Obama Proposes $53 Billion for HSR Over 6 Years
I guess yesterday’s post was well-timed. Today the White House announced a plan to spend $53 billion on high speed rail over the next six years, following up on President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech pledge to bring HSR to 80% of America within 25 years. The plan begins with a proposed down payment of $8 billion in the upcoming fiscal year.
An initial $8 billion investment will be part of the budget plan Obama is set to release Monday. If Congress approves the plan, the money would go toward developing or improving trains that travel up to 250 miles per hour, and connecting existing rail lines to new projects. The White House wouldn’t say where the money for the rest of the program would come from, though it’s likely Obama would seek funding in future budgets or transportation bills.
First off, the White House deserves praise for throwing down on this. They could have stepped back in the face of Republican control of the House and the (quite incorrect) demand from the right for huge budget cuts to transportation funding. They could have looked at the obstacles HSR projects around the country are encountering and decided that it was too much trouble.
But they didn’t. Obama is coming right back and refusing to give up on this. Sure, it would be good if he could identify the funding source, but at this point that’s secondary to the fact that the president is willing to spend political capital on high speed rail.
He’s doing that not just because he likes the concept of bullet trains. It’s also part of the president’s 2012 election strategy. David Axelrod and other White House advisors have made it clear that a key to their 2012 efforts will be to mobilize young Americans – those of us 30 and under – to become the president’s base, just as they put him over the top in 2008. Millennials quite strongly support HSR and have no patience for the arguments against it. They have no sympathy for NIMBYs, because Millennials are seeing their future being blocked by people who already got theirs, and demand innovation to reopen the paths of upward mobility. Millennials don’t buy the argument that nobody will ride trains, because they’re shifting away from driving and know they’ll use trains regularly. Millennials reject the claim that HSR is uneconomical, because they have no problem spending billions to invest in the future, and understand that the truly uneconomical and wasteful thing to do is remain chained to our cars and ever-rising oil prices.
Republicans are not likely to fall all over themselves to embrace Obama’s plan. Even John Mica, the most pro-HSR Republican member of the House, prefers to invest in a small number of corridors, maybe just the Northeast Corridor alone. And he’s not shown much willingness to spend a lot more federal money overall on HSR, preferring to leverage private funding.
Obama may in fact be counting on that opposition. This is a win-win move for the president, as he either gets his HSR money and scores a policy victory, or the Republicans obstruct it and give him a campaign issue to use in beating them up in 2012. Even in states like Ohio and Wisconsin, the 2012 electorate will be much younger and more diverse than the anomalously old and white 2010 electorate, so HSR advocacy could play well there.
Still, we’re not after a win for the president. As HSR advocates, we want the damn money. Obama has given a much-needed boost to rail advocates across the country, showing that if advocates like us keep up the pressure, we will have an ally in the White House, and that they will – we hope – do what they can to help us leverage Congress to follow through and appropriate the funds.
Here in California, it will require all hands on deck to get this done. The stakes for us are enormous. $53 billion over 6 years will probably be enough to fund the federal portion of the SF-LA route, pegged at $17-$19 billion. California has already received nearly $4 billion from the feds, and given the high profile of our project, we should be able to count on getting a lot – maybe as much as half – of the funds. And the balance can come from private and overseas sources, as in Florida.
Several Republicans, including Devin Nunes, Jeff Denham, and Kevin McCarthy have districts that include the Central Valley portion of the line. As they will all face tougher re-election battles than they’re used to facing in 2012, with the combination of less favorable districts, voter frustration at Republican obstruction, and a less friendly electorate, they represent three key targets to wedge over to support of the president’s plan. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain by fighting to bring jobs to their districts.
Once again, President Obama has brought hope to HSR supporters. It’s up to us to follow through and work like hell to get the $53 billion in funding approved by Congress, starting with $8 billion in 2011.
This is great news. Whether the money ever actually gets allocated and spent is another thing entirely. It will be interesting to see how this plays out with respect to the budget cutting that must invariably take place. Maybe there will be some kind of compromise whereby congress and the president decide to fund one or maybe 2 HSR corridors, build them, then see what the ridership is like. They can then reassess whether to continue the HSR build out or stop at that point.
If it is 2020, gas is $8.00 per gallon, and the California HSR system opens to high ridership and pays its way with enough funds to operate the system and also pay back any private investors, that opens the door to building more systems where it makes sense. If the California system draws less ridership than expected, gas is $0.99 per gallon, and the private investors are nowhere to be found then the opponents will have been right and we as a nation can stop HSR building at that point.
It works in Europe, and Robert and others here believe it can work in selected locations here. Lets just build one or two systems and see if the supporters are right, or whether the opponents are right. Then take it from there. This endless discussion will never settle the question until a system is built and the outcome seen once and for all. There is your compromise right there.
RT
thatbruce Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 10:30 am
I’m going to make a prediction. Once your conditionals of 2020 are met, the opponents of HSR will simply move to a different tact, and use creative accounting, much as they do with their glossing over of the Acela’s operational profits, to ‘prove’ that the CAHSR system is a colossal burden on the taxpayers and should, at the very least, not be used as an example to be imitated elsewhere (and at the worst, should be shut down immediately).
In politics, there is no ‘once and for all’. There is simply the political battlefield as of the present time, and all facts are usable to support any position.
( This post was sponsored by Pessimists Anonymous, and should be taking with large doses of sodium chloride ;) )
RubberToe Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Bruce,
All very true. And I would even change your statement that “all facts are usable to support any position” to say that “all facts and any/all unsubstantiated speculation will definitely be used to support a position”. I could see $200 per barrel oil as “proving” in some minds that more drilling is the “only” viable solution to the problem, with HSR still being derided as a boondoggle. In some cases, it’s all about talking points, and nothing else, especially during election year cycles.
I posed a question to the “HSR deniers” here a few months ago along the lines of “when do you finally give up the fight against HSR and accede to the building and operation of a system”? Do you fight it until they break ground? Do you fight it until it reaches the half way point in construction? Do you litigate every CAHSR action even after the system is up and running, up to and including the changing of the light bulbs in the restrooms? You get the idea. At some point opposition becomes more theological/pathological than anything that is rooted in reality.
1. It works in Europe, for cities within a certain distance of each other.
2. It is much more environmentally friendly than car or air travel, especially if renewable powered.
3. Being a finite resource, the price of oil is only going to go up.
4. They sell more new cars in China now than here, and they don’t run on electricity.
5. The people selling us the oil are generally not anyone whom you would want to be associated with.
6. It is very likely that the oil supply could be seriously curtailed very quickly for any number of reasons.
We have all our eggs in one basket. Not the best way to move forward.
RT
Dan S. Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Basically I think HSR opposition will keep on fighting and fighting hard as long as there is not a groundswell of support for the project. So long as the Average Joes are not enthusiastic about the project, then a few Chicken Littles can control the conversation. While it’s true that a lot more details have come out since Prop 1A was voted on, I remember a different tone to the conversation back then and it was largely driven by fear of the acceleration of the price of gas. What today’s reactive and inward-looking American populace needs is an external signal to get off their asses. I.e., a major oil-supply catastrophe! I’m not optimistic that we can convince them of the very real danger of it happening in advance.
As to the conservative discussion in this country becoming theological/pathological, it’s been that way for years already. Pure free-market fundamentalism driven by power politics and a masochistic body politic. And a total end to the election cycle. (Where’s the cycle? There’s no cycle.) Not a good recipe. Thank you Obama for your occasional efforts to steer the conversation ever so slightly. Maybe we can take advantage of his lead on this HSR issue at least. Here’s hoping!
D. P. Lubic Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
“As to the conservative discussion in this country becoming theological/pathological, it’s been that way for years already.”–Dan S
Warning! Warning! Off topic topic approaching!
I’ve been banging around on the Infrastructurist of late, and there have been a number of rail stories with passionate arguments for and against that sound almost as furious as those of the health care debate. In a way this is good, we are no longer invisible, but there are a couple of characters there who are as against rail as anything you can imagine, including a lady (?) who may be from Texas who is about the craziest poster I’ve ever seen. She thinks cars are from God, and we need to convert Martians and others we may find in space to Jesus, and of course train riders are dangerous liberals who want to make sure men get fed soy milk so they can become women. I’m not making this up! Worse, she seems serious!
Such a person may actually be helpful, making our opposition look bad by being so insane, provided insanity is not the new normal condition.
One fellow over there who goes by the name of John came across as a sensitive soul; I give you one of his postings with his view of some of his neighbors in the midwest, with a video link that seems so appropriate today:
This IS sad [reference to said crazy woman]. Public discourse once served to raise the bar but now seems more like the insights found in the bathroom of your local gas station. A true conservative recognizes that motordom is anti-independence and in the long run guarantees a lower quality of life for the majority. As explained before,” the bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart.” Faux-conservatives rarely care about honesty or matters of the heart, unfortunately.
In the my locale, the MidWest, there are many faux-cons who either do not have the ability to comprehend or are too fearful to travel out of their highway sequestered neighborhoods. Thanks for the Safe Roads video link and its important message (”engineers know that the biggest factor of safety is the driver”)[reference to "Safe Roads" 1935 public service film from Chevrolet, which has also been posted here]. To comprehend the mentality of the average drive I prefer some good family friendly comedy and faux-cons are just goofy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-c5jlk48s
Have fun.
Andy M. Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 2:20 am
“This endless discussion will never settle the question until a system is built and the outcome seen once and for all”
if only.
A system can be designed to be a success but it can also be designed to be a failure. If you get opponents on board pretending to be friends they can kill a project by adding useless but apparently well meant features or advocating projects on corridors that make no sense just to prove HSr doesn’t work. Greek railway investment is a case in point.
$53bn is actually only enough to build two or three decent corridors, so that plays nicely in Oberstar’s plans for targetted funding.
Tony D. Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 10:00 am
Yes, totally agree with TomW! Federal funds, plus bond monies, foreign and private investment, couples with a GOP member who actually has a spine (Mica)…THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN PEOPLE! Morris’ and mouse’s be damned!
YesonHSR Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 8:14 pm
This is outstanding news I can believe it when I heard this morning! Now the truth is let’s see what we can get. I’m hoping it is in the transportation bill so that the numbers can not be changed on a yearly basis. It may not be the 53 billion but it’s a lot better than nothing.
Mike Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
You probably meant to write “Mica’s plans for targetted funding,” rather than “Oberstar’s.”
In any case, this is certainly positive news, but it’s not big news. Big news is when Congress takes this up (if it does at all) identifies a revenue source (which isn’t going to be gas tax), and starts to wrangle through where federal HSR money would be spent. I’d love to see this happen, but I doubt it will. Hell, Congress can’t even get off the dime to figure out how to spend *existing* transportation funds, much less wrap its collective tiny head around creating a new federal program with new money attached.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 12:43 pm
Funding could be pretty simple. Add a ten dollar per ticket “Federal Air Traffic Congestion Mitigation Program Fee” to air travel and fund the remainder out of the current mass transit gas tax.
Mike Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Hell, I’d take that solution. My point, though, is that there is no “big news” here until Congress takes up Obama’s idea. It’s nice that Obama is getting more and more on the HSR bandwagon, but he’s in such a weakened position that it almost doesn’t matter.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
What advocates need to do is to put this money in perspective with the cost of other items in the budget.. say the roads.. or for that matter the daily cost of the Defense Department or something like that and how this will be an investment that will last for decades compared to one-time discretionary spending on things that vanish instantly. Something along this line will need to be done because every right-winger and tea bagger and reason foundation Cato lobbyist is going to act like this is going to break the back of the American taxpayer and the most unaffordable thing we’ve ever done
Chris G Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 7:25 am
Thanks Paulus. But I’m not paying $10 per air ticket before the gas tax goes up too.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 1:16 am
You’re proposing to divert funding from urban mass transit to HSR. Why?
Something that should be on the railmap for such funding would be stepping up (existing) programs that provide for grade separation of road crossings along existing corridors, and PTC along the high-traffic/high-value corridors currently without PTC.
These ought to provide for more protected corridors along which future HSR-capable equipment can be used, and if nothing else, allow for more consistent operation of existing equipment.
dave Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 10:47 am
They should make grade seperations for HSR part of their road budget and label it as “improvements to roads” by improving traffic flow away from those pesky train tracks. Huh, sounds like a way to reduce the curse word (HSR money) from opponents and sneaks it into their beloved roads bill.
wu ming Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 11:36 am
that’s a fantastic idea. grade separation as road improvements.
Donk Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Genious
Jerry Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Great idea Dave.
wu ming Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
this could also be done at the state level, no?
tjon Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
that actually makes a lot of sense, considering its the cars that stop at a level crossing, and not the trains. great idea!
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 6:26 am
Ironically, that is how it worked in the past…. But road projects like were, and still are, sold as transit projects. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the proposed 710 tunnel/gap project in LA will be sold as a transit project some day. After all, a bus could go in there.
Dan S. Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 6:46 pm
Nice! Of course HSR is also an improvement to roads, but that requires a bit more cognitive thought than understanding how a rail grade sep can improve an intersection for cars. Seriously, LaHood should totally use this ridiculous canard! It could actually work!
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
Unless a grade separation results in an improvement in rail service, such as allowing higher speeds, then the grade separation is not a transit project, but a road project. Despite this, we see transit funds being tapped to fund such projects. That seems bogus to me.
If a grade sep results in something substantive FOR rail, then yes, by all means, tap those rail funds.
James Fujita Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 8:44 pm
they make the trains safer, by eliminating cars running out in front of them. seems logical to me.
and grade separations DO allow higher speeds, because of the regulations regarding grade crossings.
Joey Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 9:22 pm
Grade separations are usually done to improve traffic flow where there are too many cars and/or trains for road traffic to get through effectively, not for safety reasons.
James Fujita Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 9:42 pm
Tell that to “Fix Expo”.
Spokker Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 10:18 pm
“and grade separations DO allow higher speeds, because of the regulations regarding grade crossings.”
They allow speeds higher than 110 MPH. If a train is not going to be traveling over 110 MPH, then it’s a matter of traffic flow. Also local demand for grade separations can have an effect, especially in areas in which residents are paranoid about safety.
James Fujita Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
Oh, come on. A train can’t hit a car which isn’t there. The fact of the matter is grade separations ARE safer, although I do agree that the degree of safety is higher at 110 mph than at 50 mph.
The real issue is not safety, but the level of safety vs. budget constraints. Absolute safety is frequently not worth the cost, an argument made time and time again when Expo Rail was concerned.
dave Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Now if only he (Lahood) reads this blog and stumbles upon my comment/reply.
The great thing this time around is that nobody can jump at this with as much misinformation as last time, when the immediate response in the press was that this was money thrown in by Harry Reid to fund the Vegas-Disneyland tourist train.
There is now some sort of HSR vision that is materializing for all to see, with the focus on lines that are at least somewhat viable. Sure people can argue the merits of lines in CA, WA, IL, FL, and the NEC, but these cannot easily be portrayed as complete boondoggles since most of them serve large markets. And now with the 3C route in Ohio out, one of the “HSR” punch lines is eliminated.
So in other words, there is already some evidence that this is being done responsibly, and the press should hopefully not be able to mislead the public as much as it did last time…
wu ming Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
misinformation is a renewable resource. rest assured the deniers will be flush with BS with which to snow the electorate.
This is a very aggressive proposal by the President, and I like it. But I’ll also be a downer and point $53B is about $8.8B per year. That’s a nice amount if it is split between the California HSR project, upgrading the NEC, and some regional rail improvements. But spending needs to ramp up to $20-30B per year to build out a nationwide HSR system.
With support from Mica, I think we will see some money allocated to HSR, but a lot less than the President is requesting.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 11:21 pm
It depends on what one calls a nationwide HSR system. Multiple electric rapid freight rail corridors with rapid passenger rail paths can be built on $2.5b annually, since access and user fees can refund the original capital cost and what is is required is interest subsidy for a revolving capital fund.
If a “national HSR system” means continuous overlapping Express HSR corridors from coast to coast, its not even clear that the capital spending is justified under current conditions. Now, certainly, perhaps in $10/gallon gas conditions it would be … but we need to start with the corridors that are justified under current conditions and let experience with those corridors drive expansion.
Andy M. Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 10:11 am
I don’t even know if one continuous HSR express running from coast to coast is that realistic even under optimistic assumptions, at least not in the next 20 years or so. We have totally different approaches in different regions. California wants a dedicated infrastructure modelled on what the Japanese have done. Illinois wants to raise speeds on existing corridors a bit like what is happening in many European countries away from the HSR corridors. The North East is taking an evolutionary approach and will continue to tinker with its Pensylvania RR legacy until it turns into a HSR. It’s not even clear whether we’re looking at an interopearble electrification or train control system. And then lots of states in the middle haven’t even started to think about HSR yet and quite frankly they haven’t got the population denisty to support it. No, I think a coast-to-coast HSR is still one generation of train technology away, and can only make sense if it is designed and built as such rather than hoping local solutions will somehow meet in the middle. The first transcon railways were designed and built precisely as transcon railways. If folks back then had waited for dozens of local schemes to somehow join together organically there would possibly never have been a transcon.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 10:46 am
Note that Illinois is starting to plan Express HSR corridors as well … but if they are starting to plan now, then the first Express HSR corridors will be rolling out in the 15 to 20 year timeframe at best.
The Mountain West is the problem if we are building for 100 mile to 500 mile trips ~ DFW to El Paso or Albuquerque is a whole lot of empty, and its not that big of an anchor on the western side ~ I guess the US-HSRA proposed DFW / Lubbock / Albuquerque as the corridor with the closest to having a mid-corridor origin.
Northern California to Oregon is a second, and the terrain makes an Express HSR a whole lot of bucks for not all that much bang.
But lay even the currently designated corridors (jpg) on top of something like this (gif), and the combination is a “national network”
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
US-HSRA proposed DFW / Lubbock / Albuquerque as the corridor with the closest to having a mid-corridor origin.
The bright lights of Lubbock may be alluring from Amarillo but the CSA ( not the MSA, the CSA ) for Lubbock is 300k. Not much of an origin or destination.
jimsf Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 7:19 pm
What about denver-omaha-des moines-chicago with intermediate stops?
James Fujita Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 7:55 pm
once you get to Denver, it’s a dead-end from there. That or lots and lots and lots of tunnels.
jimsf Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
yeh dead end but what about the corridor on its own to link those cities. At about 913 miles, its just a touch over the usually stated 800 mile limit for hsr corridors. so it fits in that respect.
900 miles at 220 would bring den-chi down from 15 hours to 5.5 hours
den oma would be about 2.5 hours
oma chi about 2.5 hours
greater denver over 3 million
greater oma 838 thousand
greater chicago 8 million
I guess would be like hsr from sac to fno to la.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 12:56 am
This line would probably be successful and get a decent ridership. The problem is that the cost would be out of whack, because of the need to build more than 900 miles of track. The ridership would not be high enough to justify such cost, unlike in California: Chicago is half the size of LA, Denver is less than half the size of the Bay Area, and the travel time would be twice the travel time of LA-SF.
Wad Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 3:26 am
The Mountain Time Zone will be the hardest to serve.
The problem with a Midwest-to-Denver route is the lack of major metropolitan areas west of Missouri. There are no >1 million metropolitan areas between Denver and Kansas City. Denver to Kansas City is more than 500 miles, outside the optimal operating length of HSR.
It’s worse for the Empire Builder corridor. No >1 million metros between the Twin Cities and Seattle, a distance of about 1,600 miles!
Sacramento to Los Angeles is about 400 miles in comparison.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 4:30 am
Seattle-Spokane could be done as a medium-speed line, on the former Milwaukee Road. Hajo Zierke says the travel time would be 3:45, which would be perfect for a clockface timetable. The cost of reactivating an unused rail line, even one that’s become a recreational trail, is surprisingly low.
Wad Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 4:35 pm
Seattle-Boise might be better.
Boise is one of the fastest growing metros in the Mountain states, and might reach 1 million in 20-30 years. Also, Boise would offer a connection to a Salt Lake City service, if one is built.
Central Washington has some small- and medium-sized metros (Yakima, Pasco-Kennewick-Richland) that would buffet ridership, but to get to Spokane, it would require a crescent route. At that point, you might as well veer to Pullman, Wash-Moscow, Idaho, which are tiny towns but both have universities (Washington State in the former, U of Idaho in the latter).
Alon Levy Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 11:25 am
Boise’s farther from Seattle. Also, on UP.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
It is not. Coast to coast is silly
James Fujita Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
coast to coast is silly, but New York to Chicago might be possible. Hardest part would be Harrisburg to Pittsburgh. Chicago-Detroit-Cleveland-Pittsburgh-Harrisburg-Philadelphia-New York
Nathanael Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 2:55 am
New York to Chicago is key, and there are three reasonable routes for it. (One goes through Canada.)
The Mountain West is the part of the country which is too depopulated for HSR. They can still support some conventional trains though.
PeakVT Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
I am entirely aware that literally building a nation-wide system is not warranted.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
Literally building a nationwide system is one of the biggest single steps we could take to reduce oil imports … but that would be a nationwide electric Rapid Freight Rail system, which would also as a side-effect support substantially faster and more reliable Amtrak-type regional corridor and long haul services.
PeakVT Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 11:12 am
It would be a small step. All rail consumes less than 3% of total transportation-related energy use in this country.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 11:32 am
You are ignoring the oil consumed by long haul trucking.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 11:52 am
Do you mean he’s ignoring freight rail’s oil consumption relative to that of long-haul trucking? If so, then yeah – the freight rail:trucking oil consumption ratio is only 1:10, not 1:30.
My own thoughts:
1. The vast majority of this money will end up earmarked for CAHSR and the NEC HSR upgrade plan.
2. If there’s a public-private partnership involved, I could see some of the funds going to funding true HSR in the Midwest (centered on Chicago) and the Texas Triangle.
3. Reason and Heritage are going to be extraordinarily butthurt over this.
4. There will probably be some funding for Phase II of the FLHSR program.
5. I am dead certain that Amtrak’s new Gateway Project will have funding from this.
I’ll believe it when I see the FRA regulations changed. The administration needs to decide whether its priority is to get HSR done or to spend the maximum amount of money on HSR.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
They’ve changed the cant deficiency regulations, haven’t they?
What regulation do you want them to get to work on next.
James Fujita Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
all of them.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
I meant, seriously?
With no priorities, nothing is likely to get done on any of them.
James Fujita Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
alphabetical order
(BTW, sarcasm mode such be turned on on the previous comment)
Alon Levy Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 4:19 am
You don’t have to do it with priorities. The correct route is to propose reform whose centerpiece is “Everything that’s legal on mainline tracks in Europe or Japan is legal on mainline tracks in the US,” with a very small number of trivial modifications, e.g. for the different loading gauge. The FRA’s role should be reduced to regulation of freight rail, modulo compatibility with passenger rail.
In case there’s no way to split the difference and American officials have to choose between European and Japanese regulations, for example with signaling, they should invite delegations to explain the merits of their own systems and then ask for bids. (Though, as far as I understand it, ETCS is superior to DS-ATC.)
Peter Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 5:12 pm
How have they changed the cant deficiency regulations? What do they now allow?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Courtesy of Bruce McF:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2011/1/16/936788/-Sunday-Train:-Quiet-Progress-Edition-One–SuperelevationCant-Deficiency
Drunk Engineer Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Under the new regulations, Amtrak can shave a whopping 2 minutes over the entire NEC. Whoop dee doo.
But my favorite part of the “study” was in the experimental methodology. Rather than use modern trains, antiquated FRA rolling stock was used to measure wheel and rail forces. In other words: the usual lowest-common-denominator approach to FRA safety regulation.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 12:58 am
Yes, they have. I know that the FRA is recognizing that some of its regulations are antiquated and it needs to modernize them. But it’s still trying to justify its own existence with new stupid rules preventing unmodified off-the-shelf imports from running on US tracks. This means inventing random rules that have nothing to do with best practice anywhere in the rest of the developed world. Who asked for the 6 kg steel balls?
James Fujita Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 3:01 am
“The FRA: You need steel balls to be us.”
Nathanael Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 2:58 am
The weight regulations. Kill the weight regulations first, by allowing crumple zones.
Then the signalling regulations. Kill everything currently planned and mandate ERTMS/ETCS like the whole rest of the goddamned world.
Then, with ERTMS/ETCS in place, throw out the entire train structure regs in favor of the European ones. We can keep the regs mandating knuckle couplers and the one mandating air brakes :-) but the rest should be tossed.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 4:11 am
The weight regulations are being killed already. It’s the smaller regulations that the FRA is bent on expanding. It’s understandable; to the bureaucrats, it’s that or having to seek gainful employment.
tjon Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
If I remember correctly, the new ACS-64s that Amtrak ordered for the NEC has crumple zones, although it’s still a modified European model.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 7:39 pm
The new ACS-64s are fully FRA-compliant, i.e. expensive and extra-heavy. They cost about 50% more than off-the-shelf European locos, and are several tons heavier.
Despite all the weaknesses of Japan’s transit culture – including lack of POP, poor interagency cooperation, and high construction costs – I’m increasingly thinking that it will seriously do good to American transit if everything, including the regulations, were outsourced to Japan.
With statements like this, I’m not sure Mica is 100% onboard.
“This is like giving Bernie Madoff another chance at handling your investment portfolio,” said Rep. John Mica of Florida, the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Spokker Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
Mica has boners for private investment.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704364004576132091951242426.html
“”Government won’t develop American high-speed rail. Private investment and a competitive market will,” Mr. Shuster said in a statement. Mr. Mica said the administration should focus its efforts on the Northeast Corridor, the most congested area for railway travel, rather than on other “marginal projects.”"
Mica doesn’t understand. First, those other marginal projects he’s talking about are the other real high speed rail projects (California and Florida) and slower trains which are just as important.
And significant private involvement won’t happen until our broken approach toward personal automobiles is fixed. I’m all for a competitive market, but the ball is in the car’s court at the moment.
Dan S. Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
Yep, just like private investment gave us the highway system, seat-belts, crash safety regulations, airports, flight controllers, and three dominant car companies that any nation would be proud of (to bail out for billions of dollars due to their ineptitude). The free market does a lot of things well (like generating wealth) but when left to its own devices it doesn’t do a great job of giving the public what it wants. Why this claim has any traction with the American voters is a mystery to me.
Nathanael Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 2:58 am
Yeah, Mica’s drug-addled on the privatization drug. We’ll get nothing out of him unless he gets sober.
Donk Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
Well if Mica wants to fund the NEC he is going to have to negotiate and include money for other parts of the country. That’s the way this great country works.
The real question is whether the administration is just going to throw this proposal out there and then forget about it, or back up this proposal with a real push.
Is the President going to get out there and make some speeches? Is the VP going to be showing up on the morning shows to talk about it? Or is this just going to be a one day story that people will forget?
Remember back in early 2005 President Bush was all over the place trying to sell his private accounts plan? It failed (thank god) obviously, but at least he was out there, and it seemed like everyone was talking about it.
What I don’t understand is why last year he asked the house to lower the amount of money stated for HSR?
And I REALLY don’t understand why Mica is obsessed with private investment. Do I need to send him an article about the Boeing 787 to show him that private money ALSO suffers delays and cost over runs?
Finally, $8 billion could be nicely split as:
$3b for California HSR.
$3b for NEC
$1b to one of the chicago lines
$1b for everyone else (Maine, orlando-miami engineering reports, pacific surfliner, empire corridor etc)
Donk Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
You forgot Texas. Don’t they deserve any?
James Fujita Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
is Texas still even interested?
Donk Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 3:29 pm
(sarcasm)
Victor Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 9:22 pm
Texas? Never heard of It. ;)
Chris G Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 9:44 am
Didn’t forget Texas. They don’t deserve any. The one that does, is NC/VA.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 10:54 am
Their prime potential corridor merits a hefty capital grant, but since they don’t have a state level plan, they have taken themselves out of the game.
Mike Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
It could be split that way; that might even fit into the two buckets that Obama has proposed:
“a $4 billion account for network development, focused on building new infrastructure, stations, and equipment; and a $4 billion account for system preservation and renewal, which will maintain state of good repair on Amtrak and other publicly-owned assets, bring stations into Americans with Disabilities Act compliance, and provide temporary operating support to crucial state corridors while the full system is being built and developed.”
PeakVT Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
Mica is obsessed with PPPs because in the minds of modern Republicans, theory is more important than reality. PPPs can work, but in the case of HSR using that model almost certainly means having a foreign government fund the development of American infrastructure. That could be either a great deal, foolish parsimony, or a giant con, depending on your point of view.
Rick Rong Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
For an interesting piece concerning privatization, see Cullen Murphy’s “The Sack of Washington,” at http://www.arewerome.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/sackofwashington.pdf.
James Fujita Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
it depends on the foreign government. we get our oil from the Middle East and our cars from Japan. I know which one I trust more ;)
Dan Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
… and those Japanese cars come through ports owned by Middle East Governments. At the end of the day, money is money. Bondholders and absentee owners have little ability to affect day-to-day operation. If they become openly hostile to the USA (e.g. Iran, N Korea, et al), they will explicitly lose any influence on the operation.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 10:57 am
Its not even necessarily the case that Mica is obsessed … but after the Republicans wound up their primary base on “rail=bad”, they need a line that the primary base will buy to switch to “rail=good”, and PPP is the easiest line.
PPP seems to be the likeliest excuse for the new Florida governor to give for accepting the HSR funding they have on offer.
Alan F Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
$3 billion for CA HSR in 1 Fiscal Year from a $8 billion pot (assuming, of course, that $8 billion will actually be in the final bill which is unlikely)? Um, no way. There are enough many other worthy corridor project that will be competing for funding for that big a piece to go into one project. California has done very well in stimulus and FY2010 awards, enough to get the project going. Be realistic.
Looking at the description for the 2 accounts, the first account is what the CA HSR would compete for, probably against Florida, Southeast HSR, maybe even some NEC projects that involve new infrastructure such as bridges, tunnels or possibly new ROW. If the CA HSR project can get $1 to $1.5 billion a year or so of federal funding for the next 6 years, combined with private funding (which will make Mica happy), that is enough to get busy extending the route to SF and LA.
If the NEC were able to get $3 billion a year in sustained funding to finally get it to a state of good repair, the Amtrak managers and engineers might go into a state of shock because they have been underfunded for so long.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 10:13 am
Im sure this wont be “free” money as ARRA it will require a % match and we have at least 6.8 billiion for that purpose.. dont know about the other projects matching abilitys at this point
BruceMcF Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 10:52 am
Quite ~ and California doesn’t have to get all the way to $43b on the bonding and Federal capital grants, since with enough of the backbone finished and the EIR done, California will be well placed to get private funding to complete the system. While California should scale back from the 50:50 offer it made to get the recent funding, it can still offer a richer match ~ say 30:70 ~ and still get where its going.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 6:35 am
And, this allocation synopsis would be annual. But, I fear some entities would not be ready to receive the funds this quickly. Thus, perhaps other entities can barrow from the allotment a pay backwater, such as LA’s 30/10 Initiative and all the other funded plans that are popping up?
Btw, LA has the committed funding stream, but those funds come in spread out over 30 years. The initiative is a plan to barrow from the Feds to do these projects sooner and pay back over time…. With their committed funding stream.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 6:36 am
Oops, the auto spell check converted back later to backwater. My pc must have been developed in the South?
Nathanael Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 2:59 am
“And I REALLY don’t understand why Mica is obsessed with private investment”
Because he’s a Republican. And knows nothing about economics. But I repeat myself.
Sigh…
President seems to have forgotten that the last election was a ground swell against this kind of spending.
Here is a reaction from Mica to his proposal: (from Rosenberg in the San Jose Merc)…
Critics challenged the plans, especially after Obama called for freezing discretionary spending in his State of the Union address.
“This is like giving Bernie Madoff another chance at handling your investment portfolio,” Rep. Joe Mica, R-Fla., the House Transportation Committee chairman, said in a statement.
Spokker Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 10:13 pm
The majority of the country is against infrastructure spending?
And the only thing Soviet about Amtrak is perhaps the long distance routes. Republicans tried to defund that shit when they controlled the House and the Senate and still couldn’t do it.
The Acela Express, which isn’t even quite high speed rail, makes an operating profit (Northeast Regional breaks even depending on who you ask) and has a significant chunk of the travel market in the Northeast Corridor. Since transportation infrastructure capital is historically in the realm of government, I see no problem here.
Donk Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 11:09 pm
There was no ground swell. The Democrats just didn’t bother voting in 2010. And the only reason why there was such a swing back towards the right (aside from Democrats not voting) was because the House was artificially tipped to the left due to the backlash against Bush – so the delta was much greater than it normally would have been.
I am tired of hearing all this “the voters have spoken” crap. It is just rhetoric and is getting almost as lame as the “main street vs wall street” argument and “small town America”.
tjon Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
I will refuse to believe that “the voters have spoken” until turnout rates go well above 40-60 percent.
jimsf Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
the voters who care have spoken. The other half of the voters aren’t interested in what decisions are made. If they were, they would have taken 15 minutes to fill out an absentee ballot and put in the mail box. ( I don’t think you even have to put a stamp on it) Its a good thing really, because if someone is too lazy to vote, they are probably too lazy to bother understanding the issues so their votes would just get in the way.
Dan S. Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 7:07 pm
Ah, I remember when Bush was elected in 2000 with a sliver of a percentage point margin of victory and he demurely forwarded a modest, centrist agenda since he had such a limited mandate from the voters.
Blambert Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 11:12 pm
The last election was a “ground swell” of a mobilized minority (seriously, it was average participation in an off-year election; it’s a matter of public record and google will do you well) that had been feasting on the hard-core misinformation of Fox News and the like for a decade. God only knows how bad 1994 would have been if Fox was around at the time.
It’s a bold (and welcome, for my part) attempt to start to move things to where the President wants them. Which is sorta what Presidents are supposed to do.
Mica’s (and others’) bizarre fixation with private enterprise for breakfast, lunch and dinner is the only thing really standing in the way of this. No idea why Americans are so fascinated with the idea of getting out of the way whilst the monied classes get first choice.
Matthew Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 12:26 am
2010 was a groundswell of people upset that it has taken more than 2 years to reverse the greatest financial panic since the Great Depression, and that’s about it. Any statement to the contrary is blindly short-sighted.
Spokker Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 12:31 am
2010 was a groundswell against “whatever Democrats do that I don’t particularly like.”
Note that the groundswell stopped at California. Hell, even Harry Reid retained his seat.
If California cannot secure federal involvement, I think we are quite crazy enough to go after foreign involvement.
Nathanael Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 3:00 am
Matthew is correct. The social scientists who study elections say that a frighteningly large number of people vote “economy good, keep incumbent, economy bad, vote for challenger”
Its an ambit claim. The President will push on this, but does not have the votes to make it happen. But he’ll run on it in 2012, and with the Presidential year electorate, rather than an older, whiter mid-term electorate, is on the inside track for re-election unless the economy gets a double-dip recession.
Roger Christensen Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 9:35 am
Obama proposes $53 B.
Congress a la Bush-Amtrak proposes zero.
What are our guesses here?
Senate proposes ?
Conference committee comes up with ?
YesonHSR Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 10:09 am
I think it could be 30 -40billion if he shows its from other cutting or maby repayed abilout moneys
BruceMcF Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Lesse, when the White House proposed $1b and the House $4b, the Senate settled on $2.5b, exactly half the difference, and that was the outcome.
That would suggest $4b.
Dan S. Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 7:14 pm
If Obama pushes it hard and Mica really does have a somewhat positive view of targeted HSR spending, as it appears, then the result seems likely enough to be some amount of continued HSR funding, which from my point of view is great news since I had almost given up on Obama pushing for any of his own agenda against the opposition party even before they had an actual majority anywhere. If we can steal *some* federal HSR dollars in this 2-year stint with a Republican House, then I think we’re doing well. Now let’s home for more than *some*!
YesonHSR Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 10:10 am
Very true ..outside of Cali and someother states the20-30 somethings stayed home..
This is something the country needs. This would be a major stimulus and help us transition our medium distance transportation corridors over to more efficient rail transportation systems. Now if only we can make some progress in the House and Senate.
One way Obama is likely to get that amount is by creating an infrastructure
bank. States/agencies like CHSRA can borrow at low interest rates from
that bank. Such a bank would avoid criticism that his budget would increase
the national debt and, secondarily, help resolve concerns about foreign
ownership.
Hey so what’s with the claim that the project will cost $63 billion? The claim states that they went through official documents and discovered that it’ll cost $63 billion. They attribute the increase to design changes.
Nadia Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 7:55 am
Not just design changes. The Dec 2009 biz plan was based on Program level work. We haven’t had an update in a long time and if you take the Project level work that has been done and add the most updated costing numbers – you get a pretty hefty increase.
Van Ark promised the Senators last week that he’d have a new biz plan by Oct 1st, 2011. Then two days later at the board meeting he announced that the contract with Price Waterhouse Coopers (who were supposed to be the consultants that would help develop these plans) fell through (they have been negotiating since last Oct.). They will now begin negotiations with the #2 firm. In the meantime, they haven’t bothered to update the $43 billion number.
We think the increase means the conversation needs to change – You aren’t going to get $63 billion – so what’s the best $43 billion dollar project you can build? (or what’s the best project you can build for the money you really can get?)
You shouldn’t just lob of the end points – you should think carefully about the investment… And an updated capital cost number is the only way to have that discussion. We don’t need an entire re-do of the business plan to know the costs have gone up….
Elizabeth Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 11:10 am
In other words, with the notable exception of LA – Anaheim, the 2009 number estimated the cost of the project as it existed circa 2005.
For instance, for the Fresno -Bakersfield section, the 2009 calculation assumes 120 miles of grade level tracks and 11 miles of aerial. The Fresno aerial alone is longer than that, forget about the Bakersfield one (which was announced Sept 2009) and all the others now planned in between. At this point, about 50 miles are now aerials, and expensive earthquake, Amtrak compliant aerials.
The Authority was supposed to release new costs as part of Feb 1 biz plan. We think the AUthority should release their working figures (it will be a range, based on outcome of environmental review) NOW.
There is no reason to wait for the whole plan to be released.
thatbruce Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
I assume that there’s a helpful link somewhere outlining what makes up the $63 billion figure, and the differences from the $43 billion figure?
Nadia Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
the info is here: http://www.calhsr.com/uncategorized/what-will-high-speed-rail-cost/
Peter Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
Any chance you guys will improve your credibility by removing the counters about “Incompatible Offices” now that the issue is moot?
Elizabeth Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
Sorry
Our numbers are up at: http://www.calhsr.com/uncategorized/what-will-high-speed-rail-cost/
We have tried to layout numbers so that people can see what is driving changes.
You can see exactly what was counted in the 2009 numbers at:
http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Phase_I_CapitalCost-2009Update.pdf (this is CHSRA doc that is hosted at our site).
The general drivers of increased cost are:
1) The complexity of the urban areas was not captured in the 2009 numbers, except LA – Anaheim where you saw costs go from $2 billion -> $5 billion. In the Bay Area, known aspects of the project (like the need to rebuild all the Caltrain stations, 4 tracks not 2) were simply ignored.
2) Outside of the urban areas, there was an assumption that all but a short portion through the mountains could be done at grade, with cheap road overpasses. In most of these places, the tracks were parallel to an existing road, which dramatically complicated things from an engineering perspective. It becomes cheaper and easier to just elevate the tracks.
3) Our goal is to get the Authority to lead this discussion. They clearly have new numbers. Whenever there is an alternatives analysis, they are able to talk about the relative cost figures but somehow the absolute numbers keep getting left out of the presentations.
thatbruce Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
@Elizabeth: The point about these figures being Year of Expenditure dollars needs to be emphasised in your summary doc, including, I believe, the mandated change from current year to YOE between 2008 and 2009 (which saw the jump from $33b to $42b).
Apart from that, you have an extremely valid point, and it serves to further illustrate your Senate testimony. Based on the legwork that you have done from the CAHSRA documents, it would seem that it wouldn’t be that hard for the CAHSRA to publish, on a monthly basis, the incurred and expected costs to the same level of detail, possibly with a comment regarding any differences from the previous month.
Daniel Jacobson Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
I can’t wait to see the ridership estimate for the San Jose-Sylmar HSR line. Lol.
James Fujita Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Sylmar is in the San Fernando Valley. Nice sized population there, and Burbank Airport nearby. Just make sure you have plenty of parking spaces, and move the Metrolink stop to the HSR station.
San Jose is at the front door of Silicon Valley, and they host their fair share of conventions as well.
In the middle, between Sylmar and San Jose is the Central Valley with Fresno, Bakersfield and Hanford lacking adequate air service, and an increasingly crowded Hwy. 99.
I wouldn’t underestimate the ridership.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
Depends a lot on whether there is through running, doesn’t it? Got to be through running one side or the other to draw people to use another service on the other side to connect. Through running on an electrified Caltrain corridor with a mid-line overtake would keep it a single seat ride.
James Fujita Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
through running might be nice, but it wouldn’t be necessary.
My final destination would likely be San Pedro. No single seat ride for me, any way you slice it.
If I’m visiting my friend LIz in San Francisco, I’d be happy to transfer from Cal HSR to CalTrain so long as Cal HSR makes it over Pacheco Pass to What’s-His-Name Station in San Jose.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
That’s precisely why. A large number of HSR trips will include some form of connection on both ends (sometimes cars, of course), and more patronage is shed at each connection added in between.
In the ridership modeling that I’ve seen, the impact of time spend waiting for a connection is considered to be about twice the impact of time spend in transit.
James Fujita Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
Fresno to Bakersfield will take time. Bakersfield to Palmdale will take more time and Palmdale to Sylmar will be no trip to the bakery, either. Then there’s Fresno to Pacheco Pass and from Gilroy into San JOse.
I’ve been starting to think we should hold off on San Francisco to San Jose as long as possible. Give FRA a chance to get over their “6 kg steel ball” problems, give manufacturers a chance to adapt to California-style HSR, put off the grand NIMBY fight.
Electrify CalTrain, get BART to San Jose.
Tohoku Shinkansen ran from Omiya to Sendai for years. Ending in San Jose would not be the end of the world.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 4:09 am
The service levels between Omiya and central Tokyo, as of 1982, included the Keihin-Tohoku Line, the Utsunomiya and Takasaki Lines, and, if you wanted to go to Shinjuku, the Akabane Line to the Yamanote Line. And they were already working on improving those levels – by 1986 the Saikyo Line opened, and the Tohoku Shinkansen was extended to Ueno.
The service levels between San Jose and San Francisco, as of the foreseeable future until HSR opens, include one crummy diesel line with hourly off-peak service. BART is going to provide very circuitous alternative service, if you want to go to Fremont and Oakland. Not the same thing.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
Omg! What would be the purpose of the CHSRA helping you? The report to the CHSRA board of directors, not you or your listeners.
Spokker Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 2:53 am
Well, it’ll be interesting to see what the CHSRA’s response is to this because I have no idea what you actually did.
I can find all the 2009 numbers, but I’m still not sure how you came to your estimate. What do I add up to come to your estimate? Would you consider making a copy of the official documents with the relevant information highlighted?
Or are you saying that the CHSRA needs Y units of so and so instead of the X units they calculated? And then are you simply multiplying Y units by the unit price to get the new estimate?
So the CHSRA says, “We need 6.3 units of double track sections at grade at a unit price of $2.1 million for a total of $13.2 million!”
“No, no, no,” says CARRD. “Those 6.3 units need to be four track sections at grade at a unit cost of $4.2 million for a total of $26 million! Ha ha!”
I mean, I don’t get it. I guess I’m stupid.
Spokker Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 3:12 am
Okay, I think this is an example of what she did.
You need to look at these two documents.
Step 1) 2009 costs (page 4):http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Phase_I_CapitalCost-2009Update.pdf
Look to where it says “E. Building Items.” Notice there are 3 intermediate stations, 1 terminal station and 3 Caltrain stations for a total of 7 stations.
Step 2) RFEI document (page 34 and rotate and zoom in): http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=9651
Look to where it says “HSR Passenger Stations and Caltrain Stations.” There are 23 such stations among the 9 substations.
Hence, cost escalation.
Did I do it right?
Elizabeth Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 7:35 am
yep
Elizabeth Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 7:36 am
ps you are not stupid.
Elizabeth Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 7:51 am
Here is the question. In my mind, the term cost escalation would apply if Caltrain opened up 2 more stations since 2009 that would have to be rebuilt. What do we call this when HSRA ignored costs in the first estimate? We need a good way to express this.
Perhaps Jerry Brown will intervene in the CHSRA fiasco. Recently he has made two policy decisions that I heartily endorse, killing Urban Removal(aka redevelopment)and not selling off California government buildings, so there is some possibility he might try to rein in PB.
I definitely think he should put Prop 1A back on the ballot, but alternately adopting the TRAC-Tolmach return to Tejon would be an enormous improvement. A very minimal correction would be to require all hsr infrastructure to be entirely compatible with existing Amtrak operations, namely diesels could operate on the ill-conceived Tehachapi detour.
Victor Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 11:54 am
Fat Chance of Prop 1A going back for a Revote, Of course If You have the money needed to do this(It’s a few million dollars I’ve read to do so), Then go ahead be My guest, It will pass once again. :p Enterprise Zones also need killing off as they just relocate existing jobs and do not create any New Jobs and so are just Parasites as California Budget Bites mentioned…
As to Redevelopment Agencies, It was supposed to be for Blighted poor areas at one time, Today Cities seem to want to use It to build large White Elephants…
Prices on gasoline aren’t going down ever again and widening freeways is way too expensive money wise as the land in and near the cities is usually not cheap anymore. But Hey, I don’t care If You’re stuck on the Freeway(er Parking Lot).
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
That was my first thought too, “fat chance!”
Spokker Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 2:24 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.”
Anyone know how much the latest cost estimates are for Bakersfield to Palmdale? If this section were then complete, couldn’t Amtrak theoretically operate a SF-LA route with conventional trains at a decent speed (say 5-6 hours)? I am guessing that would be a popular route that could break even until the rest of the HSR were finished.
Nathanael Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 3:03 am
For some reason there have been few updates on Bakersfield-Palmdale in recent years, not since the programmatic EIS (when they did a lot of specific work to decide whether to go that way or across the Grapevine).
James M. Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 6:50 am
But would AMTRAK have the extra equipment to handle that? I thought they have just enough cars to run what they have at this point.
Jim M.
Andy M. Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 7:43 am
I believe that Amtrak are currently in the processing of tendering new equipment. They are also spending money on refurbishing a lot of older equipment that’s been out of use for a while but is still basically sound, so I guess there is a fair bit of reserve around. Also, remember that shorter journey times mean the same equipment can be used to work more services.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 8:29 am
California buys the passenger cars that Amtrak operates for Amtrak-California.
The main freight corridors out of the LA Basin are pretty chock a block, and with oil price spikes coming, they are not going to get any less busy. With Fresno/Sylmar, they’d be around that bottleneck.
How was train service under Stalin anyway? Conventional wisdom says he “made the trains run on time” but is that true?
Peter Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_Russia#Railways_in_the_Soviet_Union_.281922.E2.80.931991.29
James Fujita Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Nitpick: That bit of conventional wisdom is widely attributed to Mussolini. Different sort of authoritarian rule.
Also: Snopes.
And anyways, you’re edging awfully close to Godwin’s Law. There really ought to be a corollary for other dictators.
Spokker Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
What the hell are you talking about? Mica said that Amtrak is a Soviet style system, so my question is, was the Soviet system any good?
James Fujita Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
well then, Mica is edging awfully close to Godwin’s Law.
Also, saying that Amtrak is a Soviet-style system does not make it so. To be Soviet-style, the freight railroads would have to be in the hands of the government, whereas Union “jerks” Pacific clearly is not. So, there is one advantage to a Soviet-style system.
Then again, Soviet-style trains were only implemented in areas which got Soviet Russia-style snows in the winter, so who knows? And they didn’t have access to Japanese-style technology.
Look, it’s a ridiculous comparison and you’re not doing yourself a favor by picking up Mica’s talking points.
James Fujita Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
On Soviet Amtrak, trains ride you!
Peter Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
According to the wikipedia article I linked above, the Soviet passenger rail system was quite excellent, especially for rapid transit and commuters. The freight system moved more than the US system, but also suffered more breakdowns.
James Fujita Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
whatever. there’s so many differences to consider between the Soviet economy (not to mention the Soviet WEATHER) and the American system, that it’s impossible to make a fair comparison.
Spokker Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
It’s also a bad idea to make a comparison between Japan’s high speed rail system and California’s proposed system as you are so fond of doing, but here we are.
James Fujita Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
If Japan’s system sucked, I would agree. However, it is clearly a gold standard of HSR and conventional rail.
synonymouse Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 2:22 am
Japan is preparing to lay out maglev with private financing:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-08/rail-s-cash-flow-king-stakes-62-billion-on-tokyo-maglev-train.html
Bring in Japanese tech and kick PB’s Stilt-A-Rail to the curb.
James Fujita Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 2:29 am
you’re 2/3rds right. bring in Japanese financing and Japanese tech, but save the maglev until after after the Cal HSR trains from San Diego to Sacramento and from Los Angeles to San Francisco, and the connecting rail services, are crowded.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 2:43 am
Dude, some of us on this blog have been talking about the Chuo Shinkansen since the Blogger days, in 2008.
James Fujita Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 3:20 am
One minor thought on the whole “we’ll never be Japan” trope:
It’s possible that we may never have a Japanese-sized rail transit system; that depends largely upon how much public money we are willing to shovel into transit. It also depends upon if private companies are willing to invest in private passenger commuter rail travel. Those are two admittedly big ifs.
However, something I hope you will consider: If we aren’t Japan, neither was Japan in 1964.
A lot of people thought it was crazy to give Tokyo the Olympics in 1964. Post-war Japan was still struggling.
The Sony Walkman was years away. The Honda Civic was also years away. Honda was this small motorcycle company best known for the Honda Cub, a Vespa-ish bike known largely for being cheap and indestructible.
Tokyo’s subway system was growing, but it was nowhere nearly as large as it is today.
Yet somehow, Japan managed to pull itself up by its own bootstraps with a combination of creativity, ingenuity and refusal to sleep.
The Tokaido Shinkansen was an engineering marvel, a symbol of Japan’s growth and a harbinger of things to come as Japan spent the next 20 years growing and developing into the nation we know today.
So, yes, we’re not Japan. But I do believe that we are certainly capable of more than just plodding along with a crippled economy.
Elizabeth Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 8:11 am
We would actually second this thought.
We go to meetings where people say things like “Oh, its california government. What do you expect?”
The truth is that, in general, we are capable of so much more than we are currently delivering. We look at Europe and it is not the shiny high speed rail trains that really impresses us – it is how well transit works in certain parts of the continent, even in highly bureaucratic parts. It is not a case of money. They take the same money we have, or less, and think smart. We are all guilty of not having much, much higher standards. There is no place on earth that is more innovative than California.
The reason we keep doing what we are doing is that we meet people who bring forward great ideas and there is no audience for that in the current process and the general public has accepted mediocrity as the only possible way forward.
The way to plan transit in a democracy is KNOWN. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel – we just have to start using it and dismantling the barriers that have been put up. Our current system of dysfunction serves certain interests quite well.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 8:43 am
Yes depressing when nations the size of some of our states have very nice subways and transit.. for some of the same cost as what we spend. I doubt any of those European countries have third world immigrant labor building it either. I agree with you we if we are going to build this system as proposed cost per unit needs to be on a European level and prices for a project segment cannot go up by 25% from what was budgeted. They were given a set amount of money to build the system they need to do it .. or at least get our money back from these consultants for their fees!!
Nathanael Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 3:05 am
The Soviet system was actually pretty damn good (for its era, mind you). I rode it St. Petersburg-Moscow in its last and most bankrupt days (the 1990s), and it was damned nice. A samovar in every car. :-)
James Fujita Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Let’s not forget the working people’s glorious subway system.
Andy M. Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 10:07 am
I’ve heard he issued lots of one-way tickets to Siberia.
Robert,
You might want to do a piece on this.
“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”
I am starting to think John Mica is a moron, or he is only interested in pushing the northeast corridor for his buddies!!
James Fujita Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
or he fails at California geography. or All Of The Above.
jimsf Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
everyone from the east fails at california geography. Just listen to the national news sometime. Whenever they reference california for any reason they look a little lost, they get the place names wrong. ( they also ALWAYS pronounce nevada the wrong way sounding stilted.)
Peter Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
Gee, wouldn’t it be nice if we could just link SoCal to NorCal without having to link it through the Central Valley?
James Fujita Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
or even without the Central Coast. Of course, if that were true, we wouldn’t need HSR.
BTW, I really do wish we were electrifying the new tracks between Fresno and Bakersfield. We might actually be able to import one train from Japan, China or Europe. Just for the experience of blowing people’s minds when the train hits 200 mph somewhere along the way.
Peter Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Note how, other than mentioning “Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno”, the article doesn’t mention that the alignment connects Bakersfield and Fresno, the 11th largest and 5th largest cities in California, respectively.
Eric M Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
And don’t forget the FRA instructed CAHSRA to use the money in the central valley!
James Fujita Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
I suppose the FRA can do SOMETHING right.
Dan S. Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Even if it originated as a whisper from a certain CHSRA CEO, you can’t deny that the feds forced CA to start in the central valley. And Mica clearly calls it “California’s pick” to start there in his quote. It’s a good interview, quite interesting. Mica does seem to be painting his opening hand to support only investing in the NEC. Heh, he says that CA’s system might require operating subsidies since it’s only in the central valley, while admitting that he’s still studying up on it. Geez, he missed the part about connecting SF and LA?
Bias is easy to spot in the article too. Look how McClatchy phrases the plan to connect these West-coast metropolises: “In time, officials hope that an 800-mile high-speed rail system will run from Los Angeles to the San Francisco Bay Area.”
Yes, “in time” we have “hopes” to connect SF and LA. Distant wisps of a dream that might be realized in an alternate reality beyond the horizon. But of course for now all we’re doing is building a little segment in the valley, dropping 5 billion to connect the political centers of power that are Fresno and Bakersfield, with barely the glint of possibility that the tracks might extend from there. (Hey, no disrespect to the CV!! Just pointing out how intentionally ridiculous these guys are being here.)
jimsf Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
The rest of the country has never understood california, and never will. To them its a strange and mysterious place that makes them uncomfortable. I wonder why we are still bothering dealing with the rest of the country at all but people seem to think we have to stay. Oh well at least plate tectonics are continuing to raise the sierra to greater heights.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
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
Nathanael Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 3:06 am
“I am starting to think John Mica is a moron”
This surprises you? You do know he is voluntarily a member of the Republican Party. Now, after Bush and all. It doesn’t surprise me, it seems like he would have to be in order to stay in the Party.
I was looking at a document from the authority and is shows SF to LA not getting completed until 2022 then Aneheim leg 2024. I wonder if this is because of the funding, or how far behind they are getting. hmmm
YesonHSR Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
You’re probably looking at a graph that I’ve that has to do a program implementation which runs till 2022… of course on opening day not every station will be available nor will every trainset be delivered and in-service .
Eric M Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
It’s the construction time table
James Fujita Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Rome wasn’t built in a day, to coin a cliche. The first flight didn’t involve lost luggage. People thought Bugsy Siegel was crazy to build a casino in the desert.
A man supposedly asked Ben Franklin what good was the United States of America, circa 1776. “What use is a newborn baby?” he answered.
The San Fernando Valley will be linked to Silicon Valley before trains run from Los Angeles to San Francisco. That’s not a bad start.
New today from the Authority:
“The California High-Speed Rail Authority on Wednesday issued a “request for expressions of interest” (RFEI) as a first step in the procurement process that will award contracts for the first $5.5 billion in construction and ultimately for the design and construction of the entire system, its trainsets, and its operations and maintenance………..
The RFEI is not a required, binding part of the procurement process, but it is an opportunity for the private sector to formally weigh in on the largest infrastructure project in the nation by outlining their interest in the project. It also gives the California High-Speed Rail Authority a tool to shape the procurement process going forward.”
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/pr_rfei.aspx
The RFEI info is 44 pages and I’m just starting to glance at it. Responses are due by March 16 and the info is located at
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/rfei.aspx