December CHSRA Board Meeting Open Thread
Well, today’s the day – the California High Speed Rail Authority meets in Sacramento to decide whether to ratify CEO Roelof van Ark’s recommendation that the first portion of the SF-LA route to be constructed be from Borden to Corcoran, with stations at Fresno and Hanford. The agenda is here – as you can see, the corridor selection is the only substantive item on the agenda. Click here to view the livestream of the meeting.
Merced HSR supporters have been actively lobbying CHSRA board members to overturn van Ark’s recommendation and select Merced-Fresno instead, with Congressman Dennis Cardoza demanding federal intervention. Van Ark, for his part, has defended the choice by downplaying the importance of the specific location and instead emphasizing the importance of focusing on the statewide aspect of the system.
I don’t know what will happen at the board meeting today. My guess is that the board will ratify van Ark’s recommendation. I won’t be able to liveblog this meeting, but have at it in the comments!
UPDATE: The CHSRA board unanimously approved the staff recommendation, meaning Borden-Corcoran will be the first place where HSR track will be constructed. The San Joaquin Valley’s two Democratic Congressmen had different views on the outcome: Dennis Cardoza slammed the decision, but Jim Costa praised it:
That has Congressman Dennis Cardoza of Merced fuming. In a statement issued from Washington he said…”The process used to come to this decision was deceptive… This is not a good day for California or this project.”
But Congressman Jim Costa of Fresno points out the Interstate Highway system started in remote rural areas. By phone from Washington he told us the entire Valley will soon benefit from the High Speed Rail project.
“Four and a half billion dollars is a big economic shot in the arm that will bring in a total of 135 thousand new jobs when you build both segments from Merced to Bakersfield, that’s what we have to remember,” Costa said.
Keep in mind that the first HSR construction project is, of course, in downtown San Francisco at the Transbay Terminal. Neither SF, Fresno, nor Hanford count as “nowhere.”
CHSRA Board Member Tom Umberg hinted that Merced wasn’t being abandoned, in remarks included in the CHSRA’s press release on today’s decision:
“Other states are shrinking from the challenge of high-speed rail. In California, we’re rising to meet it,” Umberg said. “And we’re sending a clear signal to Washington – we’re ready to put those dollars to use – north toward Merced and the Bay Area and south toward Bakersfield and Los Angeles.”
Of course, that doesn’t say when Merced would be connected. The CHSRA Board appears to have endorsed CEO Roelof van Ark’s vision of building track outward from this first segment to connect to SF and LA as quickly as possible, with other spurs coming only after that was complete.
Anyone have a link to a webcast?
I emailed Jeff Barker yesterday and he wrote back that he thought it would be broadcast since it was in the usual spot, but he didn’t offer a link and as of now, I don’t see one 9:25 AM 12/02010
thatbruce Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 9:38 am
There is a link under the CAHSRA’s meeting page, specifically this (Microsoft Silverlight-enabled players only I’m afraid).
the link just became available
http://stateofcalifornia.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=4&event_id=31
It is webcast now…
Van Ark is not in attendence as he has gone to a funeral in South Africa. Cities and counties north of the staff recommended route want Merced to Fresno selected. Cities and counties included in the route, Fresno and Madera, support staff recommendation.
CARRD’s public comment about suggestions to improve communication:
1) Please fix the redirects from the old website to the new. They’re in the FRA application and they don’t work.
2) We suggest using a ticket system for questions submitted to the Authority and for Public Records Request (so people can track progress and feel like they’re being addressed).
3) We request that the Authority resume having Committee Meetings – we haven’t had one in months and we’re missing key information
4) Please publicly post the Monthly Operations Reports have gotten significantly thinner over the past several months and have since disappeared. They need to be reinstated and made publicly available.
These improvements should help with communication and help with the transparency the public is clamoring for on this project.
Brian Stanke Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 11:18 am
Thank you for the constructive comments Nadia.
Elizabeth made quite a statement too. Asking the board to, “rip off the band-aid,” and crush the, “false hope” of Merced residents and supporters. I am wondering if CARRD will make similar statements to their fellow Peninsula residents at the next board meeting to the discuss the Peninsula? Or do Merced residents count for less than peninsula residents?
jim Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 11:38 am
If we take the map that Elizabeth found seriously, then the sequence of events is build this segment, then build outward from it to San Jose and Sylmar, then connect LA to Sylmar and SJ to SF. Then, if there’s any money left, Merced and Anaheim can fight it out. That puts Merced residents in a very different position than it puts Peninsula residents.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 11:41 am
Actually, if we take the map in today’s board documents seriously, connecting LA to Sylmar, San Jose to San Francisco, Merced to the Wye, and Anaheim to LA all happen at the same time.
jim Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 11:55 am
No doubt, Und so kommt zum guten Ende alles unter einem Hut. Ist das nötige Geld vorhanden, ist das Ende meistens gut. But if the needful money isn’t available ….
Peter Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Und weil China, Japan, und Südkorea bereits Interesse geäuβert haben, Kalifornien Milliarden von Dollar zu verleihen, gibt es jeden Grund anzunehmen, daβ das nötige Geld vorhanden sein wird. Die europäischen Firmen wurden noch nicht gefragt, aber sie werden bestimmt auch Geld anbieten.
jim Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Sorry. I was quoting Brecht. Brecht often seems appropriate these days. I didn’t mean to code-switch
But on your substantive point: If public money actually carries through to building Sylmar-SJ, it’s reasonable to assume that public money will turn up to connect SF and LA. Both have strong political presences. It is conceivable that private money might be found to connect Anaheim — the power of the Mouse and the analogy of EuroDisney. But Merced?
BruceMcF Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:02 pm
How far you are from a complete system when the money runs out is a critical part of that equation, since its not a subsidized transit operation we are discussing, but a system that will be generating a healthy operating surplus, and so a candidate for revenue bonds once it is “close enough”.
I think the above seems reasonable ~ if Sylmar/San Jose is complete, then LA-US to SF-TBT will be finished on political tailwind: my discussion of “not making it” either north or south is rather if there is a hitch that delays either Palmdale/Sylmart or Wye/San Jose.
Elizabeth Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Here is the complete statement (there was 1 minute time limit so imagine a few more connecting words).
http://www.calhsr.com/board-meeting/carrds-comments-on-corridor-selection-process/
Peter Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 12:46 pm
“In November, republicans took congress AND your ability to spend money on things that don’t make sense.”
“Things that don’t make sense” DEFINITELY include a Peninsula tunnel or trench alternative. Especially if it doesn’t make financial sense.
jimsf Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Republicans are not in power yet. Lets not forge that they have a couple months to wait. Everyone is actin like they run the show now. They don’t. ( they like to pretend they do, but they don’t)
John Burrows Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:53 pm
“You brought in Mr. van Ark to make tough choices and he has done that”
And let us hope that he will keep doing that.
John Burrows Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 3:22 pm
For all seven segments.
Ted Crocker Reply:
December 4th, 2010 at 12:41 am
Nadia, I have asked twice for the website directs to be added, pointing out the same issues, but have been met with silence, so hope CARRD has better luck.
For those not watching – a lot of references in public comment to AB3034 usable segments. Also a lot of frustration that even those that have participated actively had no previous notice that something outside of the Merced-Fresno or Fresno-Bakersfield segments were even being considered.
jim Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 11:35 am
I can understand voicing frustration over what appears to be a last minute substitution. Amateur lawyering on the meaning of “usable segment” is just wasting time. The board presumably has advice from real lawyers.
Nadia Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Spanos just said they have NOT reviewed staff’s proposal!
Peter Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Nice. That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Spanos also made it clear that CHSRA is the ‘client’ of the AG office, but the client has to make specific requests of the AG office. The AG office notably withheld opinion that this segment meets federal and state laws.
morris brown Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Mr. Spanos said more than that. He stated he thought that the alternative as proposed was not a usable segment and did not met Prop 1A legal requirements.
We went on to say,, as he had previously in the Nov 4th meeting, that put into the context of this being a “sub-set” of a usable segment, it might be legal.
We shall see…
jim Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Just when I was beginning to think CHSRA was getting its act together. Did Counsel explain why he hadn’t bothered to look at the proposal before it came to the board?
Peter Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Like Peninsula Rail 2010 said above. The attorneys for an organization work as the organization asks them to work. If the organization doesn’t ask them to research an issue, they will not do so on their own.
jim Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Yes, but this is embarrassing. This is the sort of thing that should have been aired in private before the board meeting and the board meeting postponed if necessary. Spanos knew this was coming before the board. He knew that he hadn’t been requested to review it. He should have told both Pringle and van Ark. To wait until the meeting and then drop the turd on the table is remarkably passive-aggressive behaviour.
morris brown Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Jim:
Peter’s comment above is on target.
You obviously didn’t watch the meeting. Diridon requested that a legal opinion on Alternative 1 be given and Spanos was called. He stated he hadn’t been involved in the alternative and was therefore unable to render a legal opinion. However, he did add that by itself this alternative didn’t seem to meet Prop 1A legal requirements.
van Ark surely should have consulted the AG, but apparently did not. Maybe van Ark didn’t want to hear his alternative was not legal under Prop 1A.
jim Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:24 pm
The question isn’t whether van Ark should have consulted Spanos. Of course he should. The question is why this piece of theater was permitted to occur.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 6:54 pm
However, staff should have asked their counsel to weigh-in on this matter, and in fact, I assume that was the case.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Now that I re-read the mini-thread, I now understand. Yes, it is be-wildering that counsel did not review the proposal. All staff reports should be routed through Counsel before they are issued for public release! Some organizations require a sign-off from specific heads within an agency.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 7:19 pm
Sometimes it is easier to beg forgiveness, than to ask for permission.
peninsula Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 7:23 pm
So, from news reports online I see that the board went ahead and approved the proposal unanimously, even after the AG offices, comments, basically begging to be hauled in to court for selecting what is almost certainly an illegal option under ab3034.
The question is, should the CHSRA be prevented by the courts from entering into a matching committment for the State, that they can not keep under the lawful requirements of their state funding source, AB3034.
Peter Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 7:27 pm
“should the CHSRA be prevented by the courts from entering into a matching committment for the State, that they can not keep under the lawful requirements of their state funding source, AB3034.”
To do so you would have to prove that it IS an illegal option under AB 3034.
So far, intelligent minds have differed on that determination.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 8:30 pm
What is the funding split… Federal vs. State?
I have heard total cost, but not funding source. I propose that IF State funds are not used, and it is alll funded from Federal, compliance with AB3034 or Prop 1A is moot.
Nadia Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Actually, at the end, Umberg made the point that all future things need to be run past legal. At the November 4th BOD meeting, Van Ark explained his ideas for a future funding “plan” to meet the requirements in AB3034. Kopp then asked Spanos’ legal opinion and he tried to explain what the prop actually said.
It seems, however, that because of the tremendous time crunch, no one was able to get legal to review it. I was at the meeting and the tension in the room was palpable. Here was all of this anticipation on the first step of the largest infrastructure project that California has ever attempted and nobody ran it past the lawyers first?
This was not “theater”, board members assumed this happened and were genuinely stunned that it hadn’t.
Peter Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 9:28 pm
“Umberg made the point that all future things need to be run past legal.”
Thank God.
“because of the tremendous time crunch, no one was able to get legal to review it”
I don’t buy that. Even after making the announcement on Wednesday (or was it Tuesday?) last week, admittedly just before Thanksgiving, they still had Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday to run it past their attorneys. While it is a complex question, it should have been possible to research the issue and come up with a reasonably-well-thought-out opinion.
“This was not “theater”, board members assumed this happened and were genuinely stunned that it hadn’t.”
Question: Whose head will roll as a consequence? Van Ark’s? Some lower staffers’?
jim Reply:
December 3rd, 2010 at 4:45 am
board members assumed this happened and were genuinely stunned that it hadn’t.
Right. It is never, ever, a good idea to let board members first learn something important at a public meeting. Someone should have warned them.
morris brown Reply:
December 3rd, 2010 at 6:04 pm
I have posted on YouTube at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBW5NMyWjHY
the audio/visual excerpt wherein Spanos from the AG’s office is called and talks about the legality of the “sub-set” of a usable section of track the Authority approved at the Dec 02, 2010 meeting.
Ted Crocker Reply:
December 4th, 2010 at 12:55 am
Look at it this way (devil’s advocate here). Perhaps as mentioned above, RVA did not want to know because he suspected what the answer would be and therefore the oversight was deliberate (he’s no dummy). Spanos did not say it is illegal, so with this approach, they bought some time. Had they asked, and had the attorneys said it was illegal, then what? I don’t think they had a Plan B.2.
Amtrak bows to the NRA.
“Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, believes this is just the first step in making rail friendly to sportsmen. He believes as high-speed rail comes into the picture, additional trains will carry baggage and allow firearms.
“I think this is just the first step,” Pearson said. “Years ago people got on the train and they shot buffalo from the windows. Firearms and trains are not strangers to each other.”
Arthur Dent Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 11:54 am
got cut off–
they shot buffalo from the windows. Firearms and trains are not strangers to each other.”
Donk Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 12:04 pm
You left out the important part of the article:
“Beginning Dec. 15, passengers can pack unloaded, cased guns aboard trains that have checked baggage service.
Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari says there are fewer than 200 stations where one can check luggage, and many routes that are short in length don’t check luggage.”
So what’s the big deal with checking guns in your luggage? Obviously carrying it on the train would be a problem.
Arthur Dent Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Chill. It was funny, that’s all. I’m surprised no one (from either side) is making the buffalo-nimby link.
Peter Reply:
December 3rd, 2010 at 10:52 am
I sure wouldn’t want any buffalo in my backyard.
Peter Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 12:12 pm
As long as they’re not carrying them on their person or in their carry-on bags. Otherwise, that would be an excellent reason to not have Amtrak operate HSR trains.
Spokker Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Criminals will continue to carry them on their person or in their carry-on bags, so I see no reason to deny law-abiding citizens their right to protect themselves.
Peter Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 1:46 pm
So another race to the bottom, eh?
Spokker Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Bottom of what?
Peter Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Bottom of stupidity. Doing something stupid because other people do something stupid.
The number of “law-abiding citizens” insisting on their “right to protect themselves” leads to more deaths than if they were not armed. You’d be surprised how often the “law-abiding citizen” gets killed with his or her own weapon.
Derek Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 3:18 pm
The deterrence value of a randomly armed citizenry needs to be factored into the “leads to more deaths” argument.
Peter Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 3:25 pm
There is no deterrence value to it. The randomness aspect alone works against deterrence. Deterrence needs certainty in order to be effective. It’s one of the reasons why the death penalty has no measurable deterrent effect. The likelihood of getting the death penalty for murder is quite low enough that criminals don’t consider it a sufficient threat.
jimsf Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 3:43 pm
its not a deterrent. Its an invitation to a very bad accident and thats all it is.
Derek Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 4:03 pm
The death penalty has a nearly equally detestable alternative (the life penalty), so of course the death penalty will have very little deterrent effect.
Peter Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 4:26 pm
“The death penalty has a nearly equally detestable alternative (the life penalty), so of course the death penalty will have very little deterrent effect.”
Correct. So, my question is, how does having a random number of citizens being armed deter crime?
thatbruce Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 5:34 pm
So, my question is, how does having a random number of citizens being armed deter crime?
“That old granny won’t put up a fight if I steal her handbag, but that big dude there looks like he’s packin’. Better wait until he’s out of sight, then mug the granny.”
BruceMcF Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 7:57 pm
“looks like he’s packing”. So the deterrent is looking like you are not worth messing with.
OK, now how many muggings on the Amtrak annually will be prevented if there is a credible threat that the scary looking dude might be packing, versus how many muggings enabled because that scary looking dude is indeed packing, and he’s the mugger.
All relative to your reference to your source of information on how many muggings take place on Amtrak annually that could conceivably have been deterred by a credible threat that that particular person might have been packing.
jimsf Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 9:16 pm
to my knowledge there have been zero muggins lol. with or without passengers packing.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 3rd, 2010 at 9:20 am
Hmm … you know, part of an effective mugging, from the perspective of the mugger, would be a successful getaway … and, North by Northwest notwithstanding, a train in motion is a poor prospect for a successful getaway.
I think the deterrent of being trapped on the train while the mugging is reported and then the train being stopped and the police catching you and hauling you away would be a reasonably strong deterrent, and any criminal not deterred by that quite obvious and high probability prospect is not going to be deterred by the risk that one of the passengers is packing heat.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Yep, you’re right. No wonder Switzerland has the lowest murder rate in Europe.
thatbruce Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Switzerland has compulsory military service as well, which leads to a overall better understanding of when using a weapon is a good thing, and when using it would be very bad (when compared to the typical US armed citizen).
spokker Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Widespread gun ownership may be a factor but remember that there is a more equal distribution of wealth in Switzerland. In the US you see a lot of gun violence in impoverished areas, mostly between gang members and ethnicities of the same race (black on black or brown on brown in California). It’s actually rare to be involved unless you are doing shit you shoudln’t be doing and it’s rare to be killed by someone of a different race. The Times homicide blog has good information for LA County. You get to see who the victims are and who the perpetrators are. Lot of newspapers stooped publishing these kinds of things years ago.
I think it’s most important for women to carry guns, at least in this country. Many do for safety, legal or not.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 6:06 pm
To clarify: I was being sarcastic. Switzerland actually has the second highest murder rate in Western Europe. The single highest, Finland, has widespread gun ownership as well. Although Switzerland is noted for having a low gun murder rate for its level of gun ownership, there’s only so much you can do in a society where nearly every adult male owns a gun. The preponderance of evidence is that guns significantly increase the murder rate, even when you ignore the US.
spokker Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 5:32 pm
I don’t deny that accidents happen. Training and personal responsibility matter quite a bit, but accidents are rare and high profile. I think the vast majority of licensed owners of firearms are sane, responsible and you never hear from them. I don’t think they actually want to ever use their firearm in a real life situation. They simply have a natural instinct to defend the things they hold dear, which isn’t a stupid reason to own a gun.
In any case, I would rather ride a train with random armed citizens than drive.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 7:59 pm
Quite: every motorist is armed with a deadly weapon.
wu ming Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 10:27 pm
how will all the other law abiding citizens defend themselves from richochets?
mrcawfee Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 10:31 pm
kevlar
Spokker Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 10:38 pm
Putting time in at the firing range, I reckon.
Alan F Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:27 pm
The only reason Amtrak changed their policy with regards to allowing guns in checked baggage is because the Senator Wicker (R-MS) stuck in an amendment in the FY09 Transportation funding bill that prohibited any funding for Amtrak unless Amtrak allowed firearms in checked baggage. However, there was no additional funding provided to Amtrak to pay for the program. Your basic unfunded Congressional mandate. Not that big a deal as the airlines allow people to place guns into checked baggage provided they inform the airline in advance and show at the baggage check-in that the guns are unloaded and secured. Now people taking Amtrak long distance trains can (legally) take guns & ammo with them on hunting trips. Just don’t try to bring back the dead elk as checked baggage.
The nuisance for Amtrak is that they had to define & write procedures, write new software, for notification, baggage check-in, and tracking the guns. Looking at the Checked Firearms Program document on the Amtrak website, people are limited to a maximum of 11 lbs of ammo. When I see a number like that, I wonder why 11 lbs? Why not 10 lbs?
But this would not apply to CA HSR, because there won’t be checked baggage on HSR trains. Can’t have checked baggage and 2 minute stops. The Acelas and the NorthEast Regionals don’t have checked baggage on the NEC for example.
Jon Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:39 pm
I wonder why 11 lbs? Why not 10 lbs?
I’ll bet they asked a consultant how ammo was safe and got the answer ’5kg’.
jimsf Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 3:42 pm
WE’ve been talking about this all year and just recently had meeting ( the the agents on the front line who have to do the checking
) the policy is of course pages long. There are restrictions. Similar to those that pertain to unaccompanied minors. Yes the worst of it is just a matter of having to create and implement the policy and procedure and then do the training. There are things that you don’t think of though. Its not as simple as “just check it like baggage, whats the big deal” The big deal comes when the joe blow working the ticket window has to explain the angry gun toting passenger that they can’t take their trip because they are not in compliance with the policy. Unlike airports, where if you so much as look at someone crosseyed, you get taken away by the feds, at amtrak there is virtually no back up other than calling the local sherriff or PD and hoping they show up. People behave in ways at train stations that they would never pull in an airport. Luckily my station does not have to accept firearms because there is a “bus transfer” exemption. ( we also don’t accept unaccompanied minors for this reason) Thank you jesus for that! There is also the issue of storage. Amtrak now has to spend untold hundreds of thousands of dollars on secure gun lockers to hold guns in stations in the event that passengers don’t claim them or leave without them. AND the procedures for keeping track of what guns are on which trains and at any given time, who knows about them, who doesn’t, and that everything requires contact via washington DC . for instance if a conductor needs to know what bag has a gun in it in the baggage car, they have to cal DC, and DC has to call Oakland station, and so on. Its a freakin joke is what it is. All because a senator doesn’t like amtrak. It was a revenge move. The clerks also have to inspect the guns etc. LIke we have freakin time to do all that. The only upside is that, we used to check guns, and the fact is there really werent many people who did it, back in the olden days, so we can hope that not many will. BUT, we are living in very different times now. AT SF, we have already gotten the “yahoo, I get to check my gun now right?” phone calls. – There is no amtrak employee or manager anywhere who is please with this I’m sure.
I will be pissed if the Merced station is dropped from Phase I. It was to serve the Merced-Modesto-Stockton-lower foothills area (where I live) and with it gone those people will be forced to either drive to Fresno or to San Jose to get on it for a trip to LA.
I really don’t like the idea of driving 2-3 hours just to get to the nearest station when the Merced one would have been just a little over one hour.
Donk Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Will you still be pissed off it is moved to the end of Phase I? You gotta admit, this is where that leg belongs. Seriously, why would they build a stump there before building the mainline. Their goal is to bring in as much revenue as soon as possible. You need to think about this rationally, not selfishly.
Travis D Reply:
December 3rd, 2010 at 9:06 am
It’s it at the end of Phase I that would be fine.
I don’t have much faith that Phase II will ever be built so it’s important to get what we can out of Phase I.
J. Wong Reply:
December 3rd, 2010 at 9:35 am
With an actual HSR at the end of Phase I I think the Phase II cities will be clamoring to be connected, and with visible proof of the viability of HSR, the voters and legislature will go along.
Peter Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 12:16 pm
If you drive to the current Amtrak station and get on the San Joaquins which would drop you off right at the Fresno or Bakersfield HSR station. I’m pretty sure San Joaquins would add more trains once HSR is running to LA.
Joseph E Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Re:”…Get on the San Joaquins which would drop you off right at the Fresno … HSR station.” I expect this is the most sensible business plan for service for Stockton, Merced and the Sacramento valley. Once HSR tracks connect the Bay Area and Los Angeles, the San Joaquin trains can run from Sacramento to Bakersfield only, to connect with HSR and serve the small towns in between. Perhaps there will even be enough demand to continue the route north of Sacramento to Chico and Redding along existing Coast Starlight tracks, at least for a couple of trains a day. There will be no need for the service to the East Bay; extra trains can instead be added to the Capitol Corridor route (from San Jose, thru Oakland to Davis and Sacramento). In fact, with good connections to high speed trains to LA and SF, the San Joaquin’s and Capitol Corridor trains should be more popular than ever before. It would be great if ticketing and baggage could be somewhat integrated between California Amtrak and HSR, like partner airlines can do, if Amtrak does not become the operator.
James Fujita Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Exactly. There’s no reason why Cal HSR would need to be the only passenger rail service in the Central Valley. If Sacramento, Stockton, Merced, Fresno, etc. want it badly enough, there should be more than ample demand to justify running the San Joaquin or something similar to it as a connector service.
You might want to restructure it somewhat to something more resembling a commuter train than Amtrak intercity service (eliminate food service, perhaps add some stations). Or, you could present it as a lower-cost, cheaper-priced, “within the valley only” alternative to Cal HSR.
In Japan, JR operates Tokaido “regular” trains, almost parallel to the Tokaido Shinkansen, with more stops and slower service for the communities which even the slowest Kodama Shinkansen speeds past. The color is even orange and green, appropriate for the citrus-growing valley XD
Jon Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Sure, but to run a good connector service you need to share stations with the service you’re connecting with, otherwise you may as well use coaches. In many Central Valley cities (e.g. Fresno, Hanford, Modesto, Merced) that’s not going to be the case. Now if UP would let Amtrak use their tracks that would be a different matter…
James Fujita Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Well, even without the connector it would be foolish to get rid of the San Joaquins completely. They will need some retooling, obviously. And funding is always an issue. But I suspect that the Valley will step up to the plate.
Even in Japan, getting from Tokyo to Nara required taking the Shinkansen to Shin-Osaka, taking the subway to the Umeda commuter train station, and taking the Nara (private) local…
Best case scenario, UP allows San Joaquins to go to the HSR stations on conventional tracks… but that assumes that the UP suddenly has a Scrooge “ghost of railroads future” moment
Jon Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Yes, there are non-ideal rail layouts all over the world, often due to geography or funding constraints. But it’s nuts that for political reasons passenger trains are not allowed to use the already existing line connecting downtown to downtown in the central valley and instead are forced to skirt around the edges of many cities.
Personally I think the federal government should seize UP’s track through eminent domain and then lease it back to UP and Amtrak. But what do I know.
jimsf Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 4:05 pm
there are plans to increase san joaquin frequency. as well as extending two of them north to redding. Its all about funding though. as well as cooperation from UP as always. San Joaquins will no doubt benefit from the improved feeder service to hsr funds as well.
Travis D Reply:
December 3rd, 2010 at 9:05 am
I won’t have anything to do with anything Amtrack San Joaquin. Had a very bad experience on it once.
I would rather just drive to Fresno.
Besides doing a baggage transfer would be pain in the butt.
Peter Reply:
December 3rd, 2010 at 9:13 am
I had a really bad experience on Southwest. Doesn’t mean every trip on Southwest is going to be bad like that.
jimsf Reply:
December 3rd, 2010 at 5:04 pm
I had a bad experience getting out of bed one day. But I did that again.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 3rd, 2010 at 5:11 pm
I have a bad experience getting out of bed every day, but I keep on doing it.
My bad experience is called “work,” which at times I think should join other four-letter words in the unprintable department.
I would quit the experience if I could, but I unfortunately have a terrible habbit to support–eating.
For anyone who is still under the delusion that the Teabaggers have any interest in fiscal conservatism, or are even honest about their true intentions: Anti-earmark Tea Party Caucus takes $1 billion in earmarks.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Of course, earmarks do not directly increase spending, they just direct existing appropriations to specific projects.
NickK Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 5:56 pm
That is true, but that is not how Teabaggers describe them. The fact that they denounce them on one hand while securing them on the other is perfectly fair game. On this issue, as with so many others, they are either liars or hypocrites. They can’t have it both ways.
jimsf Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 4:08 pm
“conservatives” who are hypocrites? Shocking, Just shocking.
I think this may be the time for the Authority to begin requesting a an amount of foreign/private funds in order to complete the segment to Bakersfield. This way they would be able avoid having to address the “usable segment” problem on this “sub-set” of a usable segment, to use Spanos’ words.
StevieB Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:57 pm
An engineer at the board meeting today said that private inventment will be attracted once an operating segment is installed.
Might want to wait and see what happens with the union’s protest of partnering with foreign investors. It’s the canary in the coal mine.
Peter Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 1:45 pm
But that’s a protest about the planning of the project being outsourced, and the government engineers being excluded.
Here, the government engineers are already largely excluded from HSR planning. Essentially the entire planning is in the hands of outside contractors. I’m not sure whether (or how many) engineering jobs for the design process are overseas.
Now, if the foreign investors required that foreign laborers construct the system, that would be a problem. I doubt the Authority would agree to those demands, as they would lose support from pretty much the entire country.
Arthur Dent Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:03 pm
I don’t definitively know, either, but I thought the bulk of the HSRA’s outside contractors are US residents. PB, Parsons, AECom, HMM, STV, HNTB, URS, etc. etc. Some may have worldwide offices, but the engineering and design jobs are filled here in the US and in CA.
But suppose they put the project out to bid now, and suppose China or Japan or France were to win the bid. Which, if any, of these firms would be replaced?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 5:08 pm
All the world’s very finest public transportation planning professionals live and work in the US.
Just look all around you at the results of their highly skilled, professional efforts.
Sterp furrrrners stealing ah jahhhbs!
The rationale for building the recommended alignment was presented at the board meeting today. The need for independent utility requires connection to BNSF at the endpoints. Connections to BNSF can only be made at few points on flat segments of the line. Elevated sections through Merced and Fresno mean connections must be made past the city. There is not enough money to start north of Merced and end south of Fresno so that segment is not recommended. The segment recommended can connect to BNSF north of Fresno and builds as far south as the money will go, which is not as far as Bakersfield, to a point it can again connect to BNSF.
jimsf Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Thats what I thought. THats why the choice. Politics is one thing, on the ground reality is another.
I realize it is now a moot point, but it seems that if, by some chance, this is the only thing that is constructed, the money would have been better spent on track first, and stations second; which would have favored Alternative #2. IF the funds happen to fall through, what good will it do to have an HSR station in Fresno and Hanford? Hopefully that is not the case, but why not make the decision to construct as much useable track as possible and then once additional funding comes on board, construct the stations?
Peter Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Because they would have then run afoul of the “usable segment” provisions of Prop 1A without two stations.
Bret Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Having not read Prop 1A, I’m just asking….does it specify HSR stations, or would existing Amtrak stations have sufficed since they are tying into the BNSF lines?
Peter Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 3:56 pm
It requires stations for HSR. The stimulus funds require that any constructed segment have “independent utility”, which requires the connections to the BNSF tracks so that the San Joaquins can use them.
I would definitely read AB 3034 (Prop 1A) and the “independent utility” language of the ARRA funding, if I were you. It is quite an interesting read. Comparing the requirements of AB 3034′s “usable segment” language with “independent utility” would help you better understand the discussion.
Bret Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 4:09 pm
thank you Peter, I appreciate that you always give respectful answers to questions, I will try to find time to read Prop 1A. Another quick question though, if that’s the case, they why would Alternative 2/2A or Alternative 3 even be presented as an option if they did not include 2 stations? Wouldn’t that in itself be a violation of the “independent utility” criteria and therefore exclude them altogether? It would seem that if they were presented as options, then there must be some “wiggle room” in the 2 station criteria, especially as they tried to “legally” define this today as a “sub-section of a useable segment” during the Board Meeting.
Also, I’m assuming they are not going to wait until 2017 to try to get additional funds. Does anyone know what kind of “proof” that additional financiers will need to begin funding additional segments? Is laying the first mile of track going to convince others that this is going to happen and to open their wallets and fund additional segments?
Peter Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 4:23 pm
The best response I can come up with is that it’s VERY difficult to satisfy the demands of both Prop 1A and AB 3034. It’s a very fine line to walk.
Bret Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 4:34 pm
thanks, I appreciate the honest response.
Arthur Dent Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Prop 1A is the byproduct of AB 3034. You could also refer to Chapter 20 of CA Streets & Highway Code, Section 2704, as do George Spanos and other legal experts, but these are all essentially one and the same for the purposes of this discussion. AB 3034 is the best single reference since it’s the source of the ballot language, section 2704 and other CA code.
The fine line to walk is between CA code and FRA requirements.
Peter Reply:
December 4th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
“The fine line to walk is between CA code and FRA requirements.”
Right, that’s what I meant to say.
StevieB Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Alternative 2 shows how starting at Merced they ran out of money before reaching Fresno. Alternative 3 shows how starting at Hanford building south they ran out of money before reaching Bakersfield.
Bret Reply:
December 3rd, 2010 at 8:44 am
actually, you’ve got those backwards, according to the Board meeting presentation. My argument was that with Alternative 2/2A, track would be laid from “just south of Fresno” to “just north of Bakersfield”, presumably with BNSF tie-ins, and would not include stations in either city because the rail would not reach into the city centers. If nothing else was ever built, at least the track infrastructure would be there to run Amtrak on at higher speeds, cutting down some of the travel time between the two most populous cities in the Valley. Once additional funding came along, then you could add stations and additional track. Like I mentioned above, I have not read AB 3034 or Prop 1A, so I don’t know the specific language regarding the two stations, but if Alternative 2 and 3 were presented with fewer than 2 stations, then there seems to be some question as to the validity of that criteria, or what type of station would meet the criteria (Amtrak station). Hanford to Fresno is a 35-45 min. drive, and the time savings of taking the train don’t appear to be enough to make it worth it. I am a big fan of HSR and want to see it succeed, I’m just playing devil’s advocate and asking “what if” it isn’t funded any futher? 90 miles of usable track is better than 60 miles of usable track and 2 unusable stations if that’s all that is built. Hopefully this isn’t even a concern, and additional funding comes through soon.
Elizabeth Reply:
December 3rd, 2010 at 9:22 am
There was actually a disturbing moment yesterday when board member Fran Florez asked what I thought was an excellent question: which alternative would give us the most independent utility?
The question was give to General Van Winkle, the new PB lead and he could not really contemplate giving an answer in the way that any resident of California would have wanted. If HSR doesn’t happen, which set of tracks would be the most useful?
I happen to think it is a push – you might get freight consolidation in Fresno with option 1 and you would have more tracks in option 2 – but van Winkle could only answer the question in a technical sense.
The issues we have with this are many. Wasn’t this something they thought about? Why do we have PB making these types of judgements, when they do not have the vantage point of the state?
Peter Reply:
December 3rd, 2010 at 9:29 am
“Why do we have PB making these types of judgements, when they do not have the vantage point of the state?”
Because the Authority isn’t allowed to hire enough technical staff of its own. Therefore, the contractors do all the legwork, and don’t necessarily do things in the best interest of the State. I’d even go so far as to argue that the conflict of interest that the contractors have is of a far greater danger to the project than that of the Board members. The Board members are at least working in the public’s interest, not in the interest of some private contractor.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 3rd, 2010 at 9:33 am
The two stations are the least ambiguous part.
It says what the system has to be like (electric, SF to LA completed first, portions able to reach 200mph or greater, 5 minute headways, maximum number of stations, etc.).
A corridor is a part of the system.
And what can be funded is a usable segment of a corridor, which must include at least two stations.
Since usable is also not defined in the legislation, opponents of the construction of the HSR will therefore argue for the most stringent possible interpretation of the phrase usable segment, so that it will be impossible to use the Federal funds presently available, because once ground has been broken it will be much harder for them to prevent the completion of the system.
morris brown Reply:
December 4th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
@Bret:
When Prop 1A was passed, ARRA funding was not around. With ARRA funding came Federal restrictions. Prop 1A has restrictions, but they are not the same as the Federal restrictions. I am going to ignore the ARRA restrictions and only focus on the Prop 1A restrictions.
Prop 1A requirements:
The project must be built in “usable segments”; usable in this case meaning it must support HSR trains, which are to be powered by electricity. A usable segment must contain 2 stations.
So your question as to why alternatives 2/2A or 3 be even considered as options is on target. Indeed they don’t meet the legal requirements of Prop 1A.
However, van Ark at the Nov 4th, meeting tries his best to dance around this requirement by saying that these alternatives are only initial starts, and should be viewed in that way, and that when more funds are available they will be extended into “usable segments”.
The problem here is that Prop 1A says that before the legislature can approve construction funding, all the funds for a “usable segment” must be in place.
Diridon was concerned about this. Spanos from the AG office was called and gave a short presentation. You can see that at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBW5NMyWjHY
Now you note that Alternative 1, which was approved, suddenly added this station at Hanford, which was a station rejected earlier. Obviously van Ark, didn’t want this 2 station requirement to be a factor in this alternative.
Finally please note, that now approved alternative 1, does not include electrification, and thus doesn’t qualify as now presented as a usable segment either.
This is almost sure to end up in litigation.
Peter Reply:
December 4th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
“Now you note that Alternative 1, which was approved, suddenly added this station at Hanford, which was a station rejected earlier.”
That is not correct. If they had rejected it earlier, they changed their minds because it’s listed as a station alternative in the Fresno-Bakersfield Supplemental AA. And the Supp AA was approved in September, if I recall correctly. They just gave it a name for purposes of selecting a segment to construct.
“This is almost sure to end up in litigation.”
Only if no further funding materializes and this is the only segment to be built. Otherwise, the “usable segment” “controversy” will be moot.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 3:51 pm
That would be workable if they picked the strategy, once the Federal funding came up short, of bailing on the promise of 50:50 match (that is, the 50:50 match contingent on the slice of money requested), where the mandatory match would have been within the CHSRA seed money allowance. Then they only would have had Federal independent utility to address.
OT question.
In a recent article in the Atlantic on HSR, a poster from Wisconsin who totally opposes Obamarail posted the following report:
http://www.amtrakoig.gov/(S(fidfyt4540ncfh45r1celpfy))/Reports/E-08-02-042208.PDF
In it the authors argue that all HSRs in EU lose money and the only way they make it appear that they don’t is by shifting the costs of construction to a separate entity and by treating the government subsidies as profits.
Do you have any arguments against his point? Is it true that without subsidies even the TGV would be in the red? And is it also true that without shifting the costs to another entity (Bad Rail Company), no HSR would be able to amortize the cost of capital construction?
Thanks,
J. Wong Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 4:43 pm
No, not HSR’s. If the report is not a hoax, it reports that the European operating companies require subsidies more than Amtrak. It doesn’t break out HSR-service so it’s hard to say whether HSR is profitable or not.
Peter Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Just because some European countries realize that it’s good public policy to fund valuable public services with operating subsidies doesn’t mean that their respective HSR operations need subsidies.
I’ll never understand why Republitarians demand that inherently public services, such as public transportation and even the bloody postal system, should be self-sustaining.
Derek Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Ideally, public services should be not only self-sustaining, but also all of their negative externalities should be internalized. But Republicans and Libertarians don’t believe in externalities because to believe in them would admit that market failures exist, or that government needs to get involved to correct them, or that correcting them would mean taxes would need to be increased or other regulations put into place. http://preview.tinyurl.com/yjgk7yc
BruceMcF Reply:
December 3rd, 2010 at 9:43 am
Your “ideal” neglects positive externalities. Public services normally are public services because of positive externalities, which implies that operating them at self-sustaining levels will provide too little service.
In the case of transport services, there are a wide range of beneficiaries in addition to the passengers, and so only operating self-sustaining transport services means that all the other beneficiaries are taking a free ride on the back of the passengers.
We have a well-established and deeply entrenched system in place for providing capital and operating subsidies to the operation of private motor vehicles, and for common carrier air transport.
However, the negative externalities of both of those have been rising, as our nation has become increasingly dependent on imported crude oil. And the national highway fund cross-subsidy from urban to suburban and rural motorists was originally established when there was a larger share of urban motorists.
So the balance of justifiable subsidy has shifted, but the system of subsidies remains bound to the conditions of half a century ago.
jimsf Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 5:46 pm
because rich people don’t want to pay for stuff that poor people use. and.. even though they know such things are necessary for the economy to function, they play a game of keeping pressure on. By insisting on paying for as little as possible, it forces the poor and working class to choose between very limited items. By keeping the less powerful, in a perpetual struggle to survive, they keep them from not being a threat. Once the middle class gets too strong, they start wanting to run things. The people who actually do run things have to pull the rug out from time to time to nip that in the bud. That’s what’s going on right now. It also why its a standard practice from time to time to pit the various groups against one another. Thats usually the very first tactic, although its wearing thin since america has a very different demographic.
YESONHSR Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 6:50 pm
its a mental illness!!! millions of tax paying Americans use Amtrak every year and you would think with all the teapot whinning that this money was just going up in smoke like that triilion over in Iraq and every Amtrak train is running empty
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 7:08 pm
Some Amtrak trains break even or make money. How many untolled roads do that? For that matter how much money does the Mississippi make? Cost money to do all the dredging the Army Corp of Engineers does and the Coast Guard ships that patrol it aren’t cheap….
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 5:06 pm
I haven’t had the chance to read the report, but I will point out that some what you describe has a kind-of precedent in the United States.
The original coast-to-coast railroad, the Union Pacific, being in country that was mostly miles and miles of miles and miles, struggled with expenses and low revenues for years–but it still generated great profits for its investors, through a construction company called Credit Mobilier. Interestingly, the pattern of operation of Credit Mobilier was borrowed, as was its name, from a French concern that was involved in government projects in France. Both companies would be the source of scandals; the American one was most American in character, with bribes, excessive government payments to build the railroad, and excessive profits for the owners.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Pacific_Railroad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cr%C3%A9dit_Mobilier_of_America_scandal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cr%C3%A9dit_Mobilier
Sounds distressingly familiar, but at least we got a railroad out of it, and that railroad helped to tie us together.
Didn’t Enron go through some similar dealings, i.e., bad loans on the books of subsidiary companies?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 5:08 pm
You could also bring up the real cost of roads and driving, including our current military adventures. Feel free to copy and past some of the material I have here for your case.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 8:08 pm
What argument ~ yes, Europeans provide more subsidies total to trains than the US does, and less subsidies total to drivers. Both subsidize both, Europeans with more subsidies on trains, and the US with more subsidies for drivers.
Since both intercity driving and flying require capital subsidy, and neither intercity driving nor flying run full system operating surpluses, the two relevant questions are:
(1) Which is the lowest cost of capital subsidy to provide the same transport capacity, HSR or intercity driving and flying?
(2) Which can run an operating surplus, HSR or intercity driving and flying?
The answers are, HSR has a lower cost of capital subsidy and HSR can run an operating surplus.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 8:23 pm
The report is false, and conflates commuter with intercity trains. If you include intercity trains only, then the major rail operators in Europe are profitable after depreciation, i.e. the lines pay their full cost including construction. For example: SNCF + RFF are together profitable; the government’s choice of how to distribute profits is based on politics, so traditionally it gave more money to SNCF, but now that SNCF is threatened by open access laws, it’s giving everything to RFF to force foreign operators to pay higher track access fees.
Those reports tend to come from a collaboration of two political groups: libertarians who think all rail is bad, and Amtrak aficionados who think that Amtrak’s operating losses aren’t a big deal. Both groups are entirely political, usually with little knowledge of good rail operating practices.
For those not attending the meeting or watching online, what was the outcome of today’s meeting? Was the staff recommendation approved? What did the Board members have to say… and not Counsel.
Brandi Reply:
December 2nd, 2010 at 8:03 pm
It was approved.
http://abcnews.go.com/m/screen?id=12297827
So what’s the deal here? This meeting to me sounds like a friggin disaster. Could there possibly have been any worse outcome to this meeting? They approved something that is not legally sound, and this will get litigated to hell and back before an inch of track is laid.
Why is everyone here discussing guns in checked luggage on trains when this seems to me to be the most critical juncture of this project to date! Is there anyone here that can reassure me that we are not completely screwed?
Spokker Reply:
December 3rd, 2010 at 12:35 am
What decision wouldn’t be litigated to hell and back?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 3rd, 2010 at 4:27 am
I don’t know if this will help or not, but in an earlier posting I asked what anybody would do differently in view of constraints and obstacles. The Peninsula crowd made too much noise for now, the available money didn’t allow a longer segment to, say Fresno, and the Feds require “independent utitility” as an ultimate back-up plan, meaning easy connections to the national system at each end. We do have to build things heavier than they might otherwise be, but I don’t think that will run up the bill too much compared with some other things, and that’s needed anyway with the “independent utility” requirement. I would expect all those things–all that “evidence”–to count for something.
And I agree with Spokker–there are people who will fight this thing tooth and nail up to opening day, and possibly beyond. Part of it will be the NIMBY-anti-rail-pro-auto generation, but part of it will also be the auto-oil-road combine, perhaps disguising themselves in the Tea Party crowd (which seems to be happening for billionaires anyway). In short, there will be a fight no matter what you do.
You do have one advantage, and it’s an important one–you do have a program, something my state doesn’t have at all, and it seems to be fairly hard to kill so far. You also have an incoming governor who supports the program. What you could use is better management of the program. From what I’ve read here so far, Van Ark is not a bad choice in that he’s logical, but it seems you need a better board of directors who would be (a) more thorough on matters like this, and (b) have some sort of technical expertise to counter potential abuses by various contractors and subcontractors, even to the extent of firing PB and building the line itself if need be and if the abuses are real and proven.
Robert as chairman, me in PR, Jim SF in station design, Clem and Richard in technical review–from what I’ve read here, you could do worse. . .now, I wonder what Bruce, who originally suggested this new (fantasy) board, has reserved for himself . . . :-)
thatbruce Reply:
December 3rd, 2010 at 10:00 am
Hadn’t thought about that actually. Always wanted to pick out a new Trainset, so put me down for that along with rafael.
The so-called fantasy board was intended to be an off-handed commentary about common perceived imperfections in the CAHSRA and how to rectify them using the people frequenting this forum. If I thought about it some more, there would be other instances, such as tapping Morris Brown as a consultant for EIS review, Elizabeth as an interface with the AG office, Peter, Spokker and Nadia with yourself in PR/Outreach etc. Its not intended to be serious, and I doubt that any of us would be getting a call from Jerry asking us to fill any vacant positions ;).
Alon Levy Reply:
December 3rd, 2010 at 11:58 am
Yeah, that’s because every single one of us would suck at it. The problem with the board is that nobody there has any experience building a railroad competently. This describes Clem and Richard just as well as Kopp and Diridon. Clem and Richard come up with better ideas only because they recognize their ignorance and make an effort to learn what the best industry practice is; for the actual job of running CAHSR, you don’t want them, but the people who set the best industry practice.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 3rd, 2010 at 4:10 pm
“The problem with the board is that nobody there has any experience building a railroad competently. This describes Clem and Richard just as well as Kopp and Diridon.”–Alon Levy
Isn’t that van Ark’s job?
And isn’t an important difference that Clem and Richard know their limitations, which is something the politicians seem, at best, reluctant to admit? I would say Clem and Richard would be far better than the usual politicos precisely because of this, and they have educated themselves enough to at least partially overcome these limitations.
Alternately, I happen to know an American engineer (from a certain large engineering firm, which shall be unnamed here) who lives not too far away when he’s not working on projects in Europe, Asia and the United States. He has rail experience, mostly in the transit field. He is close to or at retirement age, and at the same time is supposedly rather weary of working for this firm due to bureacratic problems that have developed over the last several years. I’m not sure of what his complaints are, but if his situation is like mine, part of his problems are generational, i.e., working for younger bosses who maybe are not as qualified as they should be. Such a person, in semi-retirement, might enjoy working on a project that could be his own.
Peter Reply:
December 3rd, 2010 at 8:07 am
Just because an attorney expressed a snap opinion on an issue does not mean that opinion is correct. He simply stated he hadn’t been involved, and therefore had presumably not done the research on the issue.
Meh, we were discussing guns in baggage because that’s what people do on a discussion board.
O/T:
Chinese CRH380A train reaches 486km/h (302mph) in record run on a segment of the future Beijing-Shanghai HSR line currently under construction. Commercial operation will likely be limited to 380km/h (236mph) for economic reasons.
http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2010/12/03/chinese-train-breaks-speed-record-again/
This isn’t big news, but still interesting:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-03/china-s-csr-ge-may-bid-on-california-florida-high-speed-rail.html
YesonHSR Reply:
December 3rd, 2010 at 8:54 am
hope so as we sure are going to need the money due to our lame goverment funding system
Peter Reply:
December 3rd, 2010 at 9:17 am
I think it is big news. I had thought that GE’s partnership with CSR had died a quiet death. It had been a year since the last peep from them. I recently tried to find anything new on it, but came up empty.
Anyone figured out how to view the meeting without having to install Silverlight? The help page says that with Flip4Mac installed (on a Mac) it’s viewable in QuickTime player, but despite already having F4M installed all I see on the video site is “missing plugin.” I do NOT want to muck-up my system by installing a non-standard codec that even MS itself has abandoned.