The Good and the Bad In International Funding of California HSR
Despite the worst recession in 60 years, the United States of America remains the wealthiest nation on earth by quite a wide margin. And California is one of the wealthiest states in that country, with plenty of available wealth to build and operate a high speed train system from San Francisco to Los Angeles and Anaheim.
So why isn’t our HSR project fully funded? Because for the last 30 years, a political decision was made to use that wealth to let the rich get richer, while infrastructure needs are neglected (along with social services, job creation, and wage growth for everyone but the top 5%). Money that should be helping build the HSR project is instead sitting in the bank accounts and on the asset books of people living in Pebble Beach, Bel Air, and Atherton. It sits in the accounts of the nation’s largest corporations, who are hoarding at least $1.8 trillion in cash, money that should instead be used by government to meet the needs of the jobless and the distressed, in part by building the infrastructure that will fuel further economic growth.
This political imperative – to bleed the nation dry in order to give more wealth to those who already have plenty of it – is a major reason why the Transportation Bill reauthorization, with $50 billion for high speed rail, and the National Infrastructure Bank, which would help fund mass transit projects at a net surplus to the federal government, are stalled in Congress despite the support of the Obama Administration. A conservative working majority of Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans has made sure that infrastructure bills will not even be considered before the November election, but an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy is something this conservative working majority is demanding with increasing success.
So the long “experiment” in growing the American economy by giving money and, increasingly, power to the plutocrats instead of attenting to our infrastructure needs, continues. One would think that the current recession would prove this “experiment” to be a colossal failure, but the defenders of plutocracy have a response for everything, and in this case, their argument is that the problem isn’t too much tax cuts, it’s that there was too much government spending, including on infrastructure.
That’s the current political environment in which the California High Speed Rail project is being developed. This state and this country have more than enough money to build it entirely ourselves, at public expense, and with low fares designed to attract as many riders as the system can handle. But instead our leaders prefer to give that money to the rich, and so we have to look elsewhere for the remaining funding.
This is where China, Japan, and maybe even Korea come in. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s trip last week resulted in pledges from China and Japan to help fund the HSR project. The details – including just how much they’ll offer – remain to be worked out. But it’s a solid vote of confidence in California’s HSR system, and a strong rebuke to those who have repeatedly claimed that the proposal doesn’t make financial sense. Neither China nor Japan are in any position to make a reckless financial decision, especially when it comes to billions of dollars of loans to an infrastructure project.
The good, then, is that foreign countries are confident in our HSR system and are willing to help fund it. Because HSR is so vital to our state’s future prosperity – particularly in meeting our desperate need for transportation systems that aren’t dependent on oil – it really doesn’t matter where the money comes from. The bad is that we shouldn’t have to turn to any other country for these funds, and the fact that we may have to do so is a sign of just how little our Congressional representatives seem to care for our infrastructure needs.
Of course, if one espouses an ideology that refuses to use public funds for infrastructure so that you can continue the “experiment” in giving the nation’s wealth to those who already have it, in the vain hope that they’ll use it to provide the kind of infrastructure and broadly shared economic prosperity we enjoyed in the mid-20th century, then you can’t really criticize the possibility that some of the HSR project’s funding will come from abroad.
That is, unless you write editorials for the train-hating San Diego Union-Tribune.
Today’s SD U-T editorial page included an attack on the possibility of international funding for the HSR project. After making a number of inaccurate claims about everything from HSR ticket prices (nothing has been decided yet) to whether taxpayer subsidies will be needed for the system (they won’t be), the editorial attacks the proposed international funding:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s recent trade trip to Asia was billed as being partly about generating interest from Asian firms in bidding on high-speed rail construction contracts. Instead, it seems to have also been about generating interest in investing in the project not from private entrepreneurs but from foreign governments. Wire services reported that Chinese rail officials said they were prepared to design, finance and build the entire project, while Japanese officials indicated a willingness to loan California tens of billions of dollars to make the project viable.
Huh? Where did this come from? Yes, Proposition 1A does say the CHRSA would not be “limited to (seeking) federal funds, funds from revenue bonds, and local funds” to augment the $9.95 billion in bond money. But where it was suggested – or even hinted – that Beijing and Tokyo were what the rail authority had in mind?
Who cares! Shouldn’t it be seen as a positive thing that state leaders are aggressively seeking out HSR funding from willing participants? This is a lame attempt at “gotcha” journalism. If anti-government types like the San Diego Union-Tribune editors are going to deny the public the ability to fund this project through public funds, then they have no place in criticizing it when elected officials go find that money.
If China wants to give California a high-speed rail system and indefinitely subsidize its operation, that’s all well and good. But who really thinks such a tidy, no-lose arrangement is in the offing? And if the offer is serious, a huge culture clash looms – at the least. A legislative transportation consultant told us last week of Chinese officials’ surprise to learn that Schwarzenegger couldn’t unilaterally approve a Sacramento-Beijing high-speed-rail partnership. They also appear unaware he will be governor for only a few more months.
Here again the SD U-T is just attacking the project for its own sake, based on nothing more than their own speculation. If it is true that Chinese officials lacked information about Arnold Schwarzenegger’s role – and I would be very surprised if they did; Chinese government officials are not idiots – then that just means the details of a possible loan, which will have to be worked out anyway, will take those matters into consideration.
The U-T is well known for its anti-train attitude, even though many of their readers ride trains all the time – from the SD Trolley to the Coaster commuter rail to the popular Pacific Surfliners operated by Amtrak California. The U-T doesn’t appear to have any concern for the state’s transportation problems or our dependence on oil, nor much understanding of the popularity of the region’s passenger rail systems. If they did, they would be not only more welcoming of the proposals for international funding for HSR, but more willing to use our own nation’s wealth to build infrastructure, just as we did in the 1950s and 1960s, instead of giving that wealth to those who already have it while our other priorities continue to be neglected.
What’s the big deal with asking Beijing and Tokyo to fund our high speed rail? they pretty much fund all aspect of our government anyways.
btw, China, Japan, and our other Asian friends already hold >$2Trillion of our debt. That’s enough to build high speed rail network throughout all of America a few times over.
http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt
Robert, thank you for laying out what is at stake in this election. The criticism of the President’s recent job-creating proposals is absolutely ridiculous. The US Chamber of Commerce and other conservative groups supported extending R&D tax credits 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.
Missiondweller Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 9:05 am
And of course that $787 Billion was well spent eh?
YesonHSR Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 7:38 am
like the 727 billion for JUST this next year defense budget?
Ben Reply:
September 23rd, 2010 at 11:51 am
$300B of the $787B was spent on the ‘Making Work Pay’ tax cuts (I suppose tax cuts are now ‘socialist’ since Obama signed them into law). Wind energy production increased by 39 percent in 2009 vs. ’08 because of funding provided by the Recovery Act: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/gains-in-global-wind-capacity-reported/. The Recovery Act also provided nearly $200B to states so they wouldn’t have to layoff even more teachers, police/fire personnel, or have 4-day school weeks and close libraries (http://projects.nytimes.com/44th_president/stimulus).
Following is the scope of loan packages offered by respective Asian governments according to a political insider who negotiated with Gov. Schwarzenegger and his team.
China is offering a 100% financing of CA HSR’s construction cost; California need not even issue already approved bond as China will make the loan.
Japan is also offering 100% financing of CA HSR’s estimated construction cost, but capped at $40 billion. Any cost exceeding this cap should be sourced by California state government as the result of adapting Shinkansen.
Korea is currently putting together a loan package. Koreans are pushing for a gradual build-up of CA HSR in several phases utilizing KTX-II’s conventional rail operability. Koreans will offer the loan that is required to complete the first phase, but requires that California state government try to secure other source of funding as much as possible. Korean option offers least amount of loan(at least $10 billion), but their bid would also cost the least because of aggressive conventional track sharing and building in phases. Koreans are stressing that they are the only railway operator out of three whose HSR ticket cost significantly less than an airplane ticket covering same destination while still turning a profit, and is pitching their bids on lowest debt level and lowest ticket prices.
So California has a bidder offering a 100% financing, and another bidder offering a loan upto $40 billion.
Peter Reply:
September 19th, 2010 at 7:49 pm
If that turns out to be true, that’s the best news I’ve heard all month…
Useless Reply:
September 19th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
100% financing is the standard term for Chinese overseas HSR construction projects in countries that cannot afford it. The negative side of 100% financing is that Chinese are in full control of overseas HSR system’s construction and they bring in lots of Chinese workers. For the US, Chinese construction companies would have to be prime railway construction contractors to ensure they can build up the system ASAP.
Heck, Chinese even paid for the charter flight that Arnold took to make his Asian trip.
nobody important Reply:
September 19th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
Where are you getting all this information?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 19th, 2010 at 10:30 pm
What do you mean by “they bring in lots of Chinese workers”? Any HSR construction work here in California would almost certainly be performed by US labor, but I could see Chinese companies acting as contractors.
Aaron Reply:
September 19th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
I wondered the same thing – I don’t even think they could get visas for large numbers of Chinese construction workers, though of course they could for the consultants with the competencies in question.
bleh Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 4:09 am
Well, that’s the downside of accepting $50 billion in cash from the Chinese. When they say “Jump!”, you ask “Hau hai?” =)
Useless Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 7:15 am
@ Robert Cruickshank
> What do you mean by “they bring in lots of Chinese workers”?
Chinese did this in civil construction projects in 3rd world countries. Chinese prefer to import Chinese labor instead of employing locals when working on foreign soil.
Peter Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 8:12 am
And how many skilled construction workers did those third world countries have? I’m talking in terms of the expertise to build large viaducts, precisely pouring concrete, and build tunnels. We have all of that in spades, which I doubt of the other third world countries China has built in. Those other countries just wanted the damn thing built. We also want it to be a jobs booster.
Missiondweller Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 9:07 am
Chinese are known for not only bringing in their own people, but 100% of their own supplies right down to every nail used on a project.
Peter Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 9:10 am
I have no doubt that’s what they’ve done in the past, but I highly doubt that those terms would be accepted by anyone just in order to fund our project.
Useless Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 10:08 am
If you don’t like that, then choose somebody else’s bid.
Japanese and Koreans will be happy to employ Americans to construct CAHSR.
Peter Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 10:17 am
Well, yes, and that’s what will most likely happen…
thatbruce Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 10:22 am
Sounds similar to what the US periodically does when performing projects outside the US.
political_incorrectness Reply:
September 19th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
100% financing by China and no need for state bond or fed dollars? Now that would be sweet
Useless Reply:
September 19th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Fed money is a grant, not a loan. Of course California would go after any grant.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 19th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
I don’t quite know where you’re getting this, but that is a blockbuster report. If true, it is a game-changer.
Andre Peretti Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 11:34 am
Chinese offers must have a downside, if you look at the latest developments in the Saudi HSR bid.
The original conditions were that the financial aspect be examined first. All bidders retired except the Chinese.
Then, Saudi Railways hired a new consultant who changed the rules. Technical specifications were to be examined first. This time only two bidders submitted offers: Talgo and Alstom. The Chinese didn’t.
Even these two survivors will have to complete their homework. Talgo because their locomotive has been insufficiently tested and Alstom for lack of data on its rolling stock’s behavior on slab tracks.
Spokker Reply:
September 19th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
I love dealing in rumors, and these are juicy ones.
If Chinese workers construct the rail line, I wonder if that’ll be a deal breaker. Isolationist assholes are always screaming, “Buy American.”
Spokker Reply:
September 19th, 2010 at 11:00 pm
Critics can also frame the Chinese deal so as to hurt the feelings of the most patriotic among us. Look at this third world nation (which is what most people think) helping the mighty United States. The honest truth is that the United States’ passenger railways are third world.
wu ming Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 1:26 am
hey, they built most of california’s railways in the 19th century.
Peter Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 9:11 am
And people accepted them with open arms back then, too, right?
James Fujita Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Eh, the Japanese know how to get around the “Buy American” problem. Build factories in the U.S. Hire lots of Americans. Problem solved. American Honda has been doing that since the 1980s, and now they have plants in places like Alabama and North Carolina. The old segregationists must be rolling in their graves.
The Chinese do have the added problem of “**gasp** commies!” and the whole sweatshop thing.
Peter Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
And I don’t see why the Chinese would not do it that way, too. They’re not stupid, and know that it wouldn’t work politically otherwise in the U.S.
Spokker Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
China has a rapidly growing middle class and there is a lot of poverty in America too. We’re not the greatest country on Earth, either.
James Fujita Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Well, I’m not trying to compare the U.S. with China. (I’m trying to compare Japan with China).
However, the whole “commie” thing isn’t China’s problem, they don’t seem to have a problem with it. It’s our hangup, as in we (the United States) has a problem with their government and labor practices.
GoGregorio Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
I want to make sure one thing is clear; communism and sweatshops/bad labor practices are two entirely different issues that China has. The two are not related at all. In fact, I don’t really see China as legitimately communist in the present day. I would venture to guess that they’re pushing something closer to fascism or totalitarianism these days, but I’ll leave that to the more astute political theorists.
I know it’s not exactly here nor there, and maybe you weren’t implying as much, James, but I wanted to make it clear that labor exploitation =/= communism, and communism =/= China. (but labor exploitation = China)
James Fujita Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
yes, yes, I was not trying to imply that labor exploitation = communism.
rightly or not, many Americans do imply China= Communism, and that may negatively affect a deal.
I’m also worried that China, Japan = not white may be a problem as well….. France+Germany=white, and racism is still not quite dead yet.
Peter Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
“racism is still not quite dead yet”
I’d argue it’s still live and kicking. Just look at Arizona.
James Fujita Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
I was trying to be diplomatic about it, as I know some people don’t agree about Arizona, but okay :)
Matthew Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Just look at these comments, really.
Andre Peretti Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
You know the old Polish joke:
Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man. Communism is just the opposite.
Spokker Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 9:13 pm
China is criticizing for “having no freedoms” and that the government oppresses and brutalizes its people.
Here is a great example of that: http://carlosmiller.com/2010/09/07/tsa-publishes-new-posters-depicting-photographers-as-terrorists/
Spokker Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 9:18 pm
*criticized
Matthew Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 10:59 pm
China is not criticized for “having no freedoms”, they’re criticized for putting bullets in the back of the heads of those who oppose its rules. There is no Minority Party in government. If someone tried something like the Tea Partiers are doing, there would be thousands executed. Tanks would roll, just like in Tiananmen Square.
There’s a huge difference between foolish overreactions and political oppression.
Matthew Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 10:59 pm
“its rulers”…. one critical letter missing…
Spokker Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 11:56 pm
Rising incomes quash uprisings better than bullets.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 1:11 am
On the contrary, rising incomes make people pissed that they aren’t seeing wage increases and cuts in working hours. Until 1987, Korea was as authoritarian as China is today; eventually the people overthrew the fascist government. China is undergoing something similar today underneath the surface: earlier this year there were strikes and worker riots, which went wholly unreported in the Western media, many of which led to 30%+ pay hikes.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 1:12 am
Matthew, last decade, when China invaded an oil-rich country lwhose leader annoyed the President too much, how many civilians died?
Risenmessiah Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 12:01 am
I believe the condition of the loans is that we will purchase trainsets from them and use their technology. In that sense, these loans are not ideal. What would be a good is negotiating for specific technologies and a lower loan amount. What springs to mind immediately is Japan’s system of shutting down trains during seismic activity. That, and other earthquake related tools would be worth buying or trading for.
Otherwise, this is no different than a cell phone contract. Sure, we’ll give you the phone for free, but then you are locked into our network for God knows how long.
Useless Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 7:21 am
@ Risenmessiah
> I believe the condition of the loans is that we will purchase trainsets from them and use their technology.
Actually it is a package offer. They will do all the railway construction, ship rolling stocks, and operate the railway to maximize their employment. If you take the Chinese loan, then all contractors are Chinese. Likewise all contractors are Japanese if you take the Japanese loan. Ditto for Korean, although there maybe room for negotiation because Korean loan offer amount is the least.
> In that sense, these loans are not ideal.
Of course loan is not ideal, but you don’t have much choice when buying on credit. If California wants to pick and match, then it must self-finance.
Risenmessiah Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 12:08 am
Wait a second.
That’s not the point. Schwarzenegger is dangling HSR out there because he wants to sell Californian exports in Asia. Japan, Korea, and China all have plenty of dollars to buy exports with, but they don’t necessarily have to do so in the Golden State. So the real catch here is that both sides want an agreement that is favorable to them.
For China and Japan especially, they want to exchange their dollar reserves on a one to one basis. HSR allows them to do that….whereas holding on to them given the current trade deficit is unwise. But again, they have to want what they are getting in return and that part of the trip hasn’t been covered by the media.
Peter Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 9:14 am
Do we have any idea what the status is on GE’s deal with China on technology transfer agreements? Weren’t they getting HSR technology in exchange for their hybrid freight locomotive technology?
Useless Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 10:02 am
It didn’t seem to go too well given GE CEO’s recent blasting of China.
Maybe GE wised up and realized that transferred tech is useless because it infringed on Kawasaki and Siemens IP. GE has been silent on US HSR projects since then.
Andre Peretti Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 11:12 am
I found it surprising that GE accepted that stolen technology be laundered through them. It’s not in keeping with their reputation. GE is one of the few firms that refuse do do business in Africa because of the bribing it involves.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 11:58 am
On the contrary, GE has been stealing technology since the days of Edison, who promised to pay Tesla for an invention and then reneged.
Andre Peretti Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
You are referring to a time when foreign intellectual property was not recognized in the US. Nikola Tesla was Serbian. European writers never got a cent in copyrights, either. In fact, America behaved much as China does today.
You shouldn’t look too far into the past, otherwise you’ll end up admitting the Chinese are right when claiming that today’s technology “transfers” are insignificant in comparison to Europeans stealing the compass and gunpowder and using them to conquer the world.
Peter Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Here’s a question. People are getting all hot and bothered about China stealing technology from Alstom, Bombardier, Siemens, etc. How is what China did to develop the “homegrown” CRH2-380A any different from what Korea did to develop the KTX-II? I’m not saying there isn’t a difference, I’m just no seeing one so far.
Useless Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
@ Peter
> How is what China did to develop the “homegrown” CRH2-380A any different from what Korea did to develop the KTX-II?
KTX-II : This is an all new train model and uses zero TGV design/parts. Took 11 years to develop and test, and fixes most of design errors that Koreans encountered while operating TGV-K. The The only thing from TGV-K is the experience of working on TGV-K.
CRH380A : This is a higher domestic content version of CRH2 and CRH3, depending on whose version(CSR or CNR) you are referring to. Basically Chinese replaced Kawasaki/Siemens supplied parts in CRH2/CRH3 with Chinese-made clone parts and are now calling them CRH380A to indicate zero Kawasaki/Siemens supplied content in these models. But everything else is still the same as CRH2 and CRH3, including car body design that was originally license produced in China.
Peter Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Ok, thanks.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
According to Rotem, the KTX-II is 87% Korean technology. Not 100%.
Also from the same link, the KTX-II has a maximum speed of 300 km/h.
Peter Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
According to wikipedia, “The non-Korean contributions include power electronics from IXYS,[78] design from MBD Design[79] and front ends from Voith.[80]“
Useless Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
@ Alon Levy Reply
> KTX-II is 87% Korean technology. Not 100%.
Remaining 13% is not from TGV. They are specifically developed by foreign suppliers to Korean specification.
> KTX-II has a maximum speed of 300 km/h.
Korean market KTX-II has a revenue service speed limit of 330 km/hr. It is not operating at this speed at the moment because it shares railway traffic with TGV-K capped at 300 km/hr. Speed will be raised to 330 km/hr once th existing TGV-K fleet retires.
The US market model can be uprated to 350 km/hr revenue service speed if required.
@ Peter
So what? Those parts are not from TGV. What’s wrong with global sourcing? Do you really think a Boeing jet is 100% American?
We are talking about intellectual property rights here. KTX-II is fully TGV IP-free by US standard and this is why it can be offered in the US without a threat of legal challenges from Alstom.
The same isn’t true with CRH380A.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Alstom doesn’t feel the KTX is TGV-free. Korea may have done a better job than China on the legal front, but that’s it.
And sure, the US model can be uprated. So can many other trains.
Useless Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 6:48 pm
@ Alon Levy
> Alstom doesn’t feel the KTX is TGV-free.
Well Alstom is always free to sue Rotem if it feels in a such way. This is in USA we are talking about, not in Brazil or in Saudi Arabia. The burden of proof rests on Alstom to prove that KTX-II uses TGV parts and structures. Good luck with that.
Peter Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
@ Useless
I was just stating where those 13% parts were coming from, not arguing that it should not be used because of that.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
No, Alstom will definitely lose the lawsuit. Rotem made sure to get all the clean room legalese in order. That’s why it took it so much longer to develop the KTX-II than it took Sifang to clone the CRH2; it’s not as if Koreans are less smart than Chinese.
It’s really not clear at this stage whether any Japanese company could sue the Chinese vendors. JR Central thinks China’s violating IP law, but Kawasaki’s response seems to indicate it doesn’t. I’d trust the HSRA’s legal department to know ahead of time if picking Chinese technology will lead to lawsuits; while the people in charge of the HSRA may not know or care about minimizing construction costs, correctly phasing the project, or connecting well to regional transit, they are all politicians and have every incentive to avoid legal embarrassment.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Edison promised Tesla money for an invention. He then took the invention and didn’t pay. At the time, Tesla was in the US; it has nothing to do with the US practice of ignoring foreign patents.
Peter Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 11:19 am
What does your statement of “Any cost exceeding this cap should be sourced by California state government as the result of adapting Shinkansen” mean?
Does this mean that they are willing to finance more than $40 billion if CA uses Shinkansen technology? Or is the $40 billion itself contingent upon adopting Shinkansen technology?
Useless Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
@ Peter
> Or is the $40 billion itself contingent upon adopting Shinkansen technology?
Japan is willing to loan $40 billion as the condition of adopting Shinkansen system(rolling stock, signaling, track design, and tunneling). But should the cost rise for whatever the reason, that’s it.
Shinkansen system does cost more than other systems because of its requirement for 100% segregated tracks.
All loan offers carry the condition of adopting the wining bidder’s system.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Surely the fact that Japan’s legacy rail system is narrow-gauge has more to do with it than the choice of technology, no?
orulz Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
In fact the Shinkansen doesn’t even need fully segregated tracks. They call it a “Mini” shinkansen. The trains follow the main Shinkansen line to as close to their final destination as possible, and share an existing upgraded line with narrow-gauge trains for the rest of the way. They lay three rails instead of two. The second rail is 1067mm from the inside rail for narrow gauge equipment, and the third rail is 1435mm for standard gauge Shinkansen equipment.
This is how the branch lines to Akita and Yamagata were built, as well as the line to Nagasaki which is being built. The Seikan tunnel between Honshu and Hokkaido will follow the same scheme when the Shinkansen is extended to Hokkaido as well. In fact the third rails are already laid through the tunnel.
So Shinkansen is more flexible than you might realize.
Peter Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Oooohhh. Can we have a Doctor Yellow trainset, too? Hehe.
thatbruce Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
and share an existing upgraded line with narrow-gauge trains for the rest of the way. They lay three rails instead of two.
No, they don’t. New standard-gauge track is laid on the narrow gauge alignment, replacing the narrow-gauge track (Yamagata) or running alongside within the existing ROW (Akita). Only in a confined location such as the Seikan Tunnel is dual-gauge used.
But in general, the cost for a full-fleged Shinkansen line is that of a completely new alignment, not because Shinkasen cannot work with a legacy alignment, but because the legacy alignments curve too much to be useful for high speed.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
The curve problem exists regardless of which technology you use. The TGV, KTX, ICE, AVE, and Shinkansen all need new lines to be able to run at high speed, and this costs a lot of money.
Useless Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
@ Alon Levy
Yea, but Euro-style high speed trains don’t need dedicated tracks to run through dense urban areas and city downtowns, unlike Shinkansen. A dedicated track through urban area is the deal killer for Shinkansen in the US.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
Minor tweaks to a Shinkansen and it could run anywhere in North America you have catenary. THere might be regulatory hurdles but the platform height and loading gauge is close enough to Norht American standards that there wouldn’t be much of a problem.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Useless,
I’m not sure if you are familiar with the original Japanese system, but it was almost entirely narrow gauge, specifically called Cape Gauge (common in southern Africa, rails set 3 feet, six inches apart). The Shinkansen lines, to get the capacity and stability needed, adopted what is often called “standard gauge,” which is 4 feet, 8 1/2 inches between the rails. Anything other than this is considered “broad gauge” if it is wider, and “narrow gauge” if it is narrower.
Standard gauge covers most of Europe with some exceptions (broad gauge in Ireland, some narrow gauge steam heritage roads in Britain, and more narrow gauge in Switzerland and Germany, the latter also operated with steam engines), all but very much less than 1% in the US and Canada (the exceptions are narrow gauge historical roads, often with steam power, one narrow-gauge industrial gypsum hauler with modern diesel power, and several broad gauge transit systems), all of China except some industrial lines (narrow gauge), parts of Northern Africa (including Egypt), Turkey, Eastern Europe (with a narrow gauge line in Poland that is steam operated, and interesting for its main line connection also being the last main line steam division in that country), Spain (originally broad gauge, being converted to standard).
This constitutes the great bulk of world rail mileage–but it also meant the Shinkansen was, just by wheel spacing, incompatable with the original JNR network, hence the need for a new line everywhere it went, especially in the begining. That wasn’t a problem with the other systems everywhere else that already were standard gauge (or, in the case of the Russian trains now running, broad gauge, with HSR sets built to this gauge), and it won’t be a problem in the US.
The main problems will not be technical, but political, for a mixture of economic (the oil companies hate losing customers, they would rather see people drive cars) and generational (people currently between 60 and 90 who grew up in the 50s and 60s thinking trains should go away like the stagecoach, and think the proposal to revive rail is part of a Communist/Socialist plot to seize their autos).
Alon Levy Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
In addition to what D. P. said, I’ll note that the plan calls for a small amount of track sharing with regional transit, regardless of which technology is picked. It can be Shinkansen, or AGV, or Velaro, or whatever. As long as it’s standard gauge and has steel wheels, it can run on the same tracks.
I guess that the Union-Tribune is more interested in practicing its own form of Hooverism than anything else. If the editors had done their homework, they would know that Japan’s railroads have been privatized for the LAST 23 YEARS.
Barvo to the first 5 paragraphs. Very well put. Why more americans aren’t outraged and fed up I’ll never understand. Oh sure they’re outraged, but they are blaming the wrong people and plan to vote the country into la la land this november. Absolute stupidity. I give up.
thatbruce Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 10:59 am
My favorite is #7:
What does Schwarzenegger have to say? We don’t know. His office declined to respond to our basic questions – maybe because it had no idea how to answer them.
Ah, the old ‘we will not tell our readers what, if any, questions we asked a prominent public figure nor how long we waited for a response’ method of reporting.
barvo? uh bravo. I mean.
Americans believe that they can just continue to live they way they have for the last 50 years and everything will be fine. The financial right believes that they can suck as much money out of the system and they’ll continue to make money at the same rate of return as always (with no investment!)
I’m not optimistic about America. I can see an independent California with its own HSR system while the rest of the country heads down the path to becoming a 3rd world country.
jimsf Reply:
September 19th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
Id vote for and independent california in a new minute!~~~ Where do I sign up?
Tony D. Reply:
September 19th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
I also agree that California should become independent. And it’s not about being anti-American; it would be about keeping our hard-earned tax dollars from going to DC and liberating ourselves from the military-industrial complex. How about “Commonwealth” status? Does Puerto Rico pay federal taxes?
Kevin G Reply:
September 19th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Yes, they do pay federal taxes.
Missiondweller Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 9:12 am
That would’ve worked out real well recently with the millions of CA mortgages going bad. Without Federal support of Fannie and Freddie CA would be in a deep depression and housing prices would have declined by at least another 30-50% and still falling.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
That’s not necessarily a bad thing, as they will need to decline anyhow long term if they are still inflated and inflated home values make homes less affordable for the middle class and poor. Additionally, secession from the federal government would mean hundreds of billions of dollars retained in California instead of being sent to the rest of the country. Picking up the tab on our own for Medicare and Social Security benefits would mean an extra one hundred twenty billion dollars (in 2009), but at the same time, we sent more than 300 billion dollars to Washington.
jimsf Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Not to mention we fashion our version of medicare, ss, a state health plan, etc, make our own border laws, and work out our own immigration and trade agreements with the pacific rim. California could, as a nation, be free to maximize our strategic location and compete directly with other countries including the US, for international business. We could decide who to do business with, and who not too, and how that business is done, offering whatever incentives and or regulations as we see fit. WE could also dump the south and all the big red square once and for all and leave tx, fl, and ny behind to muddle along.
Everything to gain. nothing to lose. EVeryone who didn’t like it would be free to leave and meanwhile we create incentives to attract to best and brightest from around the world, which considering our geography, diversity and climate, would be very easy to do.
Personally I think its our destiny. Californians have never been fond of the east coast establishment and the rest of the country has only what ranges from contempt to disdain for us.
We could divorce the us on grounds of irreconcilable differences. No love lost.
Robert writes:
“So why isn’t our HSR project fully funded? Because for the last 30 years, a political decision was made to use that wealth to let the rich get richer, while infrastructure needs are neglected (along with social services, job creation, and wage growth for everyone but the top 5%).”
Of course, this is nonsense. The reason private investment hasn’t come forward, is because it makes no financial sense for them. The don’t care to toss their money down the toilet on a scheme that will result in the loss of the equity.
So far, all I have heard is a lot of hype about “loans” coming. Loans are not what is needed. What is needed is risk equity from private sources. It s been promised for years now bu the Authority and none has come forth. Crane, who is the Governor’s money guy on the board, basically stated it won’t be forthcoming. That’s why there was this talk about guarantees etc.
If the Chinese government invests in this project as just an equity provider, indeed they are idiots. If California gets Chinese funding by essentially selling them the system lock, stock and barrel, than we are idiots.
Robert’s rant about the wealthy is really going to win friends to the project for those very people who could finance the system.
PeakVT Reply:
September 19th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Naturally, you missed Cruickshank’s point. Try again.
mike Reply:
September 19th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
If California gets Chinese funding by essentially selling them the system lock, stock and barrel, than we are idiots
Why?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 19th, 2010 at 10:31 pm
This is just Morris Brown attacking the HSR project using whatever basis he can find, the same thing that the U-T editorial is doing.
And for the same reason: neither of them want passenger rail, so they’ll use whatever arguments are handy to try and stop it. They hoped that stalling support for new federal infrastructure funding in Congress would do the trick, but they didn’t count on China and Japan.
synonymouse Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 12:56 am
If the Chinese government wants to own and run an hsr in California let them buy the UP and convert it. After all that’s what the CHSRA really wants to do. China has the foreign reserves to buy the UP outright. Just bid up the price to the point where it is an offer the UP can’t refuse.
Of course that won’t happen because the government won’t permit it. The very idea of sovereign investment in US infrastructure is inane. You might as well outsource the National Security Council.
Foreign aid is not charity – there are always strings attached.
And I doubt Jerry’s labor support would be happy with involvment in the hsr of anti trade union sovereigns.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 19th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
The point is that infrastructure should be funded by taxing the wealthy and using that revenue to fund things like high speed rail.
Such a policy would make it much easier to give you your tunnel, I might add.
Missiondweller Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 9:15 am
Why taxing the wealthy?
Is infrastructure not a public good? If so, why shouldn’t the public fund it? Why just the “wealthy”?
I think you get sidetracked when you turn this into a left wing political argument.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 9:57 am
Why not taxing the wealthy? They aren’t getting their money from the 100 dollar bill trees in their backyard, it’s coming from all public goods that allow their investments …. to be investments.
Peter Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 10:04 am
The wealthy ARE part of the public. The poor can hardly afford to pay taxes, can they? Where else is the government supposed to raise the funds to pay for all the things it needs to spend money on?
synonymouse Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 10:50 am
In the real world it is next to impossible to tax the wealthy and corporations. There are so many ways to dodge starting with the threat to relocate.
The easiest and simplest way to fend off taxes is to bankroll the political opposition, We are
seeing this at the moment
In extreme circumstances the rich and their allies have been known to resort to military coups, as in
Spain in 1936 or Chile in 1973.
StevieB Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
The poor have a longer tradition of overthrow of the government as in the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution. No one mooting high speed rail has in any way advocated overthrow of the government. Mentioning military coups is irrelevant nonsense.
Peter Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Well, I think one of the Stone Pine Lane loonies has that sort of stuff in mind.
Tomorrow, monday, 9-20-2019 there will be quite a bit of activity at the City councils levels on HSR
Atherton council is meeting in open session early tomorrow to discuss possible litigatin on the newly certified program level EIR.
The Palo alto council will discuss taking action on a strong resolution declaring no confidence in the Authority and urging that funding be denied. That resolution and background can be viewed at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37751406/Palo-alto2-9-20-2010
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 19th, 2010 at 10:26 pm
And neither city has any legitimate basis for doing so, at least not in terms of what their constituents actually want. Palo Alto’s council in particular is deeply out of touch with what its residents and its major businesses want.
PeakVT Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 5:37 am
This isn’t Parliament, so the concept of no confidence has no meaning.
Besides, why should a city of 61,000 be allowed to halt a program 6,680,485 people voted for?
Peter Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 9:15 am
Because they have more money than the others. Isn’t this how democracy is supposed to work?
I think one of the biggest problems with the financing scheme is the over reliance on debt financing. I think that’s what Robert’s point is too. We could just go ahead and pay for this thing out of the budget. Building it will be stimulative to the California economy and so will its operation. But since we don’t dare raise taxes or levies, the rich get to both keep their money and complain when infrastructure, which has to be built, is funded from outside. Pretty nice to have the cake and eat it too. With the state now stuck in a structural deficit, it is hard to imagine this project getting done without “foreign aid.”
Of course, whenever there are bonds, the holders hold sway over the borrowing entity. If a large amount of funding comes from overseas, then expect to see many of the decisions ahead being heavily influenced by those financing entities. Sad that we can’t control our destiny a little better than that.
It’s not just about making the rich richer, in fact that seems kind of incidental. Take a look at the federal budget and you’ll see that the top priority is ways of destroying buildings and killing people in foreign countries. In other words: military.
You gotta see this… this is a very cool chart of the proposed 2011 federal budgetIf you roll over the boxes it gives you the breakdowns. For any of those screaming about spending, take a look, try to even find rail spending on the chart……. roll (mouse) over each box and see what each of your favorite things gets and what you wanna give up….. notice the largest box….
rafael Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 5:55 am
To drive the point home, click on the “Hide Mandatory Spending” button. In every other civilized country, maintaining and expanding civilian infrastructure is considered a core function of government and not sacrificed at the altar of waging a Cold War that is long since over. The DOE’s budget – much of which is spent on nuclear weapons – is up 7.2% from $16.47 billion to $17.66 billion. Note that a fair chunk of the national debt is directly related to past weapons procurement. Veterans’ benefits are also entirely military in nature. Note how their compensation and pensions are down 12.7%, presumably because more and more veterans of WW2 and Korea (and their widows) are passing away.
Btw, railroad spending is down 35.4% from $4.38 billion to $2.83 billion. Mandatory spending on transit programs is flat at $8.38 billion and discretionary spending down 9.3% from $2.39 billion to $2.17 billion.
On the other hand, spending on airports an airways is up 3.8% from $12.48 billion to $12.95 billion, on top of an 11.7% increase from $4.86 billion to $5.43 billion for air transportation security. Yea, verily, for more full body scanners. Don’t forget to Be Afraid!
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 6:41 am
I’ve posted this before, and I’ll admit it is an opinion, but I think there are some important things here–and yes, I think in terms of energy independence and a potential strangling of the country, we are in a situation as serious as we were in 1942:
I like the current president personally, I don’t think he’s a bad person, he seems to be a good family man and all (and he shared all these characteristics with his predecessor, plus he seems much smarter than his predecessor), and I still think things would have been worse if we had chosen the alternative–but I think he’s too “conservative,” which in this case means too cautious. Darn it, we needed and still need that rail rebuilding program more than we needed or need bank bailouts.
Think of how a rail rebuilding program–and I mean a big one, a comprehensive one, addressing everything from HSR to streetcars to freight electification to even interurbans, in short, something comparable to the Interstate Highway Program and the other federal matches in the roads department–would address employment issues, energy issues, security issues (helping to keep us out or resource wars) and transportation issues, not to mention helping to keep our money in circulation here.
Instead, we get jitters about money. I’ve got news for you–money’s not worth much by itself. You can’t wear it, you can’t eat it, it won’t keep the rain of your head, or take you on a trip. It can turn itself into these things, but it can’t do that on its own, and when it is transformed into those things, you no longer have the money.
We shouldn’t worry too much about money; there are other things of greater importance.
I would bet there weren’t too many concerns about money, budgets and deficits in WW II. We had more important things to deal with then, too.
PeakVT Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
I agree with what you said, but I want to point out that the bank bailout (aka TARP) was passed by the previous Congress and signed by the previous President. The stimulus package that included some (but not enough) funding for HSR was passed by the current President and Congress. A lot of people confuse the two, and Republican politicians are doing so on purpose.
StevieB Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
The President does not fund programs; Congress funds government programs. The Senate as the defender of minority rights is where most programs die. The President is a pragmatist and having been a member of Congress knows well how it functions.
Nathanael Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Time to do something about the Senate. Abolishing the filibuster would be a good start. A Constitutional Amendment removing all its powers entirely would be better, but will take longer.
Peter Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 9:32 am
That’s a really depressing chart.
Interesting to see that highway spending decreases slightly, though not as much as railroad spending.
Siemens needs to display there trains in cities throughout CA like they’re doing in Florida. This would be a great way for people to see how modern and comfortable high speed rail is and will help build greater support for this project.
https://www.signup4.net/Public/ap.aspx?EID=SIEM58E
Ben Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 7:37 am
“their trains” –> mea culpa.
Useless Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 10:10 am
Yea, but Siemens is not expected to win in California. Try Florida instead.
Best bet for foreign money would be for a Chinese-Siemens/DB joint bid or a Alstom/SNCF-Korean joint bid. In both cases, you have a company that originally developed HSR technology i.e. Siemens and the Velaro or Alstom and the TGV partnered with a country who can reproduce the technology at a lower cost; namely the Chinese variant of the Velaro and Korea’s adapted KTX-II. That would side-step the intellectual property issues, mainly selling Velaro and TGV technology to a third party without the consent of Siemens and Alstom, while making use of the existing Siemens and Alstom plants in CA to assemble the trains. These bids would also include companies that can operate the system such as DB or SNCF, which makes the bid complete. The biggest hurdle by far will be the pressure for “buy American” compliance since stimulus money will undoubtedly be used for this project. In this case, it would behoove the bidders to explicitly outline how they will comply with such provisions and use American materials and workers to build the system.
Regardless of what happens, ultimately the Federal Government will have to become a guarantor of loan re-payment. This will be the hardest part of getting massive foreign loans since this type of arrangement, particularly the project size and the fact that it is to build infrastructure in the U.S., hasn’t happened before. Further, I assume many members of Congress, especially members of the GOP will raise a big fuss about being in debt to foreign creditors like China, even though they were happy to do so for funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
nobody important Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
The KTX-II has nothing to do with Alstom or SNCF. It’s purely Hyundai-Rotem. It doesn’t use any French technology.
Peter Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
And there’s the answer to my question that I asked above. Thank you.
Useless Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
@ HSRComingSoon
> a Chinese-Siemens/DB joint bid
There is no cost difference between Chinese-copy version and Siemens original for US projects. Because the train sets will have to be produced in the US with 70% American content anyway under the “Buy American” provision.
> a Alstom/SNCF-Korean joint bid.
French bidders and Korean bidders are already fully competing against each other in Florida/California and do not see a need for each other.
> That would side-step the intellectual property issues, mainly selling Velaro and TGV technology to a third party without the consent of Siemens and Alstom
IPR is an exclusively Chinese issue.
Alstom didn’t sell TGV tech to China and No one’s selling TGV tech to 3rd party. Seriously, do you think Alstom would remain silent in the US if KTX-II contained TGV IP? In the US of all places?
Dan S. Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Why all the crying about the need to guarantee the loans? Basically every HSR system in the world runs an operating profit. People just have to finance the initial construction cost. That’s a fixed cost, and one that the state of California should be just as able to re-pay as any of its other bonds, which sell well. I don’t think there’s anything special about these loans beyond any regular old California bond. Please educate me.
Robert, you’re quoted here: http://www.houstontomorrow.org/livability/story/japan-suggests-loan/
They couldn’t manage to spell your last name right, and somehow changed your first name to John…
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
That’s odd. John Cruickshank’s been dead since 1981, and I have no idea who John Cruikshank is.
Thanks for pointing that out to me though!
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Just checked the website, your name has been change to its correct version.
StevieB Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Almost correct, “Robert Cruikshank of California High Speed Rail Blog offers his analysis: “
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Good enough for me.
Robert,
I am writing on behalf of the California High-Speed Train Los Angeles to San Diego project and hope you can assist us in informing the general public of an upcoming community open house for the San Gabriel Valley to be held on October 6, 2010. The meeting will provide the communities along the I-10 Freeway an opportunity to learn more about the High-Speed Train program, and specifically, the potential alternative planned along the I-10 Freeway corridor as part of the Los Angeles to San Diego via the Inland Empire section.
Meeting details are as follows:
Wednesday, October 6
Attend the open house any time between 4:00 pm and 8:00 pm
Grace T. Black Auditorium
3130 Tyler Avenue
El Monte, CA 91731
If you have any questions please contact me at: kburnside@arellanoassociates.com
Perhaps – unlike us – the Chinese have a long-term view of investment. They understand that oil is finite and that its alternatives, particularly in aviation, are impractical or expensive. It doesn’t take a Warren Buffet to figure out that transportation systems that can operate without petroleum will gain value in the coming decades while transportation systems that are petroleum-dependent will lose value in the coming decades.
So the Chinese build our HSR system and take full ownership of it. It produces a modest return on investment in the short term, similar to what they earn on their 5 or 10 yr Treasury bills. But in the long term, as oil prices rise, the rate of return increases (e.g, each $10 rise in the price of oil increases the NPV of the system by $1-2 billion). The investment also serves as a nice hedge for the Chinese against rising oil prices, which would have an otherwise negative impact on their standard of living.
By the year 2060, the two remaining airlines are (still) on the brink of bankruptcy, and the only affordable “seats” on an airplane require you to first pack yourself into a small FedEx shipping box. The “capitalist” US (led by President Sasha Obama) is tired of paying the Chinese for every single HSR ride, so they move to expropriate the HSR system from its Chinese owners. “Communist” Chinese intelligence sponsors a coup that overthrows the US govt (ostensibly to spread democracy, eliminate a corrupt US administration, and ensure the safety of ethnic Chinese living in the US), and Chinese troops eventually move to protect all Chinese infrastructure located in the US. The US protests this infringement on its sovereignty to the World Court and the United Nations, but nobody listens.
I think I’ve heard a version of this story play out before somewhere….
ks Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
China is already reaping ROI by reselling the HSR technology to other countries. Capitalist Americans, by comparison, cannot look beyond quarterly profit.
Useless Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
No they are not.
All the HSR deals that Chinese signed are on 100% Chinese financing. Overseas HSR project is a money loser for China; yet they do it in order to exert political influence over the receiving nation and to flood the local population with Chinese migrants. Population migration is the established Chinese policy of gaining control of a non-Chinese territory.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
So let’s get this straight: China is offering to loan umpty billion dollars to California in order to effect a mass migration of train drivers who will then seize control of the levers of power and establish a vassal trans-Pacific province?
Wow. It all makes perfect sense now.
Peter Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
Heh.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
They also don’t value life the way we do. The multiple fatal accidents in China coming from train operators texting while driving attest to that.
Spokker Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
I love Chinese food.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 20th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Thank god California’s never been flooded with Chinese workers building a railroad before.
Check this out:
http://www.2point6billion.com/news/2010/09/21/south-korea-considering-high-speed-rail-tunnels-to-china-japan-7293.html
Apparently South Korea is considering underwater High-Speed Rail tunnels to China and Japan. Maybe they can build one over here too?
Alon Levy Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 9:37 pm
Sure. Japan used to consider underwater HSR to Korea and China, too.