The Shifting Federal HSR Picture
As the dust settles from Tuesday’s election, we’re starting to get a bit clearer picture of where HSR stands in the new Congress, split between Republican control of the House and Democratic control of the Senate. The biggest news is that John Mica, likely to be the next chair of the House Transportation Committee, criticized most HSR projects and called for concentrating funding on the Northeast Corridor:
“I am a strong advocate of high-speed rail, but it has to be where it makes sense,” Mr. Mica told The Associated Press in a post-election interview. “The administration squandered the money, giving it to dozens and dozens of projects that were marginal at best to spend on slow-speed trains to nowhere.”
Mr. Mica said he would like to redirect the rail money to the Northeast corridor, which he described as possibly the only place in the country with enough population density to financially support high-speed train service.
So clearly Mica shares the view of Ohio’s new governor John Kasich, who said “that train is dead” (referring to the Ohio 3C HSR proposal) and Wisconsin’s new anti-rail governor who vowed to kill the Wisconsin HSR plan the day after he got elected. Wisconsin’s current governor has suspended work on the HSR project but that may just be a short-term move in order to build the case for continuing it.
But what does John Mica’s stance mean for California HSR? Over at the Transport Politic, Yonah Freemark argues Mica will probably support our project:
California’s proposed fast train system, which would allow passengers to journey between the huge San Francisco and Los Angeles metropolitan regions in just 2h40, seems more up Mr. Mica’s alley. Thus the federal government’s decision to grant that state billions of dollars for the Central Valley segment of the network, where trains will reach 220 mph, likely won’t be put in question by Mr. Mica. One could even imagine him asking the Federal Railroad Administration to reallocate the more than $1.2 billion in federal dollars planned for Ohio and Wisconsin to California — or the Northeast.
That’s a hopeful sign. But at the same time, Mica is part of a broader Republican effort to demand that new rail infrastructure not only be self-supporting, but generate profits so that their costs can be borne by the public sector:
This implies that the Congressman wants the rail transportation system the government is developing to be self-supporting. This has not been a position held by the Obama Administration, which expected states like Ohio and Wisconsin to absorb operating losses. If Mr. Mica sticks to his guns on this matter, it could mean he will oppose future spending on loss-producing Amtrak corridors (including the politically popular long-distance routes) and perhaps also any new intercity rail line that cannot guarantee major profits. This, again, will pose problems for those who hope for a national rail program that would service rural and semi-urban areas that simply do not have the demand to support such lines. His position on these matters — only really beneficial to the biggest cities — is unlikely to appeal to many members of the predominantly non-urban Republican delegation in the Congress. Will he hold the same standard to rural highways, also the beneficiaries of net federal subsidies because of their relative under-use?
The demand that rail be self-supporting is a major shift in transportation policy. For most of the 20th century roads were not at all expected to be self-supporting. They were subsidized – and this was in fact a major selling point, especially in the Congressional debate over the Interstate Highway Act in the 1950s. At that time, many members of Congress from non-urban states were adamant that the interstates be subsidized, since they had long familiarity with the disastrous economic consequences of insisting that transportation infrastructure pay its own way. Most infrastructure does indeed pay for itself, but indirectly – it generates economic activity that produces tax revenues to help pay the cost of construction and maintenance over time.
What we’re seeing is an attempt to return to the bad old days of the 19th century, where transportation infrastructure existed to enable a small elite to collect rents from those who needed to use the system, rather than enabling more broadly shared prosperity.
And yet we might not even be able to achieve that. The major transcontinental railroads of the late 19th century were built with government subsidies in the form of land grants along the route, to entice private investors to construct the infrastructure. If government doesn’t have anything to give away now – if we instead see an impasse over how to fund a new Transportation Bill – then all we’ll see is crumbling infrastructure and an economy doomed to dependence on ever-rising oil prices, ensuring that our economic downturn lasts much longer than it should.
Finally, there is some growing concern among HSR activists that the new Congress might seek to reduce or eliminate the annual funding appropriation for high speed rail, currently pegged at $2.5 billion. That sum is a drop in the bucket in terms of overall federal spending, but it is an easy target for a Congressional majority that is ideologically opposed to 21st century infrastructure. They got elected on Tuesday night pledging to defend the 20th century and its values, making it all the more imperative that we fight back.
On the other hand, if Wisconsin and Ohio don’t want their HSR money, we could always use it here…
The lame duck congress needs to get that $1.2 billion that Wisconsin and Ohio don’t seem to want transferred to those states that are inclined to accept the money ASAP. That needs to be the legislative priority between now and when the next congress is sworn in. I would imagine that California and Florida will be the primary recipients given Mr. Mica’s philosophy, with California possibly getting it all.
Since the newly elected governors of Ohio and Wisconsin are so completely dead set against HSR, they should be great bi-partisan allies in the effort to reprogram the $1.2 billion away from their states. Finally, bi-partisanship at work :-)
Nathanael Reply:
November 10th, 2010 at 2:00 am
Actually these will be reallocated by Ray LaHood (SecTrans), Congressional action is not necessary. Congress told LaHood to allocate the funds in the first place.
Speaking of elections…
Who was the leading vote getter for one of Gilroy city council’s 3 open seats? The guy who is, “…strongly in favor of the California high-speed rail project and not only wants the train to run through Gilroy, but he wants it smack in the middle of downtown.”
http://www.gilroydispatch.com/news/270202-newbie-tops-the-field
tony d. Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 10:06 am
When it comes to HSR and the future of California, young progressives know what’s best ;o). The hell with geriatric NIMBYS!
John Burrows Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 9:50 pm
From The Stanford Daily, Nov 4 issue:
“In our opinion, passing up the opportunity to fully integrate Stanford and Palo Alto with the rest of California because of fears that a parking structure will be unsightly or that there will be more traffic around University Avenue is woefully shortsighted. If we want Stanford and Palo Alto to remain the region’s focal point, all parties involved should work to make an HSR station near University Avenue a reality.
Sounds like the 16,000 Stanford students might not share the Palo Alto City Council viewpoint on high speed rail. The vast majority have no say in city affairs, but if it were not for them, there would be no Palo Alto.
StevieB Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 11:57 pm
If the students voted as a block they would be a force to be reckoned with. That is if they even bother to register to vote. Most students I have spoken to recently are too busy with school work to concern themselves with politics.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Hahahah! Awesome.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 10:30 am
I also recall reading on election night that one of the NIMBYs in Menlo Park – Russell Peterson? – was coming in last in the council race.
Would $400 million extra for Milwaukee to Madison be enough to cover the capital cost? I would point out $8 million per year subsidies are a drop in the bucket of the transportation budget of Wisconsin. Gilroy has been an interesting case, online commenters say no train, the media says no train, yet polls indicate the one who wants a train to come through is leading in the city council race. What the crap
Peter Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 9:33 am
But there’s no such thing as a silent majority, right?
Speaking of City Council elections: Russell Peterson, lowest vote-getter at 7%.
Peter Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 9:38 am
And Morris Brown’s opposition to the Menlo Gateway Project was wasted, too.
“We live in Menlo Park, not San Francisco. This project is a San Francisco type of project.”
Trying to protect the Norman Rockwell-ishness of Menlo Park? Give me a break. Ever try counting homeless people in Menlo Park? The results might surprise you…
StevieB Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Morris Brown is clearly on the side of one of the worst examples of 20th century land use: sprawl. California population is certain to increase in the 21st century and to accomodate the additional population we can increase density and transportation or we can continue with single family homes and more road construction and increased sprawl. Morris has opposed increased density projects and improved public transportation so comes down clearly on the side of additional sprawl. All to maintain a nostalgic lifestyle while burdening others with the costs.
Peter Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Bingo.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 10:30 am
I knew I wasn’t hallucinating that. That’s quite a rebuke of the NIMBYs in Menlo Park.
Nathanael Reply:
November 10th, 2010 at 2:01 am
Silent majorities do exist. It’s just one of those claims which require proof. We have us proof now :-)
rafael Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 10:49 am
The louder the bark, the bigger the dentures…
It’s unfair to expect rail to be self-supporting or operate at a profit given that our highway system is NOT self-supporting. Let’s make all highways be self-supporting by utilizing open road tolling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_road_tolling
That would make rail (and commuter public transit) more competitive and maybe even self-supporting.
rafael Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 11:00 am
Oh, the oil companies that have been generous contributors to national political campaigns – especially those of Republicans like Joe Barton (R-TX6) – will make sure Boehner et. al. don’t even think about ever collecting tolls for freeway use from anyone in the next two years. Idem for increasing federal fuel taxes.
tomh Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Agreed. But I’m tired of hearing anti-HSR, anti-rail in general, anti-public transit folks demand that these other modes of transportation be self-supporting while not demanding the same of highways. Of course these other modes of transit will have problems being self-sufficient when competing with “free” highways.
jay taylor Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 11:02 am
Most of the ones I have talked to are firm in there belief that the gas tax pays for roads.all of it.
Any tech to back up why that idea is wrong, and roads do not pay there own way?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 11:25 am
Plenty. I would do a “Google” search for “Highway Statistics;” this is a publication that is available on the internet from the USDOT. You want to check section 9, “Highway Finance,” to start. You may also want to check the section on fuel consumption, and also to do a search along the lines of “the true cost of gasoline.”
Ah, just remembered, I did some of this on this rail site, and on this futurist site, too:
http://nineshift.typepad.com/weblog/2010/10/are-you-subsidizing-others-to-drive.html#comments
Have fun, and get ready to be called a Communist or a Socialist when you start using this material! It’s happened to me; I’ve thought about growing a beard, wearing a beret, and taking up cigars, then annoying people with something like “Have a good smoke, courtesy of Brother Fidel!”
Ho, ho, ho, ho!
Nathanael Reply:
November 10th, 2010 at 2:03 am
Look for the Texas DOT study which showed that NO road in Texas was paid for by the gas tax, with some having benefit-cost ratios of 16% or less.
The Wisconsin DOT study showing that roads in Wisconsin are heavily funded by general taxation may be easier to find, though the numbers in Wisconsin are less horrifying than the billions and billions wasted in Texas.
Ted Crocker Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 12:13 am
While I agree with you, it does not seem fair, I hardly need to point out that in the case of HSR it is the law – and, sad though it may be, apparently, requiring operation-without-subsidy was believed to be the only way HSR could be sold to [52% of] the CA voters. So, as a couple of those charged with building HSR would say, “Get used to it!”
Let’s hope the state legislators get onboard for a designated source of (subsidized) funding for Caltrain.
Peter Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 12:25 am
But there is no reason to think that HSR in CA will need subsidies. Even not-quite-HSR Acela doesn’t require subsidies.
110 and 125 mph top speed “HSR” routes will likely require operating subsidies.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 7:51 am
Maybe–ande maybe not. . .
The Acela averages just under 80 mph, with top speeds in the 125-to-135 mph range, and a relatively short burst to 150, yet it apparently makes money.
I think we may have a historical perspective. . .
Back when railroads were virtually the only overland long-distance transport, most average speeds were quite low. Sure, there were fast Pullman flyers, but the average train would either be a commuter job or an all-stops local. Indeed, an “express” train of the Civil War era averaged only about 25 mph, and had a schedule full of stops that looked like a local in 1900. It would be agonizingly slow today, but it was blazingly fast in a time of horse-powered or ox-powered road and canal transport.
Of course, as things developed, true expresses, or “limiteds” (of which one definition was a limited number of stops) eventually were inaugurated, originally in competition with other railroads.
A bit later, Henry Ford comes out with a car called a Model T, and at the same time there is a “Good Roads” movement, orginally coming out of the bicycle craze, but later adopted by the emerging auto industry. This was even backed by the railroad industry, as a “good neighbor” move to “get the farmer out of the mud.” Later, as we know this took on a life of its own, and as the late Jerry Reed put it in a song, “Lord, Mr. Ford,” the situation “got a little out of hand.”
What is interesting about this is that by 1940 or so, we have a large network of paved roads (although the majority of roads were unpaved until the postwar era, if I’m recalling correctly), and this included a number of roads that are still important today, such as US 1, US 50, US 30 (the Lincoln Highway), and I would suspect California’s Highway 101, and one that was later partially abandoned but particularly legendary, US Route 66. Travel on such a road, going through all the towns and cities along its route, would average about 100 miles or so in three hours; if you drive on one of them today, you still average about 100 miles in three hours.
The first trains to die are the all-stops locals, the “accomodations,” and some semi-expresses running in marginal territory–but a number of expresses, particularly if they have been speeded up, still make money. If the B&O’s mainline trains of this time are any indication, we are looking at average speeds in the 50 to 60 mph range, with top speeds from 70 to perhaps 90. We also have what would today be called “corridor trains,” which include Pennsy’s “Clockers” and the trio of railroads competing for business between Chicago and the Twin Cities, the Milwaukee’s “Hiawathas,” Burlington’s first Zephyrs, and Chicago & North Western’s original “400.” I’m not familiar with California geography and schedules, but I think the original Daylights would fall in this category as well. Note that all these trains, with an average speed in the 60 mph range, are about twice as fast as driving in this time.
This gets changed in the postwar era. There is a period of inflation and labor unrest (the latter partially sparked by the former), the railroads, being rate regulated, are denied permission to raise prices to keep up with inflation, and the governments at various levels go on a road-building binge. The airlines, with the introduction of jets flying from taxpayer-supported airports start to skim the Pullman (expense account) traffic, and then the Interstate program comes out, and driving times on a super highway becomes very competitive with rail times on their legacy routes.
The important point to keep in mind is that rail passenger service, if it had some sort of head-end revenue and was competitive with auto times, was still at least marginally profitable, although, like our capital-intensive HSR projects, there were questions if total costs were considered. Their were several monkey wrenches thrown into this, but the principle one seems to have been a subsidized “high-speed” road system, combined with the withdrawal of mail contracts from the railroads to be reawarded to the airlines in the late 1960s. (I have heard this turned out to be illegal for some reason, perhaps due to a bribe, and a postmaster general would go to jail for it–perhaps someone can confirm this. I understand it was in the Nixon administration.)
So, the question becomes, how much speed do we need to compete with cars? It seems, based on this historical pattern, a speed about double that of driving has possibilities, which could put top and average speeds down quite a bit, as the Acela seems to demonstrate. This suggests 110-125 mph top speed lines have a place, and may even cover operating costs. And if you can go faster, much faster, you can knock airplanes out of the sky, at least in the intermediate range.
Transcontinental sleeper service, anyone? :-)
EXCEAR Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 9:07 am
I have always thought that for business travel, some may opt for a good night’s rest on an overnight high speed sleeper train (leaving your city at night, waking up for your meeting in a different city in the morning), rather than the hassles associated with air travel. In the latter case, it is not uncommon to waste four-five hours of your whole day doing the going-the-airport/security/rental car dance.
Nathanael Reply:
November 10th, 2010 at 2:05 am
Already happens. Apparently there are a surprising number of overnight Buffalo, NY-Chicago business trips.
There’s a “sweet spot” for business sleepers in terms of time, which unfortunately doesn’t get hit on very many routes today. But we could hit more of them with care.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 10:05 am
Its not just differential, its the actual time requires for the trip. Two hour rail trips and under provide substantial same day business travel options that start to drop off between two and three hours, and that are not there on four hour trips, which become overnight trips with, for business travel, a hotel room on the expense account and, for consumer travel, either a hotel room or a friend or relative somewhere along the way.
So the trip times set which trips the rail is competing for, and speed relative to cars determines the share of the trips that it is competing for that it gets.
So its in the market for 1/4 of trips, and at an equivalent speed to cars, its likely to get 8% of those travelers. That’s a mode split of 25% x 8% = 2%.
One some corridors, a 2% mode split requires a subsidy. On corridors with bigger transport markets, a 2% mode split would be a healthy operating surplus. On the 3C, a 2% mode split is the Ohio Hub projection for 110mph max service that is a bit slightly faster than a sane driver Cleveland / Columbus and as fast as a sane driver Columbus / Cincinnati. The projection based on that is an operating surplus of 100%.
A corridor with a third of the total transport market with the same trip length and operating cost and exactly same mode split would require a subsidy.
Of course, if one had smaller competitive advantage on the two hour trip between the second and third largest metro areas than on the two hour trip between the first and third metro areas, you’d ideally want a little supplementary patronage on the former leg to avoid having too many seats filled Cleveland/Columbus but empty Cincinnati/Columbus. And lo and behold, there’s Dayton, a 1 hour trip to either Cincinnati or Columbus to fill some of those seats and keep the load factor from being bogged down by the southern leg.
@EXCEAR: the ideal is if you have a string of two and three hour trips on a six to eight hour total route between the two largest patronage anchors. Then in addition to the daytime corridor trains, you can indeed run a sleeper overnight service.
Indeed, if you want an ideal scenario for attracting business travel, a sleeper car might drop off at a dedicated platform with transit connections, and the next day return traveler would be able to book the same cabin for both legs. Then they show up for the departure in the evening, arrive before Start of Business at the transit center and can be at the destination any time from Start of Business, through to a business dinner, then back to their cabin, back home, and back in the home office the next morning if need be. No business time would be lost to travel, as in a trip with a single overnight at a hotel, and the sleeper entirely replaces the hotel expense.
jimsf Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 10:16 am
Even a slow overnight train between sf and la would be popular. A consist of several cars of single person roomettes ( rather than the current 2 person type) with ample facilities for showering and changing, a bistro, wifi seatback entertainment, ,and a couple of discount coach cars for bargain hunters that left la and sf at 7pm each and arrive in the opposite city at 7 am would allow people to get off work in downtown la, by 6, board the train, have something to eat, work on their laptops in comfort, get a good nights sleep, shower, grab breakfast/coffee and get right to starting their day in SF. If you set the price at around 150 you’d beat the the last minute airfare price and the first class airfare price and you’d save the hotel costs as well. The trip would take longer but the time would be both more productive and more restful than trying to squeeze in the wasted time of airport journey madness.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 10:45 am
Set-out sleepers–just like Pullman in the old days! One would be surprised at how many such set-outs there used to be, and to surprisingly small places, too. Sometimes these small-town set-outs were there because of a business at some small town, perhaps a major factory, and corporate exectutives made up a fair amount of patronage going to and from this facility; not too likely there would be a great deal of that particular use of a sleeper today.
On the other hand, the other good use of a set-out sleeper was for the tourist trade to resorts and major parks; two examples that come immediately to mind are the famous Greenbrier Hotel in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va., and the Grand Canyon National Park, the latter on a branch line, with the cars taken off the main line trains at Williams, Az. (This is now the route of the tourist-hauling Grand Canyon Scenic, and it makes connections to Amtrak trains at Williams.) The long-gone Yosemite Valley Railroad performed a similar function for its namesake park, connecting with the Southern Pacific at Merced and running to a place called El Portal.
New assignment to self–come up with sure-fire formula to estimate set-out sleeper market. . .
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 11:05 am
Knew this was knocking around somewhere:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/04/03/from_a_to_b_with_zs/
Wonder how it’s doing now?
jimsf Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
The State Railroad Museum in SAC has some of those pullmans and other 20th century rolling stock and they have them set up so detailed… right down to the active, accurate rocking motion, sound effects, and mannequins that are so lifelike that they’ll startle you, ( the could only have been produced by disney.. they must have) and after seeing how people traveled then, all I can say is this country has gone backwards. Those folks were a far more advanced civilization than ours today. They have an amazing array of railroad china as well. The old guy there ( yes of course) says they got a warehouse full and no where to put it all.
jimsf Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
I know people insist that today no one has time for being anything other than a fast n cheap throw away society. But that’s nothing but a lazy cop out. People simply don’t want to take the time to be and act correctly. What is the point of all this rushing around, all this tacky living? No wonder the country is a mess. No one is teaching or cares about being civilized anymore. So that’s what we get.
But I digress.
I just really want to sit in one of those puffy lounge chairs while a lady in a pill box hat and white gloves comes by to offer a pillow and a smartly dressed waiter brings the tray of vodka martinis. .. sigh.
Nathanael Reply:
November 10th, 2010 at 2:07 am
I’m actually going to take the Coast Starlight, but its current schedule is too slow even for a sleeper service from LA-SF. Apart from its schedule being 24 hours off off a sleeper schedule.
Nathanael Reply:
November 10th, 2010 at 2:07 am
Rrgh, I mean 12 hours off of course.
YesonHSR Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
IF somehow Amtrak could run a true 5PM -9AM train like the Broadway LT between NYC and CHI I think it would be packed in this day and age…A hotel on wheels just like the old days
BruceMcF Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 7:56 am
It depends on the corridor. How much big is the intercity transport task?
The 3C corridor that Kasich killed requires subsidy at a top speed of 79mph, before the 110mph level crossings and signaling is installed, and once the level crossings and signaling is finished and the schedule adjusted to take advantage, would in a few years build to the point of generating operating surpluses.
And the margin of error on the projection is massive, with the 2025 operating ratio projection at 1.99, a $50m operating surplus on $50m operating costs. So if the estimate is off by a factor if two, it still hits break even. If its falls 1/4 short, it only delays the year when it hits break even and means reaching surpluses of $25m to roll back into the system.
And that’s only a 1.96% mode share. Unlike the Express HSR, the 110mph systems are inexpensive enough per track mile to get positive total Benefit/Cost ratios at much lower mode shares.
If it could be built, as a project it would be rolling downhill. When it hits depreciation break even, a log-roll to take the operating subsidy back in return for dedicating operating surpluses over depreciation to capital improvements is straightforward, and then there is a corridor that can build its own upgrade to electric 125mph to get a larger mode-split and larger operating surplus. The uncertainty there is how long it takes to get to depreciation break even, not whether.
That’s the argument for building the very strongest 110mph corridors, like Chicago / St. Louis and the 3C ~ they are such safe bets, and then when they are built, the actual ridership figures will allow for much more accurate ridership values on more marginal corridors.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 7:57 am
“How much big is the transport task” was not an effort to talk to a base Kasich voter, but rather an incomplete edit.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 7th, 2010 at 5:48 am
That comment, imperfect as it is, also is a corollary to my own reply to people who say, “Everything’s too spread out, we don’t have the population density.” The reply is that travel density is not necessarily the same as population density. Otherwise, why would you build an Interstate highway across the deserts of Utah, New Mexico, or Nevada in the 1950s and 1960s, or a railroad in the 19th century?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 11:15 am
Just checking to see if John Kasich fits the generational pattern–he is close to the border, born in 1952, and is now 58 years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kasich
John Mica is well within the pro-auto, anti-rail generation, born in 1943, making him 67.
If he’s 67, how come his face looks as young and his hair looks as dark as it does in the attached photo?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mica
Alon Levy Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Bruce, you should probably tell everyone else here that those projections of profit were made by an American company with no track record of successfully predicting rail ridership. They’re just like the ex recto numbers put out by the self-serving RPA and Frank Lautenberg for how ARC would create $18 billion’s worth of value.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
The Regional Plan Association came up with 18 billion dollars in additional real estate value. They extrapolated from the premium people pay to be within an hour of Manhattan now and extended it to the places where ARC would make it possible to be in Manhattan in an hour. 18 billion in new ratables works out to quarter of billion a year in new property taxes for municipalities…. forever.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 7th, 2010 at 5:59 am
Bruce,
I understand it all, indeed came to the table with something like it, but not as thorough as what you have. Yet we wind up with governors and others who will not hear us, much less understand us. Very disappointing.
I understand how some people can be and have been brainwashed, but it is still a disappointment that we can elect such boneheads into office.
I don’t think the funding is in as much peril as people think. As far as I can tell so far, the majority of central valley congressional representatives are republican, and now that the funding has been determined to go there, they will have a really big reason to fight to keep, if not expand funding for HSR, at least in Califorinia. You might have a reasonably large block of republicans in the house who rebel against attempts to cut funding for HSR. Redirecting it in a more focused manner may be more likely.
Even if federal funding is frozen or cut, we still have a number of countries interested in funding a large portion of the project. Of course I’d prefer the money from the federal govt, as we already get a lot less from them than we give.
Elizabeth Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 11:14 am
The funding is completely in peril.
The FRA has moved up the date they want the funding agreements done to December 31, the last day the Dems control the house.
No foreign govt is stepping up at this point. At a later date, when it is time to buy trains, you might get some export-import bank type loans. If you award the operate-maintain contract, whoever gets it might put up some equity to buy trains.
All of this is far off in the future.
The time to bring in a China was a long time ago, before you hired 9 teams of prime contractors to do final design.
This means that the board and the Central Valley have a very serious issue in front of them. There is a significant chance that whatever the $4.3 billion builds is the only thing that is built for a long, long time. Given that, what is truly the best use of that money?
synonymouse Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Definitely not not making the Santa Fe in the Valley 3 track instead of single track.
lyqwyd Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 11:25 am
Everything you mentioned above is merely speculation.
These are facts:
Both China & Japan have expressed clear interesting in helping to fund the project.
There are many republicans who have reason to want to continue federal funding for, and have stated they support, HSR.
Peter Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 11:30 am
We know that we have to rely on private (aka foreign) funding at this point. That funding will most likely be available when it is needed.
We know the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans want to fund the system. SNCF has also expressed interest. DB, as well, IIRC.
It’s now simply a matter of whose terms are the best for California.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Not only that – Mica specifically said he wants greater private investment. They might not cut the existing funds, and they might not add more, but they also might not stand in the way of China or some other country coming in to pick up the slack.
Arthur Dent Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 8:29 am
How about the labor unions – will they stand in the way?
jimsf Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 8:43 am
wouldn’t the construction still have to be done by local contractors?
Paul Dyson Reply:
November 7th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
I have done a number of projects in various countries. Expressions of interest in funding or investment are not worth the paper they are printed on. The number of times I have heard comments like “The Governor/President/Prime Minister/bank is very interested in your project” could fill a book. There is one common factor. People who invest like to get their money back plus a rate of return. The best way to do that is with a host government guarantee. 1A says that there are to be no such guarantees. “simply are matter of whose terms are best”? I fear you are being optimistic if you think these foreign governments are anxious to invest here given that you cannot repossess the hardware. “Mica says he wants private investment”. Of course he does but that doesn’t mean a thing. Only money counts, not “wants” or “expressions of interest”.
PD
Nathanael Reply:
November 10th, 2010 at 2:10 am
I still believe that China’s offer is serious. They need somewhere to park their dollars, which means in the US.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 8:02 am
The funding for the next two years is in peril, but given the money that will be appropriated and committed, y’all can ride out a dry two years at this stage. And Micah seems like he is setting up for token funding for Express HSR only, which means that it likely won’t be a completely dry spell for the CA-HSR project, just not funding at an adequate rate for the long haul.
But if the Florida system breaks ground, y’all will be safe over the longer term. “We were promised the good stuff they have, and we want the good stuff they have” is a powerful argument when the “we” talking are independent voters without strong party affiliation.
In a completely off-topic note, Californian voters approved requiring only 50% to pass the state budget. This should hopefulyl put an end to the annual budget impasses . :-)
Daniel Krause Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
It still takes 2/3rds to pass any tax increases and now fees due to Prop 26. The impact of prop. 25 has no chance to improve the state finances. The only affect it will have is which crumbs of money will go to what pot of money, and even there, much of the budget is tied up in manadated spending formulas due to previous propositions. Also, the budget should be passed on time as well while we continue to abandon seniors, children, etc. Prop 26 was unfortunately ignored most of the campaign by the progressives and now the state is totally screwed in terms of funding public services.
political_incorrectness Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 12:21 am
Oh I know that feeling I 1053 in Washington State. I want that to be axed immediately.
Regardless of what Mica (or many other sensible Republicans think), they’re not going to appropriate any further funds for HSR, even to the Northeast corridor, where it makes the most sense in the US.
From now on it’s strictly politics, logic will have no place in Congress for the next two years. Their goal is to undermine Obama’s chances for re-election, therefore they’ll stall any further spending to show to the Tea Party retarded that they’re keeping up promises to curb spending on pork, for the sole purpose to keep the Tea Party going and excited about the Republican party and come in droves to their support in two years’ time.
Further funding will have to come from Californians. So the California Demos, starting from the Governor and legislators, must make the case with the California people that this project makes sense for the state. If they do so and are successful, Californians may be willing to shell out some extra bucks in sales taxes or some other excise taxes to fund it.
The total GDP of California is $1,870 billion annually. If we assume that this project can be built for $50 billion and has a useful life of 50 years before it needs to be overhauled, it means that the depreciation costs of the project would amount to approximately 0.05% of the State GDP over the 50 year of useful life in constant dollars, even assuming flat GDP growth ($50/($1870×50)). That is not a huge amount. Annually the State of California collects $40 to $45 billion in Sales and Use taxes alone. So increasing the State Sales tax rate by 0.50 percentage points (from 8.25% to 8.75%) would generate enough additional tax receipts to pay for principal and interest on five $10 billion State bonds issued every 10 years at 4% interest rate. And these figures would not even include any potential private investors’ funds or user fees paid by the train operators to the State.
The Spaniards or the French didn’t have a Federal Government to go to for money. They had to count on their own treasury coffers to build their HSRs.
One just needs to convince the people of California that is wise and in their own interest to pay more sales taxes to finance these infrastructure projects.
And for that, it takes leadership! Good luck Governor Brown.
synonymouse Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
That would require a two thirds vote or going to the ballot. And it will compete with increased taxes for welfare and pensions.
thatbruce Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
The Spaniards or the French didn’t have a Federal Government to go to for money.
Being their own country and all.
jimsf Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
EVerything you are hearing right now is nothing but prea dnpost election jibberish. I’ll tell you what is gonna happen. The republicans ARE going to make deals with the dems regardless of the big puffy show they are putting on now. They are going deal behind the scenes and make compromises while they try to spin it to and from both sides to make everyone happy. All obama has to do is sign certain types of legislation that lets the corporate world continue to get away with what it wants to get a way with and in return the reps will put through ( wiht a bare minimum of votes so as not to put any critical members in jeopardy) some spending on things obama wants.
Right now, its all just a big truckload of horseshit that we are hearing. Ignore it and wait. Things don’t change. They never have and they never will. Its all just part of the greatest show on earth.
Daniel Krause Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
Actually our democracy is in real danger right now with the increasing corporate consolidation of power. This isn’t just noise anymore. Now the supreme court is considering eliminating the ability for class action lawsuits as a follow up to Citizens United. All media is big corporate and the lefty stuff (i.e. MSNBC) is only there as a money maker is about to get gutted; are Steward and Colbert next?). But you are right, if Obama does what they want, then deals will be cut. Who knows if that includes high speed rail. I doubt the Koch Bros and big oil give a rats ass about HSR. Maybe the banksters will see some value in it – yes maybe there is some hope.
There is also another way to finance HSR in California without having any money in our name or help from the Feds:
The North Dakota way!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-brown/but-governor-you-can-crea_b_207806.html
lyqwyd Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
That’s fascinating, I had no idea anything like that existed. I wonder how applicable it would be to CA.
Andre Peretti Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 8:34 am
A red state with a “socialist” state-owned investment bank! Same as France or Quebec…
The description found in the article could fit the French CDC which allows small and medium enterprises to get low-interest loans. Contrary to some bubble-investing private banks, it has never had to be bailed out.
Unfortunately, CDC doesn’t have the size to finance big projects like HSR lines. These have to finance themselves on the international market, and the conditions they get are highly dependent on their credit rating with Wall Street agencies.
I read that S&P, considering the SNCF will have to face competition by other companies, downgraded it from AAA to AA+ . Thus, future lines will be both costlier to finance and less profitable to run.
Emma Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
And why are we not doing it? Simple: The folks in Legislature are not even thinking about it.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
The BofC (Bank of California) could be our first step to a California central bank and eventually to California’s independence from the nutty rednecks of the Tea Party, most of whom live in the middle fly over states.
I hope Oregon and Washington join us in our secession’s effort. Then we’ll charge the Red states a hefty fee whenever they want to use our West Coast ports to trade with Asia.
Our new California currency: the EUROKA.
Our new State Nickname: The Blue State
Our new Motto: Se Habla Ingles
Spokker Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
“Then we’ll charge the Red states a hefty fee whenever they want to use our West Coast ports to trade with Asia.”
Panama Canal, mother fucker, do you speak it?
Actually, they would be fine with California seceding. From their perspective, they are afraid of us asking them for help when our state finally collapses under its own weight. That’s what they think, anyway.
jimsf Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
yes yes lets go! Although we keep the golden state moniker. That stays. The eureka for currency is a good idea though.
We’ll make our own, better immigration deal with mexico and canada as well as the us. We will have tight restrictions on who can and can’t move in from the us. We’ll restructure our finances. We’ll make our own trade deal with the pacific rim. And we won’t look at the us in rear view more for more than quick glance to see the looks on their faces!
2 4 6 8 …. hmmm we need a cheer.
Jon Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
2, 4, 6, 8, Independent Golden State!
Seriously, I think the US would work better if it was structured like the EU, as a group of independent countries who have their own governments and make the vast majority of decisions pertaining to them, but have a single currency, common market, and allow their citizens to live and work anywhere in the union.
Oddly enough I agree with the tea party on this. They want less federal influence so the red states are free to decrease their spending on infrastructure and welfare, I want less federal influence so the blue states are free to increase their spending on infrastructure and welfare!
jimsf Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
wow great cheer why didn’t I think of that. Now we just need 20 or 30 million people to join.
Kenb Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
Join the California Liberation Front, but do avoid The Peoples Front of California (splitters)
Peter Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
People’s Army of California. PAC.
If we get enough people, we can be a Super-PAC.
Oh, wait, are those names already taken by precisely the people we’d be fighting?
Alon Levy Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Meh. I’d care for this a lot more if the actual California secessionists weren’t usually hardcore libertarians who dream about a moratorium on immigration together with independence.
jimsf Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
dont wan that libertarians. we want the progressives along with business, labor etc. We just want to be in control of our finances, assets, resources and laws.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
Yeah, me too. You guys should totally do it – I’ll move in. Or at least root for New York following. But don’t listen to the neo-Confederates and gun nuts.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
I don’t think there’s anything about the EU’s governance worth emulating: democratic deficit, novel-length constitutions, decisions done by back room intergovernmental negotiations, zero fiscal policy integration, even higher farm subsidies than the US. There’s no very large country or block of countries with better governance than the US, sadly.
Peter Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
I’d still be in favor of a parliamentary democracy. I like Germany’s system. It seems pretty stable, and smaller parties can actually manage to gain seats without insane splintering of the Bundestag. Among other things.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Oh, individual European countries are usually much better than the US. It’s just the EU as a whole that’s abominable.
jimsf Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
let’s be france.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
France is one of the worse ones. It’s too majoritarian still, and when the President and Prime Minister are from the same party, the President is basically an elected king. The most representative, consensual governments are the Germanic countries, plus a couple others like Belgium and Ireland. Switzerland is very unusual with its consensus government, but that’s slowly coming apart because nobody can stand the SVP except the SVP’s own voters.
Andre Peretti Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
“France is one of the worse ones”
Maybe, but given that France is, by nature, an ungovernable country the majority system we currently have is probably the best. The previous electoral system (proportional representation) never gave clear majorities and there were a dozen centrist parties who actually ruled the game. Laws were often passed with a majority of 1 or 2 votes. This made lobbying and corruption very easy. You only had to buy one or two centrists to have a law passed or repealed.
The French majority system is less brutal than the British one. To be elected, you must have more than 50% of the votes to be elected, otherwise there is a second round. In the UK, the winning party may represent much less than half the electorate. It works in England where people are more disciplined, or expect less from politics.
British prime ministers have it easier than French presidents. Tony Blair joined the Iraq war although polls showed 70% of the people were against it. No French president can lead the country into a war it doesn’t want.
I agree that Europe doesn’t work. It did when it was smaller. It was really a Franco-German affair. What Paris and Bonn had decided more or less became policy. Things began to change for the worse when the UK joined. It had tried, and failed, to destroy it from outside and, after joining, seemed to be bent on destroying it from inside. With the entry of poorer eastern countries, some of which very corrupt, the EU is even less manageable (Rush Limbaugh would say it’s not salvageable).
If there was a referendum about EU membership, British conservatives would massively opt out and so would the French working class.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
PR never gives clear majorities, unless the electorate is lopsided (think Sweden). Switzerland, the Netherlands, and a host of other European countries learned to live without them, governing by consensus instead.
Nathanael Reply:
November 10th, 2010 at 2:15 am
Europarl is pretty awesome, actually, though. It’s the other institutions which are, well, not.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 8:15 am
We could have that that. The Queen proposes the cabinet that the leader of a parliamentary majority tells the Queen will pass the House of Commons. The House of Commons then passes the cabinet in a block.
We would have to amend the Constitution that members of Cabinet must be serving members of the House of Representatives or Senate, and the House and Senate in joint session must approve Cabinet members as their first order of business, and we would have a Parliamentary system of the strong President variety. We wouldn’t have a vote of no confidence, but given the short term of House members, that’s not so critical.
Thing is, the formal system isn’t the problem. The problem is the complete and utter corruption of the system we have, and since no system is incorruptible, spending time and effort on changing the formal system is time and effort spent on deciding what kind of thoroughly corrupted system we want to have, which is time and effort that could be spent in fighting the corruption of the present one.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Some systems are more corruptible than others. The US is especially prone to corruption, because the committee structure encourages interest group pluralism, i.e. different interest groups competing for key Congresscritters’ attention. Consensus governments tend to have interest group corporatism, where government, labor, and business meet together and negotiate wage and labor rules.
jimsf Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
but there would be a great country if cali were one. Well we’d be independent. We’d be like japan. We even grow a lot of rice. Long and narrow, with a linear string of cities surrounded by rice fields. We have a couple volcanos too and earthquakes. And sushi is very popular here too.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 8:17 am
Maybe grow a staple crop less water intensive than rice. Japan has a lot more water per acre of arable land, because arable land is in such short supply. A land-productive, water-intensive crop makes a lot of sense. Wheat and tomatoes is a good staple base with fairly complete protein.
jimsf Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 8:35 am
true although where we grow our rice in the sacramento valley, there is more than enough water. In fact, those rice field pretty much just duplicate what would be there if you left it natural as it used to be, when, during the winter, the valley was wetland and a navigable lake. Before the levees were in place, the the paddle wheelers that traveled north up the sacramento river, were able to leave the rivers confines and go in a straight line. Northern california is not arid. Its about fresno south, that uses more water than they have. We have plenty.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 10:09 am
Yeah, but is that enough to feed the whole state? If Southern California and the Central Valley no longer have the water from the Cascades and the Rockies, won’t it insist on diverting the water of Northern California?
jimsf Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 10:21 am
Well they will still have the contracts in place until they expire at which point socal is going to have to get serious about conservation. Meanwhile we would put in place ample nuclear power that would not only free us from oil, but supply the energy for both desalination and hydrogen production. We would work our way towards an all electric, state and that electricity would be generated entirely within the state.
peninsula Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Central Valley – water from the Cascades and Rockies? thanks for reiterating that you know nothing about california.
jimsf Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 11:20 am
he probably means rockies and cascades in the sense that the colorado river originates in the rockies and delivers drinking water via the colorado river aqueduct to socal and the water from the cascades refers to the Sacramento River which originates in the southern cascade range above shasta dam, wherem via the central valley project, it is delivered to the more arid farming areas of the southern san joaquin valley.
John Burrows Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Count me in—-But I would need dual citizenship so I could keep my social security.
jimsf Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
I just came across this. This is freakin awesome! And you wouldn’t have to worry, they’ve got you covered.
jimsf Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
and these fun facts
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
They ain’t never gonna let California secede. It’s the place they get all the money they spend on things like Interstate highways in the middle of nowhere and Medicare.
jimsf Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
we will secede and elect Bill Clinton. After he was termed out, I sent an email and asked him to please come and run california for us. He didn’t write back though. Guess he was busy or something. So we wound up with the booengrabber instead. thanks. There really isn’t any hope. We are all doomed. doomed I say. you know how there’s that movement from south of the border to gradually take back part of teh us for mexico…. maybe in the long run, that could be our saving grace after all. Maybe, we’d better off in the long run. I mean its just a matter of time before mexico surpasses the other 49 states in economic power. I was reading about mexico city, did you know what a ginormous economic power freakin house that place is! I had no idea! Dude, we totally need to drop the 49 and hook up with mexico instead. The though of having to watch John Boehner Crying on tv. for the next 4 years makes me want stab my head with a pencil.
jimsf Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
this is some pretty nice real estate after all.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Um the representatives in the House get reelected every two years. So there is a chance that the Orange One either won’t be reelected or the majority in the House will change after the 2012 election. Senators get elected for 6 year terms but since The Orange One isn’t in the Senate that’s not particularly pertinent.
jimsf Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
He’s a mess. I will say though, my prediction of more cooperation between the reps and the pres is already coming true. That didn’t take long. They are already backpedaling on the “one term obama” statement. This is only the beginning. Ill predict a boom economy in about 4 years from now.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Panama Canal is a longer route and it’s not free. The cost of transit for a cargo ship is over $3.25 per ton. Therefore a large container ship, let’s say of 100,000 tons, pays over $300,000 to cross it. Plus you must consider the additional costs associated with the longer route (fuel etc.). We can charge the red states $2.50 per ton to use our ports and get all the money we need to build as many high speed rails we like. We can have one from Tracy to Coalinga (The shit smelling cow express), if we like.
Victor Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Sounds interesting.
Nathanael Reply:
November 10th, 2010 at 2:12 am
Yep. California should create its own state-funded bank.
Interestingly, banks have the legal power to *issue money*. Ho ho ho. California’s state government would be in pretty decent shape then.
Stealing money allocated for Ohio to build our system first? Why not? Never really liked Ohio anyway. On top of that, we will have an all-bue California government AND we got rid of the ridiculous 2/3 rule to pass a budget. It could only be better with a Democratic supermajority in Congress. Well 2012 is not too far away…
synonymouse Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
And just who in Congress is going to vote to divert the Ohio money to Pelosi-world? The trend is going to be to re-direct whatever infrastructure funds there are to highway and bridge reconstruction.
Emma Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Gosh, all that pessimism. I really don’t want to be you.
Peter Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
I don’t think anyone does.
StevieB Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
The money is earmarked for rail construction. It will take a very long time to return the money and another very long time to allocate the money to any other project. Rep. Mica recently said he favors decreasing the time to reallocate funds but that is just more political rhetoric. Newly elected republican governors stopping rail project may eventually lead to more funds given to the California project but not anytime soon. California funding may be seen as rewarding a democratic stronghold and that would also prove problematic for such a divisive congress.
Peter Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
But that money wasn’t earmarked for rail construction in any particular state. The award of the money was, at least on the surface, based on a competitive process.
Also, how would it take a long time for the money to be “returned”? It’s not as if the government has actually written out any checks for most of these projects yet.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 10:17 am
No time at all in the Ohio case. The $25m for the Design part of the Design and Build was approved by the state board that must approve long term capital commitments, on a party-line vote, but the $375m Build part required a 5-2 supermajority. Next year, when its the governor’s pick, 2 Republican State Senators, 2 Republican State Representative, 1 Democratic State Senator, 1 Democratic State Representative, Kasich couldn’t get it through that board with a 5-2 supermajority even if he wanted to.
All that has to happen is to convene the board, vote on accepting the money, it loses, and the Design application is withdrawn. That could be done next week: it will fall short of the 5-2 supermajority on the existing board make-up, it doesn’t have to wait for the next session of the State Legislature. It can be re-allocated to the next projects in line as soon as the USDoT gets word of which states still want the money. There were $50b plus in projects and $8b funded, as well as unfunded applications with state matching funds attached for the $2.5b … so distributing $375m before the end of the year is straightforward, as long as they use the existing applications.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
The new chair of the House Transportation Committee, John Mica, support HSR and opposes Amtrak-plus projects like the Ohio Hub.
James Fujita Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
But he also wants to reconsider the Tampa-Orlando HSR. He was talking earlier about changing that to just rail in the Orlando area.
Considering that Orlando is part of his home-turf, that doesn’t sound very pro-HSR to me.
StevieB Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Rep. Mica according to Businessweek is opposed to California HSR. Mica, 67, supports focusing high-speed rail construction in the Northeast and opposes lines in Ohio and California that Obama has proposed. Mica also wants to speed the approval process for federal road-building projects.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Ugh. Never mind…
YESONHSR Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
This is probally a reporters mistake as ..CAHSR plans are just what he talks about as worth building..if HSR wont work in this huge market-SF-LA as a new ground up system it sure wont work anywhere eles..and even he surly must know that HSR funding has to be going to 2 or 3 regions to secure the level of funding required for true HSR..nobody is voting for all the funds just to us or the NEC
Daniel Krause Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
Why is it a mistake. He probably hates CA because we are California. He has his pet proejct, the NEC, and roads. I wonder if the dems would be willing to hold roads hostage unless Repubs agree to fund HSR/transit as currently plannned.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 8:27 am
It depends on whether the source is the incoming Chairman’s staff or published news accounts. If it was published news accounts, the reporter is likely too ignorant to know that the California HSR is not one of the “low speed train systems” that the incoming Chairman has been quoted as not approving of.
The 110mph and 125mph corridors are not going to be appropriated any money over the next two years, even if the transport authorization has a line for them. Simple log-rolling then dictates that the NEC, Florida and California are in line for whatever dribble of Express HSR money is appropriated.
YESONHSR Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Also he is NOT the President..nor a Senator and we still have DiFI/Boxer and even Nancy still in DC so he is not the last word in this…look at Oberstar they dealyed his great bill and he was one of us!
Tony D. Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Well, he wasn’t actually quoted in the article as opposing California HSR. If anyone has an actual quote from Mica, then let’s see it! Besides, with all the Fed money now going into the central valley and no firm plans for the Northeast corridor, I’m sure Mica will come through for CHSR.
YesonHSR Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Agree Tony ..its more like the reporters opinion or misunderstanding..why in the world would Californias 220mph train and Ohios project even be mentioned together?? totally different ideas and goals..one backed by voters and state Gov and the other painted as a waste by its lame future Governor…
Peter Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
I just ran a search on articles about Mica and HSR, and while it appears he thinks that the NEC deserves a lot of money, I didn’t see ANYTHING regarding him criticizing CA’s project.
YesonHSR Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Reading the article again this is totally just reporters opinion on what is going to happen with the Republican takeover… when one thinks of high-speed rail in the United States the California project comes to mind immediately to most people so this guy just lumped the California project in along with Ohio and Wisconsin which I’m sure Mica hates
BruceMcF Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 8:21 am
Its not stealing, and it was never earmarked for us. We just made a successful application. Since $375m has not yet been committed, Kasich is free to hand it back.
Indeed, Kasich has to hand it back, because given the new make-up of the state board that approves major capital commitments, and a 5-2 supermajority vote that was the cost of the agreement to subsidize the Quickstart before the level crossings and signaling was upgraded to support 110mph, Kasich couldn’t take the money if he wanted to, so sending 8,000 jobs to another state is an easy campaign promise to keep.
OT: At the board meeting yesterday, Van Ark reminded board members they are NOT to have contact with engineers and should go through his office. This was asked of the board several months ago, (before van Ark was there) – however Rod Diridon was in Morgan Hill just the night before at an HSR study session where he gave a presentation and corrects the engineers several times during the meeting. One interesting tidbit: as part of the public comment – a Morgan Hill resident submitted a video as his comment which you can see here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QXLoSGkGAA
Eric M Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
That video is total BS. Give me a break. Try not making so obvious the volume is way up when the trains pass by making excessive recording news. Total hypocrites, claiming the CAHSRA is putting out false information, but blatently makeing false claims themsselves.
Case in point, at timeframe 1:42 in the above video shows a Chinese train passing by. Here is the actual video before the propoganda video tries to make is sound worse. Like I said, total BS from the opposition. Nice try!
Peter Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
I liked the “actual volume at 1/2 mile” shtick. Really? You know that everyone’s speakers are set up exactly the same way?
Or the fact that he plays a clip of the TGV world speed record run. Because all our trains will be going 574 km/h.
jimsf Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
not to mention that in the tgv world record video, half the noise is the jet that was actually flying along side the train
Peter Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Hehehe, I forgot about that part.
Andre Peretti Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Not only half, but most of the noise.
The sound of this video has been overamplified and distorted so it no longer sounds like a train, even if you turn down the sound. It rather sounds like piercing concrete with a cheap electric drill.
Half a mile? Hearing a TGV from that distance would require total silence, which doesn’t exist in populated areas.
As for animals being scared, this is pure invention. As long as the metal beast keeps to its territory and doesn’t chase them, they totally ignore it.
In short, the person who made this video is totally dishonest. I find abusing other people’s ignorance really disgusting.
Peter Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Also classy: the complaint that there’s no EIR to run trains down 101, so why are they running trains down 101?
Answer: There are no HSR trains running yet, what the hell does he think the “environmental review” is for? Maybe preparing an EIR?
The guy’s an idiot.
This is how the local media is portraying the central valley choice Funny I overheard a customer today saying “oh yeh they projec tis cancelled thanks to the nimbys”
“What did I miss?” I thought to myself. Well this article is why. Its being portrayed as if the first phase is actually the whole project and the comments that follow are completely ignorant.
Why is it so hard to get real info out to the pubilc?
tony d. Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Because the truth doesn’t sell newsprint. People love negativity! “Enquiring minds want to know”
You forget Angela Merckle has been here too (Germany), they, Japan and China are all in positions to help us. As I have been saying all over the net, its time to forget the Feds and do this on our own.
We can do HSR on our own, we can do Single Payer Health Care on our own, we’ll revisit legalizing Weed in 2012, we can DO ALL OF THESE OURSELVES.
I would like to see once ground is broken on HSR, that we run a 7 days a week, around the clock shift to get it done faster. They just finished the Gotthard Base base tunnels in 15 years working around the clock, 7 days a week, 356 days a year.