More Evidence of Major Private Sector Interest in HSR
Over at Streetsblog Capitol Hill, Angie Schmitt has a great article with an even greater title: What Boondoggle? Private Sector Wants in on HSR Action. Schmitt has some great quotes here that demonstrate not only that the private sector sees HSR as a solid option and rejects utterly the right-wing fantasy that it is somehow risky, but also that there are important politicians who grasp this as well:
High-speed rail projects from California to Florida have attracted the interest of investors from the Bank of Japan to Goldman Sachs, according to multiple sources.
“There really isn’t a day in our office that we’re not approached by a supplier or a provider,” said Rachel Wall of the California High Speed Rail Association.
This isn’t anything new – we’ve known for nearly three years now that there is extensive private sector interest in our HSR project, giving the lie to the claims of project opponents that it’s some sort of boondoggle.
In fact, we know that the Florida HSR system would have generated surpluses, showing why the private sector was so willing to pay cost overruns and help fund the project – they knew it would be a money-maker.
So it’s no wonder Florida Republican Rep. John Mica knows this too:
“Don’t tell me you cannot make money moving passengers by rail,” said Rep. John Mica, who chairs the committee. “We will drag Congress and whoever else kicking and screaming into the 21st century with passenger rail service with private sector participation, one way or another.”
That was the same conclusion reached by UBS last summer in a study that found the only threats to HSR were regulatory and political, expressing no doubts at all that HSR systems would generate ridership – as long as they were the right length, as California’s is.
I’m sure that HSR opponents will find some way to attack this as well, they always do, but the truth is clear: HSR has broad support from the private sector. And they’re as risk-averse as anyone. Just goes to show that opposition to HSR is usually based out of selfishness or ideology – or in some cases, a mixture of the two.
“There was a fascinating presentation from the Infrastructure Management Group and Lehman Bros.”
Absolutely fascinating you would link to an old article featuring Lehman Bros. Somehow, I don’t think they are going to come up with money.
The old saying is “talk is cheap”. The Authority has been doing plenty of talking for three years now about private equity. Just show me the bucks please.
You reference Mica, who is on record as saying California isn’t where the money should flow. He doesn’t sound like a good leader for your efforts.
Jack Reply:
March 12th, 2011 at 11:10 pm
Mica has been all over the map in regards to California, First he was skeptical. A few meetings with Van Ark and he’s confident. Your continued failure to recognize facts contrary to your own opinion just boggles my mind.
Spokker Reply:
March 12th, 2011 at 11:46 pm
Mica appears to be bi-polar about trains.
First, he was talking tough about money only going to the NEC.
Then Rick Scott rejects federal money and Mica is all, “Well, at least wait for the bids to come out.”
Now he seems to be gung-ho about making money with high speed rail.
Jerry Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 3:23 am
Bi-Polar??? Hey. He’s a Republican.
VBobier Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
Mica is at least on the side of true HSR, As are others in the background.
neville snark Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 10:45 am
Give a person a break! He changed his mind! That’s a good thing!
Peter Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Yeah, but he seems to change his mind day-to-day based on how the political winds are blowing.
neville snark Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
But maybe that indicates that pro-HSR noise is not ineffective… I mean, it’s better to have polical weather-vane than an unchangeable anti-HSR idealogue in his position. I think.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 11:41 am
Lehman Bros collapsed for other reasons, and their collapse does not invalidate their analysis that HSR will be a profitable and attractive investment for the private sector.
Which I know you know, Morris.
OT: Peninsula cities joining forces to influence high-speed rail plan
Peninsula cities have finally realized that they need to actually work with the Authority to get the best possible project for their city if their lawsuits fail.
This is what awaits private investors in the CHSRA scheme:
http://mobile.lasvegasun.com/news/2011/feb/04/state-finds-funds-pay-law-firm-las-vegas-monorail-/
Crapout
jonah Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 4:28 am
Right, because a 3.9 mile long inter-casino monorail is the exact same thing as California’s 800 mile, 220 mph, railroad connecting multiple cities with populations in the hundreds of thousands or millions. No difference whatsoever in terms of financial viability. Way to call it dude. Prophetic.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 9:23 am
Well there’s cars and not-cars. Everything not-cars is all the same isn’t it?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 11:42 am
Apparently. GM went bankrupt, so presumably that means all automobile companies are money-losers?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 11:48 am
So did Chrysler, twice.
Jack Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 9:46 am
Your implication here without looking at the facts is infuriating and ignorant to the mistakes made during the Las Vegas monorail project. All the arguments boil down to this, if the monorail would have connected to the airport as planned instead of caving to Taxi drivers and other local transport bodies it would have been successful, there were also some embarrassing launch issues that tainted the project since it’s began. Much like if CHSRA caved to your insane demands to follow the I-5 it would not be successful.
VBobier Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 10:12 am
Synos idea of HSR is out of sight, out of My area, But then He/She/It thinks Freeways are Free and don’t cost any money at all to build, expand or to maintain.
Spokker Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
The Las Vegas Monorail covers over 100% of its operating costs. The problem is that they cannot pay off the capital costs.
VBobier Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 9:48 pm
I never mentioned the monorail, Even though I’ve read up on It. But thanks anyway.
Spokker Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
It appears that my reply was placed in the wrong spot.
synonymouse Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 12:47 am
The Las Vegas Monorail site says their system is truly driverless but they have roving security personnel to assist. It doesn’t say whether the security staff is unionized or not. I suspect not.
Still the patronage machine here will never allow the CHSRA to be without copious union platform employees. That’s their price for ramming the project thru.
The LV Monorail could never pay its operating expenses with TWU or Amalgamated operators.
On tv you could see a crowd of BART people looking over today’s derailment in Concord, which kinda looked like it came fairly close to the embankment. The CHSRA will never be able to take on that size of payroll and not be in the red. They would have to pay outsource wages. to break even.
jonah Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 1:30 am
Your anti-worker rhetoric is also quite stunning. Would you rather have well compensated career professionals driving trains and buses or a revolving door of 19 year-olds earning minimum wage who turnover every 6 months or as soon as they hear that Starbucks will at least offer health benefits. Workers are not to blame for the failings of industry in America. Do you apply the same vitriol to your local public safety unions? Any idea what a cop makes in the Bay Area? It just might blow your mind.
synonymouse Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
Some cops ard firemen are going out at close to 300k. That can’t continue if you want a pension system.
Tell your union guys at Muni not to pee in the sanders. No wonder they don’t work.
But I thought that CA’s HSR project was required under state law (Prop 1A) to not require any government operating subsidies, or it wouldn’t be built? If it’s not going to pay for itself, then doesn’t that violate state law somehow? I don’t know much about this CA construction project, but this quote from the Vegas monorail bankruptcy article is sort of troubling:
“There was concern at the time that no public transit system had ever made it without a government subsidy” and “Bonds for $650 million were issued through the state Department of Business and Industry to build the 3.9 mile system that runs between casinos on the Strip and the Las Vegas Convention Authority. Lon DeWeese, chief financial officer for the state housing division, told the committee that the state was only the conduit for the issuance of the bonds. But hundreds of millions of dollars are owed the bond holders who invested in the project.
He told the committee that the bond holders, out that large sum of money, may sue the state to recover. The monorail filed for bankruptcy in January last year in Las Vegas listing debts as being between $500 million and $1 billion owed to between 200 and 999 creditors. The system is still operating.”
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 11:42 am
Plenty of things go bankrupt, but it doesn’t invalidate the basic concept that passenger rail can be profitable. The Acela is profitable. There’s a huge difference between a badly located monorail line in Vegas and an HSR line connecting California’s biggest cities.
synonymouse Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
There are profound similarities between the Las Vegas monorail and the CHSRA scheme.
The single outstanding shared reality is that both will end up in court over the issue of state responsibility for private investor losses. People like Morris will need to lawyer up right away to
challenge the bald-faced misrepresentation before it is chiseled in stone. There is simply no level of legal boiler plate to shield California from fiscal liability when Stilt-A-Rail goes bankrupt. All it takes is enabling obfuscation secreted in the legislation and some tame machine judges. The hsr dissidents need to force the truth out into the open – private investment is not possible; this is merely an end run on a nationalized electric railway, ie. an SNCF or DB. An uber-BART with a bloated union payroll and swimming in red ink.
The lawyers who botched the legal language causing Nevada so much headache and risk now were from California. Natch. And notice that the governor who screwed up(intentionally?)is now retired and dead. Shift to California where the perps behind the CHSRA are septuagenarians. By the time the excrement hits the ventilator and the bill comes due here they will be gone too.
Prop 1A is a customized ponzi. The provision that this thing can be built without taxpayer risk for loan guarantees or operating subsidies is an abject fiction. They need to get a ruling on liability right away and force the machine out into the open.
Winston Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
synonymouse is right. They both run on TRACK and operate TRAINS so obviously they’re the same thing. Besides, did the Las Vegas monorail go through the ALTAMONT PASS, or over the GRAPEVINE?!!! I think not. All trains are a BOONDOGGLE and a SOCIALIST PLOT to take money from the HARD WORKING TAXPAYERS of America and to turn us into Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys.
Andre Peretti Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
DB and SNCF are far from “swimming in red ink”. If SNCF was up for sale lots of buyers would be interested. It would be technically (but not politically) very easy. It is registered as a commercial group and pays corporate tax. It could be privatised overnight, and that’s what rail unions suspect president Sarkozy of secretly preparing to do. The profit margin is currently modest ($1bn for $45bn turnover) but could be significantly raised by shedding a few unprofitable lines, which a private owner would certainly do.
It’s funny how Americans always present European public services as ruinous socialist models although the level of subsidy (if any) is considerably lower than in the US. For instance, the French postal service makes a profit and receives no subsidies.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
USPS doesn’t strictly speaking receive subsidies, either. It gets loans to cover operating losses.
Andre Peretti Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
LaPoste’s banking service (La Banque Postale) contributes a great deal to its profitability. It’s the only bank that has agencies in the tiniest villages as every post office is also a bank.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
USPS is not allowed to do anything but deliver mail and sell stamps; its head, or former head, complained that he could make profits if were allowed to sell prepaid phone cards and such at post offices.
Andy M. Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 3:03 am
Most of the unprofitable lines are alraedy subsidised by local authorities. SNCF has already gone through several phases of pruning away the unprofitable rural stuff. Whenever local authorities protested, SNCF told them, we can continue running the trains if you cover the deficit. Those lines that survived did so precisely because the local authorities agreed to SNCF’s demands. One part of SNCF that isn’t doing too well though is its freight business. There are high hopes that this can be turned around though. Until some years ago Germany’s freight business was also deep in the red ink but DB got its act together, and also private competitors started running their own trains on its tracks, and that led to a culture change with profitability being the result.
Andre Peretti Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 7:17 am
“One part of SNCF that isn’t doing too well though is its freight business”.
It’s worse than that. SNCF has not made the necessary investments and found it more expedient to buy majority shares in trucking companies. These are profitable and contribute to masking the deficit of freight-rail operations.
SNCF has inherited a very expensive job structure from the times it was state-run and its employees were functionaries. Any change is considered by unions as an attack on workers’ rights and immediately triggers a strike.
Veolia and German companies, which have none of these legacy impediments, manage to make a profit on the same tracks where SNCF loses money. Their market share increases while SNCF’s shrinks.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
You have it backward.
If a railroad builds track, it has ownership of the rights to use the track however it wants. The hope that Schwarzenegger and others had was that the track rights would be so tantalizing to a private operator that they would eat the cost (more or less of construction). When that didn’t work, plan B was to have the state and federal government build the track and auction it off to an operator. The problem isn’t that either of these ideas couldn’t work.
No, the problem is that once the stench of the Wall Street financing crisis became evident, it became much harder for get people to trust that such a big project wouldn’t turn into toxic assets. In the end, critics think that what we will get is a fully public model because no one will bid on the operations side. If that happens though, it’s actually because the situation in New York, DC, and Sacramento becomes so dysfunctional that revenue bonds are used to buy things like rolling stock while letting Amtrak use the incomplete line on a contract basis.
The irony with the monorail isn’t that the state was left on the hook. It’s that because it decided before much of the consolidation in Las Vegas, they created a system which, as Robert says, won’t have a stop at the airport…but will serve a casino that’s closing in May (the Sahara).
synonymouse Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
“badly located monorail” as in Loopy Detour?
synonymouse Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/03/13/MN2I1IA9A7.DTL&feed=rss.news
BART goes on the ground. A good reason to keep elevateds to a minumum.
Winston Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
This derailment was on an elevated section of BART. No major injuries and only minor damage to train and structures.
synonymouse Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Ballast on an elevated?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/incontracosta/detail?entry_id=84921:
Peter Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Nothing unusual about that. Done all over the world.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Indeed, it is common; it’s called ballasted deck construction, is standard on concrete and masonry bridges, has been used on steel bridges, and even on wooden trestles. Its advantages are reduced maintenance cost and consistent track resiliency, in contrast to relatively springy track on ballast transitioning to stiff track directly resting on bridge stringers, with the attendant problems of getting smooth run-on and run-off of bridges. Its disadvantages are increased dead weight on the bridge structure and fairly higher initial cost, part of which is in the bridge structure itself; this higher initial cost is why this is was relatively uncommon in American practice in the past, but seems much more common in new rail bridge construction now.
http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/research/rr0715.pdf
http://books.google.com/books?id=XxYKgLVnT8YC&pg=SA23-PA6&lpg=SA23-PA6&dq=ballasted+deck+railroad+bridges&source=bl&ots=GEK7DN4A3e&sig=nfDNRbAN5TF2tOFPAjbgpFsBFW8&hl=en&ei=tF99TYa4Joe90QGAp-TWAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=ballasted%20deck%20railroad%20bridges&f=false
Here is a vintage example on CSX in Tennessee:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=356508&nseq=31
Another example in Georgia, and in wood:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=356255&nseq=44
Other examples:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=345599&nseq=907
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=343695&nseq=1066
I am surprised Synonymouse was not familiar with this.
Winston Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
The pointwork is on a 600′ long berm between the elevated Concord station and a long viaduct. Based on the photo, the train was partially on the viaduct and partially on the berm.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Serving Palmdale means the half million people in greater Palmdale get to ride the train. It’s a long long drive to station for them if the train goes over the Tejon.
If having the train on an elevated structure is bad just think of the problems when the train breaks down in the middle of a miles long tunnel.
synonymouse Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Just imagine what happens when a rail bends or cracks in front of a train on a 60′ aerial? And
BART trains have been known to climb rails for no obvious reason. And as far as railroad tunnels are concerned you run a greater risk going thru the Caldecott – trains don’t have gasoline tanks.
Upgrading Metrolink to Palmdale means that half million people get to ride on a train appropriate for a commute to LA.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
But routing over Tejon really sucks when they want to get to Bakersfield, Fresno, Sacramento, San Jose, Oakland, San Francisco….
synonymouse Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
Same reasoning applies to Ventura or Santa Barbara, or lots of other cities in Socal. Transfer from other transit or airporter buses to Sylmar.
What do you think people in Oakland, a much, much larger venue than Palmdale, will have to do to use Stilt-A-Rail?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
When they upgrade the Capitol Corridor, go to the station in Downtown Oakland and get on a train to LA?
synonymouse Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
Down the road you can do the same thing for Palmdale – you can call it the High Desert Corridor.
Peter Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
Given that they’ll be linking to Las Vegas with DesertXpress, that’s not too far-fetched.
synonymouse Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
DesertXpress should hire the same lawyers they used for the LV Monorail.
Peter Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
For what?
synonymouse Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 11:56 pm
To scheist their way into taxpayer guaranteed loans – it is the in thing.
Elizabeth Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
The current plans now have about 30 miles of tunnels from Bakersfield to Sylmar, including one 7 mile tunnel. Most of the rest is high aerial.
synonymouse Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 11:54 pm
Oh goody. Now where are those nervous nellies popping veins over Tejon tunnels?
And how many extra route miles to construct, maintain and energize?
jimsf Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
The monorail in las vegas is exactly the opposite of the hsr project. Hsr is designed to go right to the center of where the people are, the downtowns of all the populations along the route. The vegas monorail failed precisely because it did not directly serve anyone. First it did not go far enough north get to downtown vegas, second, it did not go for enough south to serve the airport and the south end of the strip, third, rather than run directly to, through, or under casinos, it stops in places that are in the general vicinity of, but not a convenient walk in vegas heat, groups of casinos. And its too expensive to ride for local workers who use the public bus system instead.
And to make matters worse, parking in vegas is free, and not only that, but valet parking is free so you can easily drive and park your car for free, valet style every 500 feet when you go from one casino to the next. And finally, they ran the monorail off the strip and out of site versus running it right up the center of the strip visible to visitors. THAT project was designed to fail and its the opposite of hsr.
synonymouse Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
You make the Sin City monorail sound like only PB could have concocted it. Actually it seems reminiscent of BART to SFO, on the wrong side of the mountain.
Let’s face it – Las Vegas couldn’t bring itself to do something so pedestrian, mundane, practical as light rail. It is not as if monorail was an unknown; the technology has never adapted well to urban mass transit, which is what LV needs. But it does retain some of the Disneyland exotic and its rubber tires make it much quieter on elevateds than steel wheel. Light rail on parallel streets to Las Vegas Boulevard and carving out private row’s in such a sprawling place would have been a better alternative for that city overall. Now, with gambling throughout the country, Vegas is likely to contract and only be able to afford buses.
Regarding private sector interest: I’ve heard lots of talk about wind farms and solar fields. Sounds great; but if CA is having trouble meeting the increased demand for clean renewable energy, how is CHSRA going to turn up 800 miles of electrified HSR without biting into the already pinched supply?
After this weeks event in Japan, nuclear is problematic.
Wind farms are great; when the wind blows, and the only way to store that is via hydro or trade it… that is if wind farms can get by the Audubon Society, Sierra Club and Open Space preservationist.
Utility size solar farms seem to offer the most predictable source of clean power, but major California mega watt projects have encountered resistance finding themselves in court over EIR issues and again Open Space preservationist: reference the recent Penoche Solar Project in San Benito County.
Are there any clear cut solutions on the horizon?
Is HSR in California at risk for not being able to meet its renewable energy supply requirement?
Why did the public entity (Nevada state government?) make themselves legally liable for a $1 Billion dollar rail project that was apparently destined to fail? Did their ridership projections show that the rail would make a profit after it was built?
Walter Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
It’s pretty dumb to compare HSR and monorails. If the Vegas Monorail is the best economic horror story the anti-rail crowd has to offer, they’re really grasping at straws.
Obviously, the better comparison for a HSR system is (wait for it) other HSR systems. As those who have done their homework know, they attract large riderships and generate operating surpluses around the world.
synonymouse Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Please explain why there is no hsr in Mexico? No nimbys, dirt cheap labor, plenty of passengers, and Carlos Slim can pay for it out of pocket with chump change. And a PRI patronage machine to make Nancy Pelosi look like a rank amateur.
Instead wee see the NdeM electrification ripped out. And believe it, California is the Mexico of the near future.
StevieB Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Felipe Calderón has more pressing domestic problems in Mexico but we in the United States have the leader of the free world, Barak Obama, lobbying for high speed rail for the next six years.
synonymouse Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
Mi casa es su casa – we have the same blinking domestic problems.
Could it be that the Mexicans aren’t as easily brainwashed as gringos. And with all that wealth tht Carlos Slim represents how come they ripped out the wire to Queretaro?
And how come no hsr between Toronto and Montreal, up there in the free world of the north?
Peter Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
“same blinking domestic problems”
Did I miss the most recent mass kidnappings and executions in Arizona or California?
“And how come no hsr between Toronto and Montreal, up there in the free world of the north?”
Because every time they start planning, a conservative government comes in and cancels the project?
Come on, you’ve got to try harder…
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
Hey, I hate to break to you, but there are more people in California than all of Canada. You need density to support HSR which is why the Great White North and Australia don’t have it yet. As for Mexico…spoken like someone who doesn’t understand Mexico. It’s a federal system like the US but most of the expenditures and revenues are controlled by the federal government. As a result, individual states in Mexico can’t raise the type of revenue needed to build a project like California. And at the federal level, there’s plenty of pressure to expand the freight rails first, as opposed to passenger trains.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Half of all Canadians live in the corridor between Windsor and Quebec City. Comparable in some ways to LA-SF.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
30% of Americans are Californians..much to the horror of “real america”
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
Uh, about 12-13% more like.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
Enough power to step om the “real’ ones
Bobierto Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 11:46 am
1/8 of the US population, 1/50 of the Senate. *sigh*
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 10:25 pm
Uh yeah, except Windsor to Quebec City is more like 700 miles than 500 and therefore not quite as good a candidate along the whole route as California. Now Toronto to Montreal…different story….
Alon Levy Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 11:06 pm
Windsor to Montreal would really be Toronto-Montreal adjoined with Toronto-Detroit; if HSR existed between Detroit and Chicago, it would add Chicago-Toronto.
Bobierto Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
Many of my Canadian friends themselves don’t understand why there’s no HSR route there – other than that the Conservative Party (don’t blame me, that’s what it’s called) is about as hostile to transit as the Republicans are here. Also their Federal government has LESS power than ours so coordinating an intra-province project, particularly one between Ontario and Quebec, is complicated. The entire route may be 700 miles but the core route would be Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec City, all of which is heavily traveled by highway and air.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 7:01 pm
They ripped it out because it interfered with double stacking and would have had to be redone to accommodate it, which wasn’t economical.
And we seriously don’t have anywhere near the same domestic problems as Mexico.
synonymouse Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 11:41 pm
You been to Oakland or Richmond recently?
Peter Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 11:45 pm
Yes, and there was a distinct lack of piles of bodies.
synonymouse Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 11:49 pm
The Mexican electrification had just been installed. It was a political squabble afaik – left vs. right.
The freight rr’s don’t want electrification. So who’s going to buy the CHSRA when the state is too broke to support it any longer? The UP couldn’t use it. It last, best hope will be Amtrak, assuming it still has a budget.
So you would be wise to engineer it to be thoroughly compatible with existing Amtrak operations.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Why would Amtrak bring over entirely different equipment (purchased new since they are already constrained in equipment) rather than using that which is appropriate for the route?
Peter Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Or why wouldn’t they simply use the equipment that CHSRA purchased?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Or why wouldn’t they simply use the equipment that CHSRA purchased?
They could pick it up cheap at the bankruptcy auction. Since they’d probably be the only bidder, very cheap.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
Syn..you did not follow my advice..
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
The Canadian federal government is run by Alberta oil men (or their lackeys). Both the provinces of Ontario and Quebec are quite interested in a Toronto-Montreal HSR route but prefer the feds to help pay, which Stephen Harper hasn’t shown much interest in doing because he is under orders to drive the price for Alberta tar sands oil as high as possible.
Keep in mind that Harper’s party is the product of 30 years of reaction by Prairie resource extractors and supporters in the electorate against anything that smacked of a federal policy to reduce oil consumption. They never forgave Pierre Trudeau for the National Energy Program and still believe in “let the bastards freeze in the dark” when it comes to Ontario’s or Quebec’s needs. In short, it’s every bit as ideological as Republican opposition to HSR in the US is.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 11:05 pm
The lack of Canadian support for HSR isn’t just Harper. The Chretien administration kept overstudying the issue to death.
Harper’s party has a strong base in Alberta, but it’s not a regional party. It gets a lot of support in the Toronto suburbs and relies on minority governments supported by the leftist but anti-Liberal, anti-federalist Bloc Quebecois.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 1:23 am
Quebec won’t freeze in the dark. They might not be able to drive much but they have so much hydro-power that the cheapest way to heat your house in Quebec, bitterly cold Quebec, is with electricity.
Loren Petrich Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 1:00 am
Seems like they’ll have to get financing from some big player in HSR abroad: France or Japan or China. Have they started anything there?
But it does look like oil vs. HSR in Canada, like the Koch brothers vs. US HSR plans.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
It’s a hell of a lot simpler than that if you look at the map. Basically, there was already an existing ROW from an earlier Monorail between Bally’s and the MGM Grand. The Monorail was going to connect these areas to the Las Vegas Convention Center. The thinking probably was, convention attendees drive less often and would be more likely to travel from a larger hotel (because of discounts for block rooms). So if you build something that makes your convention center more valuable in the convention trade (which is lucrative but also competitive) it’s a win-win.
Whole problem was, as you might have been able to tell via the article, the appraiser lied about the inherent value of the construction bonds, and the investor have no option left but to try and sue the state. Given the rancor surrounding the “bailout”, I could see a situation where the investors lose the lawsuit even if the state could in some instance be held liable.
So your real question is, why would said appraiser lie about the value of the bonds? That’s easy…it’s because they were being originated at a time when Goldman Sachs and others were offering seemingly unbeatable triple-A rated mortgage backed securities, which at the time were seem to be as safe as Treasuries…
This is linked above, and is included here as a source of technical material on bridges, with a section on railroad bridges.
http://books.google.com/books?id=XxYKgLVnT8YC&pg=SA23-PA6&lpg=SA23-PA6&dq=ballasted+deck+railroad+bridges&source=bl&ots=GEK7DN4A3e&sig=nfDNRbAN5TF2tOFPAjbgpFsBFW8&hl=en&ei=tF99TYa4Joe90QGAp-TWAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=ballasted%20deck%20railroad%20bridges&f=false
It’s a pricey book, listed at over $180.00, but some readers here may find it of interest.
In other views (letters to James Repass’ “Destination Freedom”), some comments about Florida, and an argument by one writer to drop everything and abandon America:
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df3/df03142011.shtml
Perhaps to early to bring this up, but how did HSR trains fare, that were running during the earthquake? Could be an important bit of data as the doubters continue to to doubt.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 11:53 am
Automatic stop without issue. The only train problems I’m aware of have been with the tsunami washing away a few regular trains.
“The Acela is profitable”? Only using Amtrak voodoo economics. Look at the way the train sets were acquired. It may be making a small operating surplus but is not contributing to the infrastructure, nor even the depreciation of the train sets themselves. The NEC is a money sink, a transfer from US taxpayers to the NE states that use Amtrak dollars to cross subsidize local commuter service. If you want private dollars making a real rate of return for their investors for CA HSR and you want to honestly meet the legal criterion of zero operating subsidy you’d better not look to the NEC as an example.
Spokker Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
No one said the Acela is paying back its capital costs. HSR in California will not pay back capital costs.
But then again, the airline industry hasn’t made a dime in its entire existence.
Elizabeth Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 12:14 pm
When the words “private money” are used, it actually means that the project is supposed to payback at least a portion of its capital costs.
Spokker Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
It never will.
Paul Dyson Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Then no private money, no project.
Spokker Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 2:14 am
The obstinate are going to try anyway because Americans don’t value infrastructure. Once the private investors lose their money we can realize that transportation infrastructure isn’t exactly a great business model and move on.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
The NEC is a money sink, a transfer from US taxpayers to the NE states
It might surprise you but the NEC is filled with people who pay Federal taxes.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
Ah, yeah. The Empire Builder really subsidizes the NEC, etc. A bunch of foamers say so, so it must be true.
synonymouse Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Meantime the super-rich do not want to pay a cent:
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/03/14/oracles-catz-says-businesses-need-1-trillion-tax-holiday/?section=magazines_fortune
Now who is going to be left holding the bag? Today it was reported that 35% of American “wages” are in the form of one kind of entitlement or other. Are you going to tax welfare to pay for PB’s marginal infrastructure projects.
The hsr deserves the derisive title of boondoggle because of its atrocious quality of planning. Turns out that the Tehachapi detour will run equal seismic risk in the form of extensive tunnels and aerials. What happened to it has to be at grade so we can fix it fast? Spin nonsense from the get-go..
We cannot even make a fair comparison as to how many miles of tunnels, how many miles of aerials, total route miles, ruling gradients, etc. because they never wanted Tejon under any circumstances and never gave it anything but the most cursory and disdainful look. They let one connected burg dictate state transport policy and scabbed together a money pit. Jesse Unruh could have come up with a better plan.
When the rich and multis are bestowed immunity from taxation where is the money to fund America’s exploded spending at all levels of government? Unquestionably very deep cuts are in the cards no matter the political agenda. The only other option is to print money – lots of it – with utterly unpredictable results.