Obama’s New Infrastructure Push Likely to Stall
On Labor Day President Barack Obama announced a new infrastructure plan as part of his economic recovery plans, including stable long-term funding for high speed rail and a National Infrastructure Bank. It was an exciting announcement – but as the week goes on, the depressing reality of Congressional unwillingness to support it is seeping in.
In the Monday post, I mentioned that Republican Senator George Voinovich was likely to support the plan. He might, but he doesn’t like the proposed funding mechanism – cutting oil and gas subsidies, as Congressman John Garamendi described to me at Netroots Nation – and instead prefers a gas tax:
Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), a longtime supporter of improving the country’s infrastructure, called on President Obama to pay for his $50 billion infrastructure proposal by increasing the gas tax, which has not risen since 1993.
“If President Obama were to honestly consider the gas tax … he would find support where he least expects it,” the senator said in prepared remarks. “Today, groups that don’t traditionally back tax increases — among them the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Trucking Association — have come out in support of a gas tax increase because of this reauthorization bill’s ability to put Americans back to work.”
Obama is expected to pay for the initiative by rescinding tax breaks used by the oil and gas industry. Voinovich argues that approach is not as transparent as a tax on gas that end-users know they are paying.
I agree with Voinovich on this, actually – the gas tax is indeed the better policy tool, since it’s important to start lowering our dependence on oil and a higher gas tax is an excellent way to begin that process, while providing a stable funding source for at least the rest of the decade for the mass transit projects.
Of course, there is no way that 60 votes can be found in the Senate to increase the gas tax right now. In fact, I doubt you could even get to 50. And I would be surprised if you could get a majority in the House. Democrats have no desire to approve a gas tax as they head into the November election, or even ahead of the 2012 election.
In fact, it may be difficult to get all Democrats on board with the president’s proposal. Colorado Senator Michael Bennet, appointed last year when Senator Ken Salazar was picked as the Secretary of the Interior, has come out against the plan – unless it is paid for out of “unused” stimulus funds, whatever those might be:
Bennet, who was endorsed by the president in Colorado but is facing a tough reelection fight, rejected the $50 billion public works program proposed by Obama earlier this week.
“I will not support additional spending in a second stimulus package,” Bennet said in a statement.
And people wonder why Democrats are going to get their clocks cleaned in November.
Senator Voinovich aside, other Republicans are lining up to attack the president’s plans. Part of this is their political calculation that opposing everything Obama wants is good for Republican electoral fortunes (which is probably correct), and part of it is their growing ideological hostility to government spending. Florida Republican Representative John Mica, who has been a strong supporter of high speed rail, trashed the president’s plan. According to the LA Times, they’re also attacking the National Infrastructure Bank by saying “the bank could expose taxpayers to heavy risks.”
The sad reality is that right now, Congress does not appear interested in providing economic recovery or in helping provide long-term infrastructure solutions for the country. That is partly the product of the campaign season – by the end of the year, or in 2011, enough support could be cobbled together in Congress to get something done, especially if a double-dip recession happens. Or, Republicans could continue their “support nothing” policy in hopes of beating Obama in 2012 and reclaiming the White House.
The only reaction is to continue letting our members of Congress know we expect them to vote for infrastructure spending, however it’s funded, and that high speed rail has to be at its center. These frustrating times won’t last forever.
Removing oil company subsidies OR increaseing fuel fees/taxes… either one will have the same affect… higher fees for users at the pump.
Except, removing the subsidies would appear much more politically feasible. It’s also more supportable when realizing that the subsidies provided to oil companies are back-funded by EVERYONE – users and non-users of gas. “Is it fair to me to have MY taxes go toward supporitng oil companies when I don’t use the roadways as much as an average person?
By the way, what background info for those subsidies? Are oil companies using those to train under-educated personnel in a new profession… trianing drop-outs to work on rigs and psuedo engineering?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 9:20 pm
It would likely have the same effect, though the argument is that by going after the subsidies, you can more easily blame the oil companies when gas prices rise. Still, that’s probably not going to convince many people, which is one reason why I agree with Sen. Voinovich on this – just do an outright gas tax.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
I have preference for terms like, ‘fuel fee’ or ‘transportation fee’ or transportation managmeent fee.’
Gas tax implies there must be a nexus with roadway-vehicular transportation.
A ‘transportation managment fee’ – even if collected at the pump – provides a palatable argument that revenues could be allocated toward non-roadway specific expenditures. Afterall, managing roadway traffic includes providing alternatives to driving.
lyqwyd Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 12:00 am
I’m all for increasing the gas tax, but don’t let the perfect get in the way of the good. In my view eliminating subsidies to the oil industry is almost as good as a gas tax, and in some ways better. Either one will be just fine with me, and neither will prevent the other from being implemented at a later date.
PeakVT Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 7:29 am
Removing the tax subsidies would almost certainly be more popular with the public than increasing the motor fuels tax, but not that much more likely to happen given our system of legalized bribery (aka campaign financing).
bleh Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 11:32 am
By the way, what background info for those subsidies?
It’s all about logistics.
By enabling swift and cheap point-to-point transportation gas facilitates prosperity and value generation for all America… naaah, I’m bullshitting you. It’s about the logistics of getting coffers full of cash from K-Street to Capitol Hill.
Obama and LaHood do not have a high speed rail plan or any transportation plan. If they did, after 18 months we’d have seen maps, priorities listed, costs assigned and a revenue stream proposed. But, no, they’re just politicians who’ve squandered the “mandate” they were given 20 months ago and are scrambling to salvage a slim majority in one or the other of the houses of congress – a pox on the m all for spinelessness, lack of leadership and a paucity of vision.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
They’re getting “a pox” all right – it’s called “losing dozens of seats in the November election.” The White House had an opportunity for implementing some new and bold ideas, but their hesitancy, combined with the unwillingness of enough Senate Dems to go along with smart policies, has spelled disaster for their political fortunes.
political_incorrectness Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
I am not seeing much of a Republican wave in Washington State except for Patty Murray’s Senate seat, otherwise according to the Primary data, most are still going with incumbents. How did the Primary’s look in California?
Ben Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 4:40 am
I wish there was no GO(B)P wave in Washington state but Patty Murray is in an extremely competitive
re-election, Rep. Rick Larson’s seat is in serious jeopardy, and Republicans are likely to gain the open seat currently held by Brian Baird (D-WA).
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/house/2010_elections_house_map.html
This election is no joke this year. If you want to see spending on infrastructure that will create good jobs and improve mobility and if you want to see progress on a serious energy policy that helps end our addiction to oil, be absolutely certain to vote Democrat in November.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
Agreed. Murray will probably pull this out, perhaps Larsen too (he’s beaten Koster before). Agree that Denny Heck probably won’t be able to take WA-3, and likely Suzan DelBene will fall short in WA-8.
I heard a rumor today that WA Dems are in jeopardy of losing the State House too. If so, it would be confirmation of what I’ve been saying for years – that Frank Chopp is an awful speaker.
synonymouse Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
The American public expected a president from Illinois but they got one from San Francisco.
But the Republicans, especially if led by Boehner, will quickly fall out of favor as well. In a depression the country is not interested in social engineering but wants to see the causes of the bad times identified and corrected. Barack should have concentrated on Wall Street and the banks as they created the bubble that put a good part of the population in a financial hole. In the back of their minds most people carry vague worries about deflation and/or inflation and social turmoil that could be just around the corner.
Infrastructure stimulus will not prove to be the panacea. Many of the relatively small number of jobs created by it are of the highly skilled variety – the same problem as with the existing general economy. If things get really bad we may need a WPA, but it will employ people at minimum wage to do mostly the same work for which government workers are now being paid union scale and benefits. The unions won’t like it. Expect a lot of conflict.
rafael Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 4:11 am
Employment for skilled construction workers in California dropped precipitously after the housing bubble burst. Constructing HSR earthworks, aerials, tunnels, station buildings etc. does require skilled laborers, but California actually has a lot of those sitting on their thumbs rights now. Only the rail superstructure (rails + OCS) require special construction skills that are in short supply. For those, out of state and/or overseas vendors will have to be brought in as prime contractors.
Your general point about low-skilled workers is fair, though. Education and training are the human component of an economy’s infrastructure. Laying off teachers plugs fiscal holes in the short term but extremely counter-productive in the long run. It would be much better to e.g. repeal the three strikes law, even if the powerful prison wardens’ unions object.
jimsf Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 5:04 am
Are you kidding? Obama is a thousand miles from being a san francisco liberal. No, a hundred thousand miles. By the way, the economy here is humming right along. Its not a boom time but the restaurants and hotels are full and the international tourists are here in droves.
YesonHSR Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 8:49 am
very true about SF..the only thing different is now home flipping is over and thats good.
Missiondweller Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 9:01 am
If you were looking for a job in San Francisco you would maybe have a different opinion.
The restaurants are busy because of heavy discounting, specials and “groupons”. Every where I’ve use them the staff is quite familiar to them.
Also, an economy with a 10% unemployment is hardly “humming”, though if you work in government I can understand why you would have that impression given its one of the few growth industries.
The problem with the infrastructure bank idea is that it is far too small, just $50 billion for a six-year period. It really needs to be that much each and every year for quite a while to compensate for the dearth of investment since the 1980s.
Civilian infrastructure is supposed to be a core function of government at all levels, but it is difficult to get big projects implemented on the pay-as-you-go basis that local and state governments are de facto required to operate under because they must balance their budgets. Only the federal government has the legal leeway to invest enough to make a dent in unemployment.
Note that education and vocational training should be thought of as long-term investments in the human infrastructure of an economy. I’m not referring exclusively to physical construction projects here.
Also note that the annual Pentagon budget is now somewhere north of $520 billion, at a time when there are zero other superpowers threatening the US. And here we are, arguing about a $50 billion national infrastructure bank for a six-year period when the ASCE suggests there is a $2 trillion investment gap in physical infrastructure alone. Federal priorities are complete and utter lunacy right now and things would get much worse if the Tea Party were to regain either the House or the Senate in November.
Democrats’ best course of action here would be to submit a bill for at least the $50 billion infrastructure bank before the election and then, to force Republicans to either let it pass or filibuster it by reading from telephone books. They’ll have a hard time explaining to voters why extending tax breaks for the super-rich should take precedence over fixing crumbling bridges and eliminating congestion-related opportunity costs in urban areas by expanding transit.
The criticism of this proposal is absolutely ridiculous. The US Chamber of Commerce and other conservative groups supported extending the R&D tax credit and accelerating the depreciation allowance but now Obama supports this, it is socialism? It is the same for the proposal to pay for new transportation infrastructure –which will create jobs and improve mobility– through a national infrastructure bank. This is a proposal that got bipartisan support before from Reps. Mica (R-FL) and Duncan (R-TN): http://www.eenews.net/public/25/11394/features/documents/2009/06/18/document_gw_02.pdf . Now that Obama is advocating this, however, it is socialism, much like the $300B of tax cuts in the Recovery Act is ‘socialism’ since it was passed by a Democrat in the White House. The Party of No/GO(B)P has absolutely no desire to do anything to create jobs.
the good news as cbs reports: Forget about that 10 point Republican advantage: Gallup’s latest poll showing the generic ballot preferences of registered voters finds a generic Republican tied with a generic Democrat at 46 percent.
Last week, Gallup showed Republicans leading 51 percent to 41 percent, fueling speculation about a coming GOP wave in the midterm elections. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee e-mailed the latest poll to reporters almost immediately after it came out in an effort to push back against that narrative.
Republicans have led in the generic ballot survey for the past five weeks, but there has been plenty of movement in the poll this year. At one point this summer, Gallup showed Democrats leading the generic ballot 49 percent to 43 percent.
While Democrats will welcome the latest returns, they should probably keep their celebration muted: Republicans continue to hold a 25 percentage point lead over Democrats when it comes to whether party members are “very enthusiastic” about voting in the 2010 midterm elections. It remains likely that Democrats will lose at least 25 seats in the House in November, and their 39-seat majority is very much at risk.
The strategy has to be, and appears to be starting to be anyway, to re motivate the democratic base, especially labor, to get out the vote.Obama need to get out on the campaign trail 2008 style and get th message out. There are plenty of sound bites from republicans from not that long ago that show them supporting the things they now oppose. There is plenty to make them look like the two faced liars they really are.
political_incorrectness Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 7:50 am
Instead of blaming the past, blame what the current Republicans are doing by stalling every bill on partisan lines. If they do not have 60 seats in the Senate, then the Democrats will stall every GOP bill. All this will result in is policy gridlock which benefits no one. It still leaves uncertainty in the economic system, infrastructure will still crumble, etc.
YesonHSR Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 8:59 am
that is the huge problem today as it all trying to kill the other partys advatages and lead..and its getting worse each year with We the American people paying for it in a crumbling and increasing poloriazed nation..Look at Mica with HSR in FLA and a backer of the 2009 Transportation bill …now against ..the plan now ..If Obama likes it its “Bad” will be the theme..including HSR for now
Reality Check Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
TRMS had a nice little segment exposing the GOP’s sudden reversal on its position backing more infrastructure spending just as soon as Obama delivered his Labor Day speech calling for more infrastructure spending.
jimsf Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
I wasn’t thinking in terms of “past blame” but in terms of exposing them as they now oppose things that just two years ago they were supporting, including some of their own ideas. They are clearly and without apology, trying to sabotage the president, the country be damned. They think they’re bein’ cute by doing this, but people who pay attention are sick of it. Meanwhile, the dems need to step up their game, now and in a big way. Just like in 08, they’d better just go for it cuz if they don’t they jut wind up looking lame. The lack of leadership qualities in today’s rank and file politicians is just so pathetic.
OT: Metrolink train hits trespassing teens; Note that the section of track involved is in the middle of a circa 9 mile stretch of grade separated and mostly fenced (from what I can see in the aerial views) track between the Irvine and Laguna Niguel stations.
Peter Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 10:58 am
You don’t mess with train tracks, plain and simple.
Emma Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
It is that simple. I mean, they were sleeping on the tracks. That’s a stupid idea, even for a drunk person.
Mad Park Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
You know, it needs to be asked. Why has this investigation closed the main for 6+ hours? I hate to seem crass and cruel, but take some photos, remove the carnage, hose things down, all whilst bringing in a new train driver, and get things going again. Do we close down an the 5 or the 101 for 6 hours when there’s a fatal accident? Didn’t think so.
Peter Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Do we close down an the 5 or the 101 for 6 hours when there’s a fatal accident? Didn’t think so.
For a fatal accident? You bet your skippy they shut down at least one direction. There’s a LOT more investigation that has to happen for a fatal accident, and you need a safe area for the investigators to work.
As an example, Capitol Expressway in San Jose was closed down for something like 6 hours (starting at the beginning of rush hour) after a fatal crash caused by drunk drivers. As there was evidence on both sides of the road (even though the one side only had skid marks), they closed both directions for the entire period.
Not to mention that if it’s something grisly with sprayed body parts, that’s considered a major biohazard. They have to bring in the specialized cleanup crews, who need HOURS to clean something like that up in a safe manner. Watch “Sunshine Cleaning” (especially the video of the REAL cleanup crews) if you’re interested in what goes into biohazard cleanup.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Yep. Freeways (and other roads) are often closed for long periods of time when there is a fatality on the road.
Same with fires that creep close to the road. I once had to detour through Tehachapi via CA-14 and CA-58 when a fire closed I-5 through the Grapevine.
Ken Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
In Tokyo, they shut down tracks for about only an hour. There’s too many suicides, yet the Tokyoites rely too much on trains that they can’t stall it for extended periods of time without causing a ripple effect throughout the entire transit system. But, because of the high suicide rate of people jumping off tracks, part of this because their clean up crews have become really efficient in getting the place cleaned up quickly.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
I know that area pretty well. Unfortunately it’s not very secure. Grade separated, yes. Fenced, technically yes, but the right-of-way is very easily accessed merely by hopping the fence, as teens sometimes tend to do.
I grew up with what we called a “storm drain” – a concrete-lined seasonal waterway in Orange County, dry most of the year except for when it rained – right behind our backyard. All we had to do was hop the fence and we were in – and we did this fairly often around ages 12-13-14. We were at least smart enough to stay out of it when there was a storm, and we certainly never dreamed of going onto the railroad tracks on the edge of Tustin (maybe because we’d all seen Stand By Me when we were younger).
In any case, the ROW near this accident is similarly situated – hop a backyard fence, climb down a hill, and you’re on the tracks. It’s been done several times before, though not usually with these kinds of results.
One thing I would note is that, to my knowledge, you don’t see people climbing onto the BART tracks, whether aerial or at-grade. An HSR trench would also be much more secure than the Metrolink tracks in Mission Viejo.
SF Chron link to its report on BART noise levels is finally active:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/07/MN1N1F8CCH.DTL
But the CHSRA should be able to do even better with four tracks and much higher promised speeds. Those Fresno 60′ aerials should be really something to see and hear.
bleh Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
The screeching they talk about only occurs when the flanges touch the rails which shouldn’t happen in normal operation. The only exception is the tight curves in the tunnel to TBT.
If those screeches and the ripples in the track they’re talking about are SOP it just tells you that BART is a POS.
synonymouse Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Corrugation is an unavoidable(at least heretofore)problem for railways and it is worse on electric railways. Studies have been done on it over the years but the main mitigation historically has been mechanical, namely rail grinding. BART has two grinders and the CHSRA will have to do likewise.
I can foresee the time when decibel limits will be imposed for health reasons and an audial “cordon sanitaire” will have to be established around the hsr line. Aerial row’s will have to incorporate a buffer zone(security will like this)that will narrow the cost differential between aerial and trench.
thatbruce Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Corrugation is an unavoidable(at least heretofore)problem for railways and it is worse on electric railways.
It isn’t ‘electric’ railways, it’s ‘one fleet’ railways, where the predominant vehicles used over the tracks have the same characteristics, reinforcing the pattern of similar excitation frequencies and damage modes that perpetuate corrugation.
A buffer zone for noise put in place after something is built? Where has such a thing been put in place around an existing source of loud noise in California? (excluding places where politicians roost ;) )
synonymouse Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
That makes a lot of sense. It is interesting that cable car lines also experience severe corrugation, which I think may be related as well to rigidity and, vice versa, lack of resiliency in the track and wheels. There is also the phenomenon known as unsprung versus sprung weight, an idea I have always found a bit hard to comprehend exactly but which is very important in good truck design.
bleh Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 2:42 am
While grinding may be the only solution there’s a number of factors to how bad the problem is gonna be. High loads from tight curves (worse for BART because it’s broad gauge) and steep gradients make it worse, high quality steel for the rails and ballastless track on the other hand help, as do low axle load and a lot of powered axles.
The most important thing is constant maintenance to keep both rails and wheels in good condition. As the ripples become worse they cause more damage in ever shorter time frames and uneven wheels “export” the problem to other parts of the route. As with most infrastructure there’s a tipping point. It doesn’t cost all that much to keep in good order but try to get by on the cheap and you reach a tipping point where the whole system goes down the drain and then it does become expensive.
Long story short, it isn’t a problem on any HSR lines I know.
political_incorrectness Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
I saw that BART had jointed rails. I doubt the cars have insulation for noise.
Reality Check Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
BART generally uses CWR. The deafening noise in the tube and in other tunnels has nothing to do with joints. BART likes to crow about its two specially-made-for-BART Loram grinders, but they’re clearly (audibly!) not keeping their rail heads and wheel treads smooth enough. Quoting an old research paper, their spokesmodel Linton Johnson suggested BART was among the quietest rail systems among US transit operators. However, the actual wording in the paper was sort of a non-quantified qualitative statement in theory based on smooth rails, true wheels on ties and ballast. In actual fact, BART’s rail-wheel interface clearly isn’t being kept smooth, and BART generally runs on slab track (no ballast, no ties) when underground.
thatbruce Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Without more information about how the SF Chronicle took the measurements (ie, number of samples, how many distinct trains measured past a given point, was the sensor location consistent through all the measurements etc etc), the survey is likely not statistically significant (ie, a single pass through the system using different trains and possibly different locations within each new train is good enough for the news, but not good enough for a definitive answer on how loud a given point is).
Regardless, the survey was of how loud the BART trains are internally, at the slower speeds that the BART system runs at (compared to HSR), over track that is not as well maintained (compared to HSR).
Using this survey to say that the CHSRA trains will be much louder externally is, well, a proverbial apples and oranges comparison.
Looking at the data provided by the survey, it seems that the inside of a BART train going over an aerial is roughly 85 decibels, based on the measurements taken along the BART aerial around the Oakland Coliseum. Presumably, if a BART train were to be driven over track maintained to (C)HSR(A) standards located on a 60′ aerial in Fresno, the level of noise inside the BART train would be 85 decibels, tending towards 77 decibels owing to the higher quality of track required for HSR service. The height of the aerial would seem to be irrelevant, as the source of the noise being measured is from the train motors, the wheels contacting the rails, and the reflection/amplification of sound from the trackbed and concrete side walls.
As for what the noise level inside a CHSRA train would be over the same 60′ aerial in Fresno, or perhaps the noise level outside a CHSRA train in the same location, you’ll need to go to other sources. The SFChron survey is not useful for answering that question, as it measured sound within a train of different manufacture and maintenance standards, travelling over track of looser tolerances and maintenance standards than the typical HSR line.
synonymouse Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
If the Seattle light rail is typical hollow-core aerials are significantly noisier. Residents along the new aerial line in the Seattle have been complaining about noise and if I remember the article correctly management admitted hollow-core construction was the primary source.
I am assuming that this is the typical type of rail aerial being built today, probably a lot lighter and maybe stronger, characteristics that would be desirable in the proposed Fresno viaducts. But they could be perfect tuning forks.
Presuming that the hsr would be better maintained than BART is questionable. BART is a big spender and is notoriously good at grabbing funding. I think the hsr will be a big money loser and will be forced to defer maintenance. That’s why I favor Tejon, because I believe it will make the hsr more competitive and pull in more needed first class fares
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
As I understand it, it’s a single aerial location that is causing the noise problems on Central Link in Seattle – it’s not a problem with all their aerials, but with the one near the Mt. Baker station.
jimsf Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Why does teh chron say that when the examiner says this?
Reality Check Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 6:48 pm
They’re all quoting BART spokesman and media flack Linton Johnson, who, in turn, was quoting a throw-away line buried in a “1997 report on wheel/rail noise. In section 4.2.1.1 on page 36 (or PDF page 42), it happens to state:
“With trued wheels and smooth ground rail on ballast and ties, BART is one of the quietest vehicles in operation at U.S. transit systems.”
Reality Check Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
That link again: http://bart.gov/docs/noisereport.pdf
thatbruce Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 10:12 am
Sounds like that report was illustrating what the SFChron survey found; there are points on the BART system where a BART train with trued wheels is quiet given smooth ground rail on ballast and ties. The louder sections are obviously where those conditionals aren’t present.
synonymouse Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 10:26 am
Ballast and ties on open ground is always quieter even with rail in less than optimal condition.
After reading all this news regarding the Feds I got one thing to say: screw the Feds!
Let’s do this HSR thing on our own (so to speak). Use our $10 billion bond money, possible $10 billion in foreign investment (Chinese), and perhaps some private/local funds to build what we can.
$25 or so billion could probably get us HSR from SF to Bakersfield via Pacheco and Metrolink “HSR” in SoCal.
The final, connecting link through the Tehachapis would have to come later. Just a thought; this partisan crap that keeps our country from moving forward is just plain pathetic.
thatbruce Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
The final, connecting link through the Tehachapis would have to come later.
Without the link between LA and the Central Valley, the HSR spur down the Central Valley will likely not have sufficient ridership to make that segment financially viable; it’s the linking of the two major metropolises (SF and LA) that provides the financially viable ridership for the CV segment.
Ken Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
The Chinese would say “why should we lend CA $10 billion to get a half-assed job done that’ll end up with mass cost overruns?” They know how inefficient we are at building these things because of our democratic process (appeasement to NIMBYs and endless meetings that get nothing done). From their perspective $10 billion should’ve been enough to get HSR done in five years. They have the Commie advantage: you complain about HSR going through your neighborhood, you vanish never to be heard from again.
Tony D. Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
My apologies all. I was just expressing frustration with what’s going on in Washington right now: holding up/obstructing great plans (for infrastructure) just because you want to be the one in charge; the hell with the people and nation! I want to see HSR completed ALL THE WAY just like everyone else. That is all.
wu ming Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
it’s not as simple as that, complaints about noise and concerns about supposed effects of electromagnetism were enough to stop the expansion of the shanghai maglev in its tracks. chinese regularly protest things, without being disappeared. organize an opposition political party or rake the wrong muck as an independent journalist, though, and it happens. but focused NIMBY protests? they exist, and occasionally have some impact on routes and mitigations and the like. not a democracy, and not a model to be sure, but not the totalitarian situation it’s portrayed as sometimes.
Peter Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 9:26 am
It helps them protest when they get better than 24 hour warning to leave their home.
Do we want to sell our country to the Chinese?
Also, aren’t we supposed to be the Feds?
Did someone post this? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#39049893
Though I realize that Democrats are also full of shit, Maddow points out how Republicans are full of it.
The presidents announcement keeps high speed rail in the public mind as does the governors trip to Asia.
News video of the governor riding high speed rail is even better.
Peter Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 9:49 am
News video of the governor announcing China wants to invest $10 billion in CA’s HSR is even better…