99 corridor would get upgraded diesel service initially, eventually electrification. The Fresno-Bakersfield branch to the I-5 hsr would come early, but I would give hsr service to Sacramento priority.
Joey Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 6:46 am
You talk about the possibility of HSR not breaking even, and yet you then go and talk about removing the ridership generated by intermediate stops. There’s something that doesn’t add up about your argument.
Oh, and for the record, I-5 + Grapevine would save about 1/2 hour (maybe a little less) over the SR-99 + Tehachapi route, and you’d be bypassing about 3 million people.
synonymouse Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 11:35 am
That’s a killer half hour and could even be more if you could ramp up to 250mph with a Shinkansen II type system. Increasing speeds would be much easier with the remote I-5 alignment.
Fresno and Modesto are on the periphery and airline services to this area reflect this reality. They will get service but they cannot expect first priority. There are many regions in California that won’t be anywhere close to the hsr and they are coping with that prospect.
What the CHSRA needs is “shock and awe” 300 miles of non-stop 200+ mph on I-5 will provide that “knock your socks off” experience and attract a very impressive customer base. People will make their way to the terminals. Express airporter buses can be quite effective.
And I believe that OPB’s dual base tunnel suggestion east of but parallel to the Grapevine proper addresses Richard M.’s concerns about crapulent geology. I dunno about the ruling gradient but I have to assume it would meet the 3.5% max. spec.
Peter Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 11:46 am
People don’t care about “knock your socks off” experiences in travel, except for novelty purposes. It’s not about making the passengers’ blood pump, for Christ sake. It’s about offering a safe, fast, and cost-effective service to the citizens of and visitors to the state.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 11:52 am
Shinkansen II is code for “maglev.”
And “I have to assume” is code for “I’m pulling figures ex recto.”
synonymouse Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
PB evidently only studied part of this route, presumably due to LA’s demands to serve Palmdale. So no figures AFAIK.
Bianca Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 11:57 am
You’re arguing for an I-5 alignment as a “cheaper” alternative, and then you want to do maglev? mmmmmkay.
Peter Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 11:59 am
And dual base tunnels comparable with the Gotthard Tunnel.
synonymouse Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
not maglev
synonymouse Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
considerably shorter than the Saint Gotthard. But I would like to see Herr Herrenknecht’s views on mining the Grapevine.
Peter Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
What’s the link you’re basing your statements off of? I can’t find it in the archives anymore.
Peter Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Regarding tunneling, I mean.
synonymouse Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
http://cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20080201150441_Tunneling_Report.pdf
I hope it works as I had trouble with it. It is a pdf file and wants to load in Acrobat. Best to save it and then open it.
What is ironic about this whole controversy is that if the UP could get a direct, all-weather route out of the LA basin to the San Joaquin Valley with a gradient workable for freight and paid fgor by the taxpayers, they would jump at the chance. It’s like Donner vs. Feather River. But the dumb CHSRA wants the Feather River. The only reason the Western Pacific went with the Feather River route was because that was all that was left. Someone at PB must know this is a retrograde wimpout.
Peter Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
I’ve already looked at that report. I still don’t see why you would want to tunnel through two known fault lines if you don’t have to. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.
synonymouse Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Only the Garlock fault is crossed in tunnel.
If the Swiss had your reluctance and willingness to accept second-rate they would have given up on mining any base tunnels decades ago. I am sure Herrenknecht would be more than willing to tackle the Grapevine tunnels – check out the excellent article on him and his company in the New Yorker a couple of years ago.
Peter Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Oh, goodie. The fault line most likely to rupture.
Peter Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Retraction. Garlock fault could have a major rupture at any point between now and 2500 years from now.
Peter Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
But, if you’re arguing that only the Garlock fault would be crossed in a tunnel, are you arguing for th I-5 – SR-138 alignment?
Peter Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 11:57 am
And “shock and awe” is simply stupid. Go play some more God of War. Or Train Simulator. Maybe combine the two.
wu ming Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
there you go again. i’m increasingly convinced a huge part of your objections to this thing is that you look down upon the valley and inland empire. we’re “peripheral” and thus should remain peripheral by building a line right past us that leans as far away from the unwashed denizens of the valley as can be managed. you’d rather pay millions more in increased costs just to avoid serving us.
this reads so much like classic suburban objections to mass transit because “they” might come into our neighborhoods.
HSRforCali Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 7:13 am
The point of HSR is to connect California’s cities, not bypass them. Now if HSR becomes an outstanding success, then I say build the I-5/Grapevine corridor to further cut travel times and add capacity.
OT…
Since someone mentioned about Japanese seismic system last week, you may find this news article useful…
Taiwan High Speed Rail turns down quake alert system
AndyDuncan Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 9:54 am
So the European systems aren’t automatic?
Andre Peretti Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
I read the article, and adding some info I gathered from French websites makes THRS’s position clearer.
Although they consider the Japanese system is excellent, they think it can’t work in Taiwan. Japanese trains don’t have to rely only on trackside sensors. The system is connected to data centers not exclusively dedicated to the Shinkansen. Japan has a very extensive network of sensors. This allows data centers to detect a quake wherever it starts, even 50km away from the tracks, and calculate how fast and in what direction it is moving.
Taiwan does not have such an extensive network of sensors. Thus, the line is much more dependent on its own trackside sensors and won’t detect a quake starting away from the tracks.
I suppose California has a sensor network comparable to Japan’s, and CHSR will be connected to it.
I am surprised the Taiwanese system seems to depend on the driver’s reaction time. It is not the case in Europe. If the train has to be stopped, the computer takes over and the driver becomes a spectator.
AndyDuncan Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Perhaps the European seismic system isn’t fully integrated with the Japanese Digital-ATC control/signaling system they’re using.
Do any of the European implementations have a similar country-wide seismic network to tie into? Since it looks like the CHSRA is leaning towards ERTMS/ETCS, hopefully that’s possible.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Every system everywhere has a Big Red Button that drops authorized speed to 0kmh.
Dumping traction power can also be part of that (bearing in mind the trade-off of losing some dynamic braking capacity.)
The question is what is or isn’t wired up to the hammer that drops on on the Big Red Button,
and that’s quite independent of whether ETCS or something else is wired up on the other side of the button.
Humans don’t have the analysis speed nor reaction times to be in the loop at any stage of this.
O/T: NYT op-ed argues for more investment in true HSR in the NEC.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/08/opinion/08wolmar.html
What I think people miss on both the left and the right is that there are good and bad spending when you’re trying to stimulate an economy running at less than desired rate.
People on the right assume all government spending to stimulate the economy is bad. Conversely, people on the left often assume all government spending is good to stimulate the economy. Both are wrong. Infra structure spending (like HSR) has an initial economic effect as people are put to work building the infrastructure. Later there is the secondary benefits of the infrastructure itself which add to the economy for decades.
Economist argue all the time whether a $1 spent will have a “multiplier” effect of greater than 1. General spending is thought to have a multiplier of anywhere from .6 to 1.6. But what we know about infra structure is that a $1 investment will often yield $5,6 or more over a long period.
HSR meets a future need but we can benefit in the short term by getting people to work.
Tom West Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 11:27 am
Excellent point – I’m reminded of Warren Buffet saying that could afford to pay 100 people to do nothign except paint portraits of him all day long – and GDP would increase. However, you would do better to spend the money on training them, or giviing it to them to invest in the stock market.
All government spending will stimulate the economy, but some spending stimulates more than others. (If that sounds hard, consider: all tax cuts stimulate the economy, but some types of tax cuts stimulate it more than others). Infrastructure spending has the advnatge that after you’ve spent the money building the thing, it continues to generate economic benefits.
wu ming Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
dear lord, don’t give it to them for investing in the stock market! even if you just pay them the money outright, ploughing that into the economy is where the multiplier effect occurs. giving it to the vaporware speculation industry doesn’t help anything.