China’s Role in Funding California High Speed Rail
Over at the Fresno Bee, Tim Sheehan – who has become one of the state’s leading reporters on the high speed rail beat – has a good article on China’s role in possibly funding the California high speed rail system:
China’s not alone. Eight nations have agreements with the California High-Speed Rail Authority to share information about high-speed rail — and each wants a piece of California’s business.
“Other countries want to be a part of this because they know high-speed rail can be profitable,” said Jeffrey Barker, the authority’s deputy executive director. “Their ultimate interest is operating the system.”
First off, this is a really important point that Barker makes. The absurd arguments we keep hearing from HSR critics, that the project might not be profitable, are just not an issue to these international funders. They know perfectly well that HSR will be profitable – they’ve seen it in their countries, and they have analyses like that done by SNCF showing California’s system will be profitable as well. As we know, facts won’t stop HSR critics and opponents from attacking the project, but it’s good to remind ourselves that the evidence is on our side.
Sheehan explains how China is likely in the driver’s seat when it comes to funding California HSR:
“China is cash-flush, and its highly subsidized industries are bankrolled with surplus government funds,” said Usha Haley, a professor of international business at Massey University in New Zealand and an expert on China’s worldwide business strategies. “They’re investing in infrastructure around the world … and if they’re bidding in an open-bid process, China will get that bid.”
Of course, US companies are cash-flush, sitting on over $2 trillion in assets – but our companies are engaged in an effort to protect their market position by stifling innovation and refusing to support new infrastructure, hoping to instead extract higher rents from customers by forcing them to remain dependent on legacy systems. And our political leaders in Washington DC are afraid to do what the public wants and raise taxes on the rich, who have more than enough money to help close our deficit AND build our high speed rail line. So we have to look overseas to get the funding that should be coming from Congress.
As Sheehan’s article explains, even if we did have the funds, we’d need to look overseas for the expertise to build the systems, since the US spent the last 30 years coddling the oil companies instead of developing our own HSR industry. In any case, he quotes the CHSRA’s Jeff Barker on how foreign funding might work:
Barker, of the state rail authority, said bidders may put up billions of dollars in either cash or construction of needed technology, or offer to provide trains at no cost, in exchange for the long-term rights to operate the system as a business. Or they may find other ways to contribute to the cost.
Competition is expected, Barker said: “We want as many entities as possible offering financing or incentives, the best technology for the lowest cost.”
It shouldn’t have to be this way. The system ought to be operated as a public service, with the goal to be to move as many passengers as possible. By running it as a business, for profit, the public interest is not as properly served, and the public will pay fares that are unnecessarily high. Sure, the fares will still be lower than airfares and will pay for the system’s operations, but that’s still not the best way to run a transportation system.
Of course, any foreign funder and/or operator has to meet the Buy American rules, and China is already working on doing exactly that:
Last month, General Electric announced an agreement with CSR Corporation Limited, China’s largest manufacturer of high-speed trains, to invest $50 million in a joint venture to build trains in the U.S.
GE is a major manufacturer of diesel-electric locomotives.
The CSR-GE collaboration would create “the first U.S. manufacturer ready to supply high-speed trains for the two proposed true HSR corridors in Florida and California,” GE officials said in a statement.
By establishing a joint venture in the U.S. and doing final production and assembly here instead of China, GE and CSR would meet “Buy America” standards established by the Obama administration as a requirement of federal stimulus funds given to states for high-speed rail systems.
This is a good move, and dovetails on previous reports that China could use the former NUMMI auto plant in Fremont to build the trainsets.
As Sheehan’s article explains, other foreign companies have shown interest in US HSR. Two of them, Alstom and Siemens, already have factories here in California – Alstom has space on Mare Island, and Siemens has a light-rail factory in Sacramento that they have plans to expand for HSR production. The question then becomes which of these potential bidders can bring the most money to the table – China clearly has deeper pockets than anyone, and might be willing to outspend its rivals in order to get a foothold in the US.
While it can be flattering to be subject of suitors, California would do well to be careful about how this process unfolds, and ensure that whatever deals are cut, that it doesn’t saddle the project with debt (as happened in Taiwan) and that it works well for the future HSR passengers.
Building and maintaining a factory comes with very high fixed costs. Even with both a CA and Florida customer, the total output would be very, very tiny.
The result: very high per-unit cost, at least 100% more expensive than current market cost. And even if, by some miracle, the plant expands into other areas, they are still competing against large established firms that sell over the world.
The obvious solution here is to let the for-profit operator purchase trains (from wherever), and give a waiver on the Buy America stupidity.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 4th, 2011 at 10:41 pm
How is 107 trainsets for CA “very, very tiny”? That’s assuming of course that there isn’t further HSR expansion in the US or North America that could use trainsets built from that factory.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 4th, 2011 at 10:44 pm
Excuse me, that should be 212 total trainsets. Less than France, more than Germany I believe.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
January 4th, 2011 at 11:11 pm
We’ll see what number of trainsets CA eventually ramps up to. But even ~200 is too small; i.e. where economy of scale is possible.
Railcar manufacturing is a unified industry, with a supply stream that goes into lots of vehicles, of which the HSR stuff is just a tiny sliver. Creating a plant just for that one product niche just isn’t cost-effective, relative to what is available there off-the-shelf.
Of course, a for-profit operator can always decide otherwise. How about we let NUMI compete on a level playing field, and see who offers best product at lowest cost, without Buy America protectionism?
swing hanger Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 5:58 am
Buy America does raise costs, but it’s a political reality, unfortunately. As you say, railcar builders won’t build a factory just for one order of HSR trainsets. That’s why China has partnered with GE, and other potential bidders have factories already in operation supplying the mass transit and commuter markets- it’s just a matter of opening another production line.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 9:24 am
Alstom and Kawasaki have existing plants for the huge New York City Subway market.
Andre Peretti Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 11:11 am
The Alstom-Kawasaki joint venture (AlsKaw) beat all reliability records with the rolling stock they built for the New York subway, with an average mileage before failure over 1 million. That was almost 10 times what the contract had specified.
The problem is Alstom’s and Kawasaki’s plants are not in California. And Alstom told its New York staff that its Californian plant would never compete with them.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 11:47 am
As far as federal Buy American regulations are concerned, a factory in Upstate New York is as good as a factory in California. Californian regulations and political efforts might force the opening of a new factory, but said factory would probably use the same global network of subcontractors as the existing plants, so the cost increase would be minimal.
jimsf Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 5:07 am
why is buying american stupid? not buying american for the past 30 years is what has ruined the country and left americans without jobs and the country with no manufacturing base and no way to compete in the global market without financial shell games and trickery.
Joey Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 8:32 am
Because the current Buy American rules promote ridiculously inflated costs for a paltry number of American jobs.
jimsf Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
funny how we wring hands over costs for some things but not others.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
If I remember correctly the Federal rules are in the vicinity of 25%. Buy American if the American product is no more than 25% more than the foreign product. The government makes that money back in taxes, income, Social Security and other taxes.
YesonHSR Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
If the vendor is 100% financing the purchase why does it have to be assembled even in the United States? Cannot it simply conform to FRA regulations?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
Yes the buy American rules only apply if you are using money subject to Buy American rules…
mike Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
It’s stupid because it’s an expensive policy that masquerades as free. Why not also require all drivers to buy from the Big 3 and all airlines to buy from Boeing? If the goal is to protect American jobs, then the government should just slap a tariff on all imported goods and be done with it. But they shouldn’t claim to believe in free trade on the one hand, and then impose incredibly onerous restrictions on what suppliers transit agencies can buy from on the other hand.
jimsf Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 3:29 pm
All the new bridges are built in china and come floating in on boats in big pieces so we may as well have the trains built there and float a couple hundred of them over on a container ship when they are ready, and while there at it a cruise ship full of chinese laborers could float across and then we could make sure that prop !a results in zero jobs for californians being created. Think of the savings!
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 8:20 am
Finding the space isn’t all that difficult – you do what Alstom did on Mare Island and repurpose an existing facility. It’s worth it if you can sell a bunch of trainsets to California and perhaps others in the coming decades. It could serve the whole hemisphere, as does the Siemens plant in Sacramento.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 9:38 am
Ah, yes, the Siemens plant in Sacramento. The one that bid more than 100% over going market rate for the SMART DMU procurement.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
There is no market for FRA compliant trolley cars, so it’s difficult to come up with a market price.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 7:01 pm
These are commuter DMUs, not trolleys.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Whatever they are, there is no market for them.
Joey Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 6:33 am
That’s the problem. There’s an established market for lightweight commuter DMUs, with standard price points etc. But nooooooo … we had to go with a proprietary solution.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 8:11 am
There’s a huge market, just not in North America.
A much better practice for what to do when there’s no market is in Canada. Ottawa’s RIVERLine-style O-Train got a waiver from buff strength rules with time separation, and uses off-the-shelf Bombardier Talents piggybacking on a larger DB order. Ottawa made no significant modifications to the trains. As a result of this streamlining, the cost of the entire line was about $1,500 per weekday rider.
I didn’t see a lot new in this article, thankfully, as the NY Times ironically wrote a piece a while ago making the same comparison…that the Chinese built the Central Pacific, so why not use China to build HSR….
Using China for HSR is a mistake. I know guys like Robert are willing to build HSR at any cost, but if it is done using reminibi that is a price too high.
European firms traditionally have done utility management contracts for roads, water systems, and the like because it provides a stable revenue base that is not inflation sensitive to cover their spiraling pension obligations. For example, the State of Texas contracted with Cintra of Spain to design and eventually operate the “Trans-Texas Corridor”. Cintra wanted the toll revenue from cars and trucks shuttling between Laredo and Dallas. In the developing world, French firms like Vivendi have sought to do much the same with water systems hoping to gain profit from Africans turning on running water for the first time. It’s a perverse, neo-imperalist sort of arrangement, but it’s born of some sort of logic.
Chinese involvement however, would be just madness. As Robert notes, the Chinese have plenty of cash and young population, so owning infrastructure would be essentially a hedge against their trade deficit. That’s obviously not what China wants long term. They want the opportunity to buy US companies, and it’s conceivable that whatever partnership is created for HSR morphs into a sort of sovereign-corporation that owns China’s assets in the US.
This is also music to California’s politicians, because any China-owned sovereign-corporation will likely spread its wealth around to ensure it’s continued operation. This is the real reason Schwarzenegger and company were so eager to offer the Chinese a seat at the table…they want their money and after the Citizens United case, they can get as much as they want.
But this isn’t the great folly. It’s to assume that somehow the cheapest technology is the best. It’s hard to believe in a country that allows so much copyright infringement that any imported technology will really be theirs. And even if it’s not, there’s no reason to assume its safe. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not that China is incapable of producing the type of trains and systems CAHSR wants. It’s that it will probably take another 30 years to do so, and we want this thing to be operational in 2020.
Truth is, nearly all of the CAHSR should be homegrown. It should be designed by local companies, built by American firms, and operated by a new government corporation that incorporates at least Metrolink and CalTrain and probably BART too.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 4th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
If the CRH380 is already in revenue service now, why would it take them another 30 years to build what we want? Or even the ten years until we want it in operation?
So, China is bad because it’ll be 30 years before they can bring out the necessary trainsets (despite already having them) while local American companies without absolutely no experience are a better option for getting it done by 2020? And on top of that you want to merge widely geographically disparate commuter railroads, one of whose infrastructure is incompatible with the others, with an intercity line?
Risenmessiah Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 10:45 am
From the beginning, China has said don’t judge us on what we are producing now, judge us on where will be.
The CHR 380 may be adequate for use on the HSR system, but keep in mind that it was only possible after huge technology transfers from Europe and Japan. Secondly, California doesn’t need trains, it also needs the type of positive train control that the Japanese have to deal with seismic issues. Simply buying a Alstom train from the Chinese is not the way to go….but again…the Chinese are unlikely to go for that anyway…they would want to control and own the right of way too.
The reason to integrate commuter rail and HSR is simple: that’s the future. HSR is too expensive to build into every corner of LA or SF….but a strong commuter rail system will allow people to transfer seamlessly and boost ridership.
Useless Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 11:01 am
@ Risenmessiah
> From the beginning, China has said don’t judge us on what we are producing now, judge us on where will be.
The problem is that Chinese cannot come up with a US legal design until 2020; not enough time for the 2015 bidding. Same holds true for Japanese. Kawasaki is developing the US-legal efSET but this may not make it in time for California bidding, and California is going to be the efSET’s launch customer(If selected), unlike other vendor’s models already debugged at home.
> Secondly, California doesn’t need trains, it also needs the type of positive train control that the Japanese have to deal with seismic issues.
California is going with European traffic control system and not Japanese.
> Simply buying a Alstom train from the Chinese is not the way to go
How do you buy an Alstom train from the Chinese?
Andre Peretti Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
You can’t unless you buy the CRH5 (Pendolino technology). There has been no TGV or AGV technology transfers.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
And the problem with that would be what, exactly? After all, our ideal solution is to receive technology transfers ourselves.
I’m not seeing much in the way of difficulty for adding “Stop now” as a command line when triggered by a seismic event.
Why should the commuter rail systems be under the aegis of the intercity rail network instead of simply cooperating together to arrange for said transfers as they are already doing?
Risenmessiah Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
I’d add the following:
The act of technology transfers itself is not the problem. It’s that in China, they are done with the expressed purpose of building the same product for cheaper, usually because of labor costs. So all that means is that instead of American jobs, we will get more jobs for the Chinese. Given the Obama Administrations supposed desire to put people back to work, it would seem very odd to go through the Chinese to do what could be done here….acquire technology and devise a model.
As for your question of aegis….the fact is that the state already pours a lot of money into Amtrak California and counties already chip in money to the commuter rail system. What needs to happen in due time is that Amtrak California will dissolve and the Surfliner will morph into the Coast Daylight. between SF and LA. Amtrak will still operate the long distance trains. But the new agency will take over HSR, commuter rail and the like to use as a counterweight to local governments and their turf wars.
Useless Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 6:31 am
@ Risenmessiah
> Don’t get me wrong, it’s not that China is incapable of producing the type of trains and systems CAHSR wants.
You actually got it wrong. Chinese are indeed incapable of producing US-legal bullet trains. Just like how there is not a single Chinese car that could be sold in the US, and bullet trains are 10 times as hard as engineering a car.
YesonHSR Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
The cold hard truth is who’s going to give us $40 billion?? It appears the federal government’s lame copeout at least for now with a paltry 1 billion for next year.. something a few people here in United States actually make every year.. And that’s it for high-speed rail for now .. So unless the French and the Germans, with equal amount of money it looks like we’ll be borrowing and buying Chinese.. but maybe the Germans will come around with the Chinese and have some of the trainsets partially assembled here in Sacramento.
Risenmessiah Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 11:27 pm
Who will give us 40 billion? There’s a long list:
Wall Street
CALPERS
the State
Feds
The Saudis….
The issue is….there’s no business model yet…so how can an investor be expected to put money in?
The old NUMMI plant at Fremont would be a great place for a Chinese operated factory, it’s got a huge Chinese community in the area.
Useless Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 6:31 am
NUMMI plant is being taken over by Tesla.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 8:18 am
Not the whole thing though – as I understood it, Tesla doesn’t need the entire facility. But their plans may have changed.
Jian Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
IIRC, Tesla and Toyota are planning to use the entire facility. Tesla will be using a small portion of it initially and will expand once the technology is used for Toyota products, also to be produced at that facility.
YesonHSR Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
I would think the only place in California that may be seeing high speed rail train set construction will be in Sacramento or the Alstom plant.
I prefer to go with the Japanese; more experienced (running since the late 1960s), they face the same seismic issues as we do, yet they have yet to have a major accident on the Shinkansen.
Sure saving money is one thing, but you can’t put a price tag on safety, especially when you’re talking about a transportation method that has +500 souls at stake per train set.
If it’s a loan, why not a trade? The Japanese money and the expertise of making bullet trains work with something what the Japanese want: the rare-earths metals that we have in the Mountain Pass Mine.
Victor Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 12:56 am
True Japan could use that, But so could the French and the Germans, The French & maybe Germany have accused China of trying to sell licensed technology(Licensed to China from Europe for use inside China) outside of China which China is not allowed to do, So there’s a legal question there and that could get sticky, Japan is good, But do they operate their bullet trains in isolation or like the French do mixed in with normal traffic in some places? I’d rather go towards France Myself, As the TGV is better than a mere licensed clone any day.
swinf hanger Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 2:45 am
Shinkansen trainsets do operate in mixed traffic, on the so-called “mini-shinkansen” routes in northern Japan, where tracks are not grade separated and operation is restricted to 130km/h top speed, due to railroad crossings. Local stopping trains sharing the same standard 1435mm gauge as the shinkansen also operate on these lines.
swing hanger Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 5:44 am
Shinkansen do operate in mixed traffic routes- on the so-called “mini-shinkansen” lines in northern Japan they share tracks with local stopping trains, and are restricted to 130km/h top speed due to railway crossings (the track is not grade separated like on dedicated shinkansen lines).
Useless Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 6:35 am
@ swing hanger
> Shinkansen do operate in mixed traffic routes- on the so-called “mini-shinkansen” lines
Mini-Shinkansen trains still feature below-UIC crashworthiness strength.
For CAHSR’s mixed traffic condition, there are really just two choices; TGV or KTX-II.
Peter Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 9:19 am
You mean the “mixed traffic condition” that will be irrelevant in 2015 with full implementation of PTC?
Someone Reply:
January 8th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Sorry for telling but the KTX-II is not even option. Why buying ‘European technology in Korea’? That makes no sense, sorry.
Moreoever, the standards of noise polution and consumption of the SHINKANSEN trains are simply superior to the European standards (much stricter) and that’s besides the reliability of Japanese trains (no doubt, they are superior). Conclusion: An important fact is, If you want something good for California, California should get the Shinkansen.
wu ming Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 2:20 am
i tend to agree, but it’s worth trying to get as many bidders as possible, when you’ve got a potential monopsony setup. offering lots of contracts/investments to all players might make more sense than locking in one big non-compete contract, for the interests of the state of CA.
Clem Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
> Sure saving money is one thing, but you can’t put a price tag on safety
Of course you can. It’s called the Statistical Value of Human Life, and it’s about $8 million if I recall correctly. If you’re spending more than that to save each life, you’re wasting money that could save more lives elsewhere.
jimsf Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
CAn I get my 8 million in value advanced then.
James Fujita Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
We’d have to kill you first.
jimsf Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
There’s always a catch.
YesonHSR Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
I do wish they would apply that to the freeway and roadway systems in United States.. 35,000 people die every year and hardly a blink of an eye.. the Japanese have never had an accident or death with their high-speed rail and how many have died in the French or German rail system or for that matter in any of the new Chinese high-speed rail trains?
China simply does not factor into the financing picture of California HSR system. Why? Chinese simply don’t have a bullet train model that could legally be sold in the US. And Chinese are not going to finance the railway construction to run non-Chinese bullet trains over them.
Rather, California’s financing options are restricted to Japanese, French, and Korean governments and this is where CASHR authority should look into.
Dan Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 9:42 am
I hear over and over again how Chinese trains can’t legally be exported to the USA, but it is always offered without proof. Instead of just China-bashing, how about naming a particular patent which has been filed in the USA and is violated by Chinese HSR trainsets. The Japanese and Germans transfered a lot of “know-how” to the Chinese in order to win orders, but US-law doesn’t protect this type of transfer unless the contract specifically procludes them from exporting trainsets (to date no one’s shown such a contract), it comes down to patents …. most of which probably have never been filed in the USA.
Useless Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 10:17 am
@ Dan
> but it is always offered without proof.
http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2010/12/15/a-problem-with-california-plans-to-tap-chinese-tech/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704814204575507353221141616.html
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,2321956
http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2010/12/20/chinese-train-drivers-manual-in-english/
> how about naming a particular patent which has been filed in the USA and is violated by Chinese HSR trainsets.
Implementation detail is also protected, and CRH380A shares structural details with Shinkansen E2 which it is based upon.
> but US-law doesn’t protect this type of transfer unless the contract specifically procludes them from exporting trainsets
Kawasaki states that the agreement specifically prohibits the export of transferred technology. They are for China-use only.
> to date no one’s shown such a contract
Of course no one would show such contract to public as it is treated as a business secret. What matters is that the export prohibition clause is in the contract and the US judge will see the contract.
This whole article is messed up, since Chinese cannot legally bid in the US and it is highly unlikely Chinese will offer financing for a contract in which they are not a trainset supplier.
Dan Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Thanks for the reply … it’ll take a while for me to read your links, but it still seems more like posturing than any sort of real legal action. I guess we’ll see how it plays out.
Useless Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 5:38 am
@ Dan
> it’ll take a while for me to read your links, but it still seems more like posturing than any sort of real legal action.
That implies you take the words of a Chinese company more seriously than the likes of Kawasaki and Siemens.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 8:12 am
ZOMG, it’s a Chinese company! Clearly, everything it says is lies!
Useless Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 8:23 am
@ Alon Levy
> ZOMG, it’s a Chinese company! Clearly, everything it says is lies!
Which isn’t too far from the truth.
James Fujita Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
it wouldn’t be up to the USA. More likely, it would fall to WTO to determine if international intellectual property rights/ international patents were violated.
I’d let China bid its own technology. And Korea, too. But Japan, France and Germany have been at it for the longest.
Eric M Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 10:33 am
Useless, why don’t you just use your real name. I saw you were arguing the exact same arguements on an editorial a week or so ago?
greg Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Useless = HyperMiler = Banned on http://www.skyscrapercity.com/ = China HSR basher = KTX promoter
China, Japan, someone? How about making our conventional trains work. much less high speed rail.
Twice my girlfriend has tried to use the Surfliner for work and twice she had to drive because something fucked up, haha.
Useless Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 8:57 am
You really can’t find US-based commuter EMU manufacturer anymore; all the suppliers are foreign nowadays including subway cars.
The best you can settle for is US-manufacturing by these foreign train vendors.
James Fujita Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
That wasn’t Spokker’s point. I think.
Nothing wrong with foreign-owned U.S. manufacturing. My father worked for American Honda, and they hire countless Americans in their many U.S. factories, and at their Torrance HQ. They even have automobile R&D facilities in California. I hope you all enjoyed the Rose Parade brought to you by Honda :)
And America does export some stuff!
spokker Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Yeah, I was just venting. We scrambled to take an earlier train and made a day out of it.
Anthony Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 6:07 am
I’m tired of hearing that too. Everybody has an example how China or some other country can’t do something its already doing, I find that very funny. I also find it funny how people aren’t worried about others complaining over the cost like the tunnel or trench in Burlingame.
Look do you want this done or not? If so, then all you should be concern with is how much and how fast and is it safe. Why no mention of Germany? Because they’ve had a deadly accident or two? Big F’in deal nothing is perfectly safe and all the German accidents can be explained very easily.
The point is, if somebody want “IN” on our HSR, then let them come. I’m glad some of you are not in the position to make some of decisions otherwise you would derail the idea before it even got started over false nationalism concerns and wrangling over final cost.
If China wants to foot the bill and take say 30% ownership of the company SO BE IT! Is the US with two ongoing wars, out of control health care system and boneheaded Congress really in a position one of the largest infrastructure projects since Hoover Dam?
This is going to even cost less than Boston’s Big Dig, so I wouldn’t worry about it.
James Fujita Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
There are organizations you can join which are dedicated to that….
anyhoo, build Cal HSR and suddenly Amtrak’s San Joaquin (and all of its equipment) gets to be revamped for the new reality. California commuters get a taste of the best rail has to offer. Local transit agencies will get direct and indirect benefits as well. Commuters from Palmdale to Los Angeles could potentially get new options.
Overall effect: HSR helps conventional rail.
Robert, that article you talked about and linked regarding Americans want the rich to pay more taxes to make up for the deficit is total and utter bullshit! Enough of the “tax the rich”. How about a FLAT TAX so all the freeloaders can pay their fair share. Everyone is suppose to be treated equally right? Why should the people that want and do work harder to make more money have to pay more tax than any other person in this country? The top 5% of income earners pay over 50% of the federal income already and others say it’s more!. It is a big falacy that people think the rich don’t pay, when in fact they do. You want the rich to be taxed, but where do you think the money comes from to create jobs? The poor don’t hire people to work beacuse they have no money.
If our government needs more money to build more infrastructure, we need to cut the welfare programs and all other assistance programs where the people are working the system. That way, the money can be redirected so they can have a job, instead of sitting at home waiting for the next free check to show up in the mail, that we the working help pay for!
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 10:31 am
This is absurd. There is no reason for anyone to have the kind of staggering wealth that people like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet have. In fact, their having that wealth contributes to overall economic weakness because the wealth is concentrated in their hands instead of being shared more broadly. The top income tax rates need to return to the Eisenhower levels of 91%, without loopholes or ways around it. That wealth needs to be confiscated and redistributed, not just to rebuild the middle class, but to build the kind of infrastructure like high speed rail that we need for broadly shared prosperity.
The alternative is the present course, where California has to go to China to get the funds for our HSR system because Congress has chosen to give more money to the rich instead of using it to fund infrastructure.
If you look at civilizations throughout history, a common precedent before collapse is a concentration of wealth at the top, where instead of maintaining and renewing infrastructure, the economy is hollowed out for the benefit of a few. Unless you yourself are wealthy, you’re being duped and used by people who believe you make too much money and deserve fewer benefits, services, and infrastructure.
Eric M Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 10:47 am
Collapses happen not because the concentraion of wealth, but because ideals like you have that create a lazy uncapitolistic society from disolving any incentive to work harder and make more money.
jimsf Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
bs
Anthony Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 6:14 am
Never studied history huh?
synonymouse Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 10:48 am
The oligarchical economic model is timeless – in Rome taxation was reverse-progressive; the wealthier you were the less you paid. We are well on our way to a similar economic order in the latter-day US. The trendy name for it is meritocracy.
And just who is going to change this system? The masses? In order to shake down the super-rich and multinationals you would need a ruthlessly effective, aka dictatorial, enforcement mechanism. You would need to lock down the movements of the wealthy, the corps and their money. Fat chance.
Besides if the government has the money it will just waste it on politicized, ill-conceived crqp like the Tehachapi detour. At least the megalomaniacs of capitalism have better taste than that.
Eric M Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 10:58 am
Synonymouse, please read, especially paragraph 6 from this site. The rich are not paying less.
synonymouse Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 11:19 am
There is on paper, for the public eye, wealth and then there is real wealth. Corporations constantly hide their real assets and tycoons do the same.
Besides, money is simply a token for power and position. So in reality Vladimir Putin is the wealthiest person in Russia. And the Pope is actually richer than Bill Gates.
Money, like military strength, is a tool to achieve dominance in the affairs of man. An example of this complex and dynamic interplay was the nearly successful attempt at world conquest by the fascist movement of the 30′s and 40′s.
Realist Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Eric, the really wealthy do pay very little in tax. Warren Buffett bet the forbes 400 a million dollars that not one of them paid a higher tax percentage than their receptionists.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/taxes-warren-buffett-and-paying-my-fair-share/
My vote is for a national sales tax with food and only food being exempt – I’d be ok with some luxury items having higher rates.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
You can only buy so many yachts, fur coats and baubles for your mistress before you start buying things like default credit swaps. Things like that probably wouldn’t fall under a sales tax.
Missiondweller Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Robert, is this your Marxist coming out party?
jimsf Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
oh please.
tjon Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
There should be a Godwin’s Law for Marxism/Communism/Socialism.
Victor Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 7:40 am
Get lost Md, Just cause Robert’s advocating caring for those that are less fortunate & You call Him a Communist(Marxist)?
How dumb can You get? You and others wouldn’t know one, if one kissed You… You’re just trying to pray on peoples fears of people that are different and that’s is so WRONG.
I mean I like the Marx Brothers, Does that make Me a Marxist?
YesonHSR Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
There is no reason anyone needs over $100 million to live on!!! That’s what some of these ultra rich people make every year at least.. You already bought every creature comfort and basic need.. after that it’s all pure power and greed.
wu ming Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
working harder ≠ making more money.
Eric M Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
I agree, as is should be. But making more shouldn’t mean being taxed more. Whether you make $10,000 dollars a year or $1,000,000 a year, the tax should be the same.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
So if you don’t make enough to feed yourself, you should still pay the same taxes as someone who can afford a large apartment in downtown San Francisco?
Eric M Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
If you don’t make enough to feed yourself, I am sure there is some sort of welfare program that will help out, otherwise you are living above your means
Tjon Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
What if they have no choice but to live above their means? Car ownership can be prohibitively expensive (especially with insurance), and yet necessary for a person who lives in a place without any public transportation.
Victor Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 8:24 am
And that’s so true out here in Yermo CA, Which is about 12.5 miles from Barstow CA and is along the I15 freeway. Insurance for My car costs Me either $18.16 a month or $18.20 once every 6 months. Repairs can be more expensive(My insurance is GMAC and It’s the state minimum as that’s what I can afford, So I have to drive better than others, As in changing lanes requires one to look to the rear over ones shoulder and use their turn signals, Most don’t and are required to do so by the Vehicle Code here in CA), I had a Thermostat replaced for $191.33 and work on the Cars A/C cost Me $255.93 and that A/C work didn’t include any money for Parts as I’d already bought those. So Yeah a car isn’t cheap, But the alternative is to walk and in the Desert that’s not a good idea, More so if one is disabled. As to what I get, I get $845 a month($674 Fed and $171 from CA; SSI+SSP) or $10,140 a year and It’s not enough to pay for rent beyond $450 a month and only barely at that as rent requires twice the income I’ve been told and so $450 is the most that I can afford, Affordable housing(Section 8, Voucher) has a waiting list of 1 to 5 years and sometimes the lists are closed(I’ve seen $371 – NO Pets(My Cat would have to be declared a Support Animal to get around the NO Pets rule) and $376 where Pets are Allowed), Yet apartments are available for immediate rent and I can’t rent them, But then I lay that at the feet of Congress who only likes Cuts to those Who are less fortunate and Who have not raised the FBR(Federal Benefit Rate) or link It to inflation since 1972, I’m not talking about a COLA either. A rent of $609 would need about at least $1200 a month of income, If had $1,348 to $2,022 a month of SSI Income I would not need that extra $171 a month from CA(Good Luck on that happening), Oh and People who get SSI in CA don’t get Food Stamps cause of a Policy Dispute(an Embargo) between the State of CA and the USDA/SSA over Cash Out. Of course then Resource Limits would have to be raised and some are against that too as It has been proposed in the past to raise those limits and Republicans in Congress voted NO back in the 90′s, Saying It would only attract more people, Which is an oppressive lie as more people would only have to be Disabled and get below the $2,000($3,000 for a couple) monthly Resource Limit(A Car and a House do not count, Nor do belongings in said house). Oh and I recently sold My Mobile Home to the Park, Why? So I can buy(with a Mortgage, I’ve made an offer too) a House closer to My relatives and cause My knees/joints don’t like the climb up and down the steps here anymore as I get older.
Victor Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 9:27 am
Oh and on selling a house or a mobile home I have 9 months I’m told by the SSA to either get another House or to get below the $2,000 limit(and/or both), But then I got only $6500 for the Mobile Home after trying to sell the place for just over 12 months, A Mobile Home is considered Personal Property by the State of California of course and so I had only a few offers(that didn’t pan out), But then getting a Personal loan for any amount right now in a Rental Park is impossible cause banks say Oh what’s to stop the place from being moved?(Money and lots of It) Total ignorance is at work here by Banks, As It cost Me originally about $7,000 to tear down(prep for moving the Mobile Home), Move and Setup the Mobile Home here back in 2006, But then they need a Semi Truck and specialized skills to move It as It weighs 19,500lbs or 9.75 Tons.
Anthony Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 6:18 am
Name one person that makes 100 million a year that actually WORKS. They make decisions, not actual WORK, they have people do WORK FOR THEM. Don’t be silly.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 6:47 am
Hedge fund managers. They have to go to an office now and then and manipulate symbols.
mike Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
The top 5% of income earners pay over 50% of the federal income already and others say it’s more!.
You are confusing federal income with federal income tax. In 2005 the top 5% paid 43.8% of federal income (p. 7). This is primarily because the top 5% earned 31% of income – for better or worse, we have a very unequal society. (You also might want to check your math as the second link shows the top 5% paying a lower share than the first link does.)
More importantly, you neglect to account for state and local taxes, which are highly regressive. After adding up all taxes – state, local, and federal – in 2008 the top 5% paid 38.5% of all taxes and earned 36.5% of all income. It’s remarkably close to a flat tax system.
But even if we hadn’t extended tax cuts for the rich, we’d still be facing a long-term budget problem, mainly because of Medicare.
You want the rich to be taxed, but where do you think the money comes from to create jobs? The poor don’t hire people to work beacuse they have no money.
This argument makes no sense.
First, Robert is proposing using the tax revenues to build infrastructure. That creates jobs. If anything it creates more jobs than would be created if you had left the money with the rich (they have a high propensity to save).
Second, even if you gave the money to the poor, what do you think they will do with it? Spend it, of course – they can’t afford to save. This spending increases aggregate demand, creating jobs.
synonymouse Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 2:05 pm
It doesn’t really matter if the rich pay 90% of their income in taxes if in the process they secure total control of the reins of government. They dominate policy making and still have scads left over to indulge their every whim, vice, obsession, compulsion or addiction.
And of course the tax is on new income, not the standing fortune.
Realist Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
The problem with all these statistics is that they start with “income”, but that’s different than cash flow (at least for the very rich it is). Once you’re rich you do things like own assets you can depreciate (say a commercial property), then your gross income minus depreciation which is the income you report and are taxed on is much less than what you are actually collecting in terms of cash flow. So even if you’re paying 25% on your “income” if you’re rich, you could be paying a much lower percent on the cash you got to spend or invest or throw on your fire that year. I know some rich people who basically don’t pay any taxes at all because according to the IRS rules they didn’t have any “income” that year. Depreciating a piece of property is just a simple example, but it gets more and more ridiculous, especially once you go international with your accounting.
jimsf Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
If the rich create the jobs, and the rich are clearly richer now than they have ever been, and paying the lowest tax rates they have ever paid, where are the fucking jobs dude?
Anthony Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 6:11 am
Who’s freeloading? Are you serious? I earned $17K in 2009 is that free loading? I paid sales tax, taxes on my car(s), etc, etc. Obama chopped my earned tax rate so I actually got a tax cut, know it, most of the public did but don’t even know it. So who’s freeloading off the system? Like it would allow other thing to get done, BS, it would just go into contractors and politicians pockets anyway. Flat Tax advocates can never explain themselves and are usually White that’s the problem.
Here are sixteen, count ‘em , sixteen charts which break down the distribution of various types of wealth in american and every one of them demonstrates that the rich are richer than ever. Income for working people has remained flat for 50 years. And now, with the haves having more than they’ve ever had, we have an economy just shy of the worst economy in our nations history.
SO please, DO tell me again about how we need to give them MORE so they can create jobs when they have FREAKING ALL OF IT already.
Thats the real “bullshit” ERIC.
jimsf Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
oh here are the charts. See all the pretty colors and lines that indicate the bulk of the wealth areadly as high up as it can get, there isn’t any more wealth left to siphon upward to the wealthy. They HAVE IT ALL already. and they are not creating jobs with it.
ANd god forbid, I mean really god for freakin bid, that any of those people and corporations would just step up, not for pure profit, but for their own american loyalty to the country that allowed them to achieve all that wealth to begin with, the country and its people who set up the system for them to take advantage of, and who went along with it, god forbid they loosen the purse strings and say hey, you know what I see millions of americans hurting so Im gonna create some jobs just because I have more money than god and I wont miss a few nickels and its the right thing to do—— you know, the poor american families cough up their taxes and send their kids to die in wars for the sake of patriotism. What about the ERIC? hmmm? Do you think they might consider it? Or are they too busy being god’s favorite “ooh I worked so hard im so special” give me a break.
Eric M Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Hey Jim, welcome to a capitalistic society. Every person has a right to make as much as they want to and should not be pinilized for making more because other are not.
Change everything to a flat tax. Everyone treated equal, right? Or do you think because someone is making more than you that they are suppose to share (redistribution of weath)?
Eric M Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
ooops, spell check failed. penalized, not pinilized
jimsf Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
but you said they are creating jobs with that money. where are the jobs?
and of course money is the only thing that matters. Morality is not a part of the american fabric after all?
As for redistribution of wealth, we have over the last 40 years, redistributed the bulk of americas wealth right to the very top and it did not result in a situation that made us a stronger country, nor did it benefit the middle class.
Why is is redistribution when we create policy that spreads it downward, but its not redistribution when we create policy that drives it upward?
They didn’t earn it, they took it. or we gave it to them, one or the other.
The bulk of the wealth was in the middle class when the country was truly powerful and prosperous.
When the wealthy, through policy, figured out to drive more of it upward they did so, and that allowed them to use the money to create more wealth, while leaving the middle class without, and the country weak. YOU may think thats ok but I don’t.
What youre saying is, hey if you can figure out a way to screw somebody, and get away with it, then its perfectly fine, since its their own fault for letting themselves get screwed.
That is a fine upstanding outlook. Is that what you teach your kids too?
Eric M Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Yes Jim, everyone treated equally. You have every right to make millions of dollars, as everyone else in this country and I guarantee you would be bitching and moaning if you had to pay more tax than your neighbor/friends because they make less and it put them into a different tax bracket. But hey, redistribution of wealth right? Give your friends some of your income because they make less right? Bet you are not writing checks to them.
jimsf Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
I have never once in my life complained about paying taxes. I understand conribution for the greater good of society. I prefer to live in a civil society. not a jungle.
jimsf Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
and I have written them checks and they do make less than me smartass.
Eric M Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
then I applaud you for that and rescind my comment with regards to that
jimsf Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
no need to apologize its not your fault you weren’t raised right.
jimsf Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
In fact I would gladly pay a higher tax bracket if it meant being in a higher income bracket.
if I make 50 and pay 10 fine
but if I make 60 and pay 15 im still 5 ahead. That doesnt sound like something to bitch about to me.
Tjon Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 6:12 pm
“Economic free-for-all” is not the same as “everyone treated equally;” people may have the right to work their way up the economic ladder, but if the people at the top attempt to limit those opportunities (which I believe they have), then that sure isn’t equality.
Total freedom is the freedom to create AND destroy (in this case, lives).
jimsf Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 4:41 pm
and it looks like you do in fact think its pretty cool how working class americans send their kids to die in wars for patriotism, while the wealthy need not feel any sense of patriotism whatsoever to part with some money to create jobs. ALthough I guess that when you think that money is more valuable than people, I can see how it would be a hard choice.
and you snide little “welcome to capitalism bullshit” is sorry and weak. people like you make me sick.
Eric M Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Better get a barf bag, beacuse this country is based on capitolism. Whether you accept it or not, there will always be people lmaking more than you, so put away you blaring jealousy.
I do fully support our troops and believe they should be taken care of for their service to this country for the rest of their lives. Patriotism has nothing to do with this. And by the way, the working class does not SEND them to the military, they volunteer knowing the hazards that come with it and I am fully grateful for their service.
jimsf Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
blah blah blah. what a load of crap.
gee is it based on capitalism really? is that what it is? I didn’t know. Nor am I jealous. This isnt about jealousy its about the skewed way in which the wealth is obtained to the detriment of the nations financial health and your skewed and smarmy attitude about it. In fact you don’t even believe it yourself. YOu just have a line to toe and your committed.
Eric M Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
LOL
jimsf Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
and now here we are with the wealthiest having the most and the rest having nothing, and a country that cant even afford to build a basic transporation project, so we have to go begging a communist country to build our train. way to go. capitalism woo hoo!
its time for my work out. while IM doing that, you can probably go down the street, I hear theres some homeless people in the food line, you can wait till they come out and knock the food out their hands for fun.
thatbruce Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 5:12 pm
Better get a barf bag, beacuse this country is based on capitolism.
I do fully support our troops and believe they should be taken care of for their service to this country for the rest of their lives.
Fortunately, this country doesn’t operate on a pure capitalistic model, otherwise there would be no rationale for supporting a given class of people outside of their direct employment.
YesonHSR Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
They have the right to make as much money as they want they just need to pay at least 30% of the taxes that everybody else has to an utterly stupid multi- write offs for failed business ventures stock markets on and on and on. You invest in something and make a mistake that’s your loss you should not get a break in your tax responsibilities. Of course these laws are all written for billionaires and Wall Street.. poor little broke things
jimsf Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 5:09 am
yeh an they get to write stuff off if they screw up their business too. Why? I mean if in a free market you loose, then too bad right.
“By running it as a business, for profit, the public interest is not as properly served, and the public will pay fares that are unnecessarily high”
I disagree. The past 30 years have shown that government employees have pay and benefits far exceeding the private sector.
http://reason.org/news/show/public-sector-private-sector-salary
These additional costs of course must be passed onto the ridership, increasing costs. BART is a great example. This system should be running in the black with huge profits but the BART unions have extracted so much that ticket costs are growing ever higher as services are cut and pricing themselves out of their own market as people return to their cars. The airport route has been especially hard hit as the “surcharge” increased from $1.50 to $4 to meet a budget deficit caused partly by rising labor costs. This brings a trip from SF to SFO to $10.40, just a few dollars less than a shuttle providing door to door service.
jimsf Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
first of all, shuttles don’t provide door to door service. cabs, for 50 bucks, provide door to door service. Shuttles provide, door, to door, to door to door, to door service picking up to 5 or so people and making a trip time in excess of an hour to barts 30 minutes ( from the city) so lets not get it twisted ok?
second, oh good, another tidbit from the reason foundation, always the final unbiased word on reality.
third, bart fares are right in line with overall cost of living in the bay area, which is high, as are wages and salaries in general.
fourth, private sector management greed = good working class greed= bad. why? because god loves profit and hates poor people. and rich people are much prettier.
Missiondweller Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
Jim, there was not one fact based argument you made in that post. Try again.
BART fares are SO inline with cost of living they had to lower the surcharge to SFO for workers who could not afford to use BART to SFO for work. Jim, I don’t know where you live but you don’t seem to informed about SF.
Missiondweller Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 10:21 pm
Sorry, you don’t seem “too” informed.
jimsf Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 5:13 am
The surcharge is a single issue that everyone hates. THey lowered it because the employees complained. BUt the fact remains that it would be no cheaper for them to drive, cab, shuttle or swim. The cost is no worse than what all the other workers pay who cross two bridges to get here everyday. And I have lived in the bay area and northern california for 46 years. I know exactly what it costs too live here. ( especially since half that time I was living on or near minimum wage) The airport workers were cut an underserved break. but more power to em if they can pul it off.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Reason is your source? Really?
Missiondweller Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 10:21 pm
Can you dispute their numbers? Really?
Alon Levy Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 8:16 am
The lowest-paid jobs are in industries with no government involvement, like retail. All Reason is telling me is that Berkeley professors make more money than Wal-Mart greeters.
In reality, industries that include both public and private employment often have large differences between public and private pay, in the other direction. Private universities generally pay more than public ones, and private security contractors make several times as soldiers.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 9:50 am
Unless they are full professor with tenure and no student loans to pay off, I’m betting the Walmart greeter makes more money.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 11:05 am
Admittedly, I’ve never been all that hot with math, but I’m fairly sure that $9/hr is substantially less than what any professor makes.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
I get paid $22,000 a year as a grad student. The postdocs I’m applying for offer between $40,000 and $72,000. I want to know what Wal-Mart greeter makes this amount of money.
Arthur Dent Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
Ask Bob Doty what he thinks of the public-private sector payscale difference.
“The manager of the high-speed rail initiative in the Bay Area as well as Caltrain’s project to electrify its railroad said Thursday he is leaving for a better-paying job in the private sector.
“Bob Doty, the director of a joint effort called the Peninsula Rail Program, will depart Jan. 21 to become an executive with HNTB, a prestigious engineering firm.”
Arthur Dent Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 9:01 pm
Got cut off–
Bob Doty, the director of a joint effort called the Peninsula Rail Program, will depart Jan. 21 to become an executive with HNTB, a prestigious engineering firm.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Is that another one of those “Hey, let’s compare salaries and benefits without adjusting for education and experience” articles?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Hmm. 30 years ago wages and benefits in the private sector were comparable to the wages and benefits in government. Maybe the problem is that the private sector has been taking away too much from their workers.
jimsf Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
exactly look at the chart. the middle class/working class, ( the bulk of americans) wages have remained flat for 40 years. no net gain when adjusted. The old line about “just work hard and you will be successful” is a lie. many of us believed it and worked hard. Hell I worked from the age of 15. worked and worked and worked and 20 years later, was still working and making poverty wages. Never had health care in my life. It took a private sector union job HERE to increase my standard of living by doubling wages from 5 bucks and no healthcare, to 10 bucks with healthcare. Then another union job, ( railroad,) 10 years after that, to take me from 10 bucks to 15 to 20+ over over an additional ten years after that. Meanwhile compare 3 dollars in say, 1980, to 25 dollars in 2011 youlll find its practically the same amount of money.
The only thing that union and public employees have been able to do is maintain a basic standard of living, not increase their standard of living. While non union workers have watched their standard decline as wages remain flat. And so the question is, as gdp increased, where did all the money go? well, guess what, every dime of went up up up to the folks at the top. So then what do the folks at the top say… “woah hey man, it wasn’t us we swear.. hey look its those union guys, why just look at em still enjoying that fabulous 1978 standard of living! yeh blame them, pay no attention to those diamond tiaras and yachts you see behind our mink draperies”
Thats how it went down. I know that’s how it went down because I lived through it. I watched it happen in front of my very eyes. we all did, in amazement. thinking, “this can’t be, there must be some mistake, some one will fix this” and now here we are, with whole country just sittin ever so pretty. NOtice the stock market is doing fine.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
The stock market, adjusted for inflation, sucks.
Missiondweller Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 10:22 pm
Let me guess, you work for the gubmint.
synonymouse Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 12:41 am
The same militant unions that characterize BART, Muni, AC, etc. will be installed in the hsr. So expect similarly bloated compensation packages that will run up the red ink. Brown and the machine have no plans for finding the funds to offset the operating losses other than taxation. PB stands to make a fortune, Palmdale gets its free BART and the citizenry gets the tab.
With a certain fiscal crisis down the road worse than what we see today legalizing state bankruptcy is clearly in the offing.
jimsf Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 5:15 am
the unions aren’t militant. muni never strikes and bart has only gone on strike mabye twice in 35 years. I dont remember ACtransit going on strike eve in recent history.
synonymouse Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 11:18 am
AC Transit drivers went on sick out a few months ago.
Muni’s automatic pay raise provision is now history. That capitulation had been intended to prevent strikes
BART unions have threatened strikes on several occasions but politicians have intervened in the negotiations to get the unions what they demanded. The pols were worried about public outrage against the unions and that the cover on the cozy union-machine entente would be blown.
Golden Gate Transit went on strike all summer long in 1976 and, as I recall, Muni kicked in with a short one around the same time. The GGT drivers ended up with basically the same contract they were offered by management in the beginning and have never struck since.
In other items, some commentary, from Railway Preservation News, on the problems of keeping older electrical equipment in order, as in electric and diesel-electric locomotives. Interestingly, the serious problems aren’t with really old gear using relays, but with equipment from the 1970s and later (now old enough to be making it into preservation) using integrated circuits and processor control, much of which is turning out to be harder to maintain as it ages. One fellow even comments that it is easier to work on high-maintenance steam engines than on some diesels with these once-advanced, but now obsolescent, electronics, for which parts and support are getting hard to come by.
http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=30655
Somewhat indirectly about HSR is this New York Times article, courtesy of the Infrastructurist, on the final hours of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. In my opinion, we have what seems to be an example of excessive complexity that may have contributed to the disaster (although it can be argued there were shortcuts taken and some examples of poor judgement as well).
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/26spill.html?_r=1&em=&pagewanted=all
The point of posting these two items here is to remind us that excessive complication can come back to haunt us. It’s something to keep watch on. Speaking for myself, I have never understood the current use of all these microprocessors in the railroad environment. It’s perhaps the most demanding environment one can ask for to test any sort of machinery, with vibrations, shocks, dirt, heavy current loads on the high-voltage side of the electronics, often continuous and severe service, and all of this in mobile and stationary equipment meant to last a generation or more, sometimes even two generations, with fail-safe and almost failure-proof reliability. As those with home computers know, such processors normally work very well, but when something goes wrong, they are anything but easy to fix. Automobiles perhaps come closest to this environment with the neglect cars often receive, but even then, an automobile’s lifetime mileage of 200,000 miles or so can be six months’ mileage for an American freight locomotive. This can be especially troubling as systems age, parts become unavailable, and in some cases, there is no substitute programing language, as noted in the RyPN commentary by people who have to keep this equipment running.
Probably more on topic than some of the last few comments: Iowa may also reject passenger rail funds
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Text of an article on this sent to me via e-mail:
Supporters of passenger rail remain optimistic
Lee Hermiston • Iowa City Press-Citizen • January 4, 2011
Could the Amtrak passenger train service between Iowa City and Chicago be derailed already?
If a budget bill proposed by Republicans in the Iowa House of Representatives becomes a reality, that could be the case. On Monday, a budget bill was proposed that take away the $10 million the Iowa Legislature has committed to Iowa’s portion of the passenger rail project.
Without that funding, plus the additional $10 million the legislature has been asked to appropriate for start-up costs and $3 million annually in Iowa taxpayer subsidies, the train project would be dead in the water. Without state money, the Iowa Department of Transportation would have to return a federal grant of $81.4 million already awarded to the traffic.
However, local supporters of the passenger rail service remain optimistic the project will become a reality.
“This session has not even started so it would be premature to speculate on the outcome of passenger rail,” said Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce President Nancy Quellhorst. “We have every reason to believe the legislature will take a studied approach and recognize the value to state.”
Quellhorst said rail supporters still have “many things” in their favor, including Governor-elect Terry Branstad’s decision not to make the rail project a partisan issue and study the initiative on its economic merits.
“Which are significant,” she said.
Quellhorst described the Amtrak line as a “lucrative investment” that doesn’t come along very often. The project will increase the tax base and lead to 860 immediate construction jobs.
If it becomes a reality, the 220-mile route is expected to provide two daily round trips and carry trains traveling at speeds up to 79 miles per hour with an expected trip time of less than five hours. Rail service could begin in 2015 and annual ridership for the first year of service is projected to be 246,800, according to previous estimates by federal, state and local officials
Quellhorst said the project has support from the local delegation and she believes the legislature will ultimately see the value of the rail service.
“We will look forward to providing them with the economic data that will fully support the case for passenger rail,” she said.
jimsf Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Iowa. huh, go figure, they let gays marry ( as long as they drive) but they’ll be damned if they’ll have any of those crazy socialist trains around.
tjon Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 7:55 pm
Even then they threw out the judges who ruled on that decision.
Commentary from the Nine Shift page on trains in general:
http://nineshift.typepad.com/weblog/2011/01/trains-congress-does-not-get-it.html#comments
California is one of the reasons why China is so cash flush. China’s trade surplus is running around $27 billion per month—We in California single-handedly contribute around $7 billion a month (about 25%) of this total.
The Chinese must be thinking of us as something akin the “goose that lays the golden egg” And you certainly don’t want anything to happen to that goose. They obviously put a high value on high speed rail, and from their standpoint making sure that HSR gets built in our state makes a lot of sense. It will help to improve our economy so that our contribution to their trade surplus won’t lag: not to mention the extra billions in business that would be generated if they build out our system.
When I was in the 7th grade there was a map of Korea at the front of our classroom showing the current battle-line as the war raged up and down the Korean Peninsula. I remember very well how fast that battle line shifted southward when the Chinese entered the war and kicked us (The U.N. forces) out of North Korea. I grew up during the height of the Cold War, and I am a member of D. P. Lubic’s “difficult generation”—maybe this is why I fear China. I particularly fear what will happen as their economy catches up to ours.
What happens then is something I won’t have to worry about. In all likely hood we are going to have to exist in a world where we are not number one. But in the meantime if help from China is the cheapest and the quickest way to get HSR built in California, then lets do it.
Donk Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
China’s economy is going downhill or will at least plateau within 10 years. Their population is getting old and the young people will have to support them. The country is an environmental disaster waiting to blow. Almost the entire Asian continent is basically starting to team up against them, and is looking for U.S. support. Countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines are going to take a significant chunk of the manufacturing jobs from China as they copy the Chinese model. As India matures, it will block China’s growth further, especially access to the Middle East, Africa, and oil.
I am not worried about China. The bubble is coming. Once the bubble bursts and the economy and environment are in the dumps, there will be major political backlash and a 5-10 year period of chaos in China.
jimsf Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 7:02 pm
good then we can wheel and deal with them. If they throw in a free eggroll, we’ll take the chinese trains.
James Fujita Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 7:07 pm
you’ll take eggrolls but not bento boxes? ;)
jimsf Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
hehe, you just get more for your money from the chinese. seems to be true across the board. be it calories or manufactured goods. – For 20 bucks I can get kung pao chicken, two sides, plus rice or chow mien AND a clock radio that projects the time on the ceiling. or, I can two pieces of under cooked fish wrapped in seaweed. Its a no brainer.
James Fujita Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
two pieces of sushi = $20? where do you eat? 0_o
the sushi’s healthier and MSG-free.
“you get what you pay for” :)
synonymouse Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
The Asian reality is much more complicated than that. The economies of many Asian countries, Indochina in particular, are dominated by ethnic Chinese. And China is quite expert in “handling” the various and sundry Asian backwaters, such as Burma. After all it is their backyard. I don’t put too much credence in a backlash by the “tigers” against Chinese military ascendancy. But I can assure you they have long enough memories to not be happy with a remilitarized Japan, especially if it gets nukes.
And as far as China’s securing oil from the Middle East I see no problem. The Arabs recognize that the Chinese, unlike India, have both the means and the will to deal with jihadists, shall we say, with zero tolerance..
Another “do it right, or don’t do it at all” article out from the SF Chronicle:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/01/05/EDBM1H46K0.DTL
YesonHSR Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
From the lawyer that represents the PCL and the NIMBYs and TRAC.. he was at the stupid little Burlingame rally yelling and screaming..
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Gary Patton is a tool of the oil companies, fighting trains in order to promote sprawl and automobile dependence.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Hey guys, the name calling is uncalled for.
As a former Santa Cruz county Supervisor, Gary Patton led the fight against the Hwy 1 widening, and has a good progressive record, esp. on smart growth.
MGimbel Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
except hsr
YesonHSR Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Huuu? Name-calling? .. If anyone is yelling and name calling it is him!! It was pathetic at that rally I saw it on TV .. furthermore he is being a tool spreading misinformation and heavy slanted opinions just because the high-speed rail is not going thru Altomont Pass as TRAC wanted and of course the PCL
Arthur Dent Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 11:56 am
Yeah! Down with the #@*$! He’s defending an alignment that’s better for transit, ridership AND does the least environmental damage. The nerve!
Peter Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
“does the least environmental damage”
Not per the Army Corps of Engineers OR the U.S. EPA. But who cares what they have to say about the issue, right?
synonymouse Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Overall Altamont is clearly a superior route. The “experts” are not to be entrusted with any more of the public’s money.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Sez you. Lots of other people disagree. To paraphrase some of your Tejon arguments, it goes through a lot of podunk towns. And it takes longer to get to the biggest city in the Bay Area.
YESONHSR Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
AND NUMERMO UNO..it misses MenloPark and PA!!! right!
synonymouse Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
This type of editorial is just about useless in that it is typically devoid of any specific criticisms or specific remedies other than get a new team. Is the Chron even aware that it is PB that is running the whole show? Musical chairs is dumb unless you appoint at least one Richard Tolmach to present the case for commonsense and good taste.