John Mica Questions California HSR Project
With Republican control of the US House of Representatives, Transportation Committee Chair John Mica of Florida plays a big role in deciding how much, if any, federal HSR funding will come to California. Mica has been all over the map in his comments on the California project, but his latest comments tend toward the worrisome side of things.
First, Mica is in no mood to help get President Barack Obama’s $53 billion HSR funding plan through Congress:
Florida Republican U.S. Rep. John Mica, chairman of the powerful House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, took aim at the administration and its call for more spending.
“This is like giving Bernie Madoff another chance at handling your investment portfolio,” Mica said.
Mica pointed to more than $10 billion already spent by the administration on rail. The Florida congressman argued that the Federal Railroad Administration should not be involved in rail grants and that high-speed rail projects backed by the Obama administration were not living up to expectations. Mica hammered Amtrak as well, as an obstacle for progress.
“Amtrak hijacked 76 of the 78 projects, most of them costly and some already rejected by state agencies,” said Mica. “Amtrak’s Soviet-style train system is not the way to provide modern and efficient passenger rail service.
“Rather than focusing on the Northeast corridor, the most congested corridor in the nation and the only corridor owned by the federal government, the administration continues to squander limited taxpayer dollars on marginal projects,” added Mica, who was joined by U.S. Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., chairman of the Railroads subcommittee, in attacking the administration.
Of course, the “Soviet-style train system” claim is pretty ridiculous, as anyone who’s been on the trains would know. But the more important statement is Mica’s claim that the federal government should repeat what was done during the 1990s and focus only on the Northeast Corridor, and once again leave the rest of the country to languish in dependence on oil, cars, and planes.
Mica doubled down on that claim today, as Mica explicitly began questioning the California HSR project:
While not ruling out eventual support for California, Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., said he’s unimpressed by what he’s seen so far. Mica specifically questioned the state’s current plans to start with tracks connecting a rural stretch of the San Joaquin Valley.
“The problem with the California pick is that even if they build it, the ridership in that location is not going to be the best,” Mica said.
Mica does know that the point isn’t to generate huge ridership on the Central Valley segment, right? Surely someone has told him that it’s just the best place to start construction of a much larger project to connect San Francisco to Los Angeles, a route that most analysts believe will have no trouble achieving high ridership.
Speaking at a conference of high-speed rail advocates, Mica underscored his preference for investing in the nation’s heavily traveled Northeast corridor. Pointedly, he warned the rail professionals gathered Wednesday that “if (we) build California’s project, and nobody rides it,” then overall public support for high-speed rail could diminish.
“It may be able to achieve high speed, but the problem is it may be lacking in ridership and will have to be subsidized for some time,” Mica said of the California proposal. “That’s not the best model.”
Mica added in a brief interview that “we’ll have to find out more” about California’s plans, and he emphasized that he’s still in the information-gathering stage.
The chance that “nobody” will ride it is zero. And since the state cannot provide operating subsidies, and presumably Mica can insist the feds don’t provide on either, there shouldn’t be any problem even if subsidies became necessary. There’s nothing wrong with subsidies, but there’s also little reason to believe they’ll be necessary on the full California route. The Amtrak Acela – hardly a “Soviet” train – doesn’t require operating subsidies. Neither do most HSR systems in the world. The TGV actually subsidizes the other trains SNCF operates. Train companies and even foreign governments are falling over themselves to get a piece of American HSR action because they can see the high ridership and profit in it.
Still, it’s clear that Mica can be influenced by some of the misleading anti-HSR criticisms that have been made by project opponents in California over the last 2 years. Later this month the House Transportation Committee will hold hearings in Fresno and Los Angeles sometime between February 17 and 25 (the article linked above noted that there are no further details yet on those hearings). We HSR advocates will need to be ready with counterarguments and be able to bring the truth when Mica and his committee come to town.
Oh, and about that “Soviet” train: someone should tell Mica that the Russian Sapsan is a big hit:
The Sapsan high-speed train launched by Russian rail monopoly Russian Railways (RZhD) less than twelve months ago has proved to be the monopoly’s sole profitable enterprise in the passenger transport sector, with its profit margin hitting 30 percent, RZhD President Vladimir Yakunin said on Tuesday….
Russian Railways currently has eight high-speed Sapsans produced by the German engineering group Siemens. They run between St Petersburg, Moscow and Nizhny Novgorod. The Sapsan occupancy rate is 84.5 percent, according to RzHD.
The company’s revenues from ticket sales may amount to 205 million euros annually at the current ticket price, while profits from the operation of these trains exceed 61 million euros.
Seems that Mica could benefit from a trip to Moscow.
I think one of the big problems opponents and the Republican party, is that don’t speak from an informed position. They are scared, or, they just oppose Obama because he’s he is the sitting democratic president. To some, progress only means re-electing a Republican and it doesn’t matter if the country is the real looser as a result.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 5:23 am
Well of course he is a Republican and Calif is a big blue state.. and Boxer and Feinstein and Obama all like California high-speed rail.. so has to play a little political game and show “concern”.. of course he knows it will be a good system.. that’s why he acts like he has to “look” at the numbers ..as to not show to much liking of the other partys ideas..He actully did not sound very negative at all compared to his Amtrak rants and his reaction to the 56billion proposal
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 6:23 am
So, you think he is acting like a paper tiger?
YesonHSR Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 6:52 am
All the usual games..he was a co sponser of Oberstars bill ,thou with the House switch he now needs to play the “concern” game .He is a longtime member of Congress and no rookie bagger so he know the routine of Public image and then the real route f geeting things done ..and will work with Boxer and others .
Victor Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 9:10 am
It could be that He’s been told to fall in line or face reelection problems by the Republican Majority Whip… Maybe
Well you can bash Mica, but that doesn’t mean what he says isn’t totally invalid. There are a lot of HSR supporters out there who were saying that the $8 billion shouldn’t be spread around, but instead be concentrated on one true HSR show-piece project.
While the California HSR and Amtrak bashing was over the top, it doesn’t mean his “North-East Corridor” first approach is invalid. After all, he is from Flordia, so it isn’t like he is just trying to get pork for his home district. I think the administration should try and cut a deal with him.
Spokker Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
Mica can go on a wild goose chase looking for private money while California gets all the federal funds.
Alex2000 Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 11:29 pm
It don’t see why getting a PPP going for a true NE corridor HSR line is any less likely than California getting its PPP going as it has planed.
Spokker Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 11:47 pm
It’s very unlikely in both cases.
Matthew Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 7:12 am
It seems that upgrading the NE corridor is going to be *a lot* more expensive than a California project. It really would be a case of investing billions for incremental upgrades. The cumulative effect would probably be worth it, but if you’re looking for a showcase, I think California will be much better. It will be a case of going from effectively no viable rail connection between LA and SF (sorry, but current Amtrack service from LA to Oakland is way too slow and way to unreliable to remotely compete with air travel) to one that will easily capture at least a plurality of trips between the cities. There is more development potential along the California route, and it has much higher population growth than the Northeast.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 11:16 am
NEC done right is vastly cheaper than CAHSR done right. At zero trackside infrastructure – i.e. just new trains and signaling and no FRA – NY-DC should be a little more than 2:00. Fix the catenary, get a new tunnel in Baltimore, and straighten a few curves, and make it 1:30. It’s not an expensive undertaking, if it’s run by a company that cares about cost control.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
They expect the population of California to reach 50 million, which includes people in remote places like Eureka and even remoter places up in the mountains. There are 50 million people living withing 25 miles of the NEC.
wu ming Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
the vast majority of future population growth will be within driving distance of a station. central valley between sac and bakersfield in particular. eureka and the sierras (with the minor exception of I-80 and hwy 50 corridors) will not be where most of that 50 million will live.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
No, it is 60 million.
Alex2000 Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 10:22 am
Well okay. But considering that any hope at all of more federal HSR funding basically lies with
him, why not make a sincere effort on the PPP front?
You can see the outline of a deal already. Money only for the NE corridor, California and
possibly for Orlando to Miami. And PPPs for all three. If Mica can deliver enough votes to
get it out of the house, why not take such a deal?
BruceMcF Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
If they make it 60:20:20, federal, local, private match, they can be quite generous in what kind of systems can apply.
Howard Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 11:47 pm
Mica is half right. The limited high speed rail funds should only go to two real high speed show-piece projects, the Northeast Corridor and California, with four billion each. The next segment of the California project that should get funded is a congested urban segment, like LA to Palmdale that can be shared with privately funded Desert Express trains to Las Vegas.
James Fujita Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
you know, it’s weird. Although most of my personal train travel is between Los Angeles and the Central Valley, I’d rather see the next segment be Fresno-San Jose. One continuous stretch of track, Bakersfield-Fresno-San Jose which might actually be used for HSR.
Or alternatively, Bakersfield to Palmdale or even Bakersfield to Sylmar would be nice (the crossing from the Central Valley to the L.A. basin might be one segment or two segments, depending on the funding).
To have two disjointed sections (Fresno-Bakersfield, and Los Angeles-Palmdale) without the extremely important link in the middle, just doesn’t sound right to me.
Also, there’s some unresolved issues near the Los Angeles River, and I think Metrolink deserves its own set of tracks between downtown and Sylmar, probably between L.A. and Palmdale, too.
Fresno-Palmdale-Las Vegas would work, although I don’t know who’s paying for the tracks between Palmdale and Victorville, Cal HSR or Desert Express.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 8:37 pm
No disjointed sections: extend the existing one. People can get used to the idea of the “this is the segment” getting longer and longer, either closer to them or connecting them to places further away. As to whether Fresno / San Jose or Bakersfield / Sylmar … ideally both.
Nathanael Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
Sigh.
If anyone were forward thinking they’d put the HSR into a region which isn’t going to be ravaged and decimated by global warming.
In other words, the Rust Belt.
California is going to have massive water shortages and become even hotter; everything coastal, like most of the NEC, is going to go underwater, with the population moving further and further inland.
wu ming Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
ocean rise threatens california less than east coast/gulf coast, because our coastline tends to be much hillier. global warming will thrash everyone, just in different ways (stronger winter storms in the midwest, for example). the idea is to build this thing to reduce carbon emissions, and california’s population and economic size means that any significant diversion of infrastructure from the carbon economy will help reduce the ultimate carbon emissions and thus the intensity of global warming.
Sapsan ain’t Soviet Tech, it’s German. And you don’t wanna copy their style – it’s an expensive monopoly moving few rich people. The public should not spend billions for a project like that.
The point about Soviet Style trains makes sense, but from a different angle. Soviet Tech is simple, ultra-heavy duty, kinda slow, made from solid steel, run on diesel and sorta inefficient, but it works no matter what (think ak47). That’s what FRA regulations and the freight railroads have turned the American rail system into; a bunch of slow tanks on bumpy tracks; and Amtrak has to play along.
The Authority posted today a long document for potential contractors to look at it. http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=9651
Assuming you have your magnifying glass handy (you will know what I mean when you see it), it actually describes the all the current alternatives being studied, along with numerical counts of how much aerial, how many grade seps.
1) If you want to see why we say the cost is much higher than 2009′s $43 billion, compare the units in this document to the ones used in 2009 http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Phase_I_CapitalCost-2009Update.pdf
2) The Authority has all the figures in a couple of nice charts. How hard would it be to provide a cost estimate of the different alternatives?
3) Trench in Gilroy?
Eric M Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 9:44 am
Because they are still alternatives and picking one over the other can drastically change the cost, either up or down.
Elizabeth Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 9:48 am
Our point is:
1) ALL the alternatives they are looking at are more expensive than the 2009 plan (with the exception of LA – Anaheim).
2) We would fully expect a range for each segment. Just because there is not one single number is not a reason to hold back all information.
3) They have priced out all the alternatives (they use this to offer relative costs during AA presentations). Share!
Eric M Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 10:10 am
Actually, your point is to try and kill the project slowly by a thousand small knives.
This way you state you are a watchdog group instead of boldly opposing it, which is just anther smoke screen.
Elizabeth Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 11:45 am
Uh…no.
Peter Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 11:54 am
“Just because there is not one single number is not a reason to hold back all information.”
Of course it is. Every half-baked weekly newspaper and rabid opponent group (TRAC, Reason Foundation, etc) will latch on to the highest possible number and repeat it ad nauseum as fact. It’s called controlling your message. You guys should know, you still have the counter on your website about the “Incompatible Offices” going, despite the fact that the issue is now moot.
Elizabeth Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
This is a public agency with a public mission. It is not McDonalds, it is not a political campaign. The original estimates were simply wrong.
We think there is a really serious conversation to have about how to do infrastructure projects and why it has been so hard to do them and when you do them, to do them well and this is a conversation we are trying very hard to get people to have.
In the meantime though, we are not okay with “everybody does it” or “the ends justify the means” as excuses.
Peter Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
“it is not a political campaign”
Really? What about the last two years of CA’s HSR story is not a political campaign? It’s being waged on the local, state, and federal level.
Elizabeth Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
It is being run as a campaign. That is the problem. Everyone on all sides of this should be rejecting this as planning methodology. It sucks. We can and should be better than this.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Sadly, a group that put out analysis of the quality of the “HSR construction will create no new jobs” report is not on the inside track to credibility in arguing for a stronger analysis based planning methodology. That was an example that smelled quite strongly of starting with the conclusion and then trying to find the most plausible argument possible to back the conclusion up.
Eric M Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
I like this line from their report:
“Either way, California workers could actually lose jobs when the math is
done. If you just look at the numbers for the stimulus request funds, it looks
even worse because California has promised to put up 50% of the funds”
Eric M Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Or this:
Conclusion: Unless a very odd definition of “job” is being used, High Speed
Rail won’t generate a lot of jobs for Californians during the construction
phase. In fact, jobs may actually be lost
Elizabeth Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 1:55 pm
The HSRA is using some old federal multipliers which are inappropriate for a state-sponsered project, where a balanced budget requirement is a binding condition.
The data is not perfect from the recent Federal stimulus but even that shows that money for education has a much higher multiplier than construction http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/us/31stimulus.html?_r=1
The question of job growth from the completed infrastructure is a different one and not easy to answer in a case like this where the primary thing being moved is people, not goods.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
What is the relevance of a balanced budget requirement when it is being funded out of bonds, not general fund revenues?
Peter Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 2:14 pm
“The question of job growth from the completed infrastructure is a different one and not easy to answer in a case like this where the primary thing being moved is people, not goods.”
That’s not the same as your conclusion Eric M quoted.
Elizabeth Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Paulus,
That is an excellent question.
For local bond measures, property taxes are actually raised and there is new revenue to pay for the library, the school whatever. Think of this like taking on a second job to pay for kid’s chool tuition.
For state bond measures, nothing of the kind occurs. The bond principal and interest just get paid back out of the same pool that is available for schools, prisons, community health care.
The bond authorization doesn’t actually mean the state raises taxes or has any kind of new revenue source. Think of this like cutting everything you possibly can to pay for the private school tuition.
Very good question and the key to why no matching funds should have been offered for the Federal stimulus funds, which specifically did not require them.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
You may not be aware of this, but no all of California’s state tax receipts come in the form of a fixed total amount. Much of it comes in forms that can vary based on the level of economic activity.
This is why it makes a difference in whether the bond commitment is to pure consumption or it to genuine public investment which will support a more productive state economy.
It also makes a difference in whether the bond commitment is to a newly accepted state responsibility, or whether it is, as in this case, to an existing state responsibility that people will put pressure on the state to meet in one way or another.
There is nothing in the report that persuasively establishes that California’s population won’t continue growing over the next several decades, and nothing in the report that persuasively established the absence of any of the claimed benefits of the system.
And yet it must establish both of those in order to establish that this is a net increase in obligation out of a static tax base.
Even if those things were true, the fact that the report just bluffs on those issues would discredit it as serious analysis.
Elizabeth Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 9:52 pm
BruceMcF:
The issue is that when you have to cut other things like education you lose the future return on investment from those that should be netted against any gain from this project.
What has the greatest return for california coffers in the futures: more spots in the community college and UC system or this project? I honestly don’t know.
This doesn’t mean you don’t do any investments, but it does mean that you should really spend your money wisely and understand the type of return on your money you expect. In general, this state among others has not been very good about demanding good data and then following up to see how things work out. It is crucial.
Spokker Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Many people who are going to college today, especially the CC and CSU systems, would probably be better off learning a skilled trade, but those jobs are dwindling. They go to school because the financial aid is there but they clearly don’t take it seriously. I see it everyday.
Teach them how to weld rail instead of encouraging them to major in liberal studies. I would like to go to work for HSR because I don’t think my degree will pay off.
Spokker Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
By the way, is money really being spent wisely in education? I think some reforms could be made in that area.
Peter Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Getting rid of No Child Left Behind would be an EXCELLENT first step.
Donk Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 7:26 am
Seriously. CARRD would have a much bigger impact on our state’s finances if they did all of their number crunching analysis on education spending or Medicare fraud. Or highway construction.
Jon Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 10:38 am
Gilroy is described as a downtown trench in the text, but the East Gilroy alternative is still on the route alternatives map. Make of that what you will.
The Fresno and Hanford stations are described as being built ready for four tracks but with only two installed in initial construction. This makes sense, as you wont need four tracks until the full line is completed anyway.
James Fujita Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
agreed. planning ahead for four tracks is always better than waiting and realizing “oops, we’re going to want express trains to be able to bypass locals at Hanford and bypass both locals and semi-express trains at Fresno”
Joey Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
All actual HSR stations between San José and at least Palmdale will have four tracks. That has been part of the plan for years now.
Jon Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Yeah, but the description of the initial construction segment specified 2-track stations at Fresno and Hanford with no explanation why; some people on this blog speculated it was an attempt to contain costs so as to be able to build something usable with the ARRA grant money. This clarifies the decision somewhat, they will be 2-track stations built ready for 4 tracks.
Donk Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
That was one of the points that Elizabeth was noodling on a few months ago. Once again, another conspiracy debunked.
Elizabeth Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 9:46 pm
What is debunked? why not build 4 tracks at stations where the line is supposed be going full speed?
Donk Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 7:27 am
Yes exactly. They were planning it all along.
Peter Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
They probably want a quote for the more expensive Gilroy Trench alternative.
Jon Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
I think that’s it. The paragraph at the bottom of page 8 basically says that.
egk Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Wow, there is sure a LOT of elevated track in those plans. No wonder costs are skyrocketing. It looks to me like a decision has been made to avoid disrupting local traffic (by installing relatively cheap bridges or short tunnels) and to build expensive aerials. Just looking at the proposed plan it looks like, for example 5 miles of elevated in Lancaster to avoid four or five crossings. Another 3 miles or so to avoid what looks like just one or two crossings in Rosamond. My back of the envelope calculation gives something like $200 million in excess costs for the aerial. Bridges or tunnels could be built for all of those crossings for a tenth of that. What gives?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Quick: try to name one person involved anywhere in the process who has the slightest interest in cost containment (either construction or “the gift that keeps on giving” operating efficiency.)
That should answer your question.
egk Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
How about the new Gov? Any hope there? (How can the 50 mile Mannheim-Frankfurt segment, in the heart of the densest part of Germany be estimated at 2 billion euros [ca. $2.8 billion] and San Jose-San Francisco at over $6 billion)
Peter Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
From what I just gathered from the German wikipedia page, the new section does not begin in Frankfurt proper, but on the outskirts at Frankfurt-Stadion, and bypasses both Darmstadt and possibly Mannheim.
Joey Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 8:20 pm
Probably true, though that doesn’t mean that our construction costs aren’t grossly inflated. At Spanish construction costs, the entirety of CAHSR phase 1 would cost under $20 billion.
Matthew Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 9:35 pm
The Frankfurt-Mannheim line has all the right of way, and it’s mostly through fields and forest anyway. Just a few gated crossings, and no significant elevated section or trench. They’re basically reaping the benefits of ROW acquisition and preservation that enables at grade construction. Not at all the fault of CAHSR or the contractors that things are different in California.
Joey Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 10:44 pm
I wasn’t even talking about Frankfurt-Mannheim specifically. Almost anywhere you look outside of the US, HSR construction costs are a fraction of what they seem to be here. CAHSR seem to be averaging about 80-100 million per mile. Spain recently completed the Madrid-Levante line, which, while lacking major urban sections has a fair bit of tunnels and viaducts, for an average of less than $25 million per mile. France constructs LGVs for slightly more but still monumentally less than our numbers. Germany as well as most other HSR-building countries are in that ballpark as well.
Clem Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
California Stilt-a-Rail
Eric M Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
It’s going to look like maglev if they keep it up
Spokker Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 9:47 pm
How does the California plan compare to high speed rail lines around the world in regard to aerial structures?
I mean, I see elevated portions of rail lines in pictures all the time, but I don’t know how extensive they are.
Peter Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
Check out Taiwan HSR. According to wikipedia, 156 miles or 73% is built on viaducts, and 38 miles or 18% is in tunnels.
Spokker Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 9:56 pm
And it cost $18 billion. About 115 million per mile, if Wikipedia is accurate.
Peter Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
Versus about $45 million per mile for the Initial Construction Segment, if they build both the Corcoran and Wasco-Shafter bypass alternatives. Is my math right on that?
Elizabeth Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
The Asian systems have a lot of elevated. The European ones very little. I have a copy of a presentation which disects the last 5 or 6 projects in Europe and the longest viaduct is just over 3 miles.
Spokker Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
That what it seems like. When I look at French systems they seem to be at-grade, while the Asian systems are elevated. When I see the Asian systems, you see elevated systems even where you have a hunch that they could have gotten away with at-grade, but it’s just a hunch.
Spokker Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
European systems, rather than French.
Spokker Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/52986062@N02/4954075265/
Elizabeth Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Here is the picture the Authority has in its docs for taiwan: http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Taiwan-aerial.png
(The aerial design for CA in the technical docs looks a lot like this)
Elizabeth Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 9:44 pm
The problem is that there is a road and/or freight tracks with frequent spurs to businesses parallel and adjacent to the proposed route. Draw this on a piece of a paper and try and do a “cheap” grade sep for intersecting roads.
We are not suggesting the Authority is doing aerials just for the fun of it. We are suggesting that they should have known the “existing transportation corridors” strategy is really expensive when the existing transportation corridors are minor highways and active freight lines with spurs.
Jon Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Also interesting is the construction order description at the top of page 9, which implies that the ‘Initial Operable Section’ will be either SF-Bakersfield or Fresno-Anaheim. The phrasing also gives them the option to include or not include Merced if they decide to build SF-Bakersfield first.
James Fujita Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
This is all extremely preliminary. “We’re thinking about doing this, this, this or maybe this, not necessarily in that exact order, and we want to know, ‘who’s up for the job?’ “
Is Mica against CAHSR, or against the decision to start with the Central Valley and not with something connecting to LA or SF?
YesonHSR Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 6:39 am
the same website the day before quotes CEO Van Ark has stating Mica very supportive and was to meet with him but delayed by weather
BruceMcF Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 8:36 am
Mica is clearly pandering, where the broader Republican base electorate has been told that the original California grant was a train to nowhere.
He may also be staking an ambit claim on his part of cutting off federal funding for CA HSR altogether, to strengthen his bargaining position for the transport authorization fight. A transport committee chairman has ongoing power, but really hits the big leagues in a long term transport authorization. He can always use the excuse in negotiations “my caucus doesn’t want to fund California HSR because the crazies have been roiled up against it”.
Friends, It seems that in the face of the success of the Madrid – valencia HSR, Iberia (the airline) are heavily reducing their capacity on this corridor.
below the text in Spanish:
“A partir de marzo la aerolínea cancelará los tres vuelos diarios en ambos sentidos que mantiene actualmente y dejará sus conexiones entre Manises y Barajas en manos de Air Nostrum, que opera bajo su enseña aunque con aviones de menor tamaño. En enero los vuelos entre Valencia y la capital redujeron sus pasajeros un 32%.
La batalla entre las aerolíneas y el AVE entre Madrid y Valencia empieza a tener consecuencias. En enero, el primer mes completo desde que entró en servicio la línea de alta velocidad entre Madrid y Valencia, el número de pasajeros que utilizó el avión entre Barajas y Manises se ha reducido en un 32%, hasta 48.451 pasajeros. Este trayecto está cubierto actualmente por Air Nostrum, Iberia, Ryanair y Spanair.
Aunque aún no se han alcanzado las previsiones que cifran que el tren absorberá entre el 40% y el 50% del tráfico de esta conexión, Iberia ya ha anunciado que a partir del 26 de marzo cancelará los tres vuelos diarios en ambos sentidos que realiza debido a la competencia del tren. La aerolínea ha anunciado que ofrecerá este trayecto a través de su franquiciada Air Nostrum, que opera con aviones más pequeños y ayer también comunicó que mantendrá sus frecuencias actuales, entre ocho y diez, la próxima temporada de verano.
Pese al descenso de pasaje entre Madrid y Valencia, la línea continúa siendo la de más tráfico de Manises. El aeropuerto valenciano creció un 13,8% en número de pajeros totales en enero a pesar del fuerte recorte en su principal trayecto, gracias a la implantación de más conexiones aunque de frecuencias no tan habituales.”
Source: http://www.tranvia.org (registartion required to read)
Spokker Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 1:35 am
I’ll save everyone a trip to Google Translate.
“Since March, the airline canceled three flights daily in both directions and will now maintaining connections between Manises and Barajas in the hands of Air Nostrum, which operates under his banner but with smaller aircraft. In January flights between Valencia and the capital reduced its passengers by 32%.
The battle between airlines and the AVE between Madrid and Valencia begins to have consequences. In January, the first full month since it went into service high-speed line between Madrid and Valencia, the number of passengers used the airplane to Manises Barajas has been reduced by 32% to 48,451 passengers. This route is currently covered by Air Nostrum, Iberia, Ryanair and Spanair.
Although not yet reached the forecasts put the train taking between 40% and 50% of traffic for this connection, Iberia has announced that as of March 26 canceled three flights daily in both directions to perform due rail competition. The airline has announced it will offer this course through its franchise Air Nostrum, which operates smaller aircraft and yesterday also announced that it will keep its current frequency, between eight and ten, the next summer season.
Despite the decline in passage between Madrid and Valencia, the line continues to be the busiest of Manises. Valencia Airport grew by 13.8% in total number of wankers in January despite a sharp cut in its main course, thanks to the introduction of more connections but not so common frequency.”
Alon Levy Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 2:42 am
I love how pasajeros became pajeros, i.e. wankers.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 6:34 am
I flew on Iberian last summer. Crappy quality relative to the AVE, which I also used. By poo poo, I mean cramped seating and the aroma of cigarette smoke. So, more than convenience of HSR may have played a role.
Los Angeles Metro reports on the local field hearing:
The hearing will held by U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, chaired by Representative John Mica (R-FL).
An interesting item regarding Rep John Mica and who he is hiring to help him understand HSR and put together a multi-year transportation funding bill. Stephanie Kopelousos was the head of the FDOT during the past several years and was instrumental in putting together the Florida Rail Enterprise department within FDOT. So it appears Mica is trying to better understand HSR and how to fund it by hiring people with experience in HSR.
http://jacksonville.com/community/clay/2011-02-10/story/new-clay-county-manager-will-work-us-rep-john-mica-starting-clay
Mica is a Florida ueber alles high speed rail supporter. He likes the project in his home state and will disparage any other project in order to get more Federal money for it.
Donk Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 11:53 am
If he brings in more funding to FL then great. There is no way he can justify not funding CA if he is going to fund FL.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
That could well be the game ~ to denigrate California to force supporters of HSR to expend political capital defending California, leaving less political capital to expend on defending funding for a range of Rapid Rail, Regional HSR and Express HSR projects. Get California and the North Eastern states behind defending a pot of money for Express HSR projects only.
Then Florida has Express HSR qualifying alignments, and a project in motion, and is well placed to dip into that pot of money again for the Miami alignment.
StevieB Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Mica has recently criticized Florida high speed rail because it is not fast enough and voters did not approve funding a light rail connection. He seems to only consider the north east corridor as worthy of high speed rail.
Here is a link to some info on a Tejon alternative which it is claimed crosses both the San Andreas and Garlock faults at grade:
http://www.calrailnews.com/crn/0602/0602_1.pdf
The seismic argument against Tejon is clearly phony, as evidenced by PB’s addition of extensive aerials, very much prone to quake damage, as demonstrated by the Cypress.
Of course I expect the comeback that we can engineer the aerials to be reasonably resistant to seismic factors. But exactly the same can be said for the Tejon alignment, with the overweaning difference that Tejon is superior in every way. Even if you serve Palmdale.
Jerry Brown needs to intervene in this comedy of errors. The TRAC proposal is eminently sensible. The PB foamers are way underestimating the number of individuals and voters who are sympathetic to the hsr concept but are appalled at the CHSRA’s track record. On the Altamont site I have yet to see any posting that favored the Loop route. If the latter could be upgraded to serve both passenger and freight I could see it, but if you wish to go full bore(so to speak)Tejon merits the investment hands down.
Peter Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Wow, you even use the exact same language as Tolmach.
thatbruce Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Wow, you even use the exact same language as Tolmach.
Along with continuing old issues long after they’ve been made moot, with a date of ‘May-June 2002′ on the referenced document.
synonymouse Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Best link that I have been able to come up with so far.
Matthew Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
Wow, synonymouse, thanks for your perseverance. I’m now convinced. Job well done. You can rest now and stop posting.
Steven Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
1. Perhaps you should post the actual Quantm study, rather than something that reads like it was produced by the Office of War Information circa 1942… or Perez Hilton. I don’t care if PB is “jealous” of Quantm.
2. The Cypress? Really? Does that even warrant a comeback?
We can engineer our way out of many problems, but that doesn’t mean that a noble, well-engineered plan is worth the cost relative to all other options.
Just because you believe Parsons-Brinckerhoff is a jealous foamer with a Brutalism fetish does not mean that a railfan advert from 2002 alone satisfies the burden of proof you will need to satisfy if you want me to believe that your preference “overweans” a well-heeled study. Besides, having read a lot of your posts, synonymous, I gotta say that even should your comments one day prove right, they are far too overweened to ever agree with.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
There’s a reason why I-5 and the existing railroad don’t use the alignment that Quantm purportedly proposed.
Spokker Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 2:22 am
“Why was the route via Palmdale selected between the Central Valley and Los Angeles?
As part of the Statewide Program EIR/EIS document (certified November 2005), the Authority selected the alignment through the SR-58/Soledad Canyon Corridor (Antelope Valley) with an high-speed train station at Palmdale as the preferred option for crossing the Tehachapi Mountains between the Central Valley and Southern California. Although the longer Antelope Valley alignment would add about 10 minutes to express service travel times between northern and southern California and have less intercity ridership potential (trips between regions) than the I-5 alignment option, it would have fewer potential environmental impacts, it would be less subject to seismic activity and have considerably less tunneling and thereby have fewer constructability issues, and would increase connectivity and accessibility.
The most significant difference in regards to potential environmental impacts between the Antelope Valley option and I-5 alignments is in regards to major parklands. The Antelope Valley alignment would not go through major parks. In contrast, the I-5 options would potentially impact Fort Tejon Historic Park, Angeles and Los Padres National Forests, Hungry Valley State Vehicular Recreation Area, Pyramid Lake and other local parks. The Antelope Valley alignment would also have a lower overall potential for water-related impacts, less potential impacts to wetlands and non-wetland waters, and was forecast to have less impacts on urbanized land and farmland conversion than the I-5 options (because the I-5 options would result in more growth in the Central Valley).
The Antelope Valley alignment traverses less challenging terrain than the I-5 options, which would result considerably less tunneling overall (13 miles 21 km of tunneling for the Antelope Valley option versus 23 37 km miles for I-5 options), and considerably shorter tunnels (maximum length of 3.4 miles 5.5 km for the Antelope Valley option versus two tunnels greater than 5 miles 8 km for the I-5 options) which would result in fewer constructability issues. Although the Antelope Valley option is about 35 miles longer than the I-5 alignment options, it is estimated to be slightly less expensive to construct as a result of less tunneling through the Tehachapi Mountains. In addition, due to its more gentle gradient, geology, topology and other features, the SR-58/Soledad Canyon Corridor offers greater opportunities for using potential high-speed train alignment variations, particularly through the mountainous areas of the corridor, to avoid impacts to environmental resources. In contrast, the more challenging terrain of the I-5 Corridor greatly limits the ability to avoid sensitive resources and seismic constraints. The alignment optimization system (Quantm) that was utilized to identify and evaluate approximately 12 million alignment options for each mountain crossing could only find one practicable alignment option through the Tehachapi Mountains for the I-5 Corridor.
Additional seismic hazards relating to the I-5 alignment that further differentiate these options from the Antelope Valley alignment. Since the I-5 alignment options follow the San Gabriel fault for over 20 miles and cross through the area where the San Andreas and Garlock faults meet, they would have greater seismic hazard and constructability issues than the Antelope Valley option. The Authority concluded that there are additional seismic hazards and risks for the I-5 alignment options from paralleling the San Gabriel fault, and also from traversing the “triangle” where the San Andreas and Garlock faults meet.
The Antelope Valley option would provide direct service to the Palmdale/Lancaster area, which increases the connectivity and accessibility of the high-speed train network. The Antelope Valley is the fastest growing area in Los Angeles County and currently regional population forecasts estimate the Antelope Valley population could exceed 1 million by the year 2020. The high-speed train system would also provide connectivity to Palmdale Airport and Metrolink commuter rail service.
Public and agency support for the Antelope Valley option is strong in Los Angeles County because of the increased connectivity and accessibility it would provide for the Antelope Valley. Agencies which have indicated support for the Antelope Valley alignment include: the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LAMTA), Los Angeles Department of Transportation, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the City of Palmdale, City of Lancaster, County of Kern, Kern Council of Governments, and the City of Bakersfield.”
synonymouse Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 11:48 am
There is no way to predict exactly how the various routing alternatives will fare in future earthquakes. It is all in the vague arena of probabilities and the strongest of the probabilities is that Socal is quite overdue for seismic events:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110210122941.htm
Clearly aerials have been severely affected in the recent past and they will be in the near future, in unforseen ways. PB,Bechtel, Balfour-Beatty and all its sundry dba’s will concoct whatever cover story is convenient simply because they never had nor will ever have to answer for their mistakes.
The CHSRA should ditch the Borden to Corcoran nonsense and go for the TRAC alternative. Always deal with the most pressing need first. The Repubs should press Jerry B. on this. But probably doubtful they will do anything but cave under establishment pressure. In which case the GOP deserves to sink into oblivion as they are useless. Let the Pelosi patronage machine assume full responsibility for the debacle as under any other one-party regime.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Only reacting to the emergency caused by previous lack of forward planning leaves you open to the next emergency caused by the resulting present lack of forward planning.
Not focusing on an HSR corridor from the LA Basin to the Bay now will leave California in the position of being pushed to invest in more expensive roadworks and air transport infrastructure to provide the same intercity transport capacity.
Also, since “there is no way to predict exactly how the various routing alternatives will fare in future earthquakes.“, ignoring the seismic risk analysis would be foolish.
synonymouse Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
The “forward planning” and the “seismic risk analysis” have been thoroughly politicized and falsified. PB and dba’s have totally given the lie to any figment of seismic awareness with their obsession to dot the California landscape(Tehachapis in particular) with aerials. Why should California be made to suffer for PB’s corporate erectile dysfunction and consequent need to pour concrete?
They grotesquely exaggerated the seismic issue at Tejon and continue to ignore it at Tehachapi as exemplified by the stilts. The shorter way is the better and most cost effective way. The detour would be an ongoing headache, slowdown and embarrassment whereas the Palmdale developers will quickly and easily adjust to being on a Metrolink regional line.
I really don’t understand how a select group of voters in Florida, who probably vote based on the local housing crisis, water issues, immigration etc can have so much say over a train in California. I don’t know what Mica ran on, but I’d bet it wasn’t “vote for me, and I’ll spend all my time talking about the north east corridor!”
I don’t get the committee system at all.
Brian Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
I don’t either! I live in Florida (Tampa – not Mica’s district) and its frustrating because Mica seems to pay more attention to the Northeast than to Florida. He also got involved in a Tampa local sales tax vote on light rail by linking its failure to his support for FLHSR. Yet his ownpet project in Orlando did not get approved the first time. He needs more backbone! Altho I think local tea party activists are influencing him. God help this country if the tea party ideas get approved!
Andy Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Isn’t he a United States Senator? Doesn’t that mean he’s supposed to do the best thing for the country overall? Maybe I’m too idealistic, but I really hate the idea that we should all try to get our unfair share of everything by screwing everyone else.
Better to scuttle all HSR projects and let me find my own way to LA.
Mad Park Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
Perhaps a quick Civics class is in order. Members of the US House are elected from districts which are created by the majority party in the state Legislatures with about = populations in each district. The elected are meant to “represent” the interests of those districts AS WELL AS those of the several states in general. Mica, as chair of a House Committee has an extraordinary amount of power, as all committee chairs have – this centralisation of power having evolved throughout the 20th Century. Most importantly, these Representatives owe their power and position to the lobbyists and campaign donors who pay for their election campaigns. See how it all connects to work in the interests of lobbyists and corporations and not necessarily for the voters, only half of whom ever bother to vote?
JJJ Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 1:32 am
It just doesnt make sense to me. If there’s going to be a transportation guy, we should vote on the transportation guy, not get some random guy from a random state who gets the position because of some seniority equation.
Donk Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 7:35 am
Sorry, but your explanation didn’t clear anything up. I still don’t get how they select people to be in charge of these committees. Is it simply that a congressperson joins a committee when they are first elected, and then if they stay on the committee long enough, they will in charge of it when they are the most senior?
YesonHSR Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 8:51 am
The speaker /leader of the party assigns people to the chairmanship then the rank-and-file vote yes or no… if I remember correctly. Of course some people have a strong desire to be the chairmanship of a certain committee for whatever reason that might be..
YesonHSR Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 8:48 am
K steet took over in the 1980s in DC!!
Mad Park Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Committee Chairs are doled out by a combination of Seniority and “interest in the topic” the committee deals with; most importantly, though is how pliant the Chair is to the wishes of the lobbyists (K Street).
If an affected industry’s lobbyists do not wish for a certain Member of Congress to be a Committee Chair, you can pretty much bet it won’t happen.
Good intentions and good ideas have almost no value in the House, and even less in the Senate – it is ALL abut what the affected industries wish for themselves.
Robert and others:
Here we have a Madera Co. farmer with a solution to the ridership levels for the HSR project (20 seconds)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qYXYiRXGi8
mrcawfee Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 4:43 pm
ridership may go up, but i am not sure the authority wants to accept cartons of cigarettes as payment….
From today’s (2-10-2011), Assembly sub-committee meeting (Chair Gordon), are some comments from the local Madera Co. residents, including David Rogers, a Madera Co Supervisor)
(6 min:50 sec)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-cZCdnNVC0
Joey Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Just to have some context, is Madera County’s proposal available anywhere?
Nadia Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
It is the Chowchilla triangle area (so see the SJ-Merced docs) – they want a 152 alignment which is a real transportation corridor vs. the “avenues” that they have selected (which is really a farm road – not an avenue)
Nadia Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
sorry – just realized my “they” references may be unclear – The Authority wants to use “avenues” and the farmers have asked for the 152.
Joey Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 6:37 pm
Ah okay. I thought it might be an issue over curve radii or something. And this only applies east of SR-59, correct?
Peter Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
The Authority withdrew Henry Miller to SR 152 alternative because it is impractical due to constructability issues regarding the reconstruction of SR 152 and to the effects of the wye on the City of Chowchilla (From the SJ to Merced Prelim AA report).
I doubt they’re going to resurrect that alternative, as they’ve already taken the farmers into account.
jimsf Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
so what is the final choice for the wye?
Peter Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
There is none yet, but SR 152 ain’t happening. You want to talk about unnecessary cost escalation, that would be an excellent example.
jimsf Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 8:25 pm
Not that familiar with the area but what is the cost escalation due to? ( It doesn’t matter to me how they do it or the wye) just curious.
the wp are at it agian ! maybe robert might like to raise this as a separate blog
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/02/cut-dont-promote-high-speed-rail
J. Wong Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 7:19 pm
It’s not the Washington Post it’s the Washington Examiner. I believe that it generally has a right-wing bias so this isn’t surprising coming from them.
Peter Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Just reading the titles of the author’s most recent articles, it’s obvious that she’s the stereotypical teabagger loonie.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
All of those “Examiers” are owned by an oil billionare in Colorado..GEE they run constant Anti-Obama stuff in the SF one and in a city that voted 82 percent for him .. and they give it away free..because its a pure propagand rag ,that when your worth that much its nothing .Strange the local paper is for HSR thou they run the usual rightwing nationwide editorals
Andrew in Ezo Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 8:36 pm
That billionaire is Philip Anschutz, who happens to be the largest shareholder, with a 6% stake, of Union Pacific RR; he is also a former vice-chairman of that railroad. Makes sense, doesn’t it?
Ha I wish Amtrak was soviet style… I’ve ridden soviet style trains in Russia and was impressed with its efficiency if only lack of glamour. Regular trains in Russia like in most Europe, normally zip at speeds 90mph and plus in most segments making trips to remote places just one night’s sleep whereas here would take like three days. If we had a soviet style train system I guarantee everyone would be riding it lol
Should cost escalations caused by local demands be counted against the CHSRA? I see it as taxpayers getting together and allocating tax dollars in the way they prefer.
Elizabeth Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
Spokker,
The cost escalations thus far don’t actually include accomodating any local demands (except Disney where the route will tunnel under their ranch). They are just about meeting basic engineering requirements.
Spokker Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
It is a general question.
Arthur Dent Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
Depends on the nature of the cost escalations. If these are mitigations required under CEQA that the HSRA chooses not to comply with unless the locals demand that they follow the law, then, yes, these should be counted against the HSRA. They seem to be on the path of slapping down their favorite thing (not necessarily the easiest or cheapest, but also not necessarily the alternative with the least environmental impact as dictated by CEQA law), and then blaming the locals for wanting something reasonable.
On the other hand, if they propose an alignment which does an honest job of mitigating impacts and the locals want something above and beyond, then, no those cost escalations should not be counted against the HSRA.
Unless the HSRA makes significant improvements in gaining the trust of the public, this arrangement of pushing costs onto locals based on a subjective analysis of what is ‘reasonable’and who caused the cost creep is a recipe for lawsuits gallore.
I see it as taxpayers getting together and saying we didn’t want tracks through our {city, farm, neighborhood, etc.} in the first place and now they’re asking us to pay for it? Lawsuit.
Spokker Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 9:11 pm
There are pros and cons to environmental regulation. I certainly enjoy cleaner air and wildlife refuges, but regulation makes it more difficult to get large infrastructure projects completed. This is certainly not like the Great Depression in which public works projects can get people working right away.
It’s quite subjective, and yes, it will be settled in the courtroom.
Ironically, the same environmental regulations that progressives advocate for are a barrier to the progressive push for cleaner transportation options.
Elizabeth Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Bent Flyjard (not how you spell his name) has actually spent a lot of time thinking about that question. What he found was that a lot of cost increases is attributed to feature creep should probably still count. In general project sponsers leave out a lot of safety and mitigation costs that they know people will want. “Oh, you want FOUR tires with that car.”
I recently saw a very old comment letter from Steve Heminger and MTC, warning the Authority about not doing an aerial on the Peninsula because the Peninsula would obviously not like this, demand and get tunnels which would be expensive.
The kinds of costs that should get attributed should be the ones that actually get paid by someone else.
The 152 is an example of this. Fixing the road apparently has been a Caltrans priority – the current crossings are really unsafe particularly in the Tule fog http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=342
Let’s say you could fix this road up and put HSR down the middle. You would get the environmentalists off your back because you are no longer going through the Grasslands EA and get the farmers off your back because you are no longer cutting their fields on the diagonal, but it would cost more money. Caltrans or whoever should probably throw in a little money and call that part a road project and then you would do the right thing and there would be no cost escalation to the rail project.
Chris Mathews on high speed rail: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews#41481272
He’s annoying as hell, though.
Also it’s a mistake to refer to this plan as a national system. It invokes visions of a route between LA and New York, which is just stupid. It only gives fuel to the misinformed to spread this idea that we are advocating just that.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 12:03 pm
I agree it could be confusing, but national doesn’t have to mean connected. The vast majority of Americans do not live in the Interior West and the Great Plains.