Some Congressional Republicans Backing HSR
Via Daily Kos today, two recent stories indicate that some Congressional Republican leaders will back high speed rail:
Rep. John L. Mica (FL-07), the Republican Leader of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and Rep. Bill Shuster (PA-09) on the Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee, voiced support for extending high-speed rail but cautioned that the President should seek more private investment and focus on fewer regions for where such service should be established.
The first link is to statements given by both Mica and Shuster about the need to invest in faster speeds on the Northeast Corridor and to concentrate remaining funding on a few select corridors. California is not specified, but based on previous statements from Mica, it seems that we are indeed included – especially since California is planning to adopt a public-private partnership for our HSR project, which Mica prefers.
Shuster in particular gets the benefits to HSR. From the statement:
Congestion costs continue to rise. Crippling congestion and poor roads cost businesses and commuters almost $115 billion a year in wasted time and fuel – that is up from $24 billion in 1982 (adjusted for inflation). And Americans spend more than 4 billion hours per year stuck in traffic. It is clear the time for investment in high-speed rail and improvements to our intercity passenger rail system is now.
Shuster also gets the financial benefits of HSR, as he explained to a Connecticut newspaper:
“In the Northeast corridor, you can make a billion dollars profit,” Shuster predicted.
“The point is, I believe we can have a passenger rail service in this country that doesn’t need large subsidies from the government; can move toward break even or profitability if we do it in the right way,” he said.
It’s quite refreshing to see more Republicans making this argument explicitly – high speed rail makes money. It doesn’t have to make money, there’s nothing wrong with subsidies – but if HSR is expected to not have operating subsidies, as is the case with the California system, then it can easily be done.
So are Mica and Shuster representative of the House Republican Caucus? Hard to say. Back to Meteor Blades’ post at Daily Kos:
But will the veteran Representatives’ support mean additional government funding for high-speed rail? Opposition is extensive. Derrick Z. Jackson reported that the 175-member Republican Study Committee, a caucus of House Republican conservatives, wants to end all funding for both Amtrak and high-speed rail. Caucus chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio asked in 2009, “Why should we subsidize an industry that will directly compete with the automobile industry, which is so critical to our area?’’
At least Jordan is being honest. Instead of wrapping his opposition in the mantle of “waste” or claiming that HSR won’t make money, two arguments that hold no water, he’s being clear that this is about supposedly protecting one industry at the expense of everyone else.
Of course, HSR doesn’t necessarily undermine the automobile industry – there’s plenty of compatibility between smaller electric vehicles for short trips around town and a bullet train system that can carry people quickly across longer distances and connect regions. Jordan assumes that the conditions of the 20th century will just last indefinitely, but as oil costs keep rising and as people find that long car drives are both costly and inconvenient, people will simply fly or not travel as much. So instead of propping up bad practices by carmakers or bad investment choices as a society, we should do the smart and efficient thing and support HSR.
Let’s hope that there are enough people in the House Republican Caucus who agree with Mica and Shuster to help make that happen.
O/T the Altamont preliminary AA stuff is out, along with the rest of the February board meeting materials. And I must say, Drunk Engineer’s previousassesment was not altogether off. I will say though that it’s not the analysis I’m unhappy with so much as the way the alternatives were set up to begin with.
Bulbous Reply:
February 3rd, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Hi all, have been reading this site for some time, but not yet posted anything…..
Having looked at the alternatives carried forward, why are the EBUC-2 (Union City – I680/SR84) and EBWS-2 (Fremont – I680/SR84) using seperate tunnels along the same rough alignment? surely using the same tunnel, then having a flying junction at the west end for the two routes would make far more sense?
“Of course, HSR doesn’t necessarily undermine the automobile industry – there’s plenty of compatibility between smaller electric vehicles for short trips around town and a bullet train system that can carry people quickly across longer distances and connect regions”
You don’t even have to look that far to disprove that point. Both Japan and Germany are highly dependent on their auto industries but have advanced rail systems nevertheless. Even going down onto a more regional level, look at the city of Stuttgart for example. Stuttgart is Germany’s auto capital. Mercedes was founded there and still does a lot of manufacturing in the city and its immediate area. Porsche is also based in Stuttgart and still does most of its high-value work there. And its not just the big guys. There are hundreds of smaller companies in the area that are either sub-suppliers to the big boys or do research for them. Even the hand crafted wallnut steering wheels used in the top-of-the-rang Rolls Royces are made in a small town outside Stuttgart. A large percentage of all jobs in the Stuttgart area must depend either directly or indirectly on the auto industry. But what about public transport in Stuttgart. That is often hailed as one of the most advanced and modern in Germany.
Andrew Reply:
February 4th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
Mass transit and high speed rail do reduce the number of vehicles per capita to some extent (though mass transit has much more of an impact, as high speed rail is much more of a substitute for flying than driving). In countries with good mass transit the number of two-car families declines considerably, and the number of zero-car families increases somewhat, but even in developed countries with good mass transit most households own at least one car. For instance the US has 842 vehicles per capita while Germany has 558, surprisingly only slightly less than Canada at 563 even though German mass transit is vastly better than Canada’s. Of course, don’t forget that high speed rail/mass transit create many jobs themselves, so any jobs lost in the auto industry will be replaced.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita
Trains don’t undermine the car industry. People will continue to buy cars but will use them less. In France, the average yearly “kilometrage’ has dropped from 15,000 in 2000 to 12,500 in 2009 but car ownership is still on the rise.
By the way, 2010 results for toll highways and the SNCF have been published.
Highway companies made €1.4 billion after-tax profit. They paid €3.4 billion in local taxes.
The average toll is €0.068/km ($0.15/mile). Many young people can’t afford that and opt for the free, but slower 90km/h roads.
The SNCF (not counting regional trains it doesn’t own) had a turnover of €30.5 billion, up 22% from 2009. Profits are not published, but unions leaked a figure of €1bn, which the company declined to comment.
The rise in ridership caught the SNCF largely unprepared and caused a deterioration of service, with packed trains (Tours-Paris TGV, for instance) repeatedly arriving up to 20 minutes late and no explanation given.
This has won the SNCF the title of “year-2010 most hated company” in the polls. The leaked €1bn profit figure, if confirmed, will make riders hate it even more.
Victor Reply:
February 3rd, 2011 at 9:10 am
Anyone who says that HSR competes with Autos has Rocks for Brains… This applies to those Republicans in the US Congress who said such tripe.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 4th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Andre, do you have a reference for the VKmT numbers? I’ve seen numbers saying the average distance driven per car in France is about 13,000 km, but no trend.
(I’m not doubting you, just interested.)
Ohio’s Jim Jordan’s argument that HSR competes with their auto industry is a straw man argument. It will fail if that is their position. I assume that a majority of voting Americans understand that the ills the auto has brought us should come to a close. And, after all, a majority of Americans now live in cities…. These are folks that increasingly are aware of traffic congestion and urban sprawl relationship.
But there is the possibility it is political gamesmanship and Jim Jordan’s group is just trying to build leverage for something else.
More auto industry subsidies? I do not know.
PeakVT Reply:
February 3rd, 2011 at 10:49 am
I assume that a majority of voting Americans understand that the ills the auto has brought us should come to a close.
Why the heck would you assume that? I’d say no more than 20% of the population would agree with you, and about 1% care enough to do something about it.
Alex M. Reply:
February 3rd, 2011 at 6:38 pm
Unfortunately, this is true.
Robert, Would you qualify your statement?
“..but if HSR is expected to not have operating subsidies, as is the case with the California system, then it can easily be done.”
How is this easy? In CA, cost increases are outpacing funding increases. The bond amount does not adjust for inflation. If the initial profit was estimated at $1B, how does that continue to be possible in light of the above? I see this as a bit of wishful thinking on your part, but would be interested to know how you can feel this to be true?
@ Victor and Brandon, I think by “compete”, I’m guessing Jordan and others are talking about HSR competing against the auto industry for dollars, and not actual use.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
February 3rd, 2011 at 10:48 am
Construction costs are not operating costs.
Joey Reply:
February 3rd, 2011 at 10:50 am
It’s a difficult question. For good reason, capital costs are not considered operating subsides in any case, but when you involve private debt, obviously that has to be paid out of operating surpluses, which of course are finite, especially considering the way the system is currently being designed.
synonymouse Reply:
February 3rd, 2011 at 11:46 am
It is a certainty that the Ca hsr will require significant and ongoing operating subsidies. Some of the reasons are it is not competitive with airlines because it is too slow; its route is too circuitous; it has too many stops; and it will be a government operation with high union labor costs.
The only interests from whom the hsr will be profitable are Palmdale real estate developers.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 3rd, 2011 at 11:57 am
Two hour rail trips dominate air, because of the dominance of waiting to fly in the time costs for short air routes. Three hour rail trips are competitive.
Given the LA/SF of three hours or less, SJ/LA even shorter, CV to the LA Basin and Bay of two hours or less … claims regarding ability to compete with air travel are unfounded bullshit.
Regarding the number of stops: they have these things called “Express” trains, invented either in England or the US sometime in the 1800′s, where a train does not stop at every stop, to better cater to the end to end travelers. Not having those stations would, of course, undermine the number of trips that the system caters to and would reduce the size of the likely operating surplus.
As far as high union labor costs ~ it will generate jobs with sufficient income to support a middle class lifestyle! zOMG! OhNoes! ~ its not an activity at the labor intensity of sewing garments that we are talking about. The labor cost per passenger-mile is too low to be dragged into losses just because it is paying a living wage.
synonymouse Reply:
February 3rd, 2011 at 2:14 pm
In order for this thing to even hope to approximate breaking even the platform staff will have to making airline non-pilot wages. Sorry, but that is the way it is.
The subsidies start to add up when all public transport is included. Urban systems are much more deserving of fiscal support than intercity, where other option, air, bus and auto, are available. Yeah, the state can only a certain amount of infrastructure.
Privately funded, designed, built and operated maglev is a better prospect, due to the hopeless mindset at PB. The CHSRA scheme is redundant in the urban areas. Mass transit can provide the link to the maglev collector stations.
Victor Reply:
February 5th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
Then We better make the Freeways(Which are subsidized and always have been) into Toll Roads, Then remove the subsidy, Also remove the Subsidy on airports, See If You like It then.
Peter Reply:
February 5th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
I’m not sure what you’re referring to with “airline non-pilot wages”. Airline pilots make essentially squat, having also already lost their pensions and many other benefits after 9/11 and increases in fuel prices in order to keep the airlines afloat.
There’s a reason why airline pilots joke that the guy flipping burgers at McDonalds makes more than they do.
Alex M. Reply:
February 3rd, 2011 at 6:51 pm
Too slow? Are you serious? Altogether, the HSR will be faster than flying.
Ted Crocker Reply:
February 3rd, 2011 at 2:01 pm
It’s true AB3034 does not require capital costs be entered into the profitability equation, but as Joey points out, profits are indirectly tied to construction costs. As the costs increase, the likelihood of being able to build a complete system go down. There can be no profits without a complete system. In order to assure a complete system, it becomes increasingly harder, not easier, to raise the required capital, especially when it is not allowed from the State.
Hey all,
I want everyone to remember their statements. For those of you who are pushing relentlessly for the HSR. When this thing gets going and it completes or fails. If we find ourselves in the same situation ie. poor education system, decimated local budgets (city/county), loss of teachers, a failing infrastructure and essentially the large deficit within the State and we have to raise taxes or the State falls apart, I don’t want to see any of you voting against higher taxes or complaining about our education or government. The way this HSR is being designed and proposed by the HSRA is a great idea with suspect design engineers and flawed public information.
James Fujita Reply:
February 3rd, 2011 at 1:50 pm
what makes you think we wouldn’t support higher taxes for education?
we need educated workers to design the next generation of high speed trains, not to mention educated voters who understand complex issues at a level above kneejerk anti-tax NIMBY reactionism.
Peter Reply:
February 3rd, 2011 at 1:57 pm
What makes you think it’s either funding for HSR or for education and government? That’s what’s referred to as a false choice.
Funding for HSR is really such a small amount of the overall state budget and even worse for the federal budget that cutting funding for it is truly nothing more than a drop in the bucket.
Aaron Reply:
February 3rd, 2011 at 3:49 pm
You guys are so starry eyed for high speed rail you are not even looking at the potential risks. This might be a example that is not exact or a on a much smaller scale but here we go. We can all agree solar power seems to have a minimal impact on the environment and delivers a usable power supply. I wish I could install a system on my house, but if I did it would cause me to refinance a portion of my home and make my monthly payment such that I cannot afford to live and make payment. My house would go into foreclosure in time unless for some miracle I found a job that pays more, but unfortunately in today’s market job are not exactly plentiful. Just because something is a good idea does not mean it is financially responsible.
I also do not want to portray that I do not support the idea of HSR. I actually think it is a really positive and progressive technology that can significantly improve the transportation needs of California. However, it should be a well defined and financially sound project. I have been working with some of the HSRA staff and have serious doubts as to the competency and intentions of the HSRA and its staff. As stated in other posts this is one of the largest public works projects in the nation, it should be financially sound from beginning to end. I challenge you to define for yourself how this whole project is going to get paid for and financially support itself in the future. Great ideas only become realities with sound financial plans.
tony d. Reply:
February 3rd, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Whatever!
D. P. Lubic Reply:
February 3rd, 2011 at 4:45 pm
I can well understand your concerns, but many of us still are so pleased to finally be getting something! My guess is you haven’t been laughed at or insulted or called a Communist or socialist or been brushed off by your community “leaders” and political misrepresentatives. It may be possible you haven’t waited and watched in disgust as we went through two oil embargoes, crazy congestion (four hours to go 100 miles on so-called super highways), a severe oil price shock following a crazy real estate craze, and now the makings of yet another oil price shock. Oh, and let’s recall all the crazy business plans over the years, ranging from pet rocks to the dot-com bubble, while the costly realities of oil dependence and highway subsidies that dwarf this rail project into almost miniature scale–HO scale, perhaps?–get brushed under the rug.
You get mighty tired of waiting, of excuses for no action, and of oil wars in the 37 years that have followed the first OPEC embargo in 1973.
Johnathan Reply:
February 3rd, 2011 at 8:37 pm
The authority will not be the operator of the service, nor the majority stakeholder. It will be a foreign country that offers proven technology, government backed financial assistance, and training to setup our state’s new HSR industry.
Our risk is only $10 billion and annual operating losses in the hundreds of millions. In exchange, we get an expected $10 billion in free federal money (about time!), decrease our state spending by replacing $100 billion in equivalent highway lane/airport runway capacity expansion, environmental savings, putting people back to work, and reducing traffic deaths in the hundreds.
Besides, highways and airports are money pits. It’s about time that California spend $10 billion to improve its public transportation system.
synonymouse Reply:
February 3rd, 2011 at 9:59 pm
Of course, the CHSRA scheme will require government operation, as the unions at the heart of the Pelosi-Feinstein-Boxer-Brown patronage machine will demand it. There is no way a private operator can or will go along with a compensation package equal to that of BART or Muni. The boondoggle will end up in Amtrak’s lap.
The retrograde route alignment insisted upon by PB does call competence into question. But if all you Tehachapi foamers want to see what you are buying into, there is an opportunity:
http://www.pacificrailroadsociety.org/excursions/index.html
Al Reply:
February 4th, 2011 at 4:41 pm
If you don’t mind, in what capacity are you working with the HSRA staff?
Aaron Reply:
February 7th, 2011 at 11:44 am
Hi Al,
Sorry I have not checked this blog in a few days and therefore was not able to respond very promptly.
I originally owned a parcel within a 1/2 mile of the proposed line. I was in contact with HSR (November) to try and stay informed and be prepared for what I had to do on my property to try and minimize any sound or visual impacts. I was told by HSR and confirmed by staff members that the rail was going to be along an alignment 1/2 mile from my home. A Neighbor discovered a map that some staff members were showing around that showed the alignment on my home. Essentially after spending 1 day on the phone with HSRA they admitted that they moved the alignment from the original alignment that was publicly vetted and that they had failed to contact any landowner or homeowner along the new alignment. I also discovered that they new in November when I first asked the question that they had moved the alignment, meaning they had essentially mislead me and for several months while I was working with an architect to design our new home, that now our dreams would need to be put on halt.
During my look into what happened I also find large gaping holes in data and logic when it comes to how this project is being processed. Too many holes for me to willingly sacrifice my dreams for a project that is seems to be headed for huge cost overruns and possible failure. All along the way the HSRA staff will try and tell you everything if fine. If they are willing to withold information and communication from the people within the alignment, what are they telling the rest of the public?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 7th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
Aaron. most of the alignments they are considering are existing railroads. You live on the tracks?
Aaron Reply:
February 7th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Wow, don’t we all wish that is where it was going! Through the Central Valley it veers away from the transportation corridors and travels through agriculture and several rural communities. I have asked several times why the 99 corridor was eliminated from the analysis, to only hear a bunch of vague reason. Transportation corridors such as 99 or the UP have addressed many of the concerns that the HSR presents and most importantly it hit the major population center of Visalia/Tulare.
To Peter…yes the Central Valley.
Peter Reply:
February 7th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
The Union Pacific is the primary reason why the alignment does not follow 99. UP has made some pretty ridiculous requirements for HSR to travel anywhere near their tracks.
For example, UP does not want any HSR tracks to share ROW with their tracks. UP has declared they would fight any HSR tracks running next to their ROW (but outside of it) because of the pretense that they want to be able to build new sidings and access any new customers that want to build next to their ROW. Instead of fighting UP on this issue over a number of years, the Authority wisely took the path of less resistance.
For Fresno-Bakersfield, the preliminary alternatives have been known since August at the latest, and haven’t changed. That information was readily available on the Authority’s website.
Aaron Reply:
February 7th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Well I guess I am no UP. But I am a citizen of this State and Nation and personally I deserved a phone call or letter if they knew they were going to potentially impact my home. I refuse to let a group of people with an attitude of “path of least resistance” and withheld information roll over my community and the way of life we enjoy in the Central Valley.
And Peter I am sorry, you are completely wrong. The current map if different than any map that is online and has never been up on the website nor given to any people directly in the route.
Peter Reply:
February 7th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
Aaron, I’m curious where this parcel is? Are you in a city in the Central Valley? Gilroy, or any other similar area?
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 3rd, 2011 at 5:18 pm
What makes you think the project has suspect engineers? It’s poor communication that is the problem. And this is related to the spartan budget causes has had.
Further confusing matters is the politics. Politicians should not be involved in fine-grain design issues related to the safe operation of trains and the efficiency of the system. That is my 2 cents.
Victor Reply:
February 3rd, 2011 at 5:50 pm
Agreed, Plus the Agency needs the proper staffing too, Which the legislature has not allowed to happen.
Elizabeth Reply:
February 7th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
CHSRA has had more than 600 FTE working on this project. They have plenty of budget to do effective communication. It is the organizational structure of layer after layer of contracts and a culture that discourages open and transparent planning that is the problem.
thatbruce Reply:
February 7th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
It sounds like they’re perfectly on-time, having as masters a state that is perpetually late with its budget.
Apart from the contract mess and their penchant for communicating budget changes via footnotes (something from the book of Fforde there), what else needs cleaning up? More importantly, how can this be cleaned up within the existing framework?
Off topic, but perhaps of interest, some comments about a neglected and now demolished railroad station in Gap, Pa.–and comments about the new concrete ties and 110 mph operation on the Keystone Corridor, courtesy of Railway Preservation News:
http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=30817&sid=0bc5062e445a1b546e0d6d693097fdc9
Rep. John Mica was interviewed in June 2009 by PBS Blueprint America.
Donk Reply:
February 3rd, 2011 at 6:31 pm
I can’t believe I am reading this. When is Limbaugh going to take him down?
Alon Levy Reply:
February 4th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
Redstate is already threatening a primary challenge.
Rep. John Mica held a Congressional Field Hearing in New York last week on high speed rail. Video of the Congressional Field Hearing – Northeast Corridor.
The key to understanding Mica’s positions will be how the FAA reauthorization bill is handled this month. The compromise between the Senate and his committee could become the framework for HSR as well as the Congress itself.
Mica is very tied to the airline industry, so he might propose some offbeat ideas for HSR. (Imagine for example, the Acela route run by Continental…. But otherwise I think he’s going to lead the charge for more infrastructure spending, and that is the best one can hope for.