Putting an Academic Face on NIMBYism
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you owned property in Atherton about one block away from the existing Caltrain corridor. And let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you were also an emeritus professor at the Stanford Business School. Would you be able to resist the temptation to use your academic credentials to attack a project you were convinced would undermine your wealth?
If you name is Alain Enthoven, the answer is no. Enthoven is the primary author of a new report that makes all sorts of unfounded attacks on the HSR project. Enthoven is an emeritus professor at the Stanford Business School, and as he explained in the following comment submitted during the scoping process for the revised program EIR, owns property in Atherton one block from the rail corridor and is convinced that the HSR project would destroy his property values and make it impossible to eat in his backyard at night:
The key section:
The proposed HSR route along the Caltrain right of way down the San Francisco Peninsula would cause serious damage to the quality of life in our neighborhood and the values of our properties. We live about one block northeast of the Caltrain right of way at…in Atherton.
…An elevated railway would be hideous and intolerably noisy. We like to eat outdoors in the summer, but with such noise we would not be able to hear each other talking. And it would wake people at night. It would transform our pleasant semi-rural environment into an ugly urban environment.
We have consulted with a local real estate broker who has 34 years of experience and knows our neighborhood well. In her judgement, even the hint of HSR becoming reality is causing a 10-15% drop in real estate values. When or if the train actually materializes, prices will drop 25-30%. That will reduce assessed values and local tax revenues. We are counting on our property value sometime in the next 10 years to pay for a retirement home and to help with the college education of our grandchildren.
This is some pretty absurd stuff here. Has it occurred to Enthoven that one reason why 10-15% of property values have dropped in 2010 is because there is this thing called a “nationwide real estate bubble burst” that is driving down property values across the nation? Has it further occurred to him that people might not want to pay his preferred premium for a home next to a track with loud horns and diesel pollution?
More importantly, why should the rest of California – and his fellow Peninsula residents – sacrifice for his property values? Why should they give up a safer rail corridor that doesn’t kill children? Why should they give up the ability to quickly and affordably travel around the region or the state for work or pleasure? Why should they shackle themselves to their cars and to high oil prices? Why should they give up new jobs? Why should they refuse to help reduce our carbon emissions and address global warming? Why should that all be sacrificed for the sake of his property values?
It would be one thing to have that debate in the open. I’m confident we can win it. Obviously the NIMBYs do not share this confidence, which is why they have shifted since 2008 to a strategy of attacking the HSR project at every turn, making baseless and evidence-free claims about it in order to try and kill the project entirely so as to save their property values (or so they think – HSR will be a big boost to their values, as I described above).
Now you might think my post is unfair. But the problem with the study isn’t just that Enthoven is using it to further his self-interested NIMBYism. No, the bigger problem is that the study’s conclusions break no new ground, and instead merely repeat the already flawed and discredited attacks on the HSR project. It reads more like a collection of Morris Brown’s comments dressed up in academic language than an objective and evidence-based assessment of the HSR project.
It would take all day to show the numerous flaws in this study. So I’ll just take a few at this time. The study opens with a discussion of “Context Sensitive Review”:
While our findings focus only on the California High-Speed Rail (CHSR) project, they must be put into the context of a continued shortfall of State of California revenues to meet its financial obligations. State issued IOUs, employee furloughs and salary reductions, significant cutbacks to education, closed parks, a deferred proposition on water projects, unrepaired potholes, and deferred maintenance on railroad signaling systems, bridges and highways are symptoms of the State’s desperate financial situation.
And that’s how they define the context. Nowhere is the fact of rising oil prices discussed. Nowhere is global warming discussed. Nowhere is the cost of dependence on oil discussed. Nowhere is the cost of widening freeways and expanding airports to meet the needs of a growing population discussed. In short, the “context” is artificially limited to make HSR look problematic, as if we have a choice between attending to other needs or building HSR, while ignoring the real-world context in which HSR will be built.
The study then goes on to summarize a list of “broken promises” that were never actual promises, or were never broken, or are just misleadingly stated by authors with a financial stake in making the project look bad:
1.1 The CHSR Project That Voters Chose In 2008 Promised To Link Seven Cities, But Links Only Three. Although San Diego, Riverside, Oakland and Sacramento were part of the official ballot description for Prop 1A, what emerged after the vote as Phase I is only for Los Angeles/Anaheim to downtown San Francisco
Um, wow. This is a lie. First, it was made clear in 2008 that the project would be phased, and that those latter cities would indeed be linked in Phase II. Second, the SF-LA/Anaheim route connects more than three cities: it connects Millbrae/SFO, a mid-Peninsula city, San José, Gilroy, Merced, Fresno, Bakersfield, Palmdale, and a San Fernando Valley city, for a total of 12. Not seven. Twelve.
It gets worse:
1.2 The Prop 1A $33 Billion Capital Cost Promise Morphed Into A $42.6 Billion Capital Cost. How did the CHSR project drop routes but increase its costs?
Um, because the FRA mandated a change in how inflation was calculated? The $33 billion number was for Phase I in 2008 dollars. The $42.6 billion number was for Phase I in projected year-of-expenditure dollars. Inflation means that $33 billion in 2008 is the same thing as $42.6 billion over 10 years (and in case anyone hasn’t noticed, we are on the verge of deflation anyway, so it could well be cheaper than $42.6 billion).
1.3 The Promised $55 One-way SF-LA Ticket Morphed Into A $105 One-way Ticket After Prop 1A. Voters chose what looked like an attractive fare, but a year later were presented with a fare that nearly doubled.
As we’ve gone over countless times, the fare has NOT doubled – the $105 number is still a “scenario” and $55 is still on the table. Final decisions on this will not be made for several more years. Also, the authors deliberately omitted the fact that the $105 fare is still 83% of comparable airfare – in other words, HSR is still cheaper than the alternatives.
1.4 Five Months Before Prop 1A Passed, The Authority Knew That Private Sector Participation Was Conditioned On Near Total Federal And State Capital Building The CHSR Project. IMG told the Authority that private sector firms were really only interested in building the CHSR if the government paid for it.
We first reported on that in June 2008. What the study does not mention is that numerous private investors said that they absolutely would step up if the federal government did, and that voters were told that the funding would have to come from a mixture of sources. Finally, if no federal or private funding is found, no system is built, so there is no risk to California taxpayers.
The study then goes on to rehash the whining over the business plan and the supposed revenue guarantee, before claiming that the ridership is actually going to be lower, that the true capital costs will be $63 to $213 billion (really, they actually claim that), and that newer HSR funding is not likely to materialize, apparently in ignorance of the fact that President Obama remains strongly supportive of it and the fact that Asian nations are very strongly interested in helping fund it.
In short, the study is a rehash of everything Morris Brown, CARRD, the State Auditor, and the Legislative Analyst have said. It breaks no new ground, but attempts to dress that collection of debunked criticisms in the mantle of the Stanford Business School and the academic credentials of its authors.
I want to examine one claim in a bit more depth as an example of the massive flaws of this study. The authors try to argue that Californians won’t ride HSR in the projected numbers because the Acela doesn’t attract that many and, therefore, the Acela is the upper limit on what you can expect out of an HSR system:
Even a year later, when CHSRA downward-adjusted its 2030 ridership number to 39 million, something still seemed amiss. The U.S. experience with accelerated rail service is telling. In 2009, about twenty years after its inception, the combined ridership on all segments of the Boston-NYC-PHL-WDC Acela route was 3.02 million. Acela draws riders from combined metropolitan populations over 28 million, attracting about 11% of the residents of its market catchment area. If the CHSR were to achieve after a decade what Acela has attracted in a generation, it might draw 11% of all of California’s residents – about 5 million, not 39 million riders.
This is not intellectually defensible. The Acela is a different kind of system from what we are proposing here in California. Our system will be much faster, will share much less track, and therefore can accommodate many more passengers, on the level of what Europe has found.
They then go on to claim that the workplaces of the future will all be decentralized, everyone will telecommute and drive hybrids. I’ve written many times before that this is just not so – Richard Florida and other urban observers have found that jobs are being concentrated in urban centers, and that there is a demonstrable trend away from sprawl. While telecommuting is expanding – I am one such worker – it does NOT eliminate the need for intrastate travel (I would find HSR to be a godsend for my ability to do my job).
Further, while hybrids and electric cars are worthwhile technologies, they aren’t a long-term solution to the gridlock the state faces. If everyone bought an electric vehicle and California’s population expanded as projected, we would need to spend hundreds of billions on freeway expansion alone. Already the Bay Area and much of SoCal are traffic-choked. It doesn’t matter what engine is in the car; it matters that people are driving too much and desire alternatives.
Finally, the study cherry-picks nations to compare population densities to, ignoring those nations with successful HSR systems that compare well to California:
In Japan, density is 880 people per square mile; it’s 653 in Britain and 611 in Germany. By contrast, plentiful land in California has led to suburbanized homes, offices and factories. Density in the Golden State is 236 per square mile. Thinking that safer, faster and reliable high- speed rail will attract riders is not the same as actually getting them out of their autos or reducing their need to use autos once they arrive at a CHSR destination.
Or what about France or Taiwan?
R Central’s Shinkansen is the densest ridership in the world. A more informative comparison would be the TGV or the new Taiwan HSR (THSR). We don’t have passenger-km ridership for those lines, but we can compute passengers per route-km. The TGV Paris Southeast (PSE) line gets 45k passengers per route-km (20 million pax / 448 route-km) while the THSR gets 101k passengers per route-km (34 million pax / 335 route-km). CA HSR is forecasting a high of 80k passengers per route-km in 2030, or around 56k passengers per route-km at today’s populations. This is slightly above TGV PSE but well below THSR. It does not seem unreasonable since the LA Metro Area is larger than Paris Metro Area or the Taipei Metro Area. And more importantly, the SF Bay Area is twice as large as the Kaoshiung Metro Area and four times as large as the Lyon Metro Area.
The rest of the study is full of similar flaws. They’re the same flaws we’ve seen for 2+ years now, and are being marshaled for the exact same reasons: NIMBYs don’t want to admit they want to undermine the HSR project to protect their property values, so they try to attack the project for other reasons. They keep failing, but we can also expect them to keep trying.
NIMBY! Peak oil! Generational gap! iPhone! Fatally flawed.
You’re welcome.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Uh, Richard,
You forgot highway subsidies, true cost of gasoline, financing of terrorists, dictators, and thugs, and the need for a new highway revenue model that does not depend on fuel consumption for road revenue.
Matthew Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
and convenience, comfort, productivity, development potential, high costs of expanding freeways, capacity for future growth, grade separations, reductions in air pollution, network-effects, expanding public transportation options, economic stimulus, tourism, increased property values, etc.
Matthew Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
On a different note: is this the CAHSRblog or is it the PAMPAblog? Robert, I appreciate what you do, but I still think there’s way too much focus on responding to a few peninsula nimbys. Here are some ideas for writing more positive articles that will keep people excited about the project rather than just reading about nimby BS all the time. There is a reason HSR should be built in the first place, and I think proponents and critics alike could use a reminder as to what the project is ultimately all about. Suggested post formats are:
1) HSR around the world. Why not have a weekly column featuring a different worldwide HSR system. You could include interesting statistics about the network, highlight some of the successes and difficulties, what’s similar or different compared to California, etc. Once you made your way through all the main networks, you could start focusing on individual lines, stations, technologies, trainsets, transit oriented development, etc. Phase 2 will be built before you’d run out of material.
2) Why you will ride. Something along the lines of “Why you ride/why you don’t ride”: http://thesource.metro.net/2010/10/07/why-you-ride-jose-compton/
3) Polls about station locations, preferred trainsets, etc.
4) Public transit developments around California, particularly in cities that will have a station. I’ve read lots of criticism here that claims that California doesn’t have public transit that will feed HSR. That’s not true, but I’ve heard nary a word about LA Metro’s measure R 30/10, BART’s ridership, or Sacramento’s light rail expansion, at least not from this blog.
5) Development in cities that will be connected by HSR. Is there a new skyscraper going up in Downtown LA? Just how many potential riders will be moving into Hunters Point or Treasure Island? Is it really true that the Downtown LA population has doubled in the last decade?
6) Profiles of cities/neighborhoods along the line. What are the characteristics of the neighborhoods around proposed stations? What interesting cultural, natural, or business attractions are there?
etc.
Anyway, feel free to use all or none of these suggestions, but my friendly advice from a HSR fan is that there’s way too much coverage of PAMPA on this statewide blog. It seems the arguments are getting bogged down in saying why nimbys are wrong rather than saying why HSR is right.
Risenmessiah Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
Hey at least you can’t accuse Robert of acting like Gray Davis there, Matthew.
The change in political winds have created a vaccuum for HSR at present and the NIMBYs are trying to fill it. It’s true that the Authority labors on, mostly out of public view. Schwarzenegger has spun such a web that now he gains nothing by forging a public-private partnership to build HSR. Whitman can’t even embrace such a thing without risking fall out from a fired-up conservative base. Brown, by contrast, doesn’t need HSR to win even though he obviously would be more supportive than Meg.
By the same token, Robert sincerely believes that NIMBYs are the greatest threat to the project right now and he lets that show in terms of post selection. I (and perhaps others) don’t agree and think there are far bigger threats to its viability. But project implementation is a tough subject, and it doesn’t lend itself to newspaper articles, succint talking points, and daily blog posts.
Robert tries to post material on all six subjects you list, but it’s not like that is s an endless well of subject matter….
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 13th, 2010 at 12:00 am
I’m all for those kinds of posts, and I very much appreciate the suggested topics. I’ll try to get to those.
I do also believe in pushing back against opposition ideas when I can.
James Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 7:27 am
I appreciate the posts on the NIMBYs. I fear they are the biggest threat to CAHSR, and the ones with the most resources are PAMPA.
” In 2009, about twenty years after its inception, the combined ridership on all segments of the Boston-NYC-PHL-WDC Acela route was 3.02 million. Acela draws riders from combined metropolitan populations over 28 million, attracting about 11% of the residents of its market catchment area.”
Twentry years after its inception? First, the Northeast Corridor has been in place for a lot more than 20 years. I guess he means the plans for electrifying the New Haven to Boston segment got started to get seriously discussed around 20 years ago. But, yes, while the NEC is faster between NYC and Boston, 3.5 hours for that ~225 mile segment on a Acela is hardly HSR.
But one can not write about the Acela passenger numbers separate from the Northeast Regionals in discussing NEC . I routinely take either train for business travel, depending on cost and travel schedule. Amtrak just released the FY2010 ridership numbers and the total for the NEC was 10.375 million. This does not include the corridor trains that operate on a portion of the NEC connecting to cities off of the NEC: Keystones from NYP to Harrisburg (1.296 million), Regionals going to Newport News (468k), to Lynchburg VA (1st year 126k), the Carolinian (308k). These trains, with the exception of the Keystones on the 110 mph electrified Keystone East corridor, are taking many of those passengers to & from stops on the NEC. But it does not sound like Dr. Enthoven has a good grasp of how the NEC works.
If the NEC were to be even modestly upgraded (in comparison to CA true HSR) with 2:20 DC to NYC, 2:45 NYC to Boston (after a miracle occurs) Acela runtimes with an electrified 160-170 mph level service along the proposed SE HSR corridor from DC to Charlotte NC (which I would like to see), which would be a system roughly equivalent to the CA HSR in total miles, the total passenger numbers would easily double, if not hit 25 or 30 million a year or more.
Alan F Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Dang typos and incomplete sentences!
I meant to write: These trains, with the exception of the Keystones on the 110 mph electrified Keystone East corridor, which run at 79 mph max south of DC, are taking many of those passengers to & from stops on the NEC. So they are part of the NEC services.
StevieB Reply:
October 13th, 2010 at 12:51 am
Amtrak admits the Acela is too slow to draw high ridership. That is why they are proposing upgrading to 220mph trains in the Northeast Corridor.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 13th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Stop it, they’re not proposing it. They’re making a deliberately gold-plated proposal, with some needless urban tunnels that were rejected in previous alternatives analyses on cost grounds, in order to be able to argue that real HSR on the NEC would be too expensive. The fact that about the same service levels could be achieved for one tenth the cost keeps astounding Amtrak and its shills, who think sky-high American costs are acceptable and justifiable.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Alan,
A lot of what you are describing is the value of connectivity, of a network or system.
An example from over a century ago would be a very early telephone system. The original setup might have had, in our example, two phones. They would only be good for two locations, and one link, A to B, and two routings, A-B and B-A. But double the number to four phones, and you get your original link of A-B, but additional links to A-C, A-D, B-C, B-D, and C-D, plus all the reverse routings. It goes up from there.
And in the case of rail service, imagine how those routings and connections go up as you include not only trains coming in off the trunk, as in the case of Virginia and Pennsylvania services mentioned, but the connections with subways in New York and Washington, trolleys in Baltimore, Philadelphia, Boston, and Newark, lots of bus systems, and perhaps someday even a steam train in Paradise.
I’ve said it before, we need all of this back. . .and this is part of the reason why.
This man, like all NIMBY’s, is scum.
I can’t believe students are told to respect vile pieces of filth like this.
I love that this abhorrent moron compared CAHSR to Acela! Sheesh.
Nutbags like this should be parachuted into Somalia so they can get a good taste of pure Libertarianism.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Civility?
Travis D Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 11:23 pm
I’m through with that. These evil people are going to turn this state into a third world country. Deprive us of one the greatest infrastructure projects of our generation all because they are bunch of short sighted spoiled brats.
Twenty years from now if they are successful in their terrible aims, when everyone is stuck in endless traffic jams and the airports effectively useless, I hope we remember who these Luddites were and dispense great mob style retribution on them.
Why do these “emiretus IDIOTusus” still debate HSR with their “vile pieces of filth?” They act as if Prop. 1A is on this Novembers ballot. People, it’s over! The voters of California, including a vast majority on the Peninsula, said yes to HSR back in 08! Either be constructive and help with the design/implementation or get out of the way!
Tom Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
We were sold a bill of goods, Tony, by some fast talking pols. The numbers have zoomed since 08, much of what was promised doesn’t pass the smell test, and the state is in the toilet financially. It’s a different world today and the emperor on the train has no clothes.
Spokker Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Haha good impression of a talking points spouting assholes, you two.
Next time include, “This boondoggle is off the rails.” “Forced down our throats.” and “Jobs jobs jobs.”
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
Spokker, Spokker, go easy on the bad names! Come on, do you see me being quite that bad?
Spokker Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
Artie’s gonna do what Artie’s gonna do.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 13th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Spokker,
I know I sometimes seem to live in a time warp, but you’ve got to tell me, who is this Artie guy? I’m assuming he isn’t a Disney character!
(On the other hand, I wonder if I really want to know. . .)
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
And I have to add, that goes for Tony and Travis, too!
Let the opposition make itself to be the fools, you don’t need to join that game.
Nathanael Reply:
October 13th, 2010 at 1:10 am
Of course, Tom knows none of that is true. It was debunked in this very post!
Ya want a bill of goods? Look at Bush’s TARP.
Robert,
A thought came to me. Might it be a good idea to have a section on this page, a sort of reference section so to speak, with standing summaries of the generational shift, true cost of gasoline and roads, the National City Lines case, and so on? I would bet some people here are tired of my recounting my experiences in seeing these things, and I’m getting tired or writing the same thing, too, as earlier comments become buried in the newer material.
Over time, it might even be interesting to come up with our own suggestions for routes and the like; despite the antics of some posters here, I do believe we have some pretty smart people on this site. I doubt we would be listened to, of course, but we would also have a record of thought and design that could be used as a reference for someone else later.
Travis, you really don’t deserve a response, because you are way out of line, but I suggest you read the document. It has three principal authors. But it also has about 70 reviewers and endorsers who are pretty highly qualified people when it comes to judging a financial plan. I dare say they have a better take on it than you ever will.
Travis D Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 11:32 pm
What’s out of line is this idiot composing this trash in the first place.
He represents everything that is wrong with this country and stands as a testament that nothing great can ever happen so long as there are spiteful cancers like this trying to destroy things for no good reason except that he thinks it will spoil Saturday afternoon backyard lunches.
That just makes me want to vomit.
Then he falsely claims it will cost way more than advertised. Falsely claims no one will ride it. Falsely claims that the business plan is flawed. Falsely claims….well you get the picture. Pretty much if it’s claimed in this deleterious document IT IS FALSE.
If it has 70 endorsers…well all that means is that 70 people decided to sign on to this fallacious piece of garbage and in doing so have given away all respectability they may have ever had.
Spokker Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 11:43 pm
“No one will ride it” is a figure of speech. People who say that don’t literally mean that trains will run empty.
I think people will ride it, but signs are pointing to the CHSRA limiting the amount of riders that will patronize the system by making poor decisions about operations. And I don’t blame only the CHSRA for this, but other agencies and organizations that are failing to think about how HSR will work as part of a larger transportation system. Hobbyists like the transit advocate from Riverside work harder on this issue than anybody getting a paycheck at the CHSRA or RTA.
Tom Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Travis, not only are you out of line, you’re irrational. And it sounds like you may be getting sick. I think you need to lie down somewhere.
Peter Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Dear Tom, a person’s credentials doesn’t mean they can’t or don’t make shit up or agree to have their name associated with a document that is extremely self-serving.
out of curiosity – Where are the boundaries of the “NIMBY” area? In other words, how many blocks or what distance is considered far enough away to no longer be a “NIMBY” and instead be just a “concerned citizen” or an “opponent”?
Matthew Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Well, when the author is concerned that the development will ruin his outdoor meals in his back yard, I think NIMBY is no longer a metaphor.
Matthew Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
That’s not to say that his concerns for his outdoor meals aren’t genuinely motivated, but perhaps he should be considered to be holding “incompatible offices” and that he would have to resign his post of “concerned homeowner” before being allowed to take up the mantle of unbiased economic critic.
And the true point being lost here is that CHSR must judge its financial soundness against the laws set forth by the people – specifically the profitability requirements of AB3034. Robert can pine and cry and bitch an moan all over the place about how freeway and airports are subsidized – wa wa wahhhhhh.
Well, the voters of california gave HSR CONDITIONS – and those conditions are law now. If HSR supporters didn’t like those conditions, perhaps they should have thought of that before they had their lap dog Galgiani sponsor the law. They DIDN”T have it written to say that CHSR shall cost tax payers no more in subsidy than any other form of transportation. No, they wrote that it will NOT be subsidized.
Robert’s got no answer for THE ISSUE – specifically that CHSRA can’t create a plan viable under THE CONDITIONS OF THE LAW – so he keeps coming back to ‘its not fair, everybody else does it’ argument – like a 6 year old completely lacking in the powers of logic.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Eh, Peninsula,
Robert doesn’t do much of that. I do.
It also doesn’t change the numbers and other facts I’ve brought up; look up my earlier posts here, and also on the Infrastructurist.
I might argue that the “profitability” case is one of setting up a double standard. It’s notable that this has gone on for years, and one of the results is our oil addiction and the problems that brings, including what I consider a national security risk.
What are your alternatives?
Jack In Fresno Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Pen stop this nonsense There is no statment by the CHSRA asking for operating subsidies, they are asking for construction to be subsidized. It is the hope the the train makes money, however no one can predict the future. Those of us who want the train have studied and analyzed and believe under the right conditions this train will be successfull and lead the way to a mass explansion or rail infrastructure.
Then there is you who is so protective of your precious small town mystique you’ll condemn and entire state of people that are hurting an excellent chance at a good job, modern transportation, and a bright future.
Keep on holding on to that greed, while those of us in poorer parts of the state continue to suffer. Maybe one day I can come swim in your money bin.
peninsula Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 10:26 pm
Jack if you don’t think they expect subsidies, then you didn’t read the last version of the business plan. Jack in Fresno, since you obviously care so much about seeing HSR done for the ‘greater good’ of the state – maybe you should insist the CHSRA move the route so it doesn’t run through 50 miles of residential backyards, literally through schoolyards, parks, churches, small downtowns and trashing our canopy and our watershed. Perhaps you should ask CHSRA to show up with a financial plan that is viable, that achieves the law of the people, and that actually counts the full cost to build HSR in a way that doesn’t DESTROY neighborhoods for lack of forethought and lack of funding.
By the way I worked 12 hours today, and my kids are wearing hand me downs. There wasn’t much swimming today, or any day of the year, in money or otherwise. Perhaps you and your really smart buddies ought to start acting like grownups, and set a good example for the CHSRA, and start demanding these neighborhoods – like yours – on not disposable. By the way, I don’t live anywhere near any railroad tracks. Miles away actually.
Nathanael Reply:
October 13th, 2010 at 1:13 am
Usual lying ignorance. The CHRSA promised *operating* profit, and like every 220mph system in the world they will deliver *operating* profit. That is not the same as overall profit, and they are asking for construction subsidies, just like it said in Prop 1A, and just like roads do.
CHSRA has already come up with a viable financial plan which achieves the law of the people and counts the full cost to build HSR. If you’re worried about how it’s going to be designed… well, maybe you could do a little research on railroad curve and grade requirements and then show up with some community-sponsored designs. It’s been done before.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 13th, 2010 at 4:58 am
Peninsula;
You don’t know how glad I am to read you are a good family man, working for your people as you do, and making those sacrifices. We see and hear too little of this today.
I’m curious, have you been following my own comments, on the oil situation and the real cost of driving? And have you been taking note of my “nostalgia” commentary, including the recollection of rationing in WW II? I think we are, in many ways, in similar times, and those times have a lesson or two to teach us now.
One thing that stands out for me (although not specifically from the past as such) is that there never is a good time to build for the future. We had really good times until recently, should have gotten on the ball when we had the chance, but instead we got the same tired arguments that our professor above is making. Then we got hit by $4 gas, and now it’s still a bad time because of the recession.
It’s kind of like Roosevelt and Churchill in the prewar eras. Both wanted to build up defense in view of the threat poised by Hitler, but both had to deal with people who thought the timing was bad. The end result was a game of catch-up when the shooting actually started. Thank heaven we did catch up, but it was a scary thing for a while.
I’ll also add that defense, in this country, included sidetracking the driving lifestyle of the time. This included rationing gasoline (most people got by on three or four gallons per week) to conserve what was a limited supply of natural rubber; at that time, that’s what was used for tires then, and the Japanese had captured the rubber plantations in the Pacific. It would take two or three years to build the synthetic rubber plants that we use now.
I think you are, like me, tired of paying tribute to oil despots, kings, terrorists, and yes, corporations. HSR is not a silver bullet, but it is part of what we need to do, which also includes conventional passenger trains and light rail. Deficits? I understand, but I do think we have more important things to worry about–again, like the situation in the early 1940s.
Finally, you express concern about “trashing” your neighborhood, as have others, including the professor. I assure you, this is not a problem. You see, while I live in the eastern US, and can not claim to know Palo Alto as my neighborhood, I’ve been around railroads almost all my life, and they are very much a part of mine; that includes plenty of steam trains on tourist roads, and 200-car coal trains you never see. I am still amazed that Amtrak’s electric trains are as quiet as they are. You won’t know yours are there.
Let me know what you’ve seen, and what you think.
Take care.
http://www.infrastructurist.com/2010/09/27/the-survival-of-us-high-speed-rail-all-comes-down-to-november/
http://www.infrastructurist.com/2010/10/07/will-republicans-derail-the-bullet-trains/
Joey Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Project critics have yet to show any QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS which shows that CAHSR will require operating subsidies. Especially because every intercity HSR system IN THE WORLD (including the pathetic Acela) covers its operating costs.
peninsula Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 10:28 pm
Look at the business plan – hint – ‘revenue guarantees’
Joey Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
Fair enough. What concerns me though is that given California’s general characteristics, CAHSR _should_ be able to make a profit without any revenue guarantee. If the Authority can’t design a system that is almost certain to do that then maybe there is something fundamentally wrong with them (not that that would be news). Also, I’d be willing to bet that, for better or for worse, their legal team could weasel their way out of having “revenue guarantee” classified as “operating subsidy,” as both terms are rather vaguely defined.
Tom Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
You ought to read the report, Joey. It’s pretty clear that the plan can’t make any money. Read the report and try to get past the nimby thing.
Peter Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Ignoring the “nimby thing” is ignoring the pink elephant in the room.
Joey Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
I’ve read through parts of it. First let me say this: I’m not going to read with the assumption that it has an NIMBY bias. That would of course be absurd. What I did see was that it criticized the project from the angle of someone who wanted to kill it altogether, not to improve it. Is this NIMBYism? I don’t know, but really it’s irrelevant.
As for the report itself, it had no deficiency of misleading, misinformed, and flat out wrong statements, not to mention important facts which remain uncited and bad statistical practices (for example using only a small subset of data in order to prove a point). And it was almost as vague as the Authority when it comes to how it calculated its numbers.
Keep in mind, I’m no fan of the CHSRA. It’s made some rather appalling decisions, particularly on the technical side of things (not at all what the report is about but it’s worth mentioning). It’s also proven to be at the mercy of the political interests of its board members and rather bad at reaching out the the public. But I found this report to be no more credible than anything the authority has put out.
Nathanael Reply:
October 13th, 2010 at 1:15 am
This is the usual situation where private investors want to have their cake and eat it too. They expect profits but don’t want to take even the remotest risk of losses.
I don’t think they should be accomodated, but that’s what you get for looking for “private partners”.
I’m worried about the U.S. It seems like the people of this country are no longer looking forward but back. If California doesn’t build an HSR system then it will lose its competitive edge to other countries like China and India. Companies won’t leave California because of high taxes or a supposed lack of support for business, but they will leave if the state’s infrastructure is out-dated.
Ted Crocker Reply:
October 13th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Isn’t one of the issues surrounding HSR that the US already has some of the most efficient, money making freight movement in the world, and this is what companies like UP are trying to protect during HSR development? And there are companies – the latest in the news being Google with their robot cars, or the developers of electric “skinny” cars that take up less room and use less and cleaner energy – who are working on solutions for existing modes of transportation. It’s not all doom and gloom. I think you’re placing too much emphasis on HSR, thus causing yourself undo concern.
The jury is really out on China’s HSR system. Similar to the issues we have in maintaining our existing infrastructure, they are going to have some hefty carrying costs all at once refitting their vast HSR system when things start wearing out in 20-30 years. Unless they are budgeting for it separately, they better hope HSR is profitable. They can’t hold their currency at artificially low values forever, and I predict that when the dam breaks, there will be a shift in money flow away from China as labor becomes cheaper elsewhere. (This could be a good topic for discussion.) They know this and is no doubt a major factor in why they want to lock in our HSR business so that they can pay for theirs.
Since with rare exception, all infrastructure requires some kind of subsidy, especially if we consider capital costs (which IMO we should even if AB3034 doesn’t), the real question is which combination of infrastructure systems provides the public with the most efficiency at the least amount of subsidy? I don’t have the answer, but you seem to be thinking HSR is a silver bullet, and as D.P. points out, it is not. HSR is not a financial sure thing. It is a big risk at this point, and only time will tell who made the fiscally responsible decisions.
For instant jobs and immediate weaning from dirty energy without the risks or delays of HSR, I still say the money would be better spent installing solar panels and encouraging and developing telecommuting, but then this is a mute point so long as we have obligated ourselves via Prop 1a to HSR.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 13th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Hello, Ted,
And I’m glad somebody here reads what I set out!
You make some interesting points, and in fact, your comments about solar panels (and a distributed power system instead of the concentrated heavy power plants we rely on now) make a good deal of sense, especially for residential use (although industry, and ultimately rail transport, will still need the big plants in some form). However, I would respectfully disagree that we not just blindly say passenger rail is from the past and should stay there, which is really what I’ve been seeing the oppostion say for over 20 years.
In fact, I would say pollution is in some ways a relatively minor problem with modern cars. The engineers have done some really amazing things for automotive efficiency over the last 30 years, which has also helped on the pollution front. However, this still leaves the very serious problem of oil dependence for transport.
Solar panels, tidal power, wind power, and hydro power are great things, really green in terms of direct power use, but the problem is they don’t really help with portable power. Electric cars, natural gas cars, hydrogen cars, and so on, at least at their current state of development, still are short of range and overall performance (economy of overall operation, range, dependability) of even middling gasoline cars. There is no alternative in sight for air service at all. Indeed, while climate control for buildings is the largest user of BTUs in this country, the truth is that transport is something like 99% oil dependent. Two thirds of all oil use in this country is for transportation, and something like 54% of that same total is for motor fuel. The highway system is our greatest weak spot, and arguably, a very considerable security risk. You might say it is the opposite of a silver bullet; it’s a lead anchor that threatens to take everything else down.
It has been said there are only three really important activities. They are growing things (agriculture), making things (manufacturing) and moving things from where they are to where they need to be (transportation). One might include maintenance of things (including people, or medicine), and some might include merchandising or retail as part of the supply chain, but one thing I would be careful of would be to try to build an economy on work-from-home internet connections, simply because if you can do this from home, someone else can do it from India (we’ve already been seeing this in computer tech support and call center operations). You will still need people to travel to jobs, and for other things, too, including recreation. And I’m afraid that we still haven’t invented Star Trek’s molecular transporter.
All of this, and the operational limitations of cars (even the robot cars you mention), are part of why I am a big rail supporter, both for freight and passenger transport. I’m also of the opinion that the passenger transport side should include a full range of rail options, from local streetcars to interurbans (intertown trolleys, look up the Sacramento Northern or the Pacific Electric if the term is unfamiliar to you), to conventional intercity rail (i.e, Amtrak), and the high-speed option, too.
Expensive? Sure, but when you look at how oil prices toppled the house of cards that was the housing market, and you also look at what highways and auto-oil dependence really cost (and how the cost is very likely to go up again in the future), you wonder if we can’t afford not to do it.
For reference:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/science/10google.html?_r=1&ref=john_markoff&pagewanted=all
I do like this site; you are probably familiar with it, but if not, here it is:
http://www.infrastructurist.com/
Take care, and do check the links I usually have in my posts; you may find some of them quite interesting, and some may even be entertaining!
jimsf Reply:
October 13th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
speaking of intertown trolleys I found what surely must be a program about MUNI lol
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 13th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Ah, Fontaine Fox’s classic “Toonerville Trolley!”
Hey, Jim, how many customers do you get who act and sound like the Terrible Mr. Bang? And how many Amtrak and Muni employees remind you of the Skipper, or even the Great Katrina?
jimsf Reply:
October 13th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
I won’t say. but that did pretty much sum up a trip on muni these days…
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Jim,
As you state below, sometimes things get a little mean, a little grim, and stuff like this helps lighten things up. It’s also interesting in that we get a glimpse of how rail service, including local trolleys, were once as much a part of life as our cars are today. I would like to see us like that again, and think we’ll need it, too, in what may eventually become a near post-auto world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stqYQnONiSI&translated=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A958SI-8JLQ&playnext=1&videos=c9t7RffayIA&feature=mfu_in_order
This one could have been a part of Operation Lifesaver if Operation Lifesaver had been around in the 1930s. Some very interesting animation technique, too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUgyWhKlH78&feature=related
Enjoy.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
Some more, this time from Warner Brothers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jlgo8HbDDQU&feature=related
And from Walt Disney:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbTBk4pDIHA&feature=related
Walt Disney was very much a railroad enthusiast (Disneyland was an excuse to have a park with a steam train as much as anything else), and he was also a model builder in what is called “live steam,” miniature locomotives that run on fire and water like their full-sized brethren. This short, featuring Donald Duck, is very clearly inspired by Disney’s own backyard railroad, and, it may be noted, predates the opening of Disneyland by several years. It’s also interesting that the distributor is RKO instead of Buena Vista (which is or was Disney’s distribution arm).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH7vb71oy_M
Enjoy.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 13th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Oh, and what would you guess some others, among them the Professor from Stanford, Peninsula, Ted (above) and Spokker, think of us when we bring up these fossils for our entertainment?
jimsf Reply:
October 13th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
There has to be some entertainment to break up the rehashing of issues sometimes. There’s really nothing going on so we are basically waiting for construction to start, or something significant to talk about. In the meantime, is the same old “nimbys” this and “new study” that. Same arguments. Waiting for infrastructure is like waiting for water to boil. Normally people don’t watch. They just vote and then bam, 20 years later the thing they voted for appears, only by then they’ve forgotten about it. People don’t care about infrastructure anymore. I just barely remember when it was a big deal, exciting, then all that changed somewhere between the 70s and 80s and that “big bold america” thing evaporated and was then replaced with “omg you can’t do that! what about the children!” —that started in the 80s. and the country has gone down hill ever since.
jimsf Reply:
October 13th, 2010 at 9:48 pm
I seem to remember a time when there were a handful of pretty powerful politicians in california. I can’t think of any names, although “burton” comes to mind, ( maybe because there are some big buildings with that name around here) but anyway, I could be wrong but it did seem like we use to have these guys who got elected, and then they got things done. The public didn’t follow how things got done, but what was expected is that if you get elected, you’d better damn sure get things done or you wouldn’t be elected again. No one cared how you did it and every little detail of every little project wasn’t paraded down main street for public (amateur) scrutiny. I guess it was sort of the old smokey back room deal thing or whatever, thing is, is that is how you get things done. YOu can’t get things done when you trot out every little detail for public inspection. christ we’ll be here till the cows come home trying to get 37 million people to agree on whether it should be an arch or a column.
Its lame. The same thing in washington now. no leadership, no guts, no vision, just pandering, fear, and ineffectiveness. I keep thinking maybe its just a phase. but its been going on for at least the last 30 years that Ive noticed. I just keep trying to imagine what would happen if they tried to get the hoover dam built today. or if they had waited till now to string the high tension power lines for the grid.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 13th, 2010 at 10:26 pm
So what type of project are you referring to? The Bay Bridge?
jimsf Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 5:04 am
you know what comes t mind first is california freeways. Now I was pretty young but my memory is that in the 60s and into the 70s, california was not only building them but they were gorgeous. It was during that time that time when the state was busy connecting all the smaller cities together with the medium and large ones, and networks crisscrossing the bay and al regions as well. They were well designed, they were beautifully landscaped, and when traffic backed up, they were quick to address and expand and I don’t remember it being a big deal. communities wanted to be connected.
Today hsr is analogous to that but the attitude is so crazy. Its as if everyone has a knee jerk reaction to say no to everything, common sense and rationality, not to mention american pride, aside. Its just so backwards. Now the freeway building stopped when jerry brown stopped it – I forget why he did it, but it seemed to be a for a good reason at the time??? But then, in the 80s, with reagan thre was this social push to turn back the clock, socially, and morally, and americans brains seem to turn to mush at that point. This nimbyism today, i think is a direct result of the “check your brain and pick up your crayons at the door” shift that took place. Just seems like it all kind of happened at the same time and nothing about america has made sense since then.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 13th, 2010 at 10:31 pm
Btw you remember correctly. There are two Burtons in fact (brothers)
John Burton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_L._Burton
Phil Burton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Burton
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
No one cared how you did it and every little detail of every little project wasn’t paraded down main street for public (amateur) scrutiny.
And you get gorgeous highways like the Embarcadero or the Nimitz. Or the decision to close down the Key System. Everything was all peachy keen.
jimsf Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
we also got what was billed rightfully so as “the worlds most beautiful freeway” the 280 (junipero serra)
And it so happens that the nimitz freeway, (highway 17 at the time prior to the 880 interstate designation) was not an ugly freeway. It is ugly now because it has been widened many times. But it was originally like all the other california freeways of my youth, most were 2 lanes in each direction, heavily lined with trees, and center divides made of beautiful oleander which were not only hardy, but saved lives. it wasn’t until the 80s, and much population growth, that they had to start pulling out the plants because they needed the space. There are still a few of the old freeways left though. Meanwhile, most freeways still get an aesthetic treatment and landscaping. Those ugly freeways such as the embarcadero only got so far before being stopped in the their tracks… mainly because san francisco, again, is different. and was even back then.
This is the quintessential california highway – most of them used to look like this
here’s another example When I was a kid I was very aware that I lived in a very special place that was like paradise. We were raised that way in cali. we expected everything to look nice.
and another. they were everywhere like this
and of course the junipero serra… aka the worlds most beautiful freeway and having driving all over the country I can say that few states outside california pay the kind of attention to design that we do. You don’t find sleek design such as this in texas for instance. Most states use a very utilitarian approach. They also do not use the massive amounts of concrete design that we use ( they don’t have seismic concerns. Texas freeway for instance look like tinker toys. Most of the freeways Ive seen around the country look like this like you can knock them over.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
“the worlds most beautiful freeway” the 280 (junipero serra) I’ve been on I-280, it’s a traffic sewer on the side of the mountain instead of a traffic sewer on the bottom of the mountain.
And it so happens that the nimitz freeway, (highway 17 at the time prior to the 880 interstate designation) was not an ugly freeway.
The four lane double decker was completed in 1957, during the golden age you fantasize about. The golden age never was.
made of beautiful oleander
Made of a poisonous invasive weed species. A lot depends on your point of view.
and of course the junipero serra… aka the worlds most beautiful freeway
Just because they put a cheesy sign doesn’t make it so. Very artfully arranged under that unadorned slab of concrete.
having driving all over the country I can say that few states outside california pay the kind of attention to design that we do.
You have to get off the Interstates to see the spectacularly landscaped highways in the rest of the country. This time of year the Merritt can’t be beat. Pretty trees and carefully mowed lawn has it’s charms but the there’s long stretches of the New Jersey Turnpike that have a certain post Apocalyptic grittiness that can have it’s good points too.
Most of the freeways Ive seen around the country look like this like you can knock them over.
Unlike the ones in California that actually do get knocked down.
jimsf Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
ok that last comment was a little below the belt :-P
jimsf Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
and I wasn’t referring to the cypress structure (17) but 17 from from the coliseum to santa cruz. (now 880-17)
and I don’t recall seeing many states that put this much into landscaping by the way isn’t this all they need to do on the pen. on the hsr viaduct? I mean if they don’t make a fuss about the freeways getting this treatment, then it should be good enough for hsr neighbors too.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
I was referring to the glorious expression of double decked freeway from the 50s, almost makes the Pulaski Skyway look lyrical.
Ted Crocker Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
That Toonerville cartoon was the best thing I saw all day. Caught myself laughing, even. Thanks for that.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 13th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
Hey, look what turned up–a rail car even Wendell Cox and Randall O’Toole would love!
This is on the narrow gauge (24 inches) Wiscassett, Waterville & Farmington in Maine.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=341193&nseq=0
You wouldn’t think it to look at it, but tiny locomotives like these hauled thousands and thousands of cars of pulpwood out of the forests of Maine back in the day, and at the same time carried mail, express, and passengers to and from the towns up there. One such slim road, the Sandy River and Rangeley Lakes, was over 100 miles long, and some of its trains could hit 50 or better, mighty impressive for something so small it looks like it belongs in an amusement park.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=323569&nseq=14
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=337420&nseq=2
Alon Levy Reply:
October 13th, 2010 at 10:47 pm
The railroads made a lot of innovations back in the day that went nowhere but are now technologically useful. These small railcars are one of them; I forget which railroad pioneered the concept of the railbus, which is now crucial for rural regional rail in Central Europe.
However, the fact that those trains are small doesn’t mean Cox and O’Toole like them. If they don’t waste gas and run on roads hosting cars, they’re worthless to them. If Cox and O’Toole are the auto industry equivalent of tobacco shills, then those railcars are the equivalent of cloves.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 4:49 am
I guess I’d better be adding smileys or something to let people know when I’m kidding! Of course, Wendell the Con and Randall O’Fool are jokes, anyway. . .
General photo link to the WW&F photo collection:
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?railroad=Wiscasset Waterville %26 Farmington
A particularly neat shot, and check out the caption, too:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=320799&nseq=22
WW&F link; wish I could get up there, looks interesting:
http://www.wwfry.org/
There were a number of railbusses built over the years in America, too. Most were homemade conversions by railroad mechanics, but Brill and Mack Truck offered some commercially. One of these is in Pennsylvania on the Strasburg Rail Road; it’s of particular interest to me for having been purchased second hand (and spending much of its life on) the Buffalo Creek & Gauley Railroad in West Virginia. The BC&G was the last true steam shortline in West Virginia, and for fair amount of time was the longest standard-gauge steam operation in the US, running steam-powered coal trains over an 18-mile railroad until 1965.
The BC&G also had a second railbus; this was also a commercial product, having been built by the FWD Corporation. That stands for Four Wheel Drive, and I think it’s still around today, primarily as a builder of special trucks for off-road work, and for the special fire engines airports use.
I’ll get some photos up later, of railbusses and of the gritty yet colorful BC&G.
Peter Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 9:14 am
D.P.: I’ll try to send you some pictures of the St. Kitts Sugar Train when my wife and I move there in a few months. 2’6″ gauge. The actual freight portion has been shut down, and now they run tourist trains only.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 11:10 am
Thanks, Peter, that sounds interesting.
For now, though, we’ll take a trip on the BC&G:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Creek_%26_Gauley_Railroad
http://www.buffalocreekandgauley.com/
http://clayberry.org/RRPICSfromGeorgeslogDec2005/
Enjoy.
More news on the Federal Front… It looks like Eshoo trying to divert HSR funds to CalTrain.
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=18572
Federal working group formed on high-speed rail
High-level Sept. 30 meeting in Washington leads to creation of new group to oversee federal response to California project
—————-
Eshoo said the congressmembers expressed concerns about the viability of the California project and leadership of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, based on several authoritative studies that questioned basic cost, design, process and ridership studies of the authority.
Spokker Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 11:22 pm
If Metrolink can do it I guess Caltrain supporters can give it a shot.
If the $9 billion from Prop 1A were diverted to Caltrain, Metrolink and other systems, I would be ecstatic. We’ve got a San Bernardino line down here that’s at capacity and needs double tracking. Express service on this route would make a killing.
Joey Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
I don’t know about Metrolink, but CalTrain has shown that it at least as incapable of spending money on useful, technically competent things as the CHSRA. I’d hate to see HSR money go down the drain into CBOSS and San Bruno…
Spokker Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 11:40 pm
You act like the CHSRA is so into making Caltrain and HSR work on the Peninsula.
Tony D. Reply:
October 13th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
I’m not one to agree with Spokker, but if (emphasis on “if”) the entire system can’t be built for some unknown reason, why not just focus on using Prop. 1A bonds and federal/private monies for NorCal/SoCal regional HSR. Not saying I don’t support the current plan of connecting NorCal/Central Valley/SoCal, but just in case I say split the $5-6 billion between Bay Area and LA for the following:
1) Bay Area/Central Valley “HSR” for Caltrain from SF to Gilroy AND Altamont between SJ and Stockton. Other funds could go towards BART to SJ and Amtrak/CC between Bay Area and Sacramento.
2) LA “HSR” for Metrolink, including lines out to Palmdale, Anaheim and Inland Empire. Other funds could go towards improved rail between OC and San Diego, as well as LA Metro “Subway to the Sea.”
Both Caltrain and Metrolink “HSR” would be compatible for a future connection via the Central Valley. In short, regional HSR first and statewide connection later.
Not jumping ship on HSR as now planned Robert; just a thought.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 13th, 2010 at 12:02 am
This was vetoed by the governor, and I cannot see it getting very far with the White House.
morris brown Reply:
October 13th, 2010 at 5:57 am
Robert:
I don’t understand your statement. What was vetoed by the Governor?
There is no way Prop 1A money is going to be used to do other than build a HSR system. No court in California would allow that. The point is if money from the Feds can be found or diverted to support CalTrain Seeing that $400 million got diverted to the TBT means anything at the Federal level can happen.
You know, the “Acela draws riders from combined metropolitan populations over 28 million, attracting about 11% of the residents of its market catchment area” line is ignorant in other ways: it pretends that the highest possible ridership is equal to the total population of the metro areas served. This is of course pure hogwash, since people can and do take more than one train trip per year. The Shinkansen has 300 million annual riders in a country with 120 million people.
“..intolerably noisy. We like to eat outdoors in the summer, but with such noise we would not be able to hear each other talking.”
I’m no train expert but this is laughable. Is he bothered, several blocks away, by the required horn blowing of current trains and bell ringing of the railroad crossing? I understand both of which would be eliminated with an grade separated right of way.
And comparing an all electric train to a diesel burning train, which is louder?
Far from an academic response, this seems to just be throwing spaghetti against the wall to see if anything sticks.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 13th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
I’ve commented on this before, electric locomotives are amazingly quiet. You are essentially looking at what amounts to a giant trolley car. No idling main engine with its chugging exhaust and whistling turbocharger, no radiator fans (which produce a surprising amount of noise), very often no dynamic brake resistor cooling fan (these howl like anything on a diesel) as the electricity generated by the motors in braking mode is usually returned to the wires instead of burned off in the resistor.
What’s left are wheel-rail noises inherent in any railroad, including joint noise (not much of that with welded rail), wire-singing from the pantograph on the wire, maybe some equipment blowers (and these often don’t come on until the controller is past a certain power point), motor-gear noise (and that is something that might not be present on newer locomotives for passenger service) and an air compressor. Nothing like a diesel at all, and as pointed out, with grade seperation, you eliminate the horn blowing and bell ringing too, plus the bells on the crossing gates themselves. No smoke or fumes, either.
I have to wonder if he has ever been around an electric railroad.
THSR is not the best comparison for CAHSR. Although THSR has gotten well-deserved bad rap for its heavy debt burden, its passenger figures are amazingly high for the population of the cities served. It has the same ridership as the KTX, whose primary city, Seoul, has about as many people as all of Taiwan.
Just a thought: Out-of-staters or Southern Californians who are not connected to the geography and demographic diversity of the SF Peninsula should not expect to gain any California HSR supporters when they write screeds about how “selfish” Peninsula residents are, as if it is all about property values. I strongly agree that it’s appalling for any portion of someone’s argument to consist of “garden parties in our upscale neighborhood will be disturbed by HSR” (gack… please, really? boohoo) — but I’m appalled by that sentiment because it is a gross misrepresentation of a much bigger picture here. HSR will hurtle through vital and historic downtown areas, stopping in only one (or two?) of them, but changing all of them… and the CHSRA line of “outreach” has so far consisted only of “we’ll do it our way because we say so.” I can think of no community benefits to HSR in the Caltrain corridor. In addition, residents and businesses will be disrupted by eminent domain property seizures. Yes, they will receive legally mandated “fair compensation” for their properties, but… again… property value is not the only point of Peninsulans’ objections to the project.
More than 60% of us on the Peninsula voted in favor of Prop. 1A, and to paraphrase the Community Coalition on High Speed Rail, we want to be sure that what we voted for is going to be done RIGHT. Peninsulans are concerned about a perceived unwillingness by the CHSRA to explore alternatives for ameliorating the trains’ impact on our communities. *Communities* of people and place, not just property values. Arrogance, insults, and name-calling (including the extremely ignorant application of “NIMBY,” in most cases) are not going to convince anyone who might otherwise have been willing to listen to your input.
What you have here seems to be a “preaching to the choir” blog, written primarily for people who already agree with you. I’m extremely put off by the tone of your post, and I don’t think you truly grasp what the so-called Joe Citizen “NIMBYs” issues are (understandable, I guess, because you’re not from here… neither is Enthoven). But thank you for at least being an articulate writer in the Interwebs Wilderness.
Right, Acela is such a great comparison. It’s not like you can take Amtrak regional service for 1/3 the price and about the same speed…
Maybe if Acela was actually HSR or he was looking at all NEC service, this would be a more-valid comparison.
It’s an interesting report, if somewhat uncharitable.
It would be interesting to see a geographical map of the residential addresses of the who’s-who of endorsers listed in the front of the report, or at least to cross-reference it to various scoping and EIR comments. I’m sure Enthoven isn’t the only one whose backyard is threatened–I saw at least a couple of Atherton city council members in there as well. What we see here is the PAMPA intelligentsia passing its judgment.
These VC types have sharp pencils, but they live to make a quick buck and are not surprisingly focused on short-term returns. A large infrastructure investment like HSR will pay off over a time horizon well beyond 30 years. Why limit the accounting of debt service and depreciation to 30 years? What happens after the construction cost is paid off? Tunnels, bridges and other big-ticket infrastructure is typically built to last well over 50 years–how do we account for the continuing benefits of those structures until they must eventually be retrofitted or replaced? Or do those benefits not count?
Their “Warren model” of HSR finance seems self-consistent, but it comes from a certain school of thought that any investment must necessarily “pencil out” for its investors. I would suggest that perhaps one needs to re-frame the question by taking a step back… why do we hold HSR to a seemingly higher financial standard than Caltrans freeways or airport runways and taxiways? For example, Caltrans’s annual budget is somewhere on the order of $15 billion every year. (Are 250 medium-sized schools “wiped out”, to quote the report, by the Caltrans budget every year?) What is the “low capital build-out” case for California’s freeway system?
Where does the VC community stand when it comes to building a new freeway lane? Can someone show me a vetted business plan for the improvements recently made to the 237 / 880 interchange, and has this project “penciled out” ? What was the ROI ? In which year will it break even? Would the VC community have recommended that this freeway project not proceed, lest it “wipe out” too many schools?
Where does the VC community stand when it comes to the return on investment of the recently-completed taxiway R at LAX? When does that break even? What’s the ROI?
Why does the VC community, which ought to understand a thing or two about business cycles, assume that the present recession must be the background against which the HSR project is depicted for all time going forward?
Where does the VC community stand on what transportation infrastructure improvements will be required if HSR is not built– Robert’s oft-stated point that the cost of doing nothing is NOT zero? Should the financial picture for HSR not be discounted by the cost of the only feasible alternatives to HSR, since doing nothing is not among the available options? (Or will Cisco teleconferencing technology make the business handshake obsolete?)
Altogether, the CHSRA is somewhat complicit in the financial framing of this question, in that it purports to have produced an investment-grade business plan. I believe they’ve set themselves up for failure in this way, because it is a standard by which they are unlikely to ever look good. Few transportation infrastructure projects look good when viewed through the narrow lens of direct return on investment. Because HSR is a relatively unknown transportation mode in the United States, it is being held to a higher standard of financial scrutiny than our abundantly-funded freeways… one could even say, a double-standard. And this report is the quite unsurprising result. If this evidently very smart crew can prove that another alternative to HSR, such as more freeways and runways, provides better return on investment, then let’s see them have a go at it. Where would they place their bets, if not on HSR?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Except they aren’t built to last that long.
Deliberately failing to account for full lifetime maintenance costs and to fully amortize capital costs and to fully account for fully amortized capital facility (whether fixed like bridges or not like trains) is one of the huge scams of the concrete mafias.
Bridges and tunnels in fact don’t last indefinitely, no more than trains or signals or escalators or light bulbs. They need constant maintenance, they need periodic large-scale renewals, and they can require complete rebuilding (equivalent to replacement from scratch, but more complicated because of the logistics of being in use beforehand) on time scales much less than human lives.
Locally, look at the tens of billions of unfunded capital deficits that BART has for both is fleet, its civil structures, and all its systems. The whole thing is somewhat falling apart at roughly the same age (circa 40 years) because of the political project-boosting non-accounting fiction that the system is “built” and nothing needs to be done until — surprise! — everything needs to be done all at once, gee we had no idea whoever could have predicted it.
Asking for fixed civil assets (and all other assets) to be fully accounted for over the useful lives and including amortized costs for replacement of those assets isn’t just done to be a horrible NIMBY DENIALIST non-iPhone-user anti-progress train-hating NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY — I call it “seeking a rudimentary degree of honesty from the project promoters.”
Peter Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Here’s a map I prepared based on publicly available address information. I went through the list of “Reviewers” and included a location if it was relatively clear that the address I had was the person I was looking for. Some are therefore excluded. I also only went through the first 30 reviewers (too much work to do them all).
Peter Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Anyone can feel free to add in the other names if you’d like.
political_incorrectness Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
I find it interesting that the group of 30 comes mostly from Atherton. Shows that is a NIMBY capital of the Penninsula
Peter Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
I liked how one of them lives on Stone Pine Lane.
Tom Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
And that’s to be liked because……?
Peter Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 7:48 am
Because that’s where Morris Brown, Kathy Hamilton, and a number of other exceptionally virulent NIMBYs live?
Tom Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
So what does that prove, Peter, other than you have more time on your hands than you know what to do with. Does it somehow make the arguments any less valid? Does it change the numbers in the report? Does it make clearer the holes in the HSR business plan? I don’t think so. You are just trying to hide behind the nimby label rather than addressing the problems in the business plan and making rational arguments against what you perceive to be wrong with the recently released report. Is someone who lives in a town near the tracks somehow banned from criticizing a project that will have significant effects on him/her as well as his/her city? If the arguments are logical and have evidence to back them up, why aren’t they entitled to posit them without being called a name? How about it Peter? Have you actually read the report?
Peter Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
1) Yes, Tom, I did read the report, so fuck you.
2) As for having too much time on my hands, see my above response. I really don’t see how THAT makes MY point of bias any less valid.
3) A person who lives near the tracks is perfectly free to object to the project. What I’m pointing out is that people next to the track have an inherent, self-serving bias that is easily shown.
Peter Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Elaboration on 2): Not only is it irrelevant, but it’s none of your business, you snob.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Peter, Peter, not you too! Take it easy man, the names don’t get you anywhere, not the profane ones, anyway.
Peter Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
I’ll be civil until someone insults me.
Tom Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Thanks for the nice comments, Peter. Very helpful. I’m sure you feel better now.
People who live next to the tracks or in the same town that the tracks run through are equally capable of looking at the project as a business as anyone else is. The fact is in this report you have a lot of people who have a lot of business experience, who have evaluated hundreds of business plans, funded successful companies, managed companies, and run enterprises. HSR compares very similarly to any business enterprise. It has to break even or make money. When you have so many people saying it doesn’t work, you are just being blind to some fundamental realities. And they are not alone. The LAO and the state auditor have said many of the same things. If they ran the thing down the middle of 101 it would still make no sense financially. And the prospect of a subsidy is even more problematic given the other needs of our virtually bankrupt state.
Peter Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 7:52 am
You’re welcome.
jimsf Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 6:13 pm
I was looking at stone pine lane just now. You know its so close to where the hsr station would be, that noise shouldn’t even be an issue. The majority of trains will stop at PA so, as they approach or depart from what is a location about 7000 ft from from the station, how fast can they even be going? probably no faster than the 79mph trains that go by now, only the electric trains, at the speed will be so much quieter. You’d think the stone pine folks could figure out that their neighborhood will be quieter with hsr.
peninsula Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
Thanks for the visual demonstration of CHSRA’s exceedingly poor judgment coming home to roost. Lets see – if we are to understand your logic for creating the map (and its the exact SAME logic we see every time we see the term NIMBY used here) it goes something like this….
Lets choose to force the HSR on the Peninsula – (aka) “Silicon Valley” home to perhaps one of the highest concentrations of highly educated professionals, business leaders, venture capitalists, CEOs, analysts, and academics in the state, if not the country, if not the world – and then lets be SURPRISED and INSULTED when we get the locals (aka NIMBYS) in this area (demographic described above) tearing our lame, half baked, half assed moronic plans to shreds. Which they amazingly enough, have the education and the experience to do IN DETAIL, with their eyes closed and one hand tied behind their backs. Yes, lets call them childish names and try our best to be insulted by the fact that there is a high concentration of well educated, successful people lining up to take down our half baked schemes (people that happen to coincidentally live near the route.) What intellectual giants we will be when we try disqualify their detailed analysis, research and reports, on no other basis than the fact that they live within our bullseye. Yes because we all know your address and the company of a high concentration of really super smart and super successful people in your neighborhood automatically disqualifies you from having anything valid to say.
Is that about it?
Alan Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
This is perhaps the most easily discredited “academic” report I’ve ever seen. Clem nails it here on several points.
Of all of these so-called “peers”, NOT ONE has any sort of transportation experience listed. Not one. No railroad experience, airline experience, or anything remotely resembling it. It simply is not possible to compare an infrastructure project of this magnitude with a high-tech startup. The list reads like it could be a country-club membership roster, and the “meetings” which discussed this paper took place in the club’s bar.
I did take a few minutes to go partway through the list of “peers” and compare them against the list of public commenters on the Revised Final Program EIR/S. There were some matches, but not an overwhelming number. That doesn’t mean, however, that the remainder of the “peers” were impartial observers–they could be opponents who felt their views were represented by another’s comments, or had commented prieviously on the draft EIR (which I haven’t taken time to review).
Nevertheless…these are the kind of people who gave us the dot-com bubble burst, and listening to them critique a massive project where none have any expertise, under the guise of “peer review” is almost humorous.
As others have noted, two of the three “principal authors” are well-known NIMBY opponents of the project. That alone should be enough to discredit this paper in the eyes of any rational reader. This isn’t an impartial, dispassionate review of the project–the authors started with a conclusion and an axe to grind, and worked backwards to try to prove their point.
Just as humorous is the use of a Wikipedia reference to try to justify an argument against HSR. As I said in a previous thread, that’s enough to get a paper laughed out of any respectable junior college. One can imagine what would happen if a MBA candidate prepared a paper using Wikipedia. It shows the desperation of the authors to try to find anything that could be bent to fit their view.
The bias also shows in the use of terms like “fiscal Christmas”. That line might as well have been written by Meg Whitman’s people. And it continues when the authors take an unprovoked shot at organized labor. Obviously, in the PAMPA view, transportation systems should be operated by serfs, not properly-paid professionals. The report fails to observe that most of the on-board crafts employed by Amtrak will not be needed on HSR. There’s no need for sleeping car attendants, dining car staff, and so on. The on-board snack services which may be provided could well be contracted out by the operator. That leaves your basic T&E crews–engineers, conductors, and possibly assistant conductors. That’s an area where Amtrak actually has made progress on work rules in recent years. As far as crossover between maintenance crafts–not a good idea. I want each person to be an expert in their area–carbody, propulsion, etc. There’s a reason why the FAA has separate licensing, for example, for airframe and powerplant techs.
The authors go on to state that because other infrastructure projects go over budget, so will this one. Nonsense. Every project has its own specific circumstances and engineering realities to deal with . CHSRA isn’t planning to dig a tunnel under a tidal estuary or the open ocean. There’s nothing in terms of engineering that hasn’t been done many times before. Most of the heavy work is your basic earth-moving and concrete-pouring, the costs of which are familiar to any general contractor who’s done work for Caltrans.
And I hate to break it to them, but it’s not universal that all large infrastructure projects go over budget. While it’s admittedly in its early stages, the last I heard, BART’s Warm Springs extension was running under budget and at, or ahead of schedule.
Of course, the authors leave out a few facts which disfavor their bias. For example, they forget to mention that the Berkeley ITS study acknowledged that the Cambridge ridership estimates might actually be too low–it simply isn’t possible at this stage to be certain.
Of course, these NIMBY’s have all along been so smugly saying that no private funding would appear, so the project won’t happen. Now, the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans have come forward to say that yes, they’d love to invest in all or part of the project. And we haven’t really even heard from the Europeans yet. This obviously has the authors and their “peers” scared out of their wits, so the answer is to try to discredit the idea of letting “foreigners” invest in the project. This isn’t an issue for an economic paper, it’s a public policy issue that needs to be addressed by the legislature and governor.
The bottom line is simple: The authors are sticking to the old adage…”If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” The entire introduction and list of “peers” is their way of saying, “We’re important people because we’re wealthy, and because we say it won’t work, it won’t. End of discussion”.
Actually, I think the discussion may go on for quite a while.
Alan Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
And before anyone else points it out, I realize that Con-Way is a trucking company. I should
have edited my comment to say that none of the “peers” list any experience in *passenger
transportation*.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
In contrast with the CHSRA’s controlling consultants of the MTC/CHSRA agency staffs, none of whom have any sort of record in accurately or honestly forecasting budgets or ridership of projects in which their own financial interests were at stake.
Touché.
Playing the “amateur” card isn’t much use when the “professionals” are so rankly corrupt and such total failures by any objective metric (if not the realpolitik metric and the sole one that matters in the end, that of “maximizing public-private wealth transfer”).
Alan Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Touche, nothing. There’s not a bit of real, hard evidence of corruption. If you have some,
go find a sympathetic grand jury somewhere. I’m not buying it.
I have no idea what your grudge is against PB, nor do I care one whit. The fact remains
that the company has a century of experience building rail systems. I’ll take that experience
over the PAMPA “amateurs” any day.
Touche, yourself.
Joey Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
I have no idea what your grudge is against PB
I can’t speak for Richard, but have you ever heard of BART?
jimsf Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Geez some of you.. did bart run over your dogs or something when you were a kid? Enough already. BArt works very well and the bay area overwhelming likes having bart around. I doubt there’s anyone who would want to get rid of it.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
BART is expensive. Comparisons are frequently made to DC’s Metro which was built around the same time. Both systems, for all their 70s glitz and glamor aren’t all that different than the BMT/IND in New York City. When Metro needs new cars, vendors are beating on their door to sell them something. They’ll be able to buy new cars at competitive prices. When BART wants new cars the vendors say “We don’t have anything in our product line” When Metro needs new ties, vendors are beating on their door. When BART needs new ties the vendors say “we could but it would be expensive” the ones that bother to respond. When Metro needs some of that new fangled track maintenance equipment they have vendors beating on the door. When BART needs some new fangled track maintenance gear… there are no vendors with something off-the-shelf. All of the pricey stuff Metro needs, the can get a world prices. All the pricey stuff BART needs the vendors reply “it could be done but it will be expensive”
jimsf Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
oh. well. I think its bay area thing. we pay more for everything here. Just used to it I guess. You know we have been paying the nations highest gas prices for decades, but there is no big uproar over it? Its strange. I guess we don’t consider bart different than everything else.
On another note though – per previous fuss over tbt… I never understood the big whoop over the tight curves because I keep finding these videos of high speed trains using all sorts of crazy station approaches, not to mention they also use derelict old stations that are no more than old concrete and rusted out overhead shelters. So why can’t simple stations like that be built in hanford and barstow and merced and other small places. for next to nothing. Just asking.
jimsf Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
approaches like this
Peter Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 6:38 pm
The first video is pretty funny. Watch the “plow” in the front. It’s broken and banging against the tracks.
jimsf Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
lol that is pretty funny I didn’t even notice that. I’ll bet its an international PB/BART conspiracy.
and I found this which shows what an hsr train will sound like at the speed it will travel in PAMPAnotice it doesn’t even disturb the birdies.
Peter Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 6:48 pm
That’s slower than Caltrain, mate.
jimsf Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Peter are you from australia or one of those places? just asking. ( americans dont say mate) Hard to hear an accent on a blog…
yes it is slow, but won’t most of the trains be either just leaving the PA station or slowing down to approach it and so won’t the majority of the trains running through pampa be traveling at less than 40 mph?
Joey Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
That assumes that the mid-penunsula station is Palo Alto, which is looking less and less likely at this point. Also, if you look at official documents you will see that roughly 60% of trains are forecasted to stop at the mid-peninsula station (of course this will really be up to the operator), a majority but by no means nearly all trains.
Peter Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
@ jimsf
No, I’m not, it just seemed like an appropriate place to say it that way.
jimsf Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
^ oh got it.
joey- well in any case i think its the threat of change rather than the actual type of change that is messing with the folks in that area. I think they should just plant lots of trees and bushes to absorb the sound.
jimsf Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
how cheap would it be to build this in the outlying areas.
synonymouse Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
There is special level in transit hell reserved for those at Bechtel who were responsible for effing up BART so thoroughly and completely at its inception. It is not as if smarter and more experienced minds did not try to talk them out of reinventing the wheel. Just like now they refused to consider dissenting arguments.
jimsf Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
yes whatever. most people just don’t care.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
exactly.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Not a great analogy. The 237 project was funded through a countywide transportation sales tax. Unlike the CA HSR bond measure, that sales tax is a dedicated funding source which does not “take” money from education or the general fund.
But in terms of traffic, yes, the 237 ROI was horrible.
peninsula Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
Clem, really?
Why do we hold HSR to a higher standard? Because AB3034 defines the standard for HSR, and its the law. And those conditions set forth for CHSR were the only way that the people of the state of California would allow CHSR…. And they don’t require the same bar for roads projects, Because roads have a higher utility to society than HSR. HSRs go in straight lines, they take you from station X to Station Y, on someone else’s schedule – and nowhere else. HSRs don’t eliminate roads.
Roads can take you anywhere you need to go, anyone can use them, on any schedule with any iteration of baggage and passengers that they can muster. They can be used for moving people and goods – door to door. The flexibility and convenience usability, and incremental cost per trip for the user of roads FAR outweighs the usefulness of HSR for the community. So, when asked, community says – we value roads, we’ll pay for them with out taxes, we’ll all drive on them as much as we want freely, after they’re built, and ALL commerce and passenger traffic will have full access – our goods and services, our employment base – everything gains mobility, and we all benefit. And when asked about railroads – they say – not so useful, and we’re not interested in footing the bill. We recognize the minimal usefulness (sort of), but we can’t take it work (without a lot of machinations), every incremental trip costs us money, we travel on someone elses schedule, we can’t bring our 4 pet dogs, and I can’t use it to do my errands after work. Its a community/society wide judgement on the utility of roads vs railroads. Thats why HSR is being held to a higher standard – utility.
Why doesn’t a VC ask for a business plan on a roads project? Why should they? The HSR project has been set up as investment opportunity (with some pretty specific parameters for profitability, revenue generation promises, and some pretty specific parameters on what an investor might hope to receive in return (or prevented from receiving) – and simply put – a VC is in business of making money off investments. a VC compares one investment opportunity to another, and invests in the ones that make MOST sense and promise MOST viable chance for highest returns on their investments. VC is a business. When road projects start promising VC’s returns in exchange for funding, then VC’s will start asking for business plans.
Joey Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 11:09 pm
Because roads have a higher utility to society than HSR
Spoken like a true American!
(yes, I am subtly implying that you have no clue how rail functions in other regions of the world)
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 4:54 am
Nor about how they work in America, both now and in the past. . .
Joey, Spokker, Travis, Peter,
Let’s no longer waste time on Peninsula here. He’s not worth it.
Have you noticed he does not respond to my questions about the true cost of roads and the true cost of gasoline? We will never win him over short of building the railroad and having the gasoline become unavailable–and even then he would scream. There are just people like that.
And in case you think that can’t happen–think again. It did happen, during the Katrina episode. This was at the time gasoline was getting up to $4 a gallon, but this never happened in parts of Tennessee and Kentucky, because the gas ran out first. This was due to a refinery going off line that shipped its products to this area. Was nip and tuck there for a while, with food deliveries at least partially disrupted, and people looking everywhere for motor fuel, trying to find any gas at all to try to get to their jobs.
The high price at the time was a problem here in West Virginia, too. It put a small trucking company out of business. What’s the big deal of that? That company was a food transportation company with refrigerated trucks, and was the only one willing to live on thin profit margins serving little independent grocery stores in small towns in the central part of the state (the firm’s nickname was the “Hollow Hauler”). They couldn’t even do that when diesel fuel went up. I don’t know what followed after, but it’s my understanding that at least some of those stores also had to close, and the residents had to buy $4 gas to go to the nearest Walmart for groceries, and that can be a bit of a hike down there.
I’m saddened about Peninsula, too; he has mentioned some family activities that make him sound like a good family man. I do wish he could at least acknowledge we have some points, at least see where we come from, but it’s just not to be.
peninsula Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 7:03 am
Here’s my response to you.
http://electric-vehicles-cars-bikes.blogspot.com/
The more expensive gas becomes, the faster electric vehicle technology will be commercialized. Electric vehicles will obsolete HSR well before they ever build the first usable segment.
By the way – how does HSR help above trucking company? HSR moves people – we still need all our roads and all our service vehicles (and particularly freight railroads) to move goods. And HSR doesn’t take people off the roads either – for the driving activities they do most often. How often trip to LA? about once every 5 years. How often drive to work? To school? To baseball practice? To grocery store? About 5 times per DAY. Tell again how HSR is taking roads off the map? taking cars off the road? Or out of peoples garages? Or replacing movement of GOODS (which you describe above)?
Peter Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 7:47 am
And electric cars solve the congestion problem and cure the need to expand roads and airports exactly how?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 8:23 am
Peter, he apparently didn’t note my comments that I am of the opinion we need a whole lifestyle change.
You might find this interesting.
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2010/05/the-status-quo-of-electric-cars-better-batteries-same-range.html
I wonder if Peninsula has any engineering background. I happen to have a little, perhaps just enought to be dangerous to myself. . .
Peter Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 9:48 am
I agree that a lifestyle change is needed. Not only is it needed, but I actually think it is coming. Robert has made some excellent points in the past about how the newest generations are no longer wedded to their cars, and would rather use their travel time, both for commuting and for long-distance travel, more productively than is currently done.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Driving is work. Being on a train, plane, bus, ferry, rickshaw etc isn’t. If you want to work wnat to work while on a train go for it. I prefer to use my time looking at the scenery, taking a nap, eating=, reading, watching movies….. it doesn’t have to be productive. … when you are driving, all you can do is drive…
Spokker Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
And on American rail systems, there is a lot of time to get shit done.
jimsf Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
any surflinr riders: any thoughts on whether it would be worthwhile or timesaving to run something like an express or baby bullet on the route from slo-san? How much time savings on an la-san nonstop or one stop and would there be enough ridership to warrant a couple of those per weekday?
Al Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 12:40 am
“How often trip to LA?” Millions of people a year.
No, most people won’t take HSR to work. Some will–HSR makes it realistic to live in Fresno and work in SF. I know someone who commutes SF-Stockton. She’d be overjoyed to have this option. What are the transportation options today from Bakersfield to LA? Driving. Bus, which is even slower than driving, and gets stuck in the same jams. Oh, you can fly– drive out to the airport and it’s a couple hundred (!!!) bucks.
The idea that it won’t be used is beyond absurd.
Clem Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 9:43 am
Thanks, peninsula, for inadvertently serving as Exhibit A.
Your message very eloquently expresses the double standard that I was pointing out– that you demand a hard-nosed financial evaluation of HSR to quantify exactly what utility it provides per dollar spent, while giving roads a free pass because you know intuitively from the gut–without regard to facts, evidence, logic or critical intellectual examination–that roads must surely produce far more value than we spend on them.
Where in the Enthoven report can I find an evaluation of the possible “utility to society” of HSR, that you so admire in roads? Oh, right, I can’t, because such utility does not accrue directly back to the investors and therefore is off the balance sheet and irrelevant to their return on investment.
It really takes some gall to expound on venture capital in the same breath as “utlity to society”.
Tom Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 11:17 am
You’re missing the key point of the paper, Clem. There is a law stating that the system has to operate at a breakeven and not use state resources. The paper is trying to evaluate whether that can happen. The prospects don’t look so good. Other respected entities have come to similar conclusions. The other arguments about roads, ROI on roads, utility to society, whether VCs can evaluate roads, etc. are all irrelevant to the central question of whether the HSR can operate under the law. You ought to be on the Authority to figure out a way to make it work that can stand the scrutiny of people who evaluate businesses all the time, not to mention government auditors.
Clem Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Oh, I read the paper, and I’m happy to concede that HSR doesn’t look so good when viewed through the narrowly defined financial framework set out in AB3034 and in the Enthoven paper. Nevertheless, hiding behind the law does not absolve one from maintaining a self-consistent political philosophy, and on that count, ‘peninsula’ seems to have failed spectacularly by laying out an argument that makes about as much sense as having a socialist wing of the Tea Party.
Academic Peer Review means you submit your article to a journal, which independently reviews it and decides whether to publish it. It does not mean you riffle through your Rolodex and simply call up your buddies and ask them if they want to help stop HSR, so please agree to put your name on this “article”.