California High Speed Rail Soldiers On Because of Budget Deficit
Fresno rail advocate Alan Kandel has a good post up about the recent Fresno-Bakersfield Alternatives Analysis, including concerns from some farmers about possible bypasses of Hanford, Wasco, and Shafter. We’ll have more on that issue later this week.
The title of Alan’s post, and its first paragraph, are what interest me today. The post is titled “California high-speed rail soldiers on despite budget deficits, controversies.” Here’s Alan’s first paragraph:
The whole idea of furthering the development of high-speed rail right now, opponents reason, particularly at a time when there is high unemployment and what with the state’s budget woes and all, this is not the time to build an 800-mile fast train system. Proponents, meanwhile, argue that these and other reasons justify HSR’s existence, some fearing that the longer it takes to get the network built, the greater the likelihood costs will soar.
As you can imagine, my view is the latter. The state budget and high unemployment are reasons to ensure high speed rail gets built.
California’s budget deficit, like those of all 50 other states, is due to the economic downturn, the worst in 60 years. In turn, that recession was due to our dependence on oil and sprawl. Rising fuel prices from 2003 onward began to erode wages and ability to service debts. High housing costs in the urban core drove many Californians to the exurbs in search of affordable housing, compounding the problem as they became more vulnerable to rising oil costs.
These problems came together in 2006, when gas prices broke $3 per gallon (a level gas prices are at today). That burst the housing bubble and began the long slide into a deep recession.
There’s only one proven way out of a recession caused by too much debt, and that is to spend money to create jobs that will build infrastructure that helps create lasting economic value. That’s how we dealt with the Great Depression in the 1930s, with projects like Shasta Dam, the bay bridges, Boulder Dam, and others.
It’s especially true of a recession where the trigger was high oil prices and sprawl. High speed rail helps reduce vulnerability to rising oil prices – and as we know, oil prices WILL rise the moment there’s any significant recovery, potentially putting us right back into the economic doldrums.
Unfortunately, Hooverism is making a comeback. HSR critics and opponents appear to believe that the proven recovery method of spending on infrastructure is either a bad idea, or represents too much of a threat to their interests and privileges to let stand. If it were up to them, we’d still be in the Depression, having not built the dams or the bridges that made postwar prosperity possible.
The notion that we should spend less money, not more, when we’re in a budget deficit and a recession was Hoover’s own view, and all it accomplished was deepening the downturn. It looks as if the rest of the world is determined to follow this path, with the G20 calling for more austerity and less stimulus. The US fought this shift all the way, with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner pointing out, correctly, that all austerity will do is produce higher unemployment and worsen the global recession.
Paul Krugman was deeply alarmed at the news out of the G20 as well:
It’s basically incredible that this is happening with unemployment in the euro area still rising, and only slight labor market progress in the US.
But don’t we need to worry about government debt? Yes — but slashing spending while the economy is still deeply depressed is both an extremely costly and quite ineffective way to reduce future debt. Costly, because it depresses the economy further; ineffective, because by depressing the economy, fiscal contraction now reduces tax receipts. A rough estimate right now is that cutting spending by 1 percent of GDP raises the unemployment rate by .75 percent compared with what it would otherwise be, yet reduces future debt by less than 0.5 percent of GDP.
The right thing, overwhelmingly, is to do things that will reduce spending and/or raise revenue after the economy has recovered — specifically, wait until after the economy is strong enough that monetary policy can offset the contractionary effects of fiscal austerity. But no: the deficit hawks want their cuts while unemployment rates are still at near-record highs and monetary policy is still hard up against the zero bound.
Krugman has been a strong supporter of high speed rail projects, precisely the kind of new spending that will reduce unemployment and, because of the economic activity and tax revenues that the projects will produce, will reduce the deficit as well.
Instead we have the voices of austerity calling for less spending, and NIMBYs opposing HSR out of a misguided desire to protect their privilege and their aesthetic values. They’re only going to hurt themselves in the end, as a prolonged recession and a “lost decade” will eventually bring down their precious property values, whereas high speed rail would have brought jobs AND a quieter rail corridor, both of which would likely protect their property values.
Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that. With a severe recession still ongoing, California and the federal government both need to work to ensure HSR is built on-time and in a way that meets the needs of the people of this state. It also means we must work to save the existing mass transit systems around the state, from buses to light rail service to Caltrain and Metrolink – if they collapse, our recession will deepen and it will become more difficult to get out of it. The massive environmental and economic disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is yet another spur to develop HSR and other passenger rail alternatives.
High speed rail in California is made more necessary by the budget deficit and unemployment. Let’s make sure the new Hoovers don’t derail us from our goal of a more prosperous, sustainable California.
UPDATE: BruceMcF offers some thoughts along these lines, including a call-out of “Depression Fans” and a proposal for a “Liberty Fund” that could help rescue mass transit like Caltrain, in his Sunday Train post at Daily Kos.
Californians need to relearn what FDR, Eisenhower, JFK and both Governors Brown knew… building stuff helps the economy! Highways, freeways, TVA dams, aqueducts, moon landings, schools, libraries and post offices with WPA architecture and art! Building HSR will help, too!
Also, and this will be discussed later, but the Santa Fe route really is the best possible choice. I say POSSIBLE choice because its obvious that UP will continue to be a @$%&@ unless somebody calls them on it.
The station at East Hanford is also the best possible idea. Besides being close to both Hwys. 198 and 43, there is also a mildly-used east-west railroad that could easily be converted to some sort of Sprinter/ light rail to connect with Visalia.
The location has wiggle room, unlike the existing Amtrak station. This would give Hanford the chance to build something new and exciting, something that would be a focal point for the area’s inevitable growth.
As for the farmers… they’re just NIMBY hypocrites. They get all sorts of government subsidies, including cheap water, limited regulation, farm workers are still treated like dirt, and the farms have a ridiculously powerful lobby group fighting to keep things that way.
rafael Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 1:08 am
A local HSR feeder similar to NCTD’s Sprinter between Escondido and Oceanside or else, SMART between Larkspur and Cloverdale, might possibly be a good idea for Lemoore-Porterville. It depends on the ridership estimates and available operating subsidies. Such a line would never be self-sustaining.
SJVR presumably gets a lot busier at harvest time, but locals would probably accept limited (or suspended) HSR feeder service during those periods. After all, farming is the mainstay of the economy in the area.
Other than trackage rights, the biggest problem I see is a short section through Goshen that would required trackage rights on UPRR’s main line, constraining achievable service frequency and schedule. More importantly, it would mean using FRA compliant equipment, which is more expensive to operate. It’s possible that UPRR and FRA might permit a service based on non-compliant equipment once PTC is implemented, but afaik HR2095-110th doesn’t require that for the entire US rail grid, only for selected corridors carrying a lot of passenger traffic or hazardous good. IDK if UPRR is planning to implement PTC in the CV.
James Fujita Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 10:10 am
Just a minor nitpick: “self-sustaining” is one of those political buzzwords which I absolutely hate.
Basically, it means that the project pays for itself, which is a virtual impossibility for almost all forms of rail transit in the United States. Conservatives have long used “self-sustaining” as a way to attack Amtrak and virtually all forms of transit.
Of course, there’s a double-standard here: highways and freeways are not self-sustaining, and even toll roads in California have had trouble staying in business.
What’s more important? Making sure that a project is “self-sustaining” or making sure that people have alternatives to car insurance, gasoline prices, tailpipe emissions (smog) and traffic-induced stress?
Rafael Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 10:28 am
No, you’re confusing “self-sustaining” with “self-starting”.
Self-starting means you can raise the initial investment from private parties. DesertXPress claims it is close to that for Victorville-Las Vegas. America’s freight railroads were also self-starting, though later on they managed to seek rents and even secure federally protected limited powers of eminent domain.
Self-sustaining means use fees (e.g. fares or tolls) are sufficient to cover operating expenses, maintenance and future expansion but NOT debt service on the initial investment. CHSRA claims the California HSR system will be able to achieve that.
Standard speed passenger rail is hardly ever self-sustaining, nor are roads or bridges or water or sewage. Up to a point, they’re considered public services, with recurring burdens on taxpayers.
Conservatives attack rail because they have an ideological preference for the greater flexibility afforded by cars and planes – blithely ignoring that they also have inherent downsides. US railroads were never nationalized, so they think of the technology as somehow reserved for the private sector.
James Fujita Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
I didn’t confuse the two terms. I said “pay for itself” and I meant into the future, as well as during the initial construction period. sorry if I was unclear.
whatever their ultimate motivations may be, conservatives do seem to dip into the “self-sustaining” well quite often in their rhetoric. Amtrak was straight-jacketed by this “yes, but will it require subsidies in the future?” “yes, but will it make money?” baloney in the past.
I don’t know if Cal HSR will ultimately be self-sustaining or not. But I do think that “self-sustaining” is a red-herring of sorts, and irrelevant to any discussion of rail transit, be it commuter rail in the Central Valley, light rail in the San Gabriel Valley or even the Subway to the Sea. all of these should be considered public services, as important to the public welfare as a new water main or a public hospital.
YesonHSR Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 11:52 am
Some dont seem to mind one bit about selling 300 acers to build large housing divisions on !
James Fujita Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
sad, but true. until recently, the Williamson Act was designed to prevent that sort of thing, and in California’s latest budget crisis, all of the funding for the act was taken away, leaving counties to scramble for cash to keep disgruntled farmers from selling out.
sort of makes you wonder if the farmers in the path of Cal HSR are less worried about their crops and more worried about the resale value of their land.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
The Williamson Act should be fully funded. The fact that it’s not is a disgrace.
Damn, Siemens really wants to build high speed rail in America. http://www.usa.siemens.com/industry/us/hsr-portal/hsr-landing.html?stc=usccc011001
Alon Levy Reply:
June 6th, 2010 at 11:58 pm
Note the conspicuous lack of mention of the strongest corridor in the US, one for which the Velaro is completely unsuitable.
Note also the made-up 150 mph speeds for the Midwest HSR Initiative.
BruceMcF Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 12:16 am
It seems like all the strongest Express HSR corridors are included – the only prime candidate skipped over is the NEC, which is famously expensive to build in.
Alon Levy Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
SNCF considers Texas a financially better-performing corridor than California, the Midwest, and Florida.
rafael Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 12:49 am
The Midwest High Speed Rail advocacy group thinks Chicago-St.Louis would be a prime candidate for a true electric bullet train route rated at 186mph+, definitely something for which the Velaro would be suitable.
For now, though, the state of Illinois has opted to upgrade the legacy corridor to 110mph. There has been no mixed traffic waiver request (cp Caltrain) nor are there plans for electrification, so the equipment used will presumably have to be FRA-compliant diesel behemoths.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 11:36 am
The people Rafael linked to are advocating for 220MPH, I don’t know where Siemens came up with 150.
I’ve never thought about what trains would be good for the NEC. We were supposed to be flitting between NY and DC in under 2 hours, more than 30 years ago. I’m not into foamer fantasies so that’s something I’ll think about when the track is up to it. Why is Velaro unsuitable?
Rafael Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
The Velaro is not FRA-compliant. Now that Caltrain got its waiver, there’s a chance non-compliant rolling stock might one day ply the NEC, given that it’s already got a wireline PTC implementation (ACSES, which is derived from TVM-430). I’m not sure exactly why FRA insisted on making the Acela Express so heavy its tilt mechanism forces trains into the shop every 20,000 miles.
Peter Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Don’t they have to first upgrade the OCS before they can run faster on many portions of the NEC? Velaro wouldn’t help them unless they upgrade their infrastructure…
Peter Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
By the way, has anyone actually seen the text of this waiver? I’ve just read second/third-hand descriptions of it…
Peter Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
http://www.greencaltrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/FRA-2009-0124-0014.1.pdf
Finally found it.
Reality Check Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
That’s one PDF of many associated with Caltrain’s waiver petition. For more, see:
Caltrain Waiver Petition — Docket ID: FRA-2009-0124
Peter Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Yes, I had already seen the Petition, this is the actual waiver.
Reality Check Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Yes, that “actual waiver” document (entitled “U.S. DOT/FRA – Decision Letter”) is there too on page 3 of the link I provided.
Peter Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Oh, my apologies.
Reality Check Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Nothing to apologize for … just that it’s all there in one place (albeit with a frustratingly shitty user interface … and the decision letter is just a bunch of pixels — a scan of text instead of a proper PDF of searchable text).
Alon Levy Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 8:31 pm
The track is up to it, in most places. The catenary and the FRA aren’t. Even in Connecticut, on much of the track the problem is only the curve radius.
The Velaro is unsuitable because it doesn’t tilt, and has such a high axle load it can’t safely tilt. For high cant deficiencies, 17 metric tons per axle is way too high; the Pendolino has 13-14, and the tilting Japanese EMUs 10-12.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Is there anything that is close to the platform height and loading gauge of the NEC? Shinkansen are close but Shinkansen don’t tilt. Things that tilt aren’t built for 10’6″ and 48 inch platforms. Unless we want to spend a few tens of billions of dollars ripping out hundreds of level boarding platforms it’s going to 48″ platforms for a very long time.
Peter Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 9:50 pm
The N700 Shinkansens tilt 1 degree. That allows them to maintain 270 km/h through 2500 m radius curves.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Not that it would need to tilt in those sections but there are places on the NEC where test trains have run that fast give or take a few.
dejv Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 11:16 pm
Velaro Rus/CN are 3250 mm wide and Finnish Pendolinos are 3200 mm. I bet Alstom would be keen to deliver their ETR600/610 for 285 km/h maximum speed.
Alon Levy Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 12:58 am
The Fastech-derived E5 currently tilts 2 degrees, but based on our calculations of speed and curve radius (360 km/h at 4 km) it appears that the original Fastech tilted more, closer to 3.5 degrees.
The issue with the NEC is that the train it needs should have a top speed beginning with a 3 and a maximum cant deficiency beginning with a 2. Such a train is technically feasible; 250 mm at 360 km/h is safe and plausible given modern tilting-Shinkansen or Pendolino technology. However, it is unneeded anywhere else in the world, except maybe the West Coast Main Line. For the speeds used on the Shinkansen, more than 2 degrees of tilting are not necessary. And for the demand on legacy lines that need 300 mm cant deficiency, upgrading tracks to more than 200-250 km/h is economically infeasible and often pointless. There aren’t a lot of places in the world where the limit to building HSR is excessive development near the ROW.
rafael Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
A yes, tilting. Forgot about that. The ICE-T, which looks very similar to the ICE-3 and the Velaro, does have active tilt but is limited to 230km/h. It had problems with premature metal fatigue of the axles, just like the ICE3, but the tilt mechanism works fine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICE_T
Other European tilters: Sweden’s Gröna Tâget (sensor-based active tilt), Spain’s Talgos (passive tilt)
I do like the Japanese concept of maintaining an accurate database of track geometry with special diagnostic trains and keeping a copy of that on board each regular train. That way, the active tilt system can function proactively. JR East’s new E5 features 2% active tilt.
James Fujita Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 10:18 am
hmmm. Let the company which dominates light rail vehicle construction (for better or for worse) dominate HSR as well. Could work, I guess.
I can’t wait to see the smackdown between Japan, France and Germany once Cal HSR gets its other issues out of the way and starts shopping for Shinkansen trains. I mean, TGV.
Rafael Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 11:33 am
Well see. California could yet end up with trains built in Asia. I suspect the decision will boil down to which of the vendors that have suitable products will be willing to take on the most ridership risk. CHSRA isn’t looking for a straight-up trainset purchase, they’re looking for private investment in the whole project.
James Fujita Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
well, that could work in Japan’s favor, then. They don’t call it “Japan Inc.” for nothing… there’s a lot of public-private partnerships going on, and JR is clearly interested in selling Shinkansen tech to Cal.
Rafael Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Japan Inc., as you put it, did roll out the red carpet once before, when there were plans for a privately funded shinkansen line between LA and San Diego in the I-5 corridor. Orange County NIMBYs nixed that then and they nixed it now. That’s part of the reason the spur to San Diego will run via the Inland Empire.
James Fujita Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
I remember that red carpet and the NIMBYs. Haven’t quite forgiven OC for that blunder. There was quite a bit of “OMG, Japan!” racist fearmongering going on at the time, and that didn’t help, either.
Oh well. OC is still getting what it wants with the L.A. to Anaheim segment, and San Diego’s really getting a raw deal, because OC to SD would be a much better route than IE to SD.
BTW, I didn’t invent “Japan Inc.”, it’s been around for a while. It describes Japanese mercantilist democracy very well, and its a system that could help Cal HSR a great deal.
As a 20-year transit advocate in Los Angeles who watched with horror the MTA meltdown of the early 1990s, it was painful to see many of my fellow liberals abandon their traditional support of mass transit and denounce rail as rascist. Fortunately, with the sucess of Measure R, LA has grown up a bit and that type is thinking has lost credibility.
Today, I have retired from my job and have moved to Tulare County in order to be a caretaker for my 90-year-old post-stroke mother. We live on a ranch 10 miles north of the proposed Kings/Tulare County station and I am surrounded by very conservative government hating farmers.
Support in Fresno seems very high. I think in Kings County it is a City (Hanford) vs farmer thing. I understand the farmers (including the Nisei League) have gotten the County Board of Supervisors to sign on to a No Support position of the East Hanford route. The City of Hanford supports it. As the route veers off the BNSF to the east it slices through farmland and creates an access problem for properties sliced in half – making them much more expensive to operate. I am glad the authority held firm and supported the East Hanford route on June 3.
Jobs remain the golden ring and the big prize is the maintenance facility. Fresno is working hard.
Bakersfield is out. Other are towns still in (I believe) are Wasco, Shafter, Corcoran.
The Big Spending and Big Government is Evil mantra is gospel in these parts. Advocates need to get in the face of this and stay on message with jobs.
rafael Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 12:41 am
There’s a knee-jerk assumption that HSR will “slice farmland in half”. Yet, the commitment to fully grade separate is statewide, so the existing paved roads that provide farmers with access to their fields will be grade separated using either over- or underpasses. Conduits should be installed under the tracks to preserve existing big-ticket irrigation infrastructure.
Of course, the upshot is that any farmers whose land is impacted by deviations from the established rail corridors would have to tend to their fields in a different way. Farm machinery uses a lot of fuel, so significant detours plus hill climbing overpasses with heavy loads in tow are going to take both time and money out of individual farmers’ budgets. Eminent domain compensation would need to take those losses into account.
Another approach would be to organize land swaps such that farmers end up with different but contiguous parcels all on one side of the tracks or the other or, re-organization into co-operatives. This would have to be voluntary and independent of ED compensation.
A third option would be to construct aerial alignments in the sections in which HSR would deviate from the rail corridors. However, it’s a lot more expensive to construct many miles of elevated tracks than it is to construct a number of overpasses and conduits under the tracks.
Roger Christensen Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 1:45 am
It was my understanding that the “Rural Subsection” (south of Fresno to just north of Bakersfield) is to be essentially at grade. The committment to fully grade separate out here “in the tules” (on old expression referring to the tules along the peripherey of the now defunct Tulare Lake) — is great news. Is that in writing somewhere? Does that mean that all the cross avenues will be grade separated in the Central Valley? Super!
Rafael Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 7:35 am
Any rail line rated for speeds of 125mph or higher must be fully grade separated under FRA rules. There has never been any notion of retaining any grade crossings in the CV, though there hasn’t been a commitment from CHSRA to preserve every single crossing point, either. The fact that the tracks will run mostly at grade merely constrains the grade separation options.
In some cases, it will likely be up to the count(y)(ies) to fund overpass construction. If they commit to doing so in a timely fashion, CHSRA might be able to cite that as evidence of non-state matching funds when the time comes to apply for prop 1A bond appropriations for the CV section.
Elizabeth Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 9:23 am
While there is a commitment to grade separate any 9pen crossing, there is no commitment to keep every existing crossing open.
The land swaps are harder in the Central Valley than other areas for a couple of reasons. First, the irrigation systems are much more complex and second, much more of the land is planted in “permanent crops”, like almond trees.
This doesn’t mean a route through farmland is impossible. It just means it needs to be done very carefully and WITH the farmers and a very detailed knowledge of the local issues.
Rafael Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 9:52 am
Fair enough, but the high speeds mean there’s very limited scope for changing the lateral curvature of the alignment. Basically, once you decide you need to transfer from one ROW to the other (Madera/Fresno) or else, that you need to reach a greenfield station (Hanford), there’s not a whole lot of tweaking you can do while still minimizing the total acreage of farmland that has to be taken.
So yes, farmers need to be consulted and sensible mitigation measures need to be developed with their input. CHSRA doesn’t have any expertise in irrigation systems. That said, providing conduits for irrigation plumbing under the tracks doesn’t cost a fortune, provided their number remains reasonable. That implies a need for distribution plumbing parallel to the tracks, located on the far side of the conduit.
All of this has to be weighed against the feasibility, environmental impact and mitigation cost of sticking with the ROW through population centers and in relatively tight corners. For example, there’s no room for two additional tracks in downtown Hanford and, track stacking comes with its own cost and problems. In Laton, just a little further north, the BNSF tracks feature a chicane that is far too severe for HSR at 220mph.
James Fujita Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
not only is there no room for additional tracks in downtown Hanford, but Highway 198 is just south of the station, so you’d have to go up and over the highway there, similar to the problem in downtown Fresno.
much, much easier to negotiate with the farmers, buy them off, offer them a fair and just deal for their land, build some farmland underpasses or whatever.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
If Interstate 5 could be built in the 1960s through Central Valley farmland, HSR can be built too. This isn’t rocket science.
YesonHSR Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 11:59 am
The amount of farm land needed is very small ..about the size of just 1 large housing track..this issue is yet another of the over-hyped fear “facts” about HSR ..BTW is BNSF is used all the way it already dividing this land area?? and in fact with grade seperations acces will increase!
Rafael Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
The land footprint isn’t the primary issue. Getting irrigation infrastructure and farm equipment under/over the tracks is.
Peter Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
That and severing parcels and destroying a parcel’s symmetry (making working the land harder and more expensive).
YesonHSR Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Well if they can do it in france,germany.spain then the farmers can do it here..
Peter Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Heh, there the parcels were mostly never symmetrical to begin with.
YesonHSR Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Well then buy the property entirely and after construction is done sell the sections to neighbors..we are never going to get this thing built if every mile and a half someones life is “ruined” be it is city,town.or farm
Peter Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Hey, I’m not disagreeing, just pointing out the issues.
YesonHSR Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
They are some of the biggest “users” of federal resources..the water ,the crop money, people in the fields ectect..But the bottom line is money..show them real money as the housing tract builders do and you wont hear much noise about land splitting if HSR builds them access points to the other side of the tracks
@ Robert Cruickshank -
While I agree with you that deficit spending is arguably the best way to get the economy going again, it’s important to spend it in ways that actually create new or at least preserve existing jobs in ways that set the country up for future growth. In other words, the money should go toward investments in the civilian economy, including appropriate infrastructure expansion and/or maintenance, education/skills training, population health, disaster preparedness plus public services (incl. transit operations). Part and parcel of sane policy would be straight grants (or soft loans) from the federal government – which may run a deficit – to states that are constitutionally bound to balance their budgets.
Fighting interminable land wars in Asia does preserve and indeed, create jobs in the Armed Forces and in the defense industry, but this super-duper-expensive activity does nothing to boost future civilian economic activity.
As for the G20, many have extensive welfare systems that they struggle to maintain whenever there is an economic downturn. Greece spent decades living above its means and is now having to face the music. Its economy is still based on (subsidized) farming, shipping and tourism. The latter two are particularly vulnerable to recessions in other countries. There is little manufacturing industry, let alone high-tech R&D in the country. In a globalized economy, that simply isn’t good enough any longer.
Germany has enshrined a conservative cumulative debt ceiling of IIRC 60% of GDP in its constitution, a reflection of the political instability that followed a bout of hyperinflation in 1923, triggered by ruinous war reparations to the French. A fascist coup attempt failed, but the fledgling Weimar Republic never fully recovered. Ten years later, after Wall Street had triggered the Great Depression, Hitler came to power via the ballot box. Never again, thank you very much! History matters a great deal in Europe.
The rules governing the Euro zone also require member countries to keep their appetite for fresh debt in check, with a limit of 3% of GDP. Unfortunately, these rules tend not the be enforced once countries join the zone. France and Germany temporarily ignored it a number of years ago, so others did as well.
Spain is a different case, it had a real estate boom that has turned to bust, leaving a lot of construction workers out of work. However, its banks were not nearly as reckless as those in the US or indeed, those elsewhere in Europe that foolishly purchased about 50% of all the CDOs and CDSs created by Wall Street.
Etc. What you call Hooverism is actually an attempt to prevent a sovereign debt crisis, i.e. entire countries declaring bankruptcy. Greece got way too close for comfort and, several other EU nations are also in weak positions (though not nearly to the same extent). California has been flirting with fiscal disaster for many years, but relative to the size of the economy the state’s budget is actually still small. Implicitly, the banking industry assumes that voters will choose to raise state taxes or secure a bailout from Washington, rather than let the Golden State become truly insolvent. The gamble paid off for the bankers in the case of Greece, even though that is in fact a sovereign nation and the Euro zone was explicitly not supposed to involve any mutual bailouts. Reality bites.
Missiondweller Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Excellent post.
I’ve posted before the critical difference in deficit spending in general vs targeted deficit spending that is investment in infra structure. The first has a brief one time effect while the latter provides economic benefits for decades to come.
Let me briefly contrast the two and how it applies to our current economy. The nearly trillion dollar stimulus has mostly worked its way through the economy and its effect on employment is waining. Last friday’s jobs report only showed 41k new private sector jobs while the bulk of the 400k new jobs are temporary census jobs. Clearly we are still not in a self sustaining economic recovery yet.
By contrast, investment in infra structure takes longer to get going but provides extended support to employment. This is extremely relevant to our current economy because it is not a typical recession which would have been well into recovery by the time HSR is ready to start construction. Our current environment seem to indicate a very likely double dip recession or even a prolonged depression. In either of these two scenerios, HSR construction, even if it takes a few more years to get going, will be critically important to California’s economy and job creation. Of course, once the construction is complete we will be left with the lasting benefits Robert has described.
Perversely, if the economy does deteriorate further we may see a new interest in both state and federal politicians in longer term infra structure spending that may very well be supportive of HSR.
Dan S. Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
It’s an arguable point which are the best targets for stimulative deficit spending. Are we to say that simply extending unemployment benefits are not beneficial? Doing so keeps people off the street and in their homes and out of bankruptcy and spending on essentials to keep the economic gears from locking up completely. True, there’s much to be said for “investments” that pay future dividends, but I wouldn’t gloss over the higher argument on the basic value of Keynsian deficit spending during an economic downturn. We’re losing that argument to the so-called fiscal conservatives in this country.
As MissionDweller mentions, the jobs payoff in the HSR project will take a while to ramp up, and many other vectors of stimulus are available to us in the meantime.
And as Rafael/rafael mentions, federal aid to the states would have a great cushioning effect on the austerity measures the states have to undertake due to their requirement to balance their budgets. But IMHO this aid is essential not foremost in its support of infrastructure, but just in maintaining the current stimulative effect of across-the-board state spending that keeps the economy moving.
Getting back to Keynes, we need the state and federal governments to step in and counteract the instabilities of the free market. Yes, it (that free market) seems to be the best system for generating wealth, but it is probably the worst system at equitably distributing it, not to mention its proclivity towards wild ups-and-downs. Our tax dollars are well spent in such market-checking endeavors, and we should more generously contribute them.
rafael Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 10:59 pm
Yeah, unemployment benefits are one of those “social services” that are worth maintaining in addition to investments. Waging two land wars is a dubious social service. So is cutting taxes.
Slightly O/T:
Deutsche Bahn is currently in the tendering process for a fleet of 300 new ICx trains that would gradually replace both the existing locomotive-drawn IC and the self-propelled aging ICE1 and ICE2 fleets in the 2015-2025 time frame. Top speeds would vary from 230 to 250km/h, with an option for 280km/h. These trains would be optimized for acceleration, as their routes call for more frequent stops than those served by the flagship ICE3 fleet.
That implies the ICx will feature higher gear ratios than the 2.87:1 used in the ICE3, leading to higher mechanical stresses on the gears, bogie frame, bearings, axles and wheels. There is essentially zero scope for increasing bogie weight unless car length is reduced. The ICx will require very substantial engineering investments, last not least because DB demands very high intervals between scheduled heavy maintenance. Also, higher traction force requirements will bring trains closer to the adhesion limit. The only way around that is to distribute the motive power across more axles, i.e. leveraging more of the train’s weight for traction. Right now, Siemens (like several competitors) uses the 50% of cars with unpowered bogies to house heavy transformers and battery packs under the floor.
As a fringe benefit, the higher traction force of the ICx fleet should also be better suited to steep gradients, which could become an important consideration for new high-speed lines in Germany.
Back in January, DB identified Siemens as the preferred bidder at around $6 billion, with Bombardier Transportation acting as a subcontractor for approx. 1/3 of the contract volume. Both companies are based in Germany. Alstom’s bid came in at $8 billion. The Japanese vendors didn’t even submit a bid, nor did Talgo.
The haggling is now about price: DB wants to pay € 30,000 per seat, while Siemens is asking for € 35,000 or else, a spec mod for more spartan interiors.
Bottom line in the context of deficit spending: the US spends enough on Afghanistan alone every five weeks to buy a fleet of 300 fancy high speed trains. The Germans prefer to spend their money on civilian infrastructure, because that delivers lasting benefits.
swing hanger Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 6:23 am
On a smaller scale, last week the Italian Railways selected Ansaldo Breda/Bombardier (no surprise) and Alstom to supply 50 high speed trainsets worth approximately 1.2 billion Euros. The losing bidders were Siemens and Kawasaki Heavy Industries.
Rafael Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 7:26 am
Yeah, those would be the ETR 1000 models rated at 360km/h in commercial service. Trenitalia, the HSR division of Ferrovie dello State, will be competing against newcomer NTV which selected Alstom AGV rolling stock.
http://www.ferrovie.it/ferrovie.vis/timdettvp.php?id=2693
dejv Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Given the track record of Ansaldo Breda in last ten years, ETR 1000 are likely to be heavily delayed.
Rafael Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Viva la vita dolce.
dejv Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Siemens already heavily uses its standardized bogie designs, so it’s unlikely they would develop brand-new powertrain. More likely, they’ll tweak traction equipment only so power decreases more sharply towards intended maximum speed.
Unfortunately, it’s pretty common that tenders are ‘tailored’ to fit a single bidder.
Rafael Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
I’m not familiar with the details, beyond the fact that Alstom’s bid for comparable interiors came in at $8 billion, which DB dismissed as “not serious”. There is of course a political preference to buy from German companies, DB is after all a state-owned company.
O/T -
http://www.sbsun.com/ci_15239527
DesertXPress pre-announced that it expects to close a funding deal with a major investor in the next month such that construction of its $5 billion Victorville-Las Vegas line could begin in 2011. The company has stated that the project will be privately funded, though it may seek a loan – not a grant – from the federal government under existing programs not related to PRIIA or ARRA.
There is presently no commitment to implement electrification nor a connector to the California system. The company’s web site shows FRA-compliant Talgo XXI equipment, a diesel-based design rated at 125mph in commercial service. Electrification would permit higher speeds, though DX says it’s not aiming higher than 150mph. Presumably, that’s because FRA hasn’t written any rules for operations at higher speeds.
The leading rival (there are actually 4 or 5 proposals out there right now) is a maglev line that would stretch all the way to Ontario Airport and Anaheim. It is 18-24 months behind DX in the environmental review process and would cost $10-15 billion. Unlike DX, it would require taxpayer grants, though backers are hopeful that the Chinese would invest $7 billion in the project.
It’s not clear that California taxpayers would be willing to allow construction of an incompatible system that would compete with the planned steel wheels spur to San Diego for scarce right of way in the San Gabriel Valley. There certainly isn’t any need for two HSR services in that area. In addition, the anyhow-broke state of California probably wouldn’t be prepared to contribute a dime toward either project. Individual counties might consider it.
Peter Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Except for the animation at the beginning, it looks like they would prefer to build an electrified train. Their website also discusses the fact that EMUs are technologically superior.
I’m guessing they haven’t “made” a decision yet because the EIS has not been certified yet. They can’t commit to one or the other until the study on them has been completed.
Rafael Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
They’d better make up their minds before they submit the EIR/EIS! In this particular case, electrification would be an expensive way to increase top speed by just 25mph. That said, the DX tracks are going to be very straight and they’ll be dedicated. Therefore, they shouldn’t have a major problem getting FRA to agree to higher speeds once that bureaucracy has figured out the issues involved in the context of another project, i.e. Florida or California. What DX wants to avoid is delay in start of operations related to red tape.
Peter Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
There are also some REALLY steep grades, like 4 to 5% on the route, though, IIRC. I’d expect that electric trains would be better for that.
There won’t be an EIR, just an EIS. Also, that would be one of the things that gets decided on for the Final EIS. They still have to study all reasonable alternatives.
rafael Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 11:04 pm
The section in California needs to have an EIR. CEQA is not suspended for a project just because the company happens to be headquartered in Nevada.
There’s a mountain pass just west of the state border. I-15 has a short 4% gradient there and, DX want to tackle it at grade. That’s mostly a question of gearing ratio in the transmission, though e.g. a fully equipped Alstom TGV would have no problem with that even without modifications.
Peter Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 11:15 pm
Actually…
There are a number of reasons why there is no EIR being prepared under CEQA. The fact that DX is headquartered in Nevada has nothing to do with it. The issue is that DX, unlike CAHSR, is an interstate project in every aspect. To put it simply, there is no state agency that would have been able to be the lead agency for the “section in California”, as the results of the studies have direct impacts beyond CA. You couldn’t artificially segment the project into Nevada vs California sections and still conduct “good” studies.
I think I recall a steeper gradient from the ROW maps. I can’t seem to get on the FRA’s website right now, though, for some reason.
Peter Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Here’s the reason why CEQA does not apply to DesertXpress.
Peter Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Sorry, page 11.
Peter Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/rrdev/Appendix_A-1_Plan_and_Profile_Drawings_Segment_3.pdf
Check pg. 27 and after. I’ve found a number of 4.5% grades on the route.
AndyDuncan Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Lots of 4.5% grades and tons of 3000-5000ft radii curves. FRA rules or no, their route doesn’t look like it’s going to support even 150mph on large sections of it.
Peter Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Yeah, but there are many other sections that are straight as an arrow for 30-40 miles… The terrain will dictate relatively low speeds on many portions, but that will likely not be fatal to the project…
Rafael Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
4.5% is ambitious, unless they’re willing to really slow down to ~50mph or mess with the gear ratios. In the latter case, operation at 220mph in the CV would no longer be possible. That wouldn’t be the end of the world, by the time that becomes relevant rolling stock technology may well have advanced. DX would then just buy some new trains to serve the SF-LV and Sac-LV markets.
rafael Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 11:07 pm
Of course, the limit speed at 4% is going to be modest, figure about 120km/h (75mph). On short sections, the momentum of the train going into the climb permits slightly higher speeds.
Slightly O/T -
http://www.contracostatimes.com/bay-area-news/ci_15231930
Ok, fair enough. However, I question the notion that CHSRA should adapt its route and station planning to whatever BART settles on. The two agencies need to plain this in concert, especially since neither project is funded and relieving rush hour congestion on I-580 via an intermodal station is a key objective.
Yea, verily. Tunneling through downtown Livermore. Your county tax dollars, fortunately not yet at work. The still-nosebleed-expensive-but-at-least-cheaper alternative at roughly $1 billlion would have involved a terminal station-cum-yard at Isabel/Stanley, just south of the municipal airport.
Note that this once again shows UPRR’s true colors. It simply isn’t hard up enough to sell any of its ROW for the purpose of constructing passenger-only tracks that its heavy freight trains will never be able to use. That was true of BART in east Contra Costa county, it is true in Livermore and it is true for HSR. The upshot is that there is probably no ROW for a true HSR line through downtown Livermore if BART builds one. Approaching Vasco Rd from the south would still place elevated HSR tracks next to a residential district. Greenville Rd would be an easier intermodal but BART does love its tail tracks.
FWIW: Unless Pacheco has to be dropped because CHSRA cannot identify a feasible and affordable alignment through south San Jose, I strongly suspect the entire HSR overlay effort will end up getting scaled back to rebuilding track along the old SP ROW between Niles and Tracy, perhaps with a few short alignment rectification tunnels thrown in. That would permit an easy intermodal with BART in downtown Livermore.
In addition, since there’s only so much capacity on the single-track Alviso line, UPRR could offer ACE additional trackage rights on its Milpitas line (also single track) to run a service based on FRA-compliant equipment at top speeds (well) below 110mph. That could permit a second intermodal station with BART in Fremont Warm Springs and one with VTA light rail at Great Mall Parkway.
In principle, ACE could also combine the Alviso and Milpitas routes to loop around the South Bay and avoid taking up valuable real estate at SJ Diridon during the day. Instead, it would once again stop at great America + Caltrain’s Santa Clara station after UPRR finishes track work there. The latter will also be the terminus of the BART extension into Santa Clara county and could be upgraded with a pedestrian bridge across all tracks to improve safety and facilitate transfers. A connecting shuttle bus could take passengers to the SJC terminals. If desired, ACE could traverse the loop in the reverse direction in the afternoon.
Some track work would be required south of 101 as UPRR no longer uses and only minimally maintains that section now that Hansen Cement in Cupertino has switched from coal to natural gas. The permitted top speed there is probably down to something like 10mph.
Note that the SP track along the north slope of Niles Canyon is currently used by NCRY, which operates a historic steam trains and signaling. Also, the SP ROW is partially built-up in Pleasanton, but there might be enough room to double-track the currently active ROW instead.
Joey Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 6:50 am
Pacheco is still the primary route, and I don’t see that changing any time soon. This all has to do with the Altamont overlay.
Rafael Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 8:03 am
Yes, exactly. I’m just not convinced that’s ever going to be implemented as an express HSR corridor unless Pacheco has to be abandoned for some reason.
CHSRA’s much-maligned ridership analysis study discussed in a paper in Journal of Choice Modelling, a leading peer-reviewed publication in the field. Note, however, that the paper’s authors participated in the design of the study, so this does not constitute a fully independent endorsement.
http://www.jocm.org.uk/index.php/JOCM/article/view/26/43
CHSRA’s Dan Leavitt comments:
http://chicagopressrelease.com/news/scientific-journal-recognizes-high-speed-rail-ridership-model
Elizabeth Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 10:55 am
They didn’t just participate in the design of the study, they did the study (there were many subcontractors involved and the people from Cambridge who worked on it have moved on to other employment). Yes, Burger King thinks Burger King’s burgers taste good.
If you look carefully at the paper, it conveniently leaves out the real model numbers and just presents an “overview”. The reason it is in the journal at all is that the issue is just printing the papers presented at a conference in 2007.
If this is the validation that HSR is trying to present, well good luck with that.
Again, we will present our detailed findings to any group that wants to hear them. We’ll do it in person in the Bay Area or by webex for those further afield.
You can read our complaints about the model wrt to the Altamont /Pacheco discussion at:
http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/CARRD-Ridership-comments-for-Program-Level-EIR.pdf
Last newsdump comment of the day from me:
South Africa just opened the first segment of Gautrain between Stanton in downtown Johannesburg and OR Tambo International (JNB) airport, just in time for foreign fans visiting for the Soccer World Cup. The second phase will link that city to the seat of government at Pretoria, relieving congestion on the existing freeway, and extend the line south to a suburb of Johannesburg, completing the 80km (50mi) network, cp. SF-SJ in terms of distance only.
Top speed is 160-180km/h (100-110mph), comparable to “emerging HSR” in the US, but the service will be marketed to commuters after the event. Fare prices to the airport are high, relative to alternatives.
http://www.france24.com/en/20100607-africas-first-high-speed-train-opens-world-cup-visitors
http://www.gautrain.co.za/
http://www.gautrain.co.za/contents/route/map_proposed_alignment.jpg
Yet more evidence that countries far poorer than the US understand the value of investing in passenger rail infrastructure and operations during a global economic downturn.
HSRforCali Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 7:15 am
Yeah, I heard about this a couple days ago. Just goes to show how much we’re falling behind. Has anyone heard about Morocco’s plan to build a high-speed rail line using the TGV Duplex equipment?
Rafael Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 7:52 am
If I read this right, the estimated cost of phase 1 (Tangiers to Casblanca) is MAD 20 billion (~$2.2 billion), of which Morocco has committed MAD 5.8 billion. France is extending a €900 million line of credit, while the Saudis are investing $160 million. The project remains a top priority for King Mohamed VI.
Ground is due to break ground later this year, with start of operations expected in 2015.
http://maghrebinfo.actu-monde.com/archives/article8390.html
UIC puts the Saudi investment at $200 million and the French line of credit at $625 million.
http://www.uic.org/com/english/uic-e-news/187/article/morocco-saudi-arabian-king-donates
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 11:48 am
Gautrain is completely mad: a brand-new system that chose to mimic the tiny British loading gauge and to use clones of contemporary British EMUs. It’s the CBOSS of structure clearances.
As with CHSRA/PB/HNTB/etc and Caltrain/PTG/HNTB/LTK/etc, this shows the quality of technology and technical advice you’ll get when you limit your “experts” to washed-up English-speaking rejects who wouldn’t even qualify for a job interview in nearly all of the rest of the world. More of the same, coming right up! None of that dodgy Johnny Foreigner claptrap!
It’s possible to do better, as all the rah rah foreign HSR pointers show.
But we’ll need people a lot better than good old buddy boys from back in the day onboard if we want to get there.
dejv Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Poland recently announced a Zl30bn ($8.64bn) project for 600 km of new HSR tracks (linking Warsaw, Wroclaw and Poznań).
Emma Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
it is sad. Conservatives put this country decades behind developed countries. Have you seen the new high speed rail lines in China? It is breathtaking.
Israel is buildings its high-speed rail line, too. Not just planning, they are already in the construction phase.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_railway_to_Jerusalem
It is incredible that the wealthiest state in the wealthiest country has just begun to plan the final rail line and still doesn’t have investors or the feds financial support.
http://www.bakersfield.com/opinion/letters/x1008890888/Give-HSR-a-second-look
This person obviously doesn’t know what he’s talking about.