True HSR Cost Accounting
Over at Change.org, a new post looks at How California’s High Speed Rail Pays For Itself. The post is occasioned by the reaction to a recent UC Irvine Institute for Transportation Studies report that deserves more attention than it’s gotten, that shows HSR will create jobs and improve the environment. We’ll have more on that study tomorrow. For now though, it’s worth setting the context by showing how the Change.org article by Paul Tullis makes an argument for what we might call “true HSR cost accounting”:
But opponents of investment in clean energy never let the facts get in the way of their argument, and comments from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (the same group that led the gutting public education funding in the state, with predictable results) showed this time would be no exception.
“The fare box revenue won’t cover a fraction of the operating costs,” executive director John Coupal told California Watch, a nonprofit website of investigative journalism.
So we shouldn’t have clean transportation because the public might have to pay for some of it, is what he’s saying. This reasoning is typical of so-called conservatives’ arguments against investment in public transportation and renewable energy: It’s a dishonest accounting. The economic benefits of projects like the California high-speed rail network don’t end at the bottom line of the projects themselves….
In this instance, the benefits of the rail network don’t all go to it per se in the form of Mr. Coupal’s all-important fare box revenue. They’re felt, too, by thousands of kids who won’t get asthma thanks to the auto traffic the trains will displace; by the dirt farmers in the Sudan who won’t be quite as screwed by drought as they would be if the rail passengers were driving or flying instead; and by the economy of California and the US, which will be more productive and generate higher tax revenues.
Of course, as we know Coupal is making this stuff up; he has no actual evidence that shows the CA HSR system will fail to cover its operating costs, and we know that HSR systems around the world do indeed cover their costs. Once again, HSR deniers have to pretend the rest of the world doesn’t exist in order for them to even have a chance of making people believe HSR won’t succeed here.
But as Tullis points out, even if one were to assume Coupal were right about farebox revenues, that’s still an inaccurate accounting of the costs and benefits of the high speed rail system. If a system saves money by helping reduce the number of people with asthma in the San Joaquin Valley – a problem that was identified as the key to the Valley’s future on a post at this blog two years ago.
In fact, a 2006 Fresno Bee article explained that lung problems have soared among residents in recent years, and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District estimated that to counter this trend, the region needed to eliminate 400 tons of pollution per day by 2011. High speed rail would help accomplish that task.
HSR helps save money by providing a cheaper method of handling travel needs. The Caltrans has estimated it would cost about $25 billion to widen the Highway 99 corridor, but high speed rail can help handle those travel needs for a fraction of the cost.
And of course, the thousands of jobs that HSR creates in both its construction and operations, as well as the jobs that are in turn created by the new, faster, sustainable transportation option, will generate tax revenues for state government.
All in addition to the environmental points that Tullis made in his article.
Yet we’re supposed to believe that HSR has to be treated as if it existed separate from all of those other factors. We’re told the cost is too high, but not allowed (by HSR deniers) to demonstrate that when HSR is placed in context, it will not only pay for its own operations (as it will from farebox revenues) but help offset its construction costs as well through the broader economic benefits to health, the environment, jobs and tax revenues.
Of course, it’s government’s job to provide infrastructure to spur economic growth, even if that infrastructure is costly and doesn’t immediately repay its construction costs. Right-wingers like Jon Coupal, who are motivated by an ideological opposition to government spending, will never accept that fact. And they won’t even accept it when presented with a mass transit system whose success has been proven all over the world and that will not require ongoing subsidies, which cannot be said of airports or freeways.
Still, as the polls show, Californians understand this and still support HSR as a result. The voters of this state understand the true accounting of HSR costs. And that’s what has had the HSR deniers so worked up and angry over these last two years.
Robert writes:
“But as Tullis points out, even if one were to assume Coupal were right about farebox revenues, that’s still an inaccurate accounting of the costs and benefits of the high speed rail system. If a system saves money by helping reduce the number of people with asthma in the San Joaquin Valley – a problem that was identified as the key to the Valley’s future on a post at this blog two years ago.?”
Robert, maybe its time you go and refresh your memory on what the the votes passed in 2008, when they passed Prop 1A.
Enough of this version of about full cost accounting you want to start using. By law, the system is to be operating at a profit, and that is a profit calculated from fare box revenue less operating costs.
Not only was the system to produce billions of dollars each year in operating profit, that profit was to pay off private investors and pay for the further expansion of the system to Sacramento and San Diego.
From what you are endorsing here now, it seems you now realize that this is never going to happen. You want to change the rules.
That is precisely what the CHSRA has been pushing for when they want the State to guarantee private equity, inducing private investment in the system.
Finally, anyone who believes your final paragraph,
“Still, as the polls show, Californians understand this and still support HSR as a result”,
is a person that will be out buying the Brooklyn Bridge. Believing anything the recent “push-poll” produced is nonsense. What is reality is realizing that City councils have completely reversed their former support for the project, are openly calling for funding to be removed and asking the legislature and FRA to realize that the CHSRA is a failed agency and should be removed.
Whitman, who now is showing a 7% lead in the Governor’s race and has thus far only mildly come out against the project, should do exactly the opposite of what you proposed some time ago. She should make opposition to HSR a major issue, start voicing strong opposition and watch her lead jump another 5 points or so.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 8:49 am
Morris, if you would go back and actually read the entire post, you would note that I said – repeatedly – that the HSR project would indeed operate at a profit, as do other HSR systems around the world. Neither you nor your other HSR denying friends have every produced a scintilla of evidence to counter that.
My point here is that as we assess the value of HSR more broadly, we must consider all the costs and benefits, and not just make a narrow consideration based on farebox recovery – even though that narrow consideration is still favorable to HSR.
John Burrows Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
My guess on the governors race—– Whitman has a slight edge, but it could go either way:
If Brown wins, CAHSR moves forward as planned.
If Whitman wins, anything could happen: (three possibilities)
1. She kills it—- From what little I know about Meg Whitman, she is ruthless and would be capable of stopping HSR at least in the near term.
2. She pulls a Schwarzenegger and the project moves forward on a bumpier path, taking a little longer. (much more likely).
3. She goes for it—- She uses this same ruthlessness to ram the project forward; and it is completed quickly and efficiently.
Bottom line: A high probability that bullet trains will be arriving at a station near you in time for you to give then a try.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Whitman would not “kill” HSR – she would freeze it and claim she’s waiting for a better economy. Nothing would then happen until 2015, unless voters or 2/3rds of the Legislature force her hand.
Peter Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
But how would she be able to “freeze” it? The only way I can think of is for her to convince the Legislature to defund it.
dfb Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
veto
Peter Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
But does California have a line-item veto?
Peter Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Ok, yes, we do.
John Burrows Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Correction—-Last four words of my previous reply should read “give them a try”.
whitman ia NOT going to win..of course you spin it Oppostion to HSR is from the usual groups..ie NIMBYS.(you) and the teabag/oil lobbies/Reason
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 8:50 am
Agreed. Jerry Brown’s secret weapon is that enough Republicans and independents are starting to turn on Whitman that Brown will likely win a close race.
YesonHSR Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 9:19 am
He stated he is really going to start the campain after labor day..he needs to rabbit punch this woman as fast as possible..spending 100 million bucks on your “self” is pure arrognace as she has never been in polictics and will do NOTHING…and yes a close win..this race will pul lout alot more voters than the older ones that always vote
Elizabeth Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 9:43 am
Nate Silver just posted his governors model and his predictions. He has California as basically toss-up with a slight advantage to Whitman.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
Elizabeth Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 9:50 am
To be precise, he gives Whitman 53% chance of winning, Brown a 47%.
StevieB Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 11:01 am
His projection for Nov. 2 is a 0.04% lead for Whitman with a plus or minus 5.6% margin of error. Polls have gone back and forth in the last few weeks and my prediction is the polls will continue to change.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 11:35 am
As I explained at Calitics, this is largely due two the weight of two recent polls – one from Rasmussen, another from SurveyUSA – that have given Whitman leads. The reliability of the Rasmussen poll is open to question, though the SUSA poll is more reliable. I’ll wait to see what Field has to say before proclaiming Whitman in the lead.
Still, Silver is right in saying this race will be very close. Because of depressed Democratic turnout, Whitman has a very real shot at winning. On the other hand, she’s also earned a high unfavorable rating from voters as a result of her ads.
This race will come down to the wire. As I’ve said before, I don’t think HSR opposition will do much to help Whitman, and I don’t expect her to run on it anyway. HSR support is likely to help Brown, and I expect him to make it a part of his campaign, though by no means a major piece.
YesonHSR Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Jerry Brown needs to come after what come after her with all her former CEO sleezes games she played. Shes exactly the type of person that wielded Wall Street around American brains as caring for them in the long-term.. and look what happens.. today’s Wall Street culture is increase profits over the next two or three quarters or year then bail the stock.. all he needs to do is play up the fact that she is one these people that brought the nation to its knees in September of 2008 and how she’s not hurting at all i.e. $100 million spending on her own arrogant self.
Anybody else notice that the usual HSR opponent act as if money is a sacred religion? Money only works in the first place because the people beleive in it. It works the other way around as well, if you beleive in that debt its their. What I’m saying is that if you defeat something as usefull as HSR (or any other project with benefits to it’s people) because you are terrified mostly
of the imaginary (monetary) system then you can see we need a change in the we we run society. Then you see how bad this system we are using is, when we defeat the good because of our sacred religion (monetary) doesn’t allow it, it’s becoming ridiculous!
In other words, people are dieing because of money. Either because they don’t have it to eat or they are dieing because of respitory illnesses/asthma because the rest of us are unwilling to spend for cleaner air or a better quality of life. Then you realize what sick people you all really are!
Now say that to your governmet, you’ll probably be arrested for suggesting we unshackle our handcuffs wich is supposedly our only way of life.
(Sorry for wandering off subject, but I think that the topic of HSR is only second to Money on this any other blog or site)
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 10:23 am
And do you ever notice how the excited little boys who love trains want everybody to believe that money is no object when it comes to the Big California Train Set?
I want HSR in California more than any of you, but if the cost of that, beyond the very real and substantial ones that was required to deliver a massive scale public works project, is $20 or 30 or more extra billion funnelled directly into the pockets of project manipulating contractor mafioso, then any rational person has to ask whether that money — sacred, holy, mammon, at whose altar I worship 10 times day!! — might not be better spent on non choo choo things like, oh, hospitals or schools or universities or parks or sewers or buses or …
jimsf Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 10:39 am
Someone has to do the work and get paid for it. And those companies who are involved, are employing Californians and paying them. So what exactly is the problem? Is there another group of companies in California who employ Californians do the work, who are able and willing to do the job for less? If so, who and where are they?
dave Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
I’m talking about money as a whole, not how it’s spent in the Bay Area like you seem to advocate. I’m talking about the act of using money to for projects that will benefit the people, not the ammount. I’m not saying we should give these contractors all of our cash and say just build it.
I’m sorry you got offended Richard, I don’t see you as a HSR opponent, why you rose your hand and said “guilty”, I don’t know. Yes their is a better way to plan the HSR system with BART and other rail. But you see, I know that these people planning these systems are going to spend unecessary ammounts of money on projects that are not planned correctly (I’m not talking about the Peninsula’s Tunnel), BART to Santa Clara is unecessary but you see the people from that area don’t care how much it costs they want BART they way it is along the entire system (expense and all), example is eBart and how much Antioch hates it. Blame the people who created Bart to be expensive and out of date as it is, the people don’t know any better. They still demand Bart as it is.
Altamont is better moneywise and population serving, Pacheco perhaps is only better Operation-wise, Both Pacheco and Altamont together are an even better of both worlds thing. Yeah it’s expensive. The point is that I won’t be losing sleep over this. Nothing is going to go the right way, it always going to go the way that you don’t want. So just let the world spin!
YesonHSR Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
After spending $1 trillion on the Middle East war who cares about bitching about high-speed rail cost.. it’s not even 15% of this wasted money
dave Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Agreed!
jimsf Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
“let the world spin” That’s my point as well. All the fuss about PB etc. and bart being so horrible and blah blah blah. In the bay area people like bart and they want it expanded the way they were promised 40 years ago. BArt is doing what the people of the bay expect them to do. period.
As for corruption and backscratching and all the other “untoward” things that go on in business and politics everyday around the world, so what. That’s how it works. Always has, always will. No point in getting in a twist over it. We will get what we get and then we will move on to the next thing. Altamont, Pacheco, whatever. What they know, and I concur is that by using pacheco first, and then adding the altamont overlay later, we wind up with double the routing/coverage and we end up with large projects lined up for the foreseeable future. Projects that keep large companies employing thousands of californians in business into that same foreseeable future. Nothing wrong with that. Again, good or bad, thats how it works in Capitalistamericaland. No is being forced to stay here.
jimsf Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
but oh no we will have to pay for it! oh no. not that! Not when we were so close to not having to pay for stuff anymore.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
In the bay area people like bart and they want it expanded the way they were promised 40 years ago. BArt is doing what the people of the bay expect them to do. period.
Because they have nothing else to compare it to. There’s a reason why no one else in the world has come up with the idea of building 60 mile long subway lines.
jimsf Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
The bay area is comprised mainly of people who are both educated, and well traveled as well as people from all over the world. We aren’t exactly hayseeds around here ya know. ITs just a different attitude thats all. A little strange yes. Just like we pay the highest gas prices in the country for no good reason, yet everyone takes it with a grain of salt and says. ” ah thats life in the bay area” Same with bart I guess.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
so these world travelers haven’t figured out that no one takes hour and half long subway rides?
jimsf Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Who’s taking a 90 minute ride? EVen the longest commutes such as bay point or fremont to montgomery are under an hour. An if bay area people wanted to ride bart for 90 minutes they surely would not care what the rest of the world was doing. Its never been the kind of place to worry about what the rest of the world was doing. If the rest of the world jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge, the Bay Area would not follow.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 7:07 pm
You, the one with fantasies of taking BART to some forsaken mall near San Jose. It takes 50 minutes to from Civic Center to Fremont, how long is it going to take to get from Civic Center to San Jose?
jimsf Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
I can’t possibly have to explain this again. Not everyone using bart is going from and end point to downtown sf. The point is to have a system that links the whole bay together so that anyone in the bay area ( the parts served by bart) can access any other part of the bay area ( served by bart) at their convenience. Bart to san jose isn’t for downtown san jose people to get to downtown sf. Thats caltrain’s job. But if you live in east san jose berryessa, you may take bart to sf rather than VTA to caltrain to sf. and if you live in alameda county and commute to the santa clara valley, you would use the bart extension. You could argue that ccjpa covers that, but the problem with ccjpa is that it is designed to deliver people from other regions, to and from various parts of the bay area whereas bart is for moving people within and between the immediate counties.
Just like high speed rail isn’t designed to serve only the sf-la market. but to connect all the parts of the state together Soem people will use it to go end to end, and some people will use it to commute within a single region, but the main benefit is tying together the state. Bart ties together the bay area.
Its not that hard to understand.
Spokker Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
But there are better ways to accomplish what BART does without building subways through suburbia.
Peter Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
@ adirondacker12800
“how long is it going to take to get from Civic Center to San Jose?”
You wouldn’t take BART. You’d take Caltrain, silly.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
It is very hard to understand. You don’t expect the Geary bus to get you to Sacramento or the Van Ness trackless trolley to get you to San Jose or expect United Airlines to fly you to Berkeley.
BART is a good solution for getting you from Daly City to Oakland. It’s not a good solution for getting you from Oakland to San Jose. Just like flying from Oakland to San Jose isn’t good solution. If you want to move people from the southern end of the East Bay around chances are good that most of them want to go to San Francisco, Oakland or San Jose. The cheapest way to do that is with conventional commuter rail. It’s the fastest way for them to get there. They don’t have to make very little local stop in Oakland to get to anywhere.
Peter Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
I actually think that United actually did fly between SFO and OAK way back in the day with DC-2s.
jimsf Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 4:55 am
Yes if bart had been conceived as conventional commuter rail then that’s what we’d have but bart was not conceived that way. It was new technology and new design. Its what people wanted. PArt of thinking then was that they had to ( I know Ive gone over this before) had to have something new and modern. People were over the old school subways and commuter trains. They were “out” while bart’s 1960′s space age look and technology were “in” The bay area would have rejected the clunky new york style subway, diesel trains, bud cars, etc. Bart was new and exciting. Thats what we have so that’s what we stick with. Nobody likes the proposals to change technology now – ebart for instance. They want real bart. America could have done a lot of things a different way in the 50s. Should we remove all the freeways and suburbs and start over too?…
And don’t underestimate the alameda to santa clara county commute. Its huge and its a big reason for bart in that corridor. Its probably a bigger commute than the alameda co to sf.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 7:28 am
Say, Jim,
I got to look at some BART video clips, and I agree with you about the new technology (some cab ride footage on the surface looks amazingly like Washington’s Metro, with digital speed permitted and speed indicated readouts) and futuristic look at the time (most readers here probably know the unfinished system was used as a film location in George Lucas’s sci-fi flick “THX 1138″) being selling points with the public, but I have never found the justification for the odd-ball track gauge. What was the reason given?
Peter Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 8:29 am
The reason for the track gauge that I’ve heard is that they were planning on running it on the Golden Gate Bridge, and they wanted some extra stability in the strong winds the trains would be exposed to.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 8:41 am
As near as I can tell the “broad gauge for the Golden Gate Bridge” legend is a legend. By the time they were doing the detailed engineering for the system Marin county had already pulled out. There were ( and are ) questions about whether trains could be run over the Golden Gate. It gets windy other places in the world and trains don’t fall over, there’s cheaper solutions to that problem, if it is a problem.
The best reason I’ve read about is that they wanted something bright shiny and new. Wouldn’t do to have the same track gauge as those creaky old railroads all over the world, so they picked one that no one else in North America uses.
Peter Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 8:55 am
Well, I haven’t anything contrary yet, and can’t find any reference to it anywhere, so if you have or know of where I can find that information, by all means, I would be interested.
synonymouse Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 10:03 am
At the time BART was constructed SP’s complicity in the broad gauge fiasco was whispered about in railfan circles. This was before the era of whistle-blowing and both Bechtel and SP were very powerful forces in the Bay Area. Remember the expression “You’ll never work in this town again.”?
Peter Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 10:05 am
Well, I was actually interested in known facts, not whisperings resurrected from 50 years ago.
synonymouse Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 10:14 am
I first heard of the conspiracy from a now-deceased Bay Area transit writer who also worked in the industry. He was an expert schmoozer who was on speaking terms with insiders at the highest level.
What I am trying to say is that at that time questioning the program could put an end to a career in the industry. Outside critics and railfans simply could not muster enough protest to challenge the juggernaut, not matter how obviously it was off-course. Same applies to the Palmdale gerrymander.
Peter Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 10:19 am
Hello? Did you read my comment? Not interested in conspiracy theories (which they are unless you name names and verifiable facts).
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 10:36 am
The Golden Gate broad gauge thing for BART is real. A historian friend of mine wrote a good dissertation on the GG Bridge/Transit district and provided a very good history of BART to Marin. The broad gauge was too far along to be changed when Marin dropped out.
Matthew Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 10:44 am
There’s something called the S-Bahn in Germany. It goes for long distances and is somewhere in between a subway and commuter rail. In the city center, it tends to make more frequent stops, serving local trips, but it can also go longer distances into the suburbs, or nearby cities with less frequent stops. I’m not saying that BART is the best possible system, but it’s certainly valuable and there are precedents in other parts of the world for that kind of service. Ideally, there would be an integrated system of local and longer distance transportation options, and BART certainly would fit into that model.
synonymouse Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 10:58 am
What the GG Bridge District really wanted was a second deck for cars, to be connected to the Embarcadero and Panhandle freeways. San Francisco in recent decades has moved away from the pro-freeway mentality and with a number of directors on the board has been able to squelch the the second deck for cars scheme.
The killer in the overturning in the wind argument for broad gauge is why stop at 5′ 6″? The Erie Railroad was built to a 6′ gauge. That the actual gauge selection was purely arbitrary underscores the fact that the advantages to be gained were in fact minimal to non-existent. If you are worried about being blown about in the wind why build super lightweight cars?
It’s a pr cover story, designed to cover up a backroom political decision, just like the inflated seismic worries over Tejon base tunnels.
Peter Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 11:07 am
why stop at 5′ 6″
It’s called technical compromise? Compromise is a concept you may want to become familiar with.
If they considered 5’6″ sufficient to prevent problems with winds while avoiding the problems inherent in even wider gauges, then why go wider?
If you are worried about being blown about in the wind why build super lightweight cars?
Please see above discussion about compromise. Super-light trains use less energy, but would be more vulnerable to strong winds. Hence the wider gauge. Like I said: COMPROMISE.
synonymouse Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 11:25 am
The “compromise” agreed upon by the entire railroad industry is known as 4′ 8 1/2″. Everybody in the industry knew the BART argument was totally “bogus” with DC shortly thereafter building essentially a clone of BART sans broad gauge.
But what I really love is “too far along”. Perfect complement to “too big to fail”. I guess that is to be the rallying cry for the Palmdale fiasco.
“Too far along” would be a decent summation of the inexorable runup to World War I. Or our interminable involvement in the Middle East.
Peter Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 11:28 am
So, do you bring up Tejon base tunnels and the Tehachapi Loop at the drive-thru window, as well? I wonder if they’re any more interested in your weird conspiracies than we are?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 11:47 am
At the time BART was constructed SP’s complicity in the broad gauge fiasco was whispered about in railfan circles.
Why would SP or any other freight railroad care what gauge BART selected? If anything they were joyously glad to get rid of abandoned or semi-abandoned ROW they were paying property taxes on.
I’m not saying that BART is the best possible system, but it’s certainly valuable and there are precedents in other parts of the world for that kind of service.
In addition to the S-Bahn there’s the U-bahn, buses, trolleys the odd pedicab, taxis, etc.
You might find this interesting. BART is one of most far flung systems now, they want to make it the widest longest one. One size doesn’t fit all, it’s not a good solution,
http://fakeisthenewreal.org/subway/
If you are worried about being blown about in the wind why build super lightweight cars?
Why not build deflectors/windscreens? Why would they be worried? NYC subway cars run around in the wind all the time, they don’t get blown off the tracks. Or Washington DC, not unusual for summer thunderstorms to have winds over 75 MPH. The trains don’t fall off the tracks. I’m sure there are lots of trains other windy places too.
A historian friend of mine wrote a good dissertation on the GG Bridge/Transit district and provided a very good history of BART to Marin.
I’m sure he’s just dying to post selected portions of it, with footnotes, online somewhere. I can find all sorts of stuff about why Marin did this or why San Mateo did that or why people thought the signals wouldn’t work ( they didn’t ) or about the new fangled fare cards but nothing about why it’s broad gauge, not with links to references anyway.
thatbruce Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
adirondacker12800: Why would SP or any other freight railroad care what gauge BART selected? If anything they were joyously glad to get rid of abandoned or semi-abandoned ROW they were paying property taxes on.
50 years before BART, SP got a trifle peeved over this upstart transit operator called Pacific Electric, which bucked the trend of streetcar systems using non-freight gauges, and was dipping into SP’s business by running freight over its standard-gauge transit network and providing a more accessible service than SP. IFF there was a political conspiracy involving SP and the future BART gauge, it most likely was based around ensuring that BART could not be used as a freight rival to SP in the future, by ensuring that easy interchange of freight cars could not happen. Of course, this completely ignores other constraints of the BART system, such as a smaller loading gauge and axle loadings, which would have prevented its use as a sometime freight operator using standard freight wagons, but hey, these are just trifling details.
synonymouse Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
At the time Indian broad gauge was adopted the SP was in the final stages of abandoning passenger service. As a real railroad with both feet on the ground and planning for the long term, unlike a certain engineering company, the SP wanted to ensure no interoperation or any impingement or public pressure towards the latter would be possible. SP opposition could have killed BART and suffice it to say two representatives of said engineering consultant sat on the SP board of directors. Capiche?
The argument that BART wanted something new, shiny and different is interesting and indeed BART did promise pie-in-the-sky Buck Rogers vacuum tubes and the like at its inception but when push came to shove it spurned all the exotics, like monorail or French rubber-tired metros for hoary 3rd rail NYC subway technology. The 3rd rail was not proprietary enough so a bizarre gauge and operating voltage were added to render it as totally self-contained as it if it were a gadgetbahn.
Joey Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
synonymouse:
Broad gauge and nonstandard voltage is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to BART’s proprietaryness. The signaling is completely unique. The railcars were designed completely from the ground up, rather than being based on any existing design. I would venture to say that the length of the cars themselves is even unique, though I am unfamiliar with standard metro car lengths. The loading gauge and floor height can’t be found anywhere else.
Of course, we’re finding out now that however it may have been conceived, all of this is proving to be a liability now.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 7:14 pm
50 years before BART, SP got a trifle peeved over this upstart transit operator called Pacific Electric….
Pacific Electric was a subsidiary of Southern Pacific.
hoary 3rd rail NYC subway technology.
Third rail is an appropriate solution for urban underground rail transport. It probably will be for a very very very long time.
If they had picked the same standards as the NYC subway’s BMT/IND cars the only way you
would be able to tell the difference would be with a tape measure. That and NYC isn’t stupod enough to carpeting in trains.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
On Planet Adirondack and in Bechtel-land, perhaps.
Those are the places where, for example, the US FTA’s fiscal catastrophe Tren Urbano of Puerto Rico was designed and built more appropriately than, say, the Metro de Madrid or the Hong Kong MTR or the Delhi Metro or …
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
No one is San Juan cares if the trains are powered by third rail, catenary or rabid hamsters. It’s a failure because it’s route sucks.
jimsf Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
and only a fraction of the bart lines are subway. Much of the ride on most of the lines, especially throughout the eastbay, are rather scenic. The elevateds afford fabulous city views and the grade level sections whisk across landscaped hill and dell and all with no unsightly catenary or greasy diesel exhaust in roomy climate controlled comfort.
Granted its showing its age but that will soon be rectified.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 11:54 am
lots and lots of the NYC subway are above ground too. On elevated, viaduct, in open cuts, a trestle across Jamaica Bay…. Almost all of the trains in Chicago on on elevated tracks, hence “The L” lots of DCs Metro. Rational people don’t build subway lines 60 miles long, especially ones that have the dense population all at one end.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Out of curiousity, what are the changes being planned to update the BART?
Peter Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Just a fleet replacement.
Clem Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
No changes. Just replacing a large fleet of life-expired rolling stock.
Clem Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Oops. Sorry for the double post Peter.
Peter Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
No problemo.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Thanks for the reply, Peter.
Nostalgia time on BART:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INQ_7WM0zyY&feature=watch_response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK2W8hFiSOA&feature=related
It’s interesting to note that at least part of the BART system seems to have been a replacement for the Key System; should have left the Key System in place! Boy, did we goof up!
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
More clips on BART, apparently from an employee; one of these was posted before, but this way all are in the same place. Interesting to note the sound levels are more reasonable, more like the Washington Metro this system so strongly resembles from this viewpoint. Makes me wonder if the photographer of the anti-HSR clip mentioned earlier doctored his sound levels somehow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0x22U4d6XE&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXlRtbnk77o&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpJkQEhHJ9o&feature=channel
Enjoy.
P.S.: If BART is replacing all its rolling equipment, how much of it will (or should) wind up in a transit museum, like the Western Railway Museum that has some Key System and Sacramento Northern locomotives and cars?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Richard and Synonamouse;
I deeply understand your concerns about the money, but we do not seem to have better alternatives in reality.
As I see it, the choices come down to Republicans who want to kill the project entirely, and keep us in slavery to the oil business, with all the real costs that come with that, including what amounts to oil wars; at least one person has called the GOP the “Generous to Oil Party.”
The alternative is the Democrats who, as you have noted, tend to be incompetent in a lot of things (and I would say the Republicans are, too), and while we might get something to help keep us out of the oil wars, will also have us pay way too much for it.
Which carries the higher cost? I would argue the oil wars, which besides the financial and human tolls which are so well known, can eventually only lead to defeat, unless we are willing to essentially take a course of genocide against the whole of the Middle East; I don’t think that is what you would want.
Alternately, you might take note that in WW II, there wasn’t that much talk about large public debt; the war itself was too important. I think we are in that situation again, not just against the Middle East and radical Islmasts, but against peak oil, too.
Review my “questionaire” from a few days back, and please, really, tell me what your alternatives would be, and how would we go about getting them–or even, if you think so, tell me that I am Chicken Little, and am worried about nothing, and we can go on to a Happy Motoring Utopia.
What are your responses?
jimsf Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
I don’t think the democrats are at all “incompetent.” But the democrats represent a much broader and more difficult constituency. You one group of people who by their very nature tend be much more in lock step with one another to the right versus, “everyone else who isn’t that” from the center to the left. As a group of people, democrats by nature are more fluid and harder to pin down. THey are also harder to round up and organize. Its also harder to get them to focus and commit. So dem leaders have a much more difficult job when it comes to legislation and message.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Jim, you don’t know how much your response reminds me of Will Rogers, who once said something along the lines of “I am not a member of an organized political party. I’m a Democrat.”
jimsf Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
My dad who is not 76 pointed that out to me decades ago. Politics was always discussed in our house. Looking around over the years I’d say its pretty accurate. If americans were really to stop and take stock of their true economic status and financial health ( and dispense with the myth that they are “middle class” which seem so encompass those making between 15k and 5 million per year if you ask them) they would realize that the republican party does not have their best interests in mind. To the globalists, people are two things, consumers and the help, to be corralled most efficiently into consuming as much as possible while working for as little as possible in order to generate the maximum amount of profit. And while there’s always the line about profit being reinvested, its never until the elite skim an increasingly larger and more irresponsible potion off the top.
The question becomes how much will americans tolerate. In the old days- the pre Reagan 20th century- they wouldn’t tolerate it all. Now it seems they have been reduced to an embarrassing level of passivity easily manipulated by any shiny object. What passes today for public outrage, such as the tea party, with its lame, craziness is ridiculous. I don’t understand it.
jimsf Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
( “now 76″)
Californians fell for the “I’ve got my own money and won’t be beholden to any special interests” schtick last time only to come to the realization that so called “special interests” are actually a long, broad list of Californian’s interests. See it turns out we are all in this together. Once you start dealing with specifics, Californians say “hold on, wait a minute, not so fast.” Meg Whitman’s “plan” is unacceptable to so many people on so many levels that when you break it down, it only appeals to maybe a third or fourth of Californians. Another chunk of voters will fall for it because it sounds good in a sound bite or other simplified message. I doubt that will total 51 percent or more of the vote. The only way she can win is if democrats stay home en masse so its up to Brown to run and inspirational campaign based on hope and a brighter future through solid investments and ideas rather than Whitman’s proposed negative slash and burn tactics. Brown needs to appeal to the best in people while Meg will appeal to their worst base instincts. Despite pockets of crankiness, and a media that loves to go for the gutter, Californians are still a forward looking, optimistic people. It’s only when we lose our optimism and faith in the California Dream that we are doomed.
YesonHSR Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
What Brown needs to do is pound her on all her backward ideas over and over again.. just like Boxer is now doing to that other sleazy CEO that actually thinks we want her in the Senate representing us
I would like any Whitman supporters here to explain just how they think Whitman will be able to implement her “plan” considering the governor is not an omnipotent CEO. See, Arnold tried it and not only did he run into a brick wall with the legislature (remember the elected legislators directly represent and answer to their district constituents on the front lines) but with voters as well as they turned down most of his subsequent proposals. So what we wind up with is an ineffective governor. Versus electing someone who can work WITH the people and their representatives. Tell me please, Whitman supporters, how Meg plans to work with the voter’s representatives in Sacramento when it comes to actually implementing her plan. I’d love to hear the explanation.
By the way, note that Whitman is only ahead by few points after spending millions for a year, while Brown hasn’t even started campaigning yet? That’s a lot of time and money to achieve such a narrow margin over an opponent who hasn’t even lifted a finger yet.
synonymouse Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 11:03 am
Considering the gigantic advantage in voter registration that the Democratic party enjoys in California Whitman is doing reasonably well and managing to stay on course, keeping skeptics to her right at least somewhat placated. The immigration and border policy is a very difficult and complicated issue for all the politicos, left and right, and for the voters too.
Jerry seems to be faking it now as a neo-Schwarzenegger but nobody believes his frugality bs. His union base would turn on him instantly and then he would be worse off than either Scwarzie or Gray Davis. His best option is to just run as a union guy, legalize everything and party-hearty until taxes on the rich run out.
Whitman’s approach, I would surmise, is to play systematic hardball and not worry about the consequences. Even Willie Brown recognizes that labor costs are going to have to be cut. So she has reality on her side and the fact that she is seen as a hardline jerk means she has thick skin and has no feelings to be hurt. She is in a better position to impose austerity than Brown, who will wring his hands over every cut. Whitman is a Reaganite and I don’t believe that Reaganomics, aka plutocracy, is any more viable than Pelosi’s welfare state. We are going to be treading water for decades until the population question is resolved.
My presumption is that if Jerry wins, the opposition will start putting together a signature gathering plan, both for an hsr revote and a recall. For sure if the economy continues to decline and Jerry imposes new taxes.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 11:39 am
The only reason Whitman has a shot is because many Democrats are intending to stay home this November as a protest against the failures of DC Democrats. The irony is, those voters want more public spending and more infrastructure projects, not less. So Brown’s support of HSR might be one element of a strategy to get some of those voters to the polls. To be clear, I’m not saying that HSR will send people flocking to vote, but if it’s part of a “get California back to work strategy” then it could help him.
YesonHSR Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
That is so stupid and staying home and not voting basically you’re just giving the same bad ideology mindset that caused so many problems that were voted out in September to November 2008] back in power to cause more damage and regressive policies
BruceMcF Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 10:52 am
Its an emotional reaction, not a rational one.
And since its an emotional reaction, its got to be dealt with by personalizing the issue. President Obama is not on the ballot. Its Governor, Senate and Nancy Pelosi vs John Boehner as Speaker.
And if someone is unhappy with what was not done by the Senate and the White House, they surely have to prefer Nancy Pelosi to John Boehner … its obvious whether the House in the past two years has been pulling forward on the straps or digging their heels, and equally obvious which way a Boehner Speakership in the People’s House would go.
jimsf Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 11:40 am
My presumption is that if Jerry wins, the opposition will start putting together a signature gathering plan, both for an hsr revote and a recall. For sure if the economy continues to decline and Jerry imposes new taxes or god forbid the right could grow up and learn to cooperate and compromise instead of just digging in and saying no to everything. I seriously doubt the economic downturn will last another four years. I have far more faith in California’s inherent ability to recover than you do . The only hand wringing being done as usual is from the pessimists, those who want failure for political gain. California always recovers both because of or in spite of any current policy because no matter what else, it retains an irresistible draw in its climate, geography, diversity, and potential. We have been pronounced dead and over time and time and time again only to rise again. It’s built in. You can’t kill it. The only thorn in this state’s side is the small portion of the population that just bitches about everything, constantly. Those folks should be moving to places that embrace their politics and dogma, such as Kansas, and Texas and Idaho. Yet they stay, and complain incessantly and you know why? Because they know damn will that living here is freakin’ aweseom that’s why. So they stay and enjoy the lifestyle complaining all the while about how much they hate it. Losers.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 11:45 am
Unless HSR opponents have at least $2 million lying around, they’ll never be able to get an HSR revote on the ballot.
A recall of Brown is even less likely.
synonymouse Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
That’s chump change for Whitman – PA alone could probably raise that much from disgruntled “nimbys”. That’s way over the loss in property values just from the threat of hsr aerials.
Does the name Gray Davis ring a bell?
jimsf Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Once and for all, No one cares about PA. got it? You people are quite the piece of work you know it?
jimsf Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Syn, you still didn’t explain how Meg is going to get the district reps who have to answer to their local constituents to go along with her. She can play all the “systematic hardball” as you put it, she wants but she’ll be up there by herself bloviating about her plan with no one listening. The governor doesn’t pass legislation to my knowledge. What can she do? Compromise and make deals at best.
jimsf Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Personally I’ve yet to meet anyone who didn’t crinkle their nose in disapproval upon hearing her name.
synonymouse Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
That’s exactly her advantage – we need a hard ass to raise hell. Current policiies have brought the state to the brink – let Meg take it over the edge. It has to happen so why delay the inevitable? The status quo is unsustainable. I don’t think Meg gives a damn if they try to recall her – that’s why they won’t with her but would with Jerry.
I am voting for the weed prop simply because Pelosi is against it. Trust no one.
jimsf Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Did you not get the part about how she can’t do anything unilaterally? Take what over what edge? Its not all that dramatic. Its just a recession for criminy sake. As far as “current policies” I have to remind you that its actual californians, not evil black magic faeries in the woods, who created the current policies based on their priorities. Those priorities haven’t changed.
Bianca Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
synonymouse, $2million is just to collect the signatures necessary to get the measure on the ballot. After a measure is on the ballot, it takes at least another $10 million for the campaign. That requires some pretty deep pockets, and I don’t see opponents on the Peninsula raising that kind of money.
synonymouse Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
I could care less whether the hsr opponents spend nary a farthing in the revote and PB-Palmdale blows a billion to sustain the boondoggle. Just the chance to redeem my stupid misvote on
Prop 1A.
The water bond debacle shows that Bechtel must indeed be running scared. Schwarzie and co.’s crapout reminds me of Robert Shaw’s great line to Paul Newman in “The Sting” at the end of the card game on the 20th Century Limited:
“Not only are you a cheat, but you are a gutless cheat as well” Of course Robert Shaw has the perfect brogue to deliver the cut.
Bianca Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
I’m sorry if you feel you voted the wrong way on a ballot measure. Happens to voters all the time. Wanting someone else to cough up two million dollars so that you can have a “do-over” doesn’t strike me as the most financially responsible thing to want.
synonymouse Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 11:37 pm
And the financially responsible thing to want is a huge detour to provide Palmdale with a free BART courtesy of California taxpayers?
Coming up with the dough for a recall will be a strictly voluntary statement of protest, unlike the taxes you will impose on California to provide operating subsidies for the likes of Palmdale to have cheap fares to LA.
This whole hsr scam is a state takeover of regional mass transit.
Nathanael Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 2:19 am
Syn, are you a *complete* idiot? Regional mass transit has been largely state-funded — and therefore state-run — for a few decades. HSR has zilch to do with that.
synonymouse Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 9:57 am
Regional mass transit does receive both state and federal funding but systems like BART are also funded by local use district taxes.
The hsr was fraudulently sold as an intra-megalopolis ultra high speed express but was quietly and systematically devolved into a collection of mass transit operations – SJ-Sf, Modesto-Fresno-
Bakersfield, Palmdale-LA, LA-SD. You might as well let the BART empire take over the CHSRAA and build the whole mess to Indian broad gauge and 3rd rail. The UP would like that.
What we are creating here is a new expansion of Eisenhower’s famous military-industrial complex.
Add to that consultants, labor, engineering firms and contractors and you have a self-perpetuating apparatus bigger and better than the Mafia, ’cause it’s all legit.
YesonHSR Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
And if under prop13 pay NOTHING in property taxes like people that have bought in the last 10 years..thats one reason they stay..and of course beautfuil Cali
jimsf Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
I doubt property tax has anything do with it. Property taxes may be higher in other states but housing in cheaper by huge leaps and bounds in those states as well. Anyone, ANYONE, who is an unhappy homeowner in cali can move to any of 48 other states ( hawaii excluded) and come out way ahead with little effort.
The main problem in californian is that we are not taking in enough money to provide the standard of living we are used to, to match the increased population. The other problem is that the voter mandated education expenditures are eating up too large a percentage of the total budget leaving too little flexibility.
Maybe the answer is to revisit how we collect what money for what stuff, not just how much money.
I’m for toll roads with tolls collected being spend on that specific road only.
State parks should collect fees that reflect the full cost of operating the park system. And local schools should either be funded fully by the communities included in each district OR, districts should be eliminated ( along with their redundant layers of bureaucracy) in favor one central administration.
YesonHSR Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Jim.. I work with the receptionist that inherited her family’s property here in the city that’s worth $7 million dollars.. her monthly income from the rentals is $10,000 a month .. all under prop 13.. pretty sweet isn’t it?
jimsf Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Well my first question is why in hell is she still working as a receptionist with that kind of money laying around. 2nd, commercial property should never have been included in prop 13. 3rd, its not like there are million of ordinary californians making 10k a month on rentals.The vast majority of property tax payers are your average run of the mill homeowners, who are staying put because of their jobs or because no matter how much they complain about cali, what they won’t admit is that they refuse to give up the lifestyle and climate. They want the good life but they bitch about paying the price. Again when it comes to houses, its easy to sell a cali house and buy twice the house somewhere else and if california was such a horrible dreadful place everyone would have moved out long ago. But the population continues to grow, even as some of the ingrates and whiners move away they are quickly replaced by better people who appreciate the place and want to be here. As far as I’m concerned only people who love it here should stay here. Everyone else should get the hell out and quit tryin to wreck our buzz. They can go live in the big square ugly ass piles of dirt and weeds that comprise the rest of the country with all the other pork and cheese curd eating, coors beer swilling, ratty old sofa sittin,’ marlboro smokin’ nacar watchin, right wing votin’ bunch of unwelcome-here hillbillies and their cousins. If fed the hell up with em. Don’t like california? GET OUT.
Other states are taking notice of California’s High Speed Rail plans and are demanding their own. Illinois legislators are increasingly dissatisfied with Amtrak plans for 110mph service in the state. A large minority are opposed to high speed rail spending but across the country there are signs that people see the advantages and support is increasing not decreasing.
jimsf Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
and note the poll results at 77.3% supporting 15-220 mph, 8.4% for 110mpg and 14.2% for doing nothing. Thats 85.7% in favor of high speed rail in the midwest. If the generally practical if not conservative folks in the midwest support hsr at 85.7 percent, then they must know something the Cali naysayers don’t. Well they do. The midwesterners are already very familiar and comfortable with rail travel as a way of life. So improving it is no brainer. California’s rail program is very successful as well, but there is still a majority of the population that isn’t even aware of the fact that there passenger trains here. Once people get a taste of the benefits they are generally supportive.
YesonHSR Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
A lot of people would like real high speed rail are they willing to pay for it? What’s needed is a bond or some kind of tax issue like we had here in California that passed.. then they would get the money and the federal government hopefully will match with the 2011-12 transportation bill.
YesonHSR Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
But really the truth is about 9months of this Iraqi Mideast war the federal government could build 60% proposed high-speed rail system and that’s at 150 -200 mph..not 110 on private railroad tracks
YesonHSR Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
In the Midwest!!
Nathanael Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 2:21 am
Yep, the military budget now exceeds $800 billion per year. If the military decided to spend ONE PERCENT of its budget on high-speed rail, we could finish California’s HSR system on schedule with money to spare.
jimsf Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
And not a peep out of the anti hsr/ “what about the deficit!” crowd about that.
OT
Tony Daniels out, Cliff Eby in
http://www.examiner.com/transportation-policy-in-san-francisco/calfornia-high-speed-rail-news-flash-change-of-key-personnel
morris brown Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Daniel’s statement:
“Tony Daniels confirmed the story and said he will continue to work for Parsons Brinckerhoff. “It was time to transfer from that position and I was very pleased to see that role taken up for PB by Cliff Eby, a well-respected man in PB and the Railroad Industry,” said Daniels.”
really sounds hollow to me. He is a guy that had his dream position after 30 years of working HSR, and at this critical juncture, he is saying “it was time to transfer….”
Eby, with hooks into the FRA is probably what is being looked for here. Also, he worked for Parsons at one time. Pringle’s PR firm did and still may do work for Parsons. In breeding galore.
YesonHSR Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
I will work for free to bulldoze in front of your lame condo..and now a song..CAILFONIA UBER ALIES!!
Clem Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Eby works for PB just like Daniels. See here.
Arthur Dent Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
Tony Daniels gone – this is big news. I’m surprised no one’s talking about it.
Did he leave on his own? Was he asked to leave? Is he a fall guy in the name of cleaning house and demonstrating change to the Legislature, or did he have enough? What do you guys make of it – good news or bad? And what about Cliff Eby – what do you all know about him? The silence on this one is eerie.
Peter Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
I think Tony Daniels moving to a likely-better-paying contractor job is the lesser news in that article:
Sounds like they may be looking at getting some extra financing a little bit sooner…
YesonHSR Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
I see that NIMBY HAMILTON posted this..I wish [she] would change [her] location to MenloPark..right next toBrown/dramaQueenEngle..instead of using San Francisco as the nimbys stated home
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 10:37 am
YesonHSR, keep your criticisms civil. Thanks.
Clem Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
I’m not sure you’ve got that quite right… Daniels is a contractor. He was top dog at the top contractor, PBQD. He was the puppeteer behind the curtain, who made most of the important technical decisions and forwarded them to the board for rubber stamping.
This change of personnel is mystifying indeed, but rest assured it is happening at the very highest echelons of the project. There must be a juicy story behind this.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Here’s a statement I received via email:
I’m not so sure there’s a “juicy story” here. It could be that Roelof van Ark preferred to bring Eby on board as part of his own management team. Daniels did excellent work for this project and is rightly getting the congratulations he deserves for it.
Peter Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
But Robert, it’s more fun to have conspiracy theories. Just ask synonymouse.
Nathanael Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 2:22 am
Ooh. It looks like Daniels is being called on to work on OTHER states’ HSR projects, which is why he’s no longer the ‘point man’ for California.
Clem Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 9:50 am
Daniels seemed to be reaching the pinnacle of his career, personally shaping what may soon become the largest public works project in the United States. Why would he suddenly step aside to work on smaller pseudo-HSR projects sprinkled elsewhere in the country? The statement reads like typical corporatese to dress up a sudden personnel change forced from above. “We wish him luck in his new assignment” and all that.
I have no evidence for this other than reading between the lines. So sue me, it’s a blog!
StevieB Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Schwarzenegger is scheduled to leave Sept 9 for a 6 day trip to China, South Korea and Japan. Trip expenses of the governor’s team are being picked up by the California Protocol Foundation.
The governor plans to ride the Korean KTX train.
Elizabeth Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 1:17 am
The California Protocol Foundation is an interesting institution. It is like political donations, but tax deductible and anonymous (except for the one time they screwed up).
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=104&sid=1306120
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/02/local/la-me-money3-2010mar03
Peter Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 8:32 am
“attracting investment” in China. Hmmm, I wonder why van Ark is going along then…
My understanding, and I’ll dig around for past reports, is that much of the bad air quality in the Central Valley is due to Ag combined with the local population’s driving habits. More specifically, dairy farms in and around Tulare County (and now th big hog farms) are largely responsible for the increase in particulate matter and several of the regulated pollutants over the past 25 years in the south valley. Moreover, the population of the valley has increased exponentially over the same time period. The cities are now all full of auto-centric housing stock, much like the urbanized coast, and long commutes. Last I checked, the high speed rail does not relieve either major source of pollution.
Nathanael Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 2:24 am
While the HSR does nothing for the agricultural pollution (a *major* issue in the Central Valley), it will relieve the commuting pollution. Why? Because a startling number of people commute from Bakersfield to LA *now* (even in the 1990s, a lot of people were doing so). There are similar commutes out of the northern end of the Central Valley into Sacramento and the Bay Area, though AFAIK not as many.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
The total commuter volume from Kern to LA County was 7,210 people in 2000.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 6:13 pm
A lot of that is going to be local, within the Antlelope Valley. Towns north of Lancaster are in Kern County.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Yes, that’s true. And even Bakersfield to Palmdale would not have a high HSR mode share.
The same link will show you that Kern to Kern was 215,000 people in 2000. Even if the entire Kern-LA car travel market disappeared, the effect on Central Valley pollution would be very small.