Defending the HSR Strategy
Jim Wunderman of the Bay Area Council and Carl Guardino of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group have a great op-ed today defending the strategy behind starting the HSR project in the Central Valley. They both express disappointment that the project isn’t starting in the Bay Area:
We would have liked to see the first phase started in the Bay Area, but the resistance cast by residents in parts of Northern and Southern California raised enough doubt in the minds of policymakers in Washington that they decided to skip over our region and allocate the funds to the safe choice. While disappointing, that should come as no surprise.
This issue of resistance by some residents frames their op-ed, as does the importance of starting the project somewhere. Wunderman and Guardino point out that no matter what segment had been chosen, it wouldn’t have enabled train service to begin, and that just as the interstate system began in a centrally-located rural area and expanded to the coastal population centers, so too will California’s HSR project:
So those who expected trains to be speeding by on the hour between Merced to Fresno or Fresno to Bakersfield are mistaken. It will happen, just not yet.
As many have pointed out, high-speed rail is akin to the interstate highway system created in the United States in the 1950s. The highways were not created overnight, and when they were created, construction first started in Missouri, not Los Angeles or New York. We need to think of high-speed rail the same way.
From what I can tell, most people are thinking of it in this way – with the obvious and unsurprising exception of the HSR deniers, who are always eager to find anything with which they can attack the project. The recent award of $624 million more in federal HSR funding to California, which will help get the first segment closer to Bakersfield, certainly validates the strategy that CHSRA CEO Roelof van Ark has been employing.
Wunderman and Guardino also join the call for the CHSRA to improve its public outreach, a call I wholeheartedly endorse:
Moving forward though, the High-Speed Rail Authority needs to quell the anger and confusion about the project that is spreading across the state, and replace it with the appropriate sense of urgency and excitement that comes with a game-changing project of this type.
This can only happen if the authority better explains the nuances and complexities of high-speed rail to the public and gets buy-in for the overall strategy to bring the project to fruition over the next decade. Included in that should be a firm commitment that the next segment will connect two major California metro areas.
There’s nothing here I can disagree with – but I would add some points. The Authority’s problems with public outreach stem neither from deliberate failures nor from incompetence (and to be clear, the op-ed does not suggest they do) – instead they are due to the fact that the CHSRA simply has not had the staff to do proper outreach. The Authority was nearly closed down for several years in mid-decade, and when Prop 1A passed, years of legislative underfunding left them unable to do the kind of effective outreach that was needed. Since Roelof van Ark became CEO earlier this year, that has improved, and cities such as Gilroy have expressed satisfaction with those improvements.
Much remains to be done, both in terms of outreach and project planning. But as Wunderman and Guardino correctly explain, that’s to be expected in a project of this scale. High speed rail is going to be the largest infrastructure project built in this state in 50 years – it’s important that we get it right, but it’s also important that we get it done. With groups like the Bay Area Council and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group still on board with the project, again showing that HSR backers remain supportive, California’s HSR project is still in good shape.
O/T, but Spain’s Madrid-Valencia line opened today:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iY3ZMN3bvIfIr5GaPMzhVmpmng1Q?docId=CNG.0d88c40a839cc859c748793101909f78.8c1
tomh Reply:
December 21st, 2010 at 5:13 pm
The Madrid-Valencia line at 272 miles in length, cost just $8.8 billion dollars. Meanwhile in CA, the SF to LA line at approximately 400 miles in length (less than double the distance) will cost MUCH MORE than double the cost of the Madrid-Valencia line. What gives?
thatbruce Reply:
December 21st, 2010 at 5:42 pm
That sounds like Richard’s cue.
In perhaps less-colorful terms, better management of the project as a whole, a strong separation between design and implementation (ie, a contractor who spec’d out a segment is not allowed to bid for or construct the same segment) resulting in less vendor capture, and a stronger willingness to pursue off-the-shelf solutions.
Bad analogy. California’s version of HSR is not at all like the interstate highway system.
The interstates were designed such that trucks and cars could seamlessly travel between local arterials and freeways. That way, new freeway segments were useful, even if built in short bits. By contrast, high-speed rail in the USA is not interoperarable with the existing rail network. The whole thing has to be built before it becomes useful.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
shave back the platforms a bit and Shinkansen could stop at many stations in New Jersey or Connecticut.
jimsf Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
That’s not really a big deal. The analogy wasn’t pointing to detail, it was just making the comparison that new stuff starts small, and grows from there.
What I don’t get is why the public needs to have it’s hands held with outreach concerning something that is a relatively simple, common sense project.
Mad Park Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Ah, but for 3 generations of people in the US this is NOT such a simple, common-sense project. It is contrary to everything they’ve seen, experience and learnt since the late 1930s. All the societal cues point directly at the auto, the highway, the petrol station, the car dealer and the airplane as the primary movers of people.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
San Francisco, the Peninsula, the Bay Area in general, is fairly lousy with people from places like New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston, where people use the train all the time. There are people in New York who not only don’t own a car but who have never learned to drive!
jimsf Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 9:13 pm
yeh, they’re here.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 21st, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Somehow, that lousy Bay Area manages to tie Chicago for second highest transit mode share in the US and beat Philadelphia and Boston.
YesonHSR Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 10:34 am
Constant propaganda pumped out by oil funded think tanks certainly don’t help matters when it comes to people’s idea of what is and what is not worth something.. We need a lot more pro-high-speed rail articles in all the news media, unfortunately we don’t have the money that these libertarian think tanks are able to access with there full time paid staff pumping out misinformation.
Jerry Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Amen
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
“By contrast, high-speed rail in the USA is not interoperarable with the existing rail network. The whole thing has to be built before it becomes useful.”–Drunk Engineer
As I see it, this just the reason for the “independent utility” (fallback) requirements for the federal funding, and for FRA compliant bridges. At that, I don’t see where the bridges would be built much lighter for HSR than conventional trains; it seems stresses do go up with speed, although it is interesting that at least one railroad found that stresses were actually greater in the 30-40 mph range than at speeds higher and lower. Of course, with this coming from me, I have to add that this was in the steam age, and part of the stresses involved dynamic augment–wheel pound–from unbalanced forces that are inherent in most steam locomotives (the only exceptions were locomotives with more than two cylinders, such as a balanced compound, which were extremely rare even in 1900 and nonexistent after 1910 or so).
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
At that, can someone explain the apparent fascination with concrete bridges on the California HSR system? I’ve noted that in some ways, I would choose steel for what I would think as a lacey, spidery effect, but steel would also have the advantage of being relatively light in weight compared with a concrete structure, and if built of standardized components, should be a good deal cheaper. The relatively dry climate in California would greatly reduce rust problems; indeed, the rust can become a protective coating with certain types of steels (I think one of them is called Cor-Ten).
Has steel been considered for some bridges on this system?
Victor Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
One reason I’d think, Earthquakes. Sure steel reinforced-concrete bridges can fail too and I’ve seen My share fail(cause of inadequate knowledge really), But Steel by itself is just asking for trouble, Concrete today has plastic coated steel rebar inside(or some other alloy of steel) and It’s prestressed, Plus concrete and rebar complement each other in their strengths and weaknesses. Steel by itself needs lots of maintenance, Look at either the Vincent Thomas or the Golden Gate suspension bridges, I’m do not how much paint they need, But It’s a nearly continuous job, That and looking for corrosion. If You want a job guaranteed for life and have no fear of heights, There it is, But I hear there’s a waiting list over a mile long for that one.
James Fujita Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Yeah. Say what you will about Japan, but there’s one way in which Japan is exactly like California, and that is both are extremely earthquake-prone. In fact, Japan may be more earthquake-prone than the Golden State.
Yet, there has been something like ONE derailment in the history of the Shinkansen, and Shinkansen tracks have held up quite well during earthquakes. And they have lots of concrete viaducts over the rice paddies.
Victor Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
The I5 and CA14 freeway interchange has collapsed twice in living memory due to Earthquakes, Hopefully It’s been fixed good & properly this time.
jimsf Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
is that the sylmar? I know the sylmar seems to fall down on a regular basis!
Victor Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 8:26 am
Yep, It is. Practically fault line central there.
wu ming Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 2:25 am
taiwan HSR is nearly all concrete viaducts or tunnels. good views, tho.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
At that, can someone explain the apparent fascination with concrete bridges on the California HSR system?
Noise. Sound doesn’t travel well through heavy objects, especially complex heavy objects like reinforced concrete.
Clem Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
Concrete bridges are hollow sound boxes and can be literally twice as loud as earth embankments. The HSR people are claiming that it doesn’t matter because at very very high speeds that extra bridge noise only adds 1 or 2 dBA to the already very very loud aerodynamic noise.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Never been under the El as the train goes over have you? A lot more sound gets transmitted in the open spaces between the ties as does through concrete.
Nathanael Reply:
December 21st, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Oh my GOD steel bridges are loud to be under. Clem, visit the L in Chicago. Concrete bridges are a lot better than straight-up steel. Yes, earthen embankments are better.
jimsf Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 9:10 pm
Concrete is used extensively here on freeways. My understanding is that while caltrans and everyone knows that steel elevated freeways such as the james lick or central, with proper design, are stronger and hold up better in earthquakes, steel does not win design awards. Concrete viaducts can and are, shaped into aesthetically appealing designs. The whole state is built that way. Just like the stucco tract homes, its just part of the california look.
steel industrial clunky ugly
Concrete sleek jetsons pretty
jimsf Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
in the end its all about aesthetics here.
The freeways are works of modern art
and you can’t do this with steel
by the way I just now discovered that the 380 is named the quentin kopp. ha. how’d I miss that one all these years.!
mrcawfee Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
if i am not mistaken isn’t concrete cheaper to maintain?
jimsf Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
you don’t have to do anything to maintain the concrete. so probably yeh.
Nathanael Reply:
December 21st, 2010 at 2:13 pm
You have to intermittently repair spalling. If you don’t apply salt to the concrete, it requires a lot less maintenance, though.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 11:06 pm
Concrete is really quite low maintenance, but it’s not maintenance-free; nothing really is.
Looks like a decent reference item; take note of the maintenance commentary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Well, this steel-bridge argument of mine was simply to let us look at some alternatives. . .
First, the New River Gorge Bridge in West Virginia, at Fayetteville; opened in 1977, carries a 4-lane highway on top, and made of a steel that forms its own protective rust coating (never needs painting). Very light and lacey looking, until you get close to it, and man, is it huge! Four main concrete pads are at the bottom of the arches, and each one is as big as a square multi-story house, perhaps 30+ feet on each side, and that’s just the part you can see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_River_Gorge_Bridge
Here is a French road bridge, in a combination of concrete pylons and steel road trusses, opened in 2004. It is included for its technical achievements and a certain amount of controversy that sounds familiar, although in terms of appearance, I can’t say I’m a fan of cable-stay bridges:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millau_Viaduct
Back to steel arches–in this case, a classic on the Canadian National:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=346633&nseq=99
To be continued.
jimsf Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
that french bridge is my favorite in world now ( ‘cept for the gg of course)
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 10:41 pm
Industrial, yes; ugly, well, I wouldn’t necessarily say that–somehow, it’s still impressive, perhaps because it is so industrial, in this case in Cologne, Germany:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=345558&nseq=156
In Montana on the former Great Northern; view is grand up there:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=345441&nseq=161
I won’t say this one is pretty; its only included to illustrate that steel can curve gracefully, too, although CSX ought to get a paint gang on this one:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=344897&nseq=190
One more:
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
This is in Covington, Ky., on the approach to a bridge over the Ohio River. It has a nice curve to it, and is also notable for being a “ballasted deck” bridge. This means the steel supports a concrete pan or deck, in which the track is laid in ballast, as if on the ground. Such construction does quiet things down a bit, but more importantly this type of deck has relatively low maintenance costs, and also has a resiliancy in the track almost identical to that of track on the ground. This is important in eliminating the transition from normally-softer, springier track laid on the ground to a much stiffer track structure on a steel bridge with ties laid on the stringers.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=343695&nseq=249
Have fun.
Victor Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 8:32 am
Paint, paint and yep lots more paint for bare steel & inspection for rust due to oxidation. Concrete on the other hand just needs to be inspected, Although modern rebar being coated in plastic reduces the occurrence of rust, As then rust is nearly a non issue I’d think.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 9:54 am
I have to admit, a part of me would want to build a viaduct through Palo Alto and those other places looking like the one in the Covington, Ky. shot. After all, they have made SO much noise about how they have this semi-historic, Norman Rockwell like place–well, let’s give them something historically accurate, as in from the 1920s!
BUWUHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
Victor Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
[Dr.Evil Laugh]LOL[/Dr.Evil Laugh] :)
Alon Levy Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 8:13 am
The independent utility provision is fine. The compatibility with Amtrak is the problem. HSR should be built to the standards of international HSR and modern regional trains, not to those of dysfunctional American regulations from the 1940s and 50s.
Nathanael Reply:
December 21st, 2010 at 2:16 pm
It’s not exactly compatibility with Amtrak which is the issue — it seems to be compatibility with FRA regulations. Amtrak doesn’t seem to be wedded to the 1940s/50s FRA regulations on “crashworthiness” particularly, and its old-school operating practices make little difference when it comes to compatibility.
Drunk Engineer, you’re arguing apples and aardvarks.
Yes, trucks could get off the interstate and then take the existing roads to any destination in a city to unload their cargo directly.
No, that’s not comparable at all. Nobody is talking about using high-speed rail to deliver TVs to Wallmart.
Passengers can take a high-speed train to a train station, get off, and transfer to a standard train. Just like they do transfering from a standard train to another standard train. Or to a bus, cab, or subway.
By cutting transit times, high-speed rail becomes useful for segments of trips, even if you can’t take one train all the way from Los Angeles to Sacramento right away.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
I see, so:
Amtrak bus from SF to Oakland
Amtrak diesel train from Oakland to Fresno
High-speed train from Fresno to Bakersfield
Amtrak bus from Bakersfield to Los Angeles
Other than foamers, who would make such a trip?
BruceMcF Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
That’s contradiction a different claim than was made “becomes useful for segments of trips” is not a claim that Bakersfield / Fresno is one such segment for a SF/LA trip. On its own it only is useful for accelerating a through train and supporting complementary local service.
However, LA-US/Fresno certainly would be, as would be SF/Sylmar.
jimsf Reply:
December 20th, 2010 at 5:02 am
probably the same people who make the bus from sfc-emy to train emy-bfd- to bus bfd – lax- to train lax-san. you know, those conjunctive tickets that I sell all day long everyday. for about 68 bucks.
( sorry bout the ‘breviations but I wasn’t about to write all of that)
James Fujita Reply:
December 20th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
BART to Richmond, train from Richmond to Bakersfield, bus from Bakersfield to Los Angeles. I love that Richmond connection.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 20th, 2010 at 9:57 am
There are actual people who live east of the Bay Bridge. So for them the trip becomes diesel train from Oakland etc. Some of the people who live east of the bridge, I know you may find this hard to believe, want to go to Bakersfield. That cuts out the bus trip to LA. It will probably be a one seat ride, faster and cheaper than flying from Oakland to Bakersfield. Not as many passengers as the full build out but more than the current Amtrak service attracts.
One thing we should consider moving forward is that resistance (i.e. NIMBYism) on the Peninsula won’t mean that the HSR route may change from Pacheco Pass to Altamont (as has been suggested by some on this site). Rather, it would simply mean that Phase 1 would end in San Jose vs. San Francisco. Alas, I don’t think the NIMBY’s are going to be succesfull in the long run, but it may be awhile before SF finally gets HSR from SJ and the rest of the state. I could see Merced-Gilroy/San Jose as being the next leg in our system.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Assuming Madera to Bakersfield first, next phase could be in three directions…
… Madera to wye to Merced
… wye to some place on the west side of the valley
… Bakersfield to Palmdale
jimsf Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 10:50 am
which is more difficult and or more expensive, the BFD-PMD crossing or the Pacheco crossing? Just curious.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Engineering difficulty or NIMBY difficulty? I was under the vague impression that hard part south from Bakersfield was San Fernando to Sylmar, with on the order of six tunnel sections of various lengths. There are various aerials between Bakersfield and Palmdale, but its not the harder part of the Bakersfield/Sylmar corridor, while the tunneling on the Fresno/San Jose corridor is between the Wye and Gilroy.
So my wild guess would be that in descending order of difficulty its Palmdale / Sylmar, Gilroy / Wye, and Bakersfield / Palmdale.
jimsf Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 9:18 pm
Id say get the thing to palmdale next then.
Nathanael Reply:
December 21st, 2010 at 2:21 pm
I was also under the impression that Palmdale-Bakersfield was simpler geologically than Sylmar-San Fernando Valley. The Tehachapis will probably the biggest single tunnel, but it’s a *simple* tunnel.
There also seem to be practically no NIMBYs in the low-population Antelope Valley, or the Tehachapis. Yes, there ARE NIMBYs in the mountains between the San Fernando Valley and the Antelope Valley, and the route is ALREADY being compromised to appease them…. aaarrrghhh…
So anyway, yeah, get it to Palmdale. I think at that point, seeing it up and running, there might be a stronger push for a better, faster route into the Valley rather than a compromised route.
synonymouse Reply:
December 21st, 2010 at 2:30 pm
How can you compromise a fix? I say make this piece of dreck as expensive as PB’s perverse imagination can carry. After all isn’t pouring concrete the raison d’etre?
Roger Christensen Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Bakersfield to Palmdale means Metrolink to LA and we’re finally off that damn bus!
synonymouse Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
And is LA going to pay the Metrolink subsidy or the taxpayers in Del Norte County?
BruceMcF Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Oh, you think that increasing ridership per train causes an increase in subsidy required?
Interesting world you live in.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 9:14 pm
Assuming it’s an Amtrak San Joaquin why would Metrolink have anything to do with it other than collecting fees for letting Amtrak use the stations and track?
jimsf Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
wtf does del norte county have to do with anything?
Victor Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
I’d think Nimbys will not be able to stop HSR, The Authority has the power to push the line through and the Nimbys I think, Don’t have a legal leg to stand on.
YesonHSR Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 10:43 am
They are not going stop the trains from coming up to San Francisco! We also own the CalTrain right away.. there may not be the major construction that both sides are proposing , just some basic upgrading, electrification, signals to get the trains up to the city at least one hour. Though I think the direction of the initial segment will go south into Los Angeles because of all this NIMBY issues, and really after the Bay Area support of Prop1A in the highest percentage statewide !
YesonHSR Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 10:55 am
meant to say at least one train per hour!
BruceMcF Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 11:02 am
Phase 1 can’t end until it gets to San Francisco. But services can start in San Jose, and once that happens, the ability to resist putting the corridor through to San Francisco will vanish. The clamor in San Francisco will be matched by a clamor in the Peninsula to get their own HSR stop.
The NIMBYs better get the best local accommodation they can get while they still have bargaining leverage ~ their leverage disappears once the trains start running.
YesonHSR Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
The noise made by the city would be 100 times the NIMBY’s and the small-town mayors.. once again 65% of the people of the Peninsula voted for high-speed rail.. it is coming up to San Francisco .The service could have small initial opening segment San Jose to LA just for testing and then get some revenue going but nobody in the city is going to wait for 5 to 10 years… maybe a couple months
BruceMcF Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
If the corridor design is finalized and through environmental, and the San Jose / LA-US was up and running to support revenue bonding, I’d guess a year or two, certainly not five to ten, with 4th and Townsend to TBT and 4th and Townsend to San Jose working in parallel.
As of today, Spain now has more High-Speed Rail mileage than France or Germany.
Btw, I rode a Spanish HSR line between Madrid and Barcelona. Incredibly smooth ride, quick, and fantastic service. It was an absolute joy. It only would have been more of a joy if the trip was longer. I believe it was about 2.5 hours.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 10:01 am
“It only would have been more of a joy if the trip was longer.”–Branbon from San Diego
Hey, that’s the definition of induced travel!
brandon from San Diego Reply:
December 20th, 2010 at 6:22 am
I don’t think so. If “more” joy” resulted in more trips; probably. I spoke to my personal joy for a single trip.
YesonHSR Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
I have seen the video of that train .it looks incredible
Nathanael Reply:
December 21st, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Apparently Spain has the second-most HSR mileage in the world after China. Which is really genuinely impressive.
Robert, here is a SF Chron OP’d to debunk.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/12/18/INHO1GRNES.DTL
Mad Park Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Don’t you love it when these “columnists” add 3 zeros to a $ amount just to try to get their followers all riled up?
“Noting that an Obama official had announced that California would get an extra $715 billion in the San Joaquin Valley congressional district of Democrat Jim Costa”
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/12/18/INHO1GRNES.DTL#ixzz18Wlr1qWO
$715 Billion??? I don’t think so…
What a fraud she is.
Victor Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
If California got that much money, HSR construction would go into high gear next year and It would bail the state out of Its deficit for a few years. sigh, I know Its not real and I wish It was too.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 9:54 am
It had to be a typo.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 11:03 am
Billion, Million, Brazilian, they are all so hard to keep straight.
jimsf Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 11:09 am
well, brazilian is easier, its the really hot one.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Yeah. . .maybe too hot. . .
http://www.worldisround.com/articles/85125/photo204.html
Hey, a thought just occured to me. Let’s send all the Republican-conservative members of Congress to Brazil–without their wives. Those phonies will be so distracted while they live out their fantasies, we can pass all kinds of legislation with a quorum while they are away, including plenty of rail money. . .
BUWUHAHAHAHAH!!!
jimsf Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 11:33 am
they can tell everyone they’ve been hiking the appalachian trail.
jimsf Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 10:33 pm
ah the train to nowhere headline… my heavens how original! I wonder how she thought of that. Even right wing wackos have go to be getting bored with the same tired republican talking points by now. Its like they’re just phoning it in.
The same thing was said about many freeways in cali including for instance the 280 which nobody thought any one would ever use.
and the oh so insignificant i-5 Construction began in the early 1960s. There were just three phases for the 321 miles (517 km). The first phase, completed in 1967, ran from the San Joaquin County line to Los Banos. The second phase, which was completed in 1972, extended the freeway south to Wheeler Ridge and connected it to SR 99. This was when the freeway started to see traffic, as in Stockton were only 4 miles (6.4 km) between the Westside Freeway and the Golden State Highway. Phase 3, completed in 1979, extended the freeway to Sacramento and connected it to the northern I-5.[21]
When the second phase of the freeway opened in 1972 it was a long and lonely route, with no businesses alongside. Services were not easily available as the nearest towns were miles away and generally out of sight. It was not uncommon for cars to run out of fuel. Now, the Westside Freeway (I-5) is lined with farms and businesses serving the needs of travelers. For years there has been interest in designating the Golden State Highway route as its own interstate.
san joaquin county line to los banos huh, why, that pesky freeway to nowhere!!!
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Oh, history doesn’t always repeat, but it sometimes rhymes–I’m not sure, but I seem to recall that was Mark Twain. In any event, that sounds like what you found here. Wonder if any Republicans see this and see themselves. . .
YesonHSR Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 10:37 am
She is the San Francisco Chronicles token right-wing mouthpiece.. and all the neocons and teabaggers love to post comments..
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 10:59 am
Took another look at the comments section, which is greatly expanded (and what I originally saw was only a list of the top three favorite comments), and the pattern of strong support holds true. This were even at least a couple of posters who claimed to be conservative, including one who had the user name “Go Navy.” “Go Navy” was also familiar with the National City Lines case and the subsidy situation. Those are good signs in my book.
YesonHSR Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 11:51 am
It’s pretty well known that most of the negative type commenters on SF gate don’t even live in the Bay Area or even California.. they love to post all kinds of negative comments for any article. The facts are that the city of San Francisco voted 72% in favor of high-speed rail in the Bay Area in general in the 62 to 65% range.. so the people who don’t want the system are obstructionists
99% percent of the people that read that… will read right over it, or, attribute it to being a typo.
Of course, the Republicans she is trying to rile up… would be the ones suspectible to that kinda stuff.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Did you take note of the comments following the article? Only three of them, but none agreed with her, and the first one in the list brought up the oil question and the idea that this might help bring our fighting people home. Hooray! It’s about time some other people started saying this besides me! (At least at times it has seemed so. . .)
Victor Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
I know of 3 Republicans who know and they like HSR and I know of one who’s against HSR, But then He’s an ignorant denier as He’s never even ridden on any type of passenger train. And to think He’s My brothers son, sigh. So not all Repubs are against HSR at least.
In terms of outreach, this is a good time to mention that CHSRA just rolled out what seems to be a hefty Google ad buy. I’m seeing Flash ads touting project benefits on YouTube, on the Fark.com sidebar, and elsewhere. Of course, they might be targeted to me due to the obvious interest that could be gleaned from cookies or my Google account.
Here’s the inevitable response from railfans who want HSR to get off their lawns: http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,2345138
YesonHSR Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 11:01 am
That website is crawling with teabag type rail fans!! I can’t believe the amount of negativity about passenger rail on a pro-passenger train website!! Love the comment about if it isn’t dirty old and rattling is not a real American passenger train!
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 11:14 am
I have to plead guilty to that–I’m a steam fan!! Ho, ho, ho, ho, ho!!
YesonHSR Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 11:45 am
I love looking at all the old railroad stuff and the Great American passenger system that was destroyed in the 1950s too .. it’s just that site has so many anti-HSR posters on on it.. it’s weird for passenger train website.
YesonHSR Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Actually I just read an article about paid trolls and their tactics.. This sounds exactly like something they would do.. post anti-passenger rails comments on a pro-passenger-site
Paulus Magnus Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Now, let’s be fair. After all, I got accused of being a paid troll for HSR when posting comments in the OC Register (not that I would mind getting paid to keep doing it of course).
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Hey, I got the same business myself at Palo Alto Online.
How do we get paid? I can use the money. . .
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
How about limiting yourself to one comment — a relevant comment — per blog per day?
synonymouse Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
This is too choice not to link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03Nq632eV6I&feature=player_embedded
swing hanger Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
You may think that a preponderance of anti-HSR comments on a railfan forum would be strange, but it’s actually quite common on U.S.-based forums. The average American railfan fits to a T the profile of a teabagger, as well as the age cohort Mr. D.P Lubic has frequently described on this forum. Also, forum posters on western U.S. focused railfan forums such as Trainorders.com tend to be especially sceptical or hostile about HSR, reflecting the more conservative nature of the politics of rural and suburban areas in the West, where most railfans live. In addition, to most western railfans, railroads equal big heavy slow freight trains. East coast focused railfan foums tend to be more HSR supportive, perhaps due to politics as well as the fact that passenger railroad systems are much more dense out there.
YesonHSR Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
The odd thing is they are on a passenger rail forum.. I do see they have other sections for freight and nostalgia steam interests.. that’s why thought they might be paid trollls .. it’s still odd that they don’t want passenger high-speed rail but then again for most of these people it’s probally just a hobby and you’re right they live out in the country and have no use for passenger rail outside of talking about what was.
Nathanael Reply:
December 21st, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Railroad.net tends to be more passenger-supportive than trainorders, and *it* is still filled with anti-passenger-rail extremists. Yeah, this is surprisingly common. There’s a lot of people from the “freight is great, but to hell with passengers” period of US railroading out there.
Off topic, but included for perspective–the Settle-Carlisle line in England, in some ways a 19th century version of a high-speed line:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settle-Carlisle_Railway
The line’s most notable engineering feature, or at least the best known, is the Ribblehead viaduct. What’s most interesting about this beautiful, classic bridge in stone, is that property owners, mostly big ones with money, protested the construction of this line in the 19th century, claiming, among other things, that the bridge shown here would ruin the beauty of the valley. Why does that sound so familiar?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribblehead_Viaduct
Have fun.
Just a tbt update… looking good!
Today its raining. Just rain. Which translates into the current 2 hour delay at sfo. Happy holidays.
check our latest story on sierra2thesea.com
You know, with the WI and OH governors returning their money, and now with the FL governor juggling the idea, you can bet that Meg Whitman would have done the same thing with the federal money as well.
Daniel Krause Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 11:30 am
The election of Jerry Brown may turn out to be the one factor that saves the budding HSR program in the U.S.
YesonHSR Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 11:42 am
God yes ..and she would have also been a Nimby to boot!!
synonymouse Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
We have not heard anything from Meg since the election so it is premature to speculate in detail on how she would have handled the hsr issue had she been elected. She is definitely pro-business in a big way, as demonstrated by her support of the water bond issue.
There are political realities that will very shortly affect the hsr phenomenon as well as Amtrak and local mass transit. For the time being the Republican party in particular and the deficit reduction movement in general are in the ascendancy. It is probable that a conservative, anti-spending President will be elected in 2012. The momentum is with chopping programs that the right considers to be ill-considered, ill-conceived pork.
Along with skepticism about massive infrastructure spending programs there a comes the more pervasive problems about how to fund all government spending, including social and military budgets. Unquestionably wealth in the US is mostly and increasingly in the hands of the super-rich and the multinationals. Despite all the blarney from selected tycoons about giving huge chunks of their fortunes back to the commonweal, in reality the rich remain remain tight with their loot. For instance loaded Bay Area resident Larry Ellison continuing to shakedown SF over a yacht race. Think about it: the GOP faithfully and totally represents the interests of the affluent and the corporations. So how do they respond to the challenge of financing the government in a time of economic crisis? By heaping more benefits on the rich. That is simply and utterly because the rich and business want it that way. End of story.
This is the underlying problem. The hsr, like BART, Muni, Metrorail, Amtrak, etc., will need large amounts of public money to pay for maintenance and operating subsidies. You cannot expect to get more tax money out of the ordinary citizenry – they are broke. So the ploy will be the usual “tax the rich” bs. Trouble is they know how to avoid these taxes. So these raise taxes revenue producing schemes will fall way short. This is why governors are loathe to take “free” federal money for projects like hsr which will entail more perennial fiscal liabilities when the states are already struggling vainly to cope with their existing structural deficits.
Bitch all you want about Meg but in the end the unions might have been better off saving the millions they blew to elect Jerry. He is just a machine hack. Wait and see – he doesn’t even have the cojones to tell Reid to go to hell and call for full legalization of casinos in the Golden State, a move which could actually produce some ongoing significant revenues. He just wants to trash Prop. 13 and run all the poor people out of state.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
She said she wanted to cancel it prior to the election, there is no need for speculation nor prematurity in it.
synonymouse Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
You are speculating would simply give the money back. I suggest she would have fought fiercely to keep the dough for other purposes – or cut the appropriation completely out of the federal budget. Believe it when Congress reconvenes LaHood will be in the GOP’s crosshairs bigtime.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Rescinding the money would still have to get a majority in the Senate and a Presidential signature ~ undoing things is harder than not doing them in the first place, which is why the GOP has been doing such strenuous impressions of speedbumps and fallen trees in the road over the past two years.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
“It is probable that a conservative, anti-spending President will be elected in 2012.”
Don’t go confusing cycles and trends, now ~ if the 2010 midterm electorate had been the electorate in 2008, John McCain would have been President. And the Republicans are busily spoiling their chances of ever again regaining the 2/5 of the Hispanic vote that Bush was able to snare in 2004, so the underlying starting point of a 2012 Presidential electorate will be if anything rougher terrain for the Republicans than 2008 was.
Oh, wait … on second thought, go ahead and confuse cycles and trends. DeficitErrorism is on an unbeatable rise, and you can just sit back sipping a slurpee and enjoying the show.
synonymouse Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
Well, the precious polls are running very to the negative on Barack’s re-election prospects and, despite all the Fed’s machinations and the resulting stock market bubble, unemployment doesn’t budge and maybe even worsening in some locales as companies continue to cut staff to up their profits.
All the positives have played out and the big negatives still lurk out there – geopolitical and double dip. And when even Raul Castro is cutting spending and subsidies you know this is a trend with legs. So unless you are anticipating the appearance of JC or ET next year look forward to a lackluster economy and the GOP resurgence and a pruned hsr.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
And you said Meg was gonna win in a landslide. . .
synonymouse Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
I thought she might have a chance of winning at the point when she was running well in the polls. But I always pointed out the enormous preponderance of Democratic registration in California. Her defeat underscores the reality that a genuine Republican cannot get elected in California today, not even Ronald Reagan. That’s how political patronage works; too many voters are compelled to vote machine because they depend on it for their bread and butter in the form of employment, entitlements, contracts or other business.
But Jerry will have to be careful with any sleazy, greasy tax tricks – Issa proved it doesn’t take much to pull off a recall out of nowhere. It was like a coup d’etat against Gray Davis and he is a lot less polarizing than Jerry Brown.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Ronald Reagan would be denounced as a Communist by today’s Republicans.
synonymouse Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Balderdash – you must be very young. Ronald Reagan was a hardcore McCarthyite and very much in J. Edgar Hoover’s good graces. As president of SAG he used to work with the FBI to ferret out “commies” in Hollywood. This is the guy who coined the phrase “welfare queen”.
jim Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Ronald Reagan was the last (full term) President who didn’t start any wars. This fact would have been astonishing to me in 1980.
jimsf Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
synonymouse, do you just make stuff up as you go or are you using the magic 8 ball by mattel*.
Victor Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
How can Synny get stuff from Himself, As I think He’s a Magic 8 Ball, Now where’s that pocket?
BruceMcF Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Synny, you disputed a claim without contradicting it ~ Reagan’s position in the 1980′s radical right wing was not at issue, but rather the policies that Reagan actually oversaw in office, many of which are policies which according to today’s radical right wing are sufficient basis for labeling a President as a commie.
synonymouse Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
You guys must be all in your 20′s. Ronald Reagan was the political equivalent of Barry Goldwater, who was the political godfather of John McCain. Rest assured that if RR were alive today he would hit it off very, very well with Sarah Palin. She obviously tries to imitate his folksy style.
But I don’t know who you consider representative of today’s right wing? Ronnie would have been right at home at Fox News.
Ronnie, like all these right wingers, would have no problem with private enterprise building a for-profit hsr. He didn’t like government much nor unions, even tho he headed up one.
The new generation of Repubs is basically saying they won’t sell out like their predecessors, the K St. bunch. Time will tell. I’ll put my money on corruption.
jimsf Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Let me put it to you this way syn. The California you want isn’t going to happen. Not this year, not next year not ever. You are in the minority and will remain in the minority for the duration of your stay here. You can stay and be miserable, which is what miserable unhappy usually do cuz that’s what they like. Or you can pack up your shit and get out. Go live someplace where you kind of political philosophy reigns. Of course you won’t do that because all the states that are ruled in the fashion you espouse, are miserable assbackwards dumps where only losers live. Places with crappy lifestyles and low quality of life. YOu don’t want to put up or shut up because you like living here and enjoying all the perks of california living, all the while badmouthing and bitching about how bad it is. As a proud native californian who believes in the states future and who remains optimistic ( a basic requirement for any real californian) I’m here to tell you that I am sick to death of people like you and I wish beyond all wishes that you and your ilk would hit the road. You aren’t wanted nor needed here and you contribute nothing to this state’s future. What you won’t do though, is hold up the state’s progress. You don’t have the power to do that.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
Synny, Ronnie was first elected in the first national election I voted in. I remember the actual Reagan administration.
The point being made is that many of the things he actually did not only “would” be called commie as a radical right wing talking point if done by a Democratic President, but have been called commie when done by a Democratic President.
Its not that its actually commie ~ radical right wingers are perfectly happy pretending for political purposes that center left, center, or even center right policies are “radical left wing” for the purpose of trying to shift the conversation in favor of maintaining the privileges of the nation’s entrenched aristocracy of wealth, even at the risk of the long term viability of the nation as a going concern.
jimsf Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
I’m 46 and remember reagan quite well and he was nothing like the tea party crowd at all. I was there. YOu can’t lie to me.
Victor Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
I’m 50 and I agree, He was nothing like the TP crowd.
Nathanael Reply:
December 21st, 2010 at 2:31 pm
I’m no fan of Reagan at all — he was awful for the country and engaged in massive short-term-thiking behavior — and he was certainly far to the right of Nixon and Eisenhower. But the modern Republican Party *would indeed* have called him a Communist, because they are *that much further* to the right.
Barry Goldwater would have considered these right-wingers nutty and dangerous.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 7:16 pm
Yes, he’s leading all named contenders. Against Palin he not only gets over 50%, but also the comfort of over 50% of the American electorate viewing her as unsuitable for high office. What a horrible position to be in.
The Republican party primary is a minefield, with the inside track owned by those least
electable with presidential election year electoral demographics ~ younger, more black, and more Hispanic than midterm electorates, all three of which are strikes against all main Republican contenders ~ and with a weak Republican bench.
Two years is a long time in politics, and y’all in the radical right wing may make some headway over the next two years. But you are clearly starting behind at this point ~ and the delusion that the midterm results translates directly into a Presidential election year is one more strike against you.
jimsf Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
I for one have always opposed casinos in california. I don’t like the idea of counting on that kind of revenue. I think whorehouses, casinos, and nuclear waste are why we have nevada next door.
synonymouse Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
What a joke. SF is one big massage parlor.
YesonHSR Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Not anymore..its 300buck dinners and 800K condos!! very few of the wild 60-70s left
Nathanael Reply:
December 21st, 2010 at 2:28 pm
The fact is that taxing the rich does work, they do not know how to avoid the taxes.
This is why they fight so hard to prevent dividend taxes, capital gains taxes, and estate taxes from being raised. If they knew how to avoid them, they *wouldn’t bother to fight*.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 21st, 2010 at 4:44 pm
I am currently reading a book titled “Jet Age,” by Sam Howe Verhovek. The thrust of the book is the rivalry between DeHavilland and the British airline B.O.A.C. with an early jet called the Comet vs. Boeing and Pan American with 707s to introduce transatlantic jet service, with a big section on the investigations into the problems the Comet had with metal fatigue resulting in several disasterous decompression incidents.
One of the interesting things mentioned in the book is that Boeing was not really big in the airliner business early in the 1950s. The firm had an excellent reputation in military aviation, but its airliner efforts had fallen flat against Lockheed and Douglas products. Despite this, the firm was very profitable with miltary contracts. It could have been a comfortable place to be; a new jet airliner, with the tests for certification that were required even then, was a potential “bet the farm” move. The company’s president at the time, Bill Allen, would chide his engineers (who were chomping at the bit to build a world-class jet airliner) at the staff meetings; “Christ, whose money are you spending?”
As it turns out, Uncle Sam helped pay for the development work on the 707. It seems Congress had passed an “excess profits tax” during the Korean War to keep military contractors from doing too well in times of strife. The law essentially defined “excess profits” as anything above what companies had made in the peacetime era of 1946-1949. Boeing had not done too well in this time period, with military contracts cancelled with the end of the war, and the competition of Lockheed and Douglas largely keeping the firm out of the passenger plane market in this time, but would potentially do very well as its military orders ramped up in the Korean conflict. This meant that compared with Douglas and Lockheed, Boeing would have to pay a lot more of the money it made in excess profits because its profits had been so low in the measured time.
What did this mean? Virtually all of Boeing’s military contract profits would be subject to an 82% tax rate, while Douglas wouldn’t face this rate until its profits exceeded that of its boom years in the postwar era. For Douglas and Lockheed, the effective rates would work out to 68% and 48% respectively. The effective rate for Boeing would be even higher if the profits were distributed to the stockholders, who would then have to pay personal income taxes on these dividends. What to do?
Bill Allen, whose training was in tax law, saw an opportunity. Only 18 cents of every dollar could be legally kept by Boeing, but money poured into jet airliner development was a legitimate business expense that reduced “profits;” the money spent would have had to go out in taxes otherwise. It was still a big gamble, but the company might have something to show for it at the end of the day, whereas the alternative was to just give the money away.
We know how it turned out now, of course, with Boeing for a long time being the gold standard in civilian jets. . .might not have happened that way if a pretty sharp fellow, who had no real background in engineering or flight, hadn’t seen this chance and took it in what could be said to be a form of legal tax evasion.
A lot of people say America has been dumbing itself down for a long time. I think there is considerable truth in this, and perhaps some of the worst examples are the so-called business elite, who would otherwise just go to Congress and complain about excess taxes instead of using those taxes and the connected deductions to develop new products.
In other words, Nathaniel is right.
From Sierra2thesea web site…
In the Valley, GOP congressmen Devin Nunes and Kevin McCarthy who represent areas where the track will be laid are some of its most strident critics.
Nunes suggests he is not against the project but his ‘Bah Humbug’ words say otherwise. Nunes told the Valley Voice Newspaper in Visalia the following last week. “Despite what’s been written, I’ve never once said that I’m against the concept. It’s been misreported in the media, largely for political reasons. I called it how it was, which is this project…was sent here just before the election as a payoff for [Congressional] health care [legislation] votes…and to help [Rep. Jim] Costa, who was then way down in the polls [in his race against Hanford cherry farmer Andy Vidak]. ” Nunes believes the bullet train plan is fatally flawed, partly because it is not designed to connect with a new international airport. “Basically all that’s going to happen here is you’re going to have a really nice Amtrak station and some expensive overpasses built in Fresno…The project will cost at least $100 billion. (Current estimates are $45 billion.) I’ve never seen a government project yet that doesn’t come in at least fifty percent over budget. Conceptually, high-speed rail makes a lot of sense. But most experts [have already] said there is no way this will work. And we’ve wasted millions of dollars already…People should not get the false hope that this is going to create any jobs – except for some short-term construction jobs… By doing it the way they’re doing it, it’s irresponsible. It’s already being written about all over the country as the ‘train to nowhere’” Nunes concludes.
Was there one hint of support there?
Kevin McCarthy – who represents Bakersfield in the House has signed on to a bill to take back $2 billion already allocated for California even though the project is likely to bring thousands of jobs to his district. McCarthy like Nunes is a rising star in the GOP with a Tea Party ideology and hopes to lead the charge to cut the train to nowhere – ironically his home town.
Victor Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
Kevin Eleven isn’t making many Friends there I’d think, His bill will go no where I’d think. As to Nunes, He’s just a hypocrite.