Who Does Kevin McCarthy Represent?
Kevin McCarthy is a Republican Congressman from the 22nd district, which includes Bakersfield, most of Kern County, and most of San Luis Obispo County (except for SLO itself). Kern County voted for Prop 1A in November 2008 – it was a close vote, with about 1600 votes separating yes and no, but it IS a clear sign than Kern County residents want high speed rail.
And it makes sense that they would. Bakersfield is a fast-growing city, with population growth of 41% over the last decade. That’s faster than any other city in California. But Bakersfield is isolated. It’s not on the coasts and the economic powerhouse of Los Angeles is a long 2 hour drive away – and in the winter, storms sometimes make the trip a lot longer if the Grapevine is closed. With gas prices soaring, Bakersfield is going to find itself in dire economic straits if it can’t get itself better connected to the rest of the state.
That’s where high speed rail comes in. As most Bakersfield residents seem to understand, by providing fast and affordable service to Southern California, Bakersfield’s future becomes very, very bright. The city would be less than an hour from downtown LA, which is a far better commute than for many people even in the Los Angeles basin itself. Combined with affordable housing costs, Bakersfield could legitimately become a bedroom community for LA – or it could tap LA talent for businesses based in Bakersfield. As with other mid-size cities along HSR lines, such as Ciudad Real or Zaragoza in Spain, Bakersfield would be poised to experience significant economic growth from high speed rail. So it’s no wonder that residents and local elected officials support the project.
That also makes Kevin McCarthy’s denunciation of the high speed rail project all the more bizarre:
A fourth-generation Bakersfield native, McCarthy said Tuesday that California and the federal government would both be wise to avoid spending billions of dollars on a train he predicted would become a money sink.
“In today’s world, is that the best place to put the money? The answer is no,” McCarthy told reporters. “I don’t think it’s a smart investment.”
Echoing other critics, McCarthy on Tuesday characterized the initial planned 123-mile route from Bakersfield to tiny Borden in rural Madera County as a “train to nowhere.” He said the train would be poorly used and would inevitably leave taxpayers on the hook for endless subsidies.
“Look at where California is (financially),” McCarthy said. “They don’t have enough money to build it now.”…
“If you can’t prove it’s viable from a business plan, it’s not a (project) the government should be funding,” McCarthy said Tuesday.
All of this is ignorant nonsense. First, the initial construction segment would connect Bakersfield to Fresno, not Borden – a key detail both McCarthy and the reporter left out. More importantly, it starts the process of connecting Bakersfield to the Bay Area and ultimately to Southern California. Anyone in Bakersfield who doesn’t think that’s important simply does not have the best interests of Kern County in mind – and wasn’t paying attention when Kern County voters said yes to high speed rail in 2008.
Second, California does have enough money to pay for our portion of the train costs. In that same election that McCarthy apparently didn’t notice, Kern County voters joined the rest of the state in approving a $10 billion bond. The private sector has shown great willingness to fund it. So too has the federal government – except Congressional Republicans, and McCarthy just so happens to be the #3 man in the House GOP hierarchy. More on that in a moment.
Third, as I explained yesterday, the idea that high speed rail would be a “money sink” is a lie that has no basis at all in the evidence. The Amtrak Acela train, just barely a high speed system, isn’t a money sink at all – it covers its own costs. Same with virtually every other HSR line in the world.
Finally, McCarthy claims that the project doesn’t have a viable business plan, which isn’t true. But as we’ve seen with many other HSR critics and opponents, any business plan that the Authority publishes isn’t good enough for them. These opponents won’t be satisfied until the trains are actually showing a profit, and even then they’ll find some way to argue that they’re still a money sink.
And that gets us to what’s really going on here. McCarthy is not representing his constituents, who want high speed rail and the thousands of jobs and other economic benefits it will bring. No, McCarthy is representing the oil companies, including the notorious Koch Brothers, who are now calling the shots in national Republican politics. Charles and David Koch, not the people of the 22nd district, are McCarthy’s real constituents. They’re the ones he cares about.
And the Koch Brothers, along with the other leaders of the right-wing movement, have clearly set their sights on high speed rail. In the last couple of weeks the attacks on HSR from the right have been noticeably more intense, and the conservative pundit class have all been taking their turns attacking it, which suggests strongly to me that someone sent out a memo explaining that now is the time to attack high speed rail.
McCarthy is therefore just following orders – but they’re not the orders of his own constituents. If he were listening to Kern County, he’d know that they want this train badly, and they won’t be happy if he tries to kill it.
Well, at least Central Valley farmers aren’t this extreme:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqazlOpOPZk
Alex M. Reply:
March 8th, 2011 at 11:43 pm
Wow, what selfish people.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 7:21 am
Rich old money!!If you live in a house like that in England you are extremely wealthy!! Once again double standard they think it’s fine that a road is built because they’ll use it.. But a clean quiet electric trainis of course bad.. I love his smoke screen about agriculture and all the land high-speed rail would use.. a similar case here has been used here and its BS.. The Central Valley project will use about as much land as is needed for a large housing development
Alex M. Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 8:21 am
Yeah, the ag stuff is bull. So they didn’t have a problem when an even wider freeway came through the area? It’s not all about you, rich people.
This whole Koch brothers conspiracy sounds believable to me, but it would be great if there was some evidence to back this up. I still don’t understand why the oil companies would care so much about high speed rail. It isn’t like high speed rail will suddenly eliminate our need for oil.
Alex M. Reply:
March 8th, 2011 at 11:46 pm
If the California project is successful (which it will be), then it would set a precedent that HSR works in the US. It would jump start many other HSR projects, and if we get our nationwide HSR network, that would reduce the demand for oil. That’s probably what the Kochs are afraid of.
Johnathan Reply:
March 8th, 2011 at 11:49 pm
Any money that is invested in public transportation is money out of oil interests.
‘For want of a nail, the horseshoe was lost. For want of a horseshoe, the steed was lost. For want of a steed, the message was not delivered. For want of an undelivered message, the war was lost.’
And when CAHSR is operational, there will be a new HSR industry in the US that will lobby for money to line its pockets. The oil companies needs to do whatever to kill HSR in the tracks.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 12:04 am
I find the anti-rail, oil lobby angle pretty silly myself for the same reasons, but it is there, as seen by what comes from Cato, Reason, etc. I guess some people are really afraid of anything that looks even a little like competition.
Below is a quote from someone named Chad at the Infrastructurist that may have some bearing here:
“ ‘This basic market distortion is the same here, and is unfair for the same reasons: companies should compete on how well they will do the job, not on how much their governments are willing to subsidize them.’ ”
“Sounds nice in theory, but in practice, corporations nearly entirely compete based on who can buy off the most politicians, purchase the most subsidies, dump the highest portion of their garbage in the river, capture the most monopoly rents, and best confuse their customers into buying crap they don’t need at far too high a price. Producing a better product at a lower price is hard, which is why most companies really don’t put much effort into it.
“Btw, I am moving to Japan again this year. I’ll be riding the shinks while you all are getting probed at the airport. Have fun!”
Nathanael Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 2:59 am
The funding for Cato and Reason is quite blatant. Lots of it is oil and fossil fuel and road-builder lobby money. This is public information.
Loren Petrich Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 5:08 am
Sources, please? I wouldn’t be surprised, but I need sources, like the stated sources of funding of those organizations.
You could work them into debate over this issue by pointing out the paymasters of Wendell Cox and Randal O’Toole, and saying how proud they must be.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 8:40 am
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reason_Foundation
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute
PeakVT Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 12:25 am
No, it wouldn’t. But oil is very sensitive to marginal demand, so keeping demand up is important. A successful HSR system would cut airlines’ demand, and potentially cut into the demand from personal transportation. The latter could come by direct substitution, and by people generally trying to make their lives less auto-dependent. More generally, people like the Kochs or the Waltons or the Anschutzes don’t want government to succeed at anything because it is the only thing capable of limiting their power.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 7:49 am
Very True !! Even a 3 or 5% drop in oil usage would be a big deal to these people because it would cut money out of their pocket and they like a whole lot of money.. people when they get to this level of richness can be very dangerous for society as a whole .. They are long passed the point of any practical personal needs.. For them it’s all now power and control.. and they got even stronger during the Bush years with the tax break… thetax rate needs to go back to the level of when Eisenhower a Republican was in office to start controlling these new millennium barons.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 2:03 am
First, if you don’t believe the oil and auto industry connection, go to Sourcewatch and look at the donor lists for Reason and Cato. If you Google a bit, you’ll also see more direct connections between those organizations (especially O’Toole, but not only) and the so-called toll roads movement, i.e. astroturf by toll road operators.
Second, although HSR’s effect on oil consumption and driving is marginal, it has a symbolic effect.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 4:18 am
“. . .although HSR’s effect on oil consumption and driving is marginal, it has a symbolic effect.”–Alon Levy
Boy, robber barons just ain’t what they used to be; what a bunch of cowards and crybabies, scared of a train!
Personally, I like the attitude of a fellow named James J. Hill, the founder and long-time president of the Great Northern Railway (now part of BNSF). He was called the Empire Builder, and Amtrak’s inherited train of that name continues that honor to him. In summing up his life and career on the road called the Big G in his retirement speech 1912, he said, “Most men who have really lived have had, in some form, a great adventure. This railroad is mine.”
Alon Levy Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
You mean the guy who Ayn Rand liked so much she based a character in Atlas Shrugged after him?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
I’ve never read the book (when would I get to at 1,200 pages?), but I’m not sure anybody in “Atlas Shrugged” is based on Hill. What someone who did read the book told me was that Dagney Taggart’s (sp?) character was loosely based on a crusading president of the New York Central. That would have been Robert R. Young, who was very interesting in his own right. He came to a quite tragic end at his own hand, however.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Jerome_Hill
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/streamliners/peopleevents/p_hill.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_R._Young
http://www.indieflix.com/film/punk-the-robert-r-young-story-12009/
Alon Levy Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
I’ve read longer books, but no, I’m not masochistic enough to read Atlas Shrugged. But what I’ve heard is that Taggart is based on Hill, not Young, and the Taggart railroad is based on the Great Northern (on account of its not getting direct subsidies from the feds, just land grants).
Dan S. Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
As a proud liberal I don’t mind recommending Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead to everyone! They are perhaps my favorite books. My takeaway has always been an enormous awe and inspiration in the ability of man(kind) to create. Rand’s characters have such ability and potential and respect for the ability of others, that it inspires me greatly to achieve in my own field and to conspire with the most talented people I can put around me. And I’ll vouch that her books are eminently readable, although I’ll admit the first time I made it through Atlas Shrugged, John Galt’s 70-page soliloquy gave me a test of patience!
So, in her mind, the state was the enemy of such creativity and output, but she was writing at the dawn of the communist empire and everyone was framing this as our greatest struggle. Alas, be not afraid of proclaiming that Ayn Rand was wrong! :-) Actually, I don’t think she would admire the frothy, fundamental free-market activists that compose the right-wing these days. While she probably wouldn’t support single-payer health care, I also don’t think she’d support the blatant subsidies given to the automobile system, e.g. She *would* support a level-playing field such that the best ideas and technologies would have a chance to win. Current Republican ideologues have no such predilections.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 8:37 am
Meh. If I want that type of heroes, I can read any porn. I leave books like Atlas Shrugged or Left Behind to the sort of people who like being flogged.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 9:57 pm
It’s a great book… if you are 14. Try Anthem, much shorter.
Nathanael Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 2:58 am
Our modern robber barons model themselves on Jay Gould, who in between stealing from shareholders by setting up paper railroads and looting them said that he could get half of the working class to kill the other half.
Ask the Koch Brothers about that, they seem to follow the principle.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 9:22 am
Having one half of the working class kill off the other half would make getting good help a much more difficult problem. If the cook offs the chauffeur finding replacements for both would take forever…
Congressman McCarthy two weeks ago gave an interview where he said the money for California high speed rail should be instead spent adding a lane on highway 99. Of interest is 99 in his district is already 6 lanes so the money would be used in districts to the north. He spoke of how it would somehow benefit his constituents and how if legislation were passed to bypass environmental laws it could be done within two years. He spoke in a sincere tone about an unworkable plan that has no hope the senate or president will allow to become law. McCarthy could not even get the bill through the house of representatives where he is the majority whip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IF2pMXefXAQ#at=511
YesonHSR Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 7:10 am
The congressman is repeating the company line.. probably sent down by Bohner and maybe higher up in the lobbying industry to make a derogatory statement about the California project . But no matter what he says the project its in California ..A big blue state with a pro-high-speed rail governor and two pro-high-speed rail senators and a number of pro high-speed rail House of Representatives . Actually the more disappointing thing as Robert pointed out in previous posts is the media and constant sensationalizing and distorting facts about anything being built or done anymore.. today’s journalists seem only to be able to produce a distorted bias sensationalist story.. basically tabloid material ..as perfectly demonstrated in this article.
Tony D. Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 7:29 am
Doesn’t the GOP/Tea Party wacks make you sick! Can’t wait for November of 2012!
VBobier Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Yep, That date can’t arrive soon enough for Me, But I’ll wait, No choice, As that Time Machine of H.G. Wells is still out of order.
“America always makes the right investment.”
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/7e1b30b48b/mad-men-on-trains
It’s just so unethical for an elected official to represent their big campaign donors. I saw on the news a prank call someone pretending to be one of the Koch brothers speaking on the phone with the newly elected governor of Florida, Gov. Rick Scott. And soon thereafter, he was killing off Florida’s high-speed rail project which was almost already fully funded by the federal government ($2.4 billion and all that’s left was about less than $300 million which the private sector was willing to pick up the rest of the tab). SO YOU’RE RIGHT ON POINT ON WHO CONGRESSMAN KEVIN McCARTHY REALLY REPRESENT… 2 already rich brothers that don’t care how much we pay for oil or get stuck in traffic. By the way, I’ve been a staunch Republican but I don’t like the direction my party is going…. I’m ready to switch to NY Mayor Bloomberg political party – he’s practical and gets it! I hope he runs for President.
Liam Jameson Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
I believe you are mistaking Rick Scott of Florida with Scott Walker of Wisconsin.
jim Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
They’re actually quite distinct: one has hair.
Nathanael Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 2:52 am
He was confusing the two. Walker was the one who is working for the Koch Brothers and admitted so in a phone call.
Scott is the convicted felon, convicted for converting public hospitals to “private” hospitals, and then looting them (providing substandard care while taking state money).
Jerry Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
True that Rick Scott grabbed up “non profit” hospitals and changed them to “for profit” hospitals. And made a bundle of money off of the government subsidies to those hospitals. And off of peoples illnesses. But was he ever convicted?? Or, are you saying that he should have been convicted??
The SacBee version left out 2 interesting paragraphs from the story:
“McCarthy has expressed support in the past for high-speed rail in California — in 2007 he joined other Valley lawmakers of both parties in signing a letter to then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger backing the concept.
McCarthy didn’t discuss his change of position Tuesday, but has expressed dissatisfaction with the initial route and the current business plan.”
http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/03/08/2302037/valley-official-criticizes-rail.html
Someone needs to pin down McCarthy about his change in position and see what behind the scenes deals he might be working on to flop back. At least Denham changed his anti-HSR rhetoric after getting project financial oversight.
Aaron Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 11:12 am
I think the flip flopping could be due to the way the program is being run. The HSRA has had issues with poor studies, poor engineering and poor communication with the public. When Prop 1A passed I believe the HSRA used insufficient data to convince the public about this project. We now find the project costs approaching doubling, when in general terms the construction marked is very competitive and we are seeing drastic savings in construction costs versus 2006. Why is this project going up? I realize that all of the pro-HSR people keep hammering on the fact that Prop 1A was passed as if 100% of the people voted for it. I would venture a guess that the situation would be different today if we put it to another vote.
synonymouse Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
I voted for Prop 1A. I also favored the Pacheco and 99 alignments initially. They seemed obvious in the beginning but with time I recognized that the East Bay was right – Altamont is the better route for the overall Bay Area. 99 vs. I-5 really depends on how much savings could be achieved with the latter.
But Tejon was and is a no-brainer. Somehow I did not take notice of the Tehachapi crap that had been slipped into Prop 1A. I was just excited at the prospect of seeing some cantenary go up in California.
The thing has turned out to be a turkey, the primary purpose of which is to enable LA’s scheme for a mega-slum in the high desert. Get used to the trend of more and more viewing it as a money pit – the shortcomings are just in your face, like the dumb detour.
Speaking of which, one poster on the Altamont site commented that the fill-the-gap idea originated from Railpac not TRAC. Doesn’t really matter who started the movement, I just hope the GOP and other skeptics pick up on it and force the CHSRA to tackle the “gap” first and fuggedabout triple tracking the Santa Fe from Borden to Corcoran.
Tony D. Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 5:29 pm
“Altamont is the better route for the overall Bay Area.” No it isn’t. Gee, let’s see: provide Tracy and Livermore with HSR service FIRST or Northern California’s largest city and economic engine first? What do you think Mr. Scarecrow?
Joey Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
While Altamont and Pacheco are close for NorCal-SoCal travel, Altamont gives you far larger bang for your buck in the long term. Firstly, there’s no Altamont overlay to build later. Second, you get very good travel times between the Bay Area and Sacramento, saving you a lot of costly (and futile) upgrades to the Capitol Corridor.
(for the record, I disagree with synonymouse on almost every other point, but I won’t get into that)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
So all the people north of the grand and glorious Altamont will just have to take the bus for the next eternity?
Alon Levy Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 8:37 pm
Most of the population in that part of California is along the Altamont corridor – in Sacramento, Stockton, Modesto, and Livermore.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 10:29 pm
Sacramento is 70 miles from Tracy if Tracy can be considered the eastern end of the Altamont pass.
Sacramento-Oakland is much shorter via I-80. Much flatter too. So flat that the tide gets to Sacramento. Stockton-Oakland via the river is much flatter – the tide reaches Stockton too. Californians think Altamont is the way to get from Oakland to Stockton because that’s where the Interstate goes. Makes a lot of sense if you are in Livermore or Tracy.
Population.. meh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:California_population_map.png
Alon Levy Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
The difference is that Altamont could get a high-speed connection piggybacking on the LA-SF line, whereas a water level line couldn’t. A fast Altamont would have a lower travel time than even a medium-speed CC.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 9:17 am
They aren’t building a high speed route between LA and SF via Altamont.
Without digging out my Official Guide or creating a weird trip on Google it’s 90 miles between Sacramento and Oakland. Or 150 via Stockton and Tracy. 90 miles of track that can average 90 MPH is probably going to be cheaper than 90 miles of track ( Stockton to Oakland via Altamont ) that can average 150.
Joey Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 9:28 am
Believe me, you’re not going to get the CC to average 90 mph without completely rebuilding the entire thing (and that implies a top speed far above 90 mph).
And you’re missing a crucial point about the cost savings. Sacramento-Stockton would be built anyway as part of Phase 2 (and I forgot to mention – it would be cheaper that Pacheco’s phase 2). So you’re getting fast service to Sacramento at NO additional cost.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 11:16 am
An average speed of 90 mph means the service levels offered on the West Coast and East Coast Main Lines in Britain, i.e. 125 mph top speed, electrification, tilting trains (real ones, not FRA museum pieces), passenger priority.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 11:41 am
You aren’t going to get 150 via Altamont without rebuilding the whole thing. To repeat, They aren’t building a high speed route between LA and SF via Altamont.
Average speed of 90 MPH gets you the NEC between NYC and Philadelphia. There’s a lot of Shirley time in the schedule. Named after Shirley DiLibero who made the trains run on time by making the schedules longer.
Why is 125 MPH service along the I-80 corridor a bad idea and 150 MPH service along the i-580 corridor a good idea? Why not 125 on both?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 11:53 am
Thank you, Captain Obvious. One thing seems to have sunk into your head over the course of the last several years.
“They” are doing no such thing. “They” are building a $10 billion fully redundant, completely unnecessary BART line between Fremont and Santa Clara via the San Jose Flea Market, and “they” are building a $10 billion completely unnecessary high speed line from Fresno to Redwood City
via Los Banos and San José (the Parking Lot Capital of Silicon Valley).
Aim high!
Why not 173.27 MPH service from Los Banos to Truckee and 156.71 MPH service from Redding to Half Moon Bay and 104.1 MPH service from Yreka to Bridgeport as well? It’s only the Evil Oil Cartels that are keeping these lines from being built. Oh, and NIMBYs in Palo Alto.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
The reason Altamont is better is that you only need to build one of it. To do the same thing with Pacheco requires building two heavy-duty lines. If your budget is tight, you can’t even get Sac-SF to NY-Philly speeds, which are achieved on a nearly dead straight passenger-priority line with a top speed of 135 mph.
joe Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
Pacheco Pass, the chosen route, connects SF to SJ quickly and works along a rail ROW and follows historic travel patterns. No need to cross the bay and the route via Gilroy also services Monterey Co.
Spokker Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
I’m not Bob the Builder, but crossing the Bay at the Dumbarton Bridge doesn’t seem that hard. Weren’t they going to rebuild it anyway but the money went to BART?
I was recently looking at lines on a map and Dumbarton seemed like the way to go.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 10:35 pm
Um, what?
Joey Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 9:47 pm
If demand for the current Capitol Corridor services proved to be insufficient given a better route via Altamont, then yes, they would have to take a bus. Even with moderate traffic, that wouldn’t be much slower. And it’s ridiculous to intentionally degrade the quality of someone’s rail service just because it’s the only thing standing between another service and oblivion.
Joey Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
Oh, and Altamont would improve travel times for people significantly north of Altamont. The CHSRA’s own numbers say that SF-Sac via Altamont would come in at just over an hour, meaning that you could expect time savings even farther north than that. The Capitol Corridor couldn’t even dream of travel times like that.
dave Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 7:22 pm
Completely agree with you.
PeakVT Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
If the CAHSR system is successful, both passes will eventually have a line built over them because of capacity constraints. Pacheo Pass was the right choice because that route is more likely to make the first phase a success.
Joey Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 11:11 pm
because that route is more likely to make the first phase a success
This I dispute. Particularly when you are working with a phased approach, doesn’t it make sense to go where there is also a large regional market? Portions of the Altamont route could generate respectable ridership independently.
PeakVT Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 11:15 am
I think that at the beginning, the demand is mostly going to be from the endpoints, as the utility is more obvious and people traveling between the endpoints are already accustomed to getting out of their cars. Going through Pacheco means that both SJ and SF can be served by the same train from the beginning. The LA-SJ air market is another 2.2 million people on top of the 6.3 million for the LA-SJ. Having stations in the South Bay means more people are likely to take the train, vs. having to drive to Redwood City or Fremont to catch one. More demand equals more trains. More trains means people are more likely to find a departure/arrival time that is convenient for them. Higher ease of use means people are more likely to take the train. Such a virtuous cycle is more likely to occur going through SJ.
I suppose some kind of train splitting arrangement could have been worked out, but that means either Fremont-SJ or Redwood City-SJ would have to be built immediately, which I don’t think would happen. Train splitting/joining is also means the system would have to operate with a precision that it is unlikely to achieve at the start.
It’s a close call between the two (which is why people are still arguing about it). But I think the prospect of somewhat higher initial ridership combined with some intangibles (not building across the Bay, more of the urban portion of the route in a ROW already owned by the government, a greater chance that Altamont corridor cities will want a station downtown once the first portion is seen as successful) means Pacheco was a better choice. If the phasing was (or becomes) different, with Merced-Sacto being completed before Bakersfield-LA, then Altamont would be a better choice. But SF-LA is the top priority, so I think CAHSR made the right call.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
For the hundred millionth time, the operational problem is with terminal capacity in the Bay Area, not with line capacity on open track between the Bay Area and any other point.
Having as few trains as possible travel to San Francisco, blocking regional service on the Caltrain corridor, preventing most Caltrain passengers from reaching downtown San Francisco, and running up billions of unnecessary infrastructure costs while providing worse service to everybody in the state, is the best possible way to maximize the utility of the state-wide and regional transportation system. (It is, however, the worst way to maximize $10 to $20 billion of public money flowing directly into the pockets of PBQD and allied consultants.)
Train joining and splitting only makes sense when it alleviates line and/or station capacity, and even then it has significant operational downsides elsewhere (schedule precision, schedule padding, extra and expensive infrastructure in the form of tracks an platforms at the make/break station.)
The only people going on about “splitting” trains to and from the Bay Area are either ignorant, erecting straw men to support the PBQD-profiting Los Banos route, or both.
PeakVT Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Richard, you’d be a lot more persuasive if you weren’t a total asshole. As it stands: do the world a favor and go jump off a bridge.
Joey Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
PeakVT, that statement is extremely hypocritical.
Back to the subject at hand, Richard’s right that there’s no reason to physically split trains, because there is little operational benefit to running fewer trains through the Central Valley. If anything, you would be running more, shorter trains with Altamont compared to fewer, longer trains with Pacheco. So, instead of one 400m train you would have two 200m trains, one to SF and one to SJ (though frequencies likely wouldn’t be split 50-50).
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
They likely be 100% to San Francisco and change at Fremont to BART for San Jose. That would do wonders for BART ridership south of Fremont wouldn’t it?
Joey Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Demand would probably be high enough to run a few trains to SJ. And the link from Fremont to SJ doesn’t have to be BART.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
The link between San Jose and Fremont isn’t going to built by elves with pixie dust. Phase 1 is going to be SF-LA. Fremont to San Jose would run the risk of being in Phase Never.
Joey Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
The CHSRA’s own cost estimates say that Altamont to SF and SJ wouldn’t be that different in price from Pacheco. Building to SJ isn’t even that challenging.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
It’s being built by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, a fully-owned subsidiary of PBQD, and paid for directly by you and me. The transit industrial complex thanks you ten billion times over.
Nathanael Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 2:54 am
Altamont’s a buttload more expensive to build in the first place, unfortunately, while providing worse travel times for LA-Bay Area.
There are good reasons to go Pacheco first.
Joey Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 9:24 am
Altamont’s a buttload more expensive[citation needed]
worse travel times for LA-Bay Area
Mor or less the same for SF, 10 minutes more for SJ. Not ideal, but the long-term benefits far outweigh this.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 9:30 am
10 minutes more to SJ assuming they ever go to SJ. Much lower frequency to SJ too. Lower frequency to SF too but that won’t matter as much.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 9:42 am
Altamont actually gives better frequency for SJ, if timed cross-platform transfer were done. Not that it matters, CHSRA own ridership model shows not much ridership coming from Diridon PG.
As for Nathanael’s comment about Pacheco being cheaper, even the CHSRA doesn’t agree. Plus there are other costs to consider: how much to upgrade the CC, how much to build the Altamont “overlay”, how much to build BART-SJ, etc, etc.
Joey Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
For those who doubt the trip times/cost estimates, the following comes directly from the CHSRA 2008 Bay Area to Central Valley Final Program EIR:
Altamont (SF via dumbarton and SJ):
Cost: $12.7 billion
Express travel times:
SF-LA: 2:36
SF-Sac: 1:06
SJ-LA: 2:19
SJ-Sac: 0:49
Pacheco:
Cost: $12.4 billion
Express Travel Times:
SF-LA: 2:38
SF-Sac: 1:47
SJ-LA: 2:09
SJ-Sac: 1:18
And just for comparison, the current CC:
SF-Sac via bus and transfer: 1:42 to 1:55 from Emeryville, typically 1:48 + 40 minute bus (inc. wait) to SF, so 2:28 total usually
SF-Sac via BART at Richmond: 2:18 (0:36 BART + 10 schedule misalignment/transfer time + 1:34 typical CC)
SJ-Sac: 3:05 to 3:15, typically 3:05 or 3:10
If you think the fact that the HSR numbers use express travel times, the Coast Starlight schedule indicates that a CC express would save 15-20 minutes, so do the rest of the math yourself. I’m not saying that express trains would happen on either corridor, just trying to make the comparison fair.
wu ming Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 12:24 am
that’s interesting, given that you’ve been trolling this site ever since the vote.
Nathanael Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 2:55 am
Can someone take Syn and put him into a tunnel under the Tejon, crossing several fault lines underground, during an earthquake? Perhaps that will straighten out his lunatic thinking.
synonymouse Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
Evidently Quantm found a crossing of Tejon which would be at grade for both faults.
Still I would rather take my chances in any Tejon tunnels than atop one of PB’s 60′ aerials in an 8.0. Wheeeee
Jon Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 11:56 am
The Altamont vs Pacheco debate boils to this. There are three sensible ways to get from SF to the central valley, serving population areas on the way, and not doing huge amounts of tunneling.
1) Pacheco (serves San Jose/Gilroy/Monterey Bay area; good for SF-LA and SJ-LA, poor for SF-Sac and SJ-Sac)
2) Altamont (serves Union City/Tracy/Livermore/Stockton; reasonable for SF-LA, SJ-LA and SF-Sac, good for SJ-Sac)
3) Capital Corridor (serves Oakland/Berkeley/Fairfield/Davis; very poor for SF-LA and SJ-LA, good for SF-Sac and SJ-Sac)
If you could only afford one you’d pick Altamont, as it would provide reasonable service between all the major population centers. If you could afford two you’d pick Pacheco for fast SF-LA and SJ-LA travel and upgrade Capital Corridor for fast SF-Sac and SJ-Sac travel. If you could afford all three you’d build all three.
What we have is Pacheco and the promise of Altamont in the future. Personally I think after Pacheco we should upgrade/replace Capital Corridor with new passenger only tracks serving SJ-Oakland-Sac. Pacheco is fine so long as CC gets the upgrade it deserves.
Jon Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
Oh, and number one thing the CC needs- transfer station with BART in central Oakland. If a CC station was 10 mins by BART from downtown SF I’m sure ridership would would shoot up.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
The number one thing that passenger rail transportation — including but not limited to passenger rail between the Bay Area and Sacramento — needs is to get out from under the Federal Railroad Administration and from being retarded to the lowest level of freight service.
Throwing billions more ($700 million public dollars have disappeared into the Capitol Corridor so far, with only slow, unreliable, expensive and at best hourly “service” to show for it — a utter embarrassment which would be career-ending for those responsible in most other parts of the world) at this dinosaur of inefficiency is exactly the wrong way forward.
Oh and re “if a CC station was 10 mins by BART from downtown SF I’m sure ridership would would shoot up” — remind me again, what is several times zero?
Jon Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Obviously the upgraded/replaced Capital Corridor should be non-FRA on passenger only track. By Capital Corridor I meant the route of SJ-Oak-Sac, not the existing service on FRA-compliant freight lines.
Joey Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
How much would you have to spend to build entirely new track from SJ to Oakland to Sac? And how much time savings could you expect from the current 3 hour trip time?
Compare that to Altamont, where SJ-Sac is under an hour at NO ADDITIONAL COST compared to Phase 2 CAHSR.
Joe Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Altamont to SF would be expensive and face issues with construction in and near the bay.
The Gilroy to SF route builds on solid ground and along the existing ROW.
Less risk IHMO.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
The Gilroy to SF route builds on and under solid ground, and requires more urban construction. The differences in cost estimates between Pacheco and Altamont are much smaller than the uncertainty in the numbers.
jimsf Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
few people are traveling the length. The ccjpa services city pairs, sac-mtz okj-sjc bky-dav mx sfc, and such.the longest high ridership trip is probably sf-dav or sac and at 2 hours or 220 respectively that is competitive with driving in both cost and time. And I use to commute from sf to sac so im quite familiar with having to do that on a daily basis and just how bad it gets.
Joey Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Okay, so if SF-Sac isn’t a huge part of the CC’s existing ridership, then keep the existing slow service and choose a faster route (Altamont) to grow end-to-end ridership on.
Clem Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
Altamont would not face any construction “issues” near the bay. There are tunnel boring machines gearing up as we speak to cross under the bay, including the wildlife refuge, along the exact Dumbarton alignment that the powers that be decided was infeasible. That tunnel will carry water, not trains, and will reduce the risk of geotechnical surprises (should one like to build another tunnel in the immediate vicinity) to zero.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 10:47 pm
Railroad tunnels are a bit larger than water tunnels. They need pesky things like railroad traicks and signal systems. Ventilation and emergency egress. That makes the a bit more expensive than water tunnels.
thatbruce Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
@jimsf:
Richard’s comment of:
Oh and re “if a CC station was 10 mins by BART from downtown SF I’m sure ridership would would shoot up” — remind me again, what is several times zero?
got me thinking, and you’re in a good position to know. How many CC tickets are sold in downtown SF for the next CC service, implying that they would need to catch BART across the bay to catch it in time? (I guess to Oakland + walk, Coliseum or Richmond )
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 6:16 pm
Like the B&O’s Royal Blue service they take a bus across the harbor to the station. . . to one of those new fangled diesel electric trains just like the Royal Blue.
Joey Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
According to timetables, you get about the same travel time to downtown SF by transferring to the bus or by transferring to BART at Richmond. This doesn’t account for time spend waiting for BART (headways typically 15 minutes) or traffic on the Bay Bridge.
jimsf Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Im not sure I understand your question, but for one if you miss your bus at ferry building you can not catch the train at richmond as the bus/train is faster by about 10 minutes. The majority of riders know the skeds, those who don’t rarely seem put off by waiting for the next departure and during peak hours departures are close to hourly. There’s a late morning gap of two hours and a 90 minute gap midday, but the rest of the day..
530, 610,710,845,945,1145,1255,220,3,340,420,5,615,755,905
The embarcadero to richmond travel time on bart is at least 40 minutes and you can not catch up to the train there, unless you were already at emb bart, but to walk back across the street, you can’t make it.
thatbruce Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
So add a West-West Oakland transfer station with BART at 7th/I-880, or really push the existing BARTAmtrak transfer station at Richmond.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
couldn’t do that, it would make sense
thatbruce Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Heaven forbid that someone would practice transit integration ;)
Joey Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 7:07 pm
Transferring to BART at Richmond doesn’t save much time over the bus (if any), and I sincerely doubt that providing a new West Oakland transfer station would save more than 5 minutes, 10 if you’re lucky.
Jon Reply:
March 11th, 2011 at 10:14 am
Transferring to BART at Richmond doesn’t save much time over the bus (if any)…
Correct.
…and I sincerely doubt that providing a new West Oakland transfer station would save more than 5 minutes, 10 if you’re lucky.
Disagree. The reason the bus transfer takes so long is because it’s a bus. Schedules are heavily padded to avoid missing the train due to traffic on the bay bridge. The reason the BART transfer takes so long is because Richmond is the end of the line and the train makes all stops on the way to San Francisco.
An Oakland transfer station at 7th/I-880 (here) would eliminate both of those problems, you’d be one stop and about 7 minutes from Embarcadero, with the shortest headways anywhere on BART. You could also build huge parking lots on the industrial land at the station to encourage park-and-ride commuters and relieve parking demand at West Oakland and other stations.
Realistically though, this will only happen if Capital Corridor can improve frequency and ridership enough to justify the construction of a new station. Hence it should first be upgraded to non-FRA passenger-only track with DMUs and improved frequency.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 11th, 2011 at 10:17 am
Should be delightful at rush hour when the BART system is at capacity.
Jon Reply:
March 11th, 2011 at 10:47 am
The alternative is to come up with money for a new bay crossing. Good luck with that.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 11th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Cast your eyes over the Bay someday between Oakland and San Francisco, they are building one right now.
Joey Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Altamont is no less competitive for SF-LA, and the CC is rather pathetic for SJ-Sac
jimsf Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
few people use capitol corridor to go the full length anyway. People mainly use portions, under 2 hours for commuting, and maybe further for weekend trips.
Joey Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 7:13 pm
So keep the existing service and go for better end-to-end travel times where you can do so without spending any extra money. I have no doubt that there is a significant market for SF-Sac or even SJ-Sac, but the existing CC is far too uncompetitive, unreliable, infrequent, and inconvenient to capture that market.
jimsf Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Its not unreliable or uncompetitive – I just got the figures today, ridership and revenue went up again, otp in the 90s and customer satisfaction in the 90s as well. The people who ride it are quite happy with it and new people are riding and staying.
Joey Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
What does Amtrak define as “on time”? Even if it’s less than 5 minutes late, 90% isn’t great.
And sure, it has its riders. For aforementioned reasons though, they are still a minority of the corridor’s overall travel demand.
jimsf Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
show me any mode of travel in the united states of america that has a better than 90 percent on time performance. car rail air bus, it doesn’t exist.
jimsf Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
and show me another agency that has constantly increasing revenue, ridership, and customer satisfaction and explain to me how that is a bad thing.
Even in the most transit rich places in america like new york, im sure drivers still outnumber rail commuters and always will. Whats the blue lines share in that corridor or the red line? What’s metrolinks share of the i-10 corridor?
Those of you who are dreaming that the us should have asian transit or something surely must know that that is never going to happen here, ever and that you need to have more realistic expectations unless you want to be perpetually disappointed. Or do you just want to complain?
Alon Levy Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
In New York City, more people take the subway than drive. Go to cities that have decent regional rail, like Zurich, and you’ll get about as many subway users as drivers in the entire metro region.
Joey Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
Jim: you still haven’t tole me what Amtrak defines as “on time.”
And no, I’m not saying that transit must dominate, but the CC is still rather unimpressive. Go to a few places in and around the NEC and you’ll find at least reasonable numbers.
jimsf Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
I don’t know what they consider on time on ccjpa. and the population of sac and the bay is nowhere near the pop of the nec. you are comparing apples and oranges. and it is impressive when you consider that not that long ago the idea of californians taking trains was laughable. And just how fast is necessary anyway?
Joey Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 8:44 pm
And just how fast is necessary anyway?
As fast as Altamont would have given us sounds like a reasonable expectation.
jimsf Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
and why beat a dead horse. Its time to move forward with reality instead belaboring what won’t be.
Joey Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
Because that dead horse could cost us $20 billion dollars in the long term, which is $20 billion that isn’t going into other important things (i.e. other public transport, education).
jimsf Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 9:05 pm
20 billion for what? what are you talking about?
Joey Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 9:11 pm
20 billion for more track to build in Phase 2 (Stockton-Merced is already built with Altamont), for the eventual Altamont overlay, and for Capitol Corridor upgrades which would be lucky to save 15 minutes of travel time.
jimsf Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
but you are overlooking the fact that that isnt going to happen.
joe Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
On time departure for an airline isn’t time they take off or taxi.
When the airline shuts the door on the plane – it is considered the time of departure for purposes of computing their advertised/claimed on time record. The plane can sit at the gate – that time isn’t counted.
jimsf Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 8:46 pm
again its about the stops and connections along the way as well.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 11th, 2011 at 10:29 pm
stop being such a big fat passy..
Nathanael Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 2:53 am
McCarthy is simply falling into line with the Koch Brothers and Big Oil. As a high-up Republican he has been told to oppose passenger rail because it reduces the profits of the fossil fuel barons.
It’s just that simple, folks. I’ve watched it happen over and over again with Republicans.
I also ran across this opinion article by a Fresno County farmer that is supportive of HSR. He calls for ag and CAHSRA to work together to resolve the impact issues and concerns.
http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/03/07/2300469/john-diener-rail-project-will.html
Per the bio at the bottom it appears he farms about 25 miles west of the HSR planned route, so he likely will not be directly impacted. But nice to see his arguments in favor. The opinion piece ends with:
“Agriculture has some very real concerns about the impacts high-speed rail will have on farming. Whenever we take on a large project like Highway 99 or I-5, there are always concerns and issues to be worked out. But I strongly believe that if we work in good faith with the High-Speed Rail Authority we can reach solutions that benefit us all.
An open and honest dialogue is the only way the California High-Speed Rail Authority and members of the agriculture community can work together to address our concerns including land-use, wind and impacts to irrigation systems.”
ks Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 12:30 am
OT, you may find this piece of work interesting:
Opposition to Victorian Railways
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschwart/ind_rev/rs/denault.htm
“Farmers were concerned about their crops and produce: no one knew the effects of railway development on, say, the average hen’s laying capacity, or a cow’s grazing habits. According to Jackson’s 1916 history of transportation in Britain, “A farmer in Northampton refused his assent to the proposed London and Birmingham Railway on the ground that the smoke would injure the fleeces of his sheep.””
You can compare the modern day Californian farmers to their 19th century counterparts.
So far so good, No sign of synonymouse…
Bret Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 11:16 am
I think you have to say his name 3 times to get him to come out.
VBobier Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
He finally showed His carcass around here and His tone is a bit different, I wonder how He likes the price of gas? I sure as hell don’t, But then I have a real need for a car as I can’t walk hardly at all. He could at least walk or take a bus or a train.
Spokker Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 11:17 pm
Not only do people enjoy responding to trolls, they call them out when they aren’t present.
You guys love him.
wu ming Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 12:27 am
codependence is a bitch.
VBobier Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
That’s cause “they task us” ;), Yeah It’s a play on what Khan said in the Wrath of Khan. :)
Loren Petrich Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 5:21 am
Trolls can have a certain entertainment value, I must concede.
While it’s really important to respect the integrity of farmers — especially because they’ve felt like they’ve been taking a beating on water only to benefit So Cal — the amount of farmland lost to the train is really inconsequential when compared to the amount of corn we flush down the toilet as ethanol.
You could feed a person for a year on the amount of corn it takes to fill up on SUV gas tank.
Wad Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
California isn’t one of the top corn-producing states. Those are mainly in the Midwest.
http://www.agricommodityprices.com/futures_prices.php?id=270
Also, urban areas aren’t sponging up agricultural water. The California Farm Water Coalition says agriculture uses 41% of water, almost four times as much as urban areas (11%).
http://www.cfwc.com/FAQs/frequently-asked-questions.html
The water problems stem mainly from agriculture vs. conservation — namely, the protection of the delta smelt. Also, California must make less use of Colorado River water.
Nathanael Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 3:03 am
It may have changed in recent years, but California agricultural interests used to get away with a great deal when it comes to water — totally wasteful water usage. Have the high-spray irrigations been eliminated, the ones which lost half the water to evaporation? Is usage metered now (it wasn’t always)?
joe Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Does CA waste water?
We irrigate to grow rice in California. Yes, we waste water.
Sure, McCarthy is representing the Koch brothers and Big Oil, but in a roundabout kind of way. He is #3 in the House GOP leadership, so his main job is to advance the national GOP agenda (which is probably influenced by the likes of Koch and Oil). Representing the specific interests of his district is secondary, and he’s not going to do so in any way that conflicts with the national GOP message, agenda, or electoral strategy. It seems crazy for McCarthy to be fighting against his district’s interests and it’s horribly unfortunate, but such is the state of the national GOP.
synonymouse Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
You are missing the point that Big Oil also owns Big Electric. The elite is incestuous and has its rapacious hand in everything and anything that can make money.
Who is really the stakeholder here who stands to be ruined by a move away from internal combustion? That is all the people whose jobs depend on the inefficiency of the gasoline automobile, which wears out quickly and constantly. The great drawback of the electric car from the point of view of the auto support, repair and aftermarket industry is that they last too damn long and will be very easy to DIY.
Wad Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
When you misinform, you actually grow worse the more you post.
Here are a list of publicly traded investor-owned electric or diversified utilities:
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/911conameu.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/913conameu.html
Most of the U.S.’s conventional electric generation is by burning coal or natural gas. Both of these sources are mostly domestic stock, whereas our domestic oil production peaked in 1972 and we’ve been more reliant on imported oil.
The natural gas market is quite fragmented among producers, users and pipelines. Big Oil may be guilty of many things, but cornering the market on alternative energies isn’t one of them.
synonymouse Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 9:46 pm
My point is that ascribing opposition to the hsr concept to the oil lobby is overbought. Does the name T. Boone Pickens ring a bell?
In our time Big Oil doesn’t really have any natural enemies of consequence. The stuff just comes out of the ground – there is nothing cheaper. Pray for cold fusion.
The substantive opposition to the hsr is political and ideological. Big business is not excited at the prospect of an SNCF or DB in the US, otherwise Conrail would still be with us. And who can blame them when you consider urban mass transit as the closest model. Slack management and out of control unions – who needs it? I am not using Amtrak as the model since if the patronage machine, whose baby the CHSRA is, wanted an Amtrak they would have set it up to be operated by Amtrak from the outset. What they have in mind is a big PB-BART overrun by the TWU.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 10:48 pm
Conrail is still with us in a much smaller form but it’s still with us.
Amtrak makes money in markets where it’s faster than driving.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 12:31 am
Both of them?
Nathanael Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 3:03 am
Yes, both of them. :-)
Nathanael Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 3:06 am
Still wrong, syn. The cheap oil is running out (it’s all hard-to-get oil now) — and refining has always been expensive. Oil is categorically more expensive than methane or coal now, on a per-BTU basis. Anyone investing in the energy industries has known this for, oh, decades!
The real questions in electric generation are the price of coal vs. natural gas vs. renewables. Oil is too expensive to use regularly at all.
The coal lobby is a real thing, but it isn’t opposed to rail.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Quite: when you track the money that Big Coal spends against the United States moving forward into the future, it is against renewable energy supplies, and wind power in particular, since if all of coals free rider costs are fully accounted for, wind power from our strongest wind resource areas is cheaper than coal today.
Meanwhile, the addiction of the US transportation system to petroleum ~ about 1/6 of global production is consumed by the US transportation system, and if we had oil independent transport, we would not be a major importer any more ~ is an important part of oil companies cushioning the declining production volumes over the coming decades with increased prices per unit in order to continue to see profit increases.
I think it’s an interesting dichotomy that McCarthy faces. His district is heavily Republican, generally in the 80% range here in Kern County. On the flip side, his district is also very low-income and struggling with very high unemployment. While there will be those who benefit from the HSR coming through Kern County, not all of those who are unemployed have the skills that will benefit from HSR. While he may be toeing the party line, I have been working closely with some people who are close to Kevin politically, and their general opinion is that he is more weary of the business plan and the cost, as he stated, rather than the merits of HSR in CA. As Robert posted, Kern County did pass Prop 1A by a slim margin, which I think might be part of what gives McCarthy pause. Had it been a more overwhelming ‘Yes’, it might be easier for him today to support the project.
That being said, as a fellow Republican, I do see the benefits of the project, and I also see that if this thing is going to be built, it will be cheaper now than to wait for the economy to recover and tackle it then. I voted ‘Yes’ on Prop 1A because at the time I figured, “it’s going to get built, might as well find a way to pay for it”. More that 20% of the total Phase I track will be laid in Kern County (110 miles), and with the prospect of the Heavy Maintenance Facility and a possible manufacturing facility being located here, all of Kern County needs to get on Board, especially it’s Congressmen and women at the State and Federal level.
Will I hop on the train to go to LA? I dont know. Probably not, because “LA” is a very broad term. I have family in the “Los Angeles Area” and I visit parts of “northern LA” often, and it may or may not benefit me to hop on the train; but, as Robert said, when the Grapevine is closed due to snow, and if the Tehachapi’s get closed due to snow also, the only way to LA is the Coastal route, which can add 90 mins. at a minimum. I think the biggest advantage for HSR from Bakersfield->LA is if there is a connection to LAX. Most Bakersfield residents are flying out of LAX, and by the time you weigh the cost of gas and parking at LAX, taking the train may be a more cost effective way of traveling, until our airport can attract the flights that will keep people in town at a lower cost.
Word has it that van Ark is visiting Bakersfield tomorrow (Thursday the 10th) to meet with the City Manager, and is tentatively scheduled to come here one or two more times in the next couple of months. Kern County is hoping to encourage the HSRA to seriously look at the Bakersfield->Palmdale connection next (sorry Merced), especially if we get Florida’s money. We need to close that loop, and once again, the cost of getting through the Tehachapi Mountains is not going to get any cheaper as time marches on.
StevieB Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
The Bakersfield to Palmdale environmental reports are a few months behind those in the central valley. Additional funds from the refused Florida money could certainly be used to build a station in Bakersfield with connecting track. Selection of an alignment through Bakersfield would be the largest obstacle. I have not heard what the city has selected as a prefered alignment through downtown and past the high school.
Bret Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
The City has taken a bit of a “wait and see” approach to see if the Authority comes back with an alternate proposal. I think they are a bit weary of taking a stance in light of the BHS issue. The Blue alignment is probably the least disruptive overall, but that’s the one that will likely cause the biggest fight.
Another interesting consideration, since Robert pointed it out, is the growing population. If percent growth holds constant, by 2020 the populations of Kern and Fresno Counties will be nearly equal, and will be a combined population of 2.1 million people. And by 2030, assuming growth holds constant, Bakersfield would overtake Fresno in population, with a combined total population of 1.3 million. Bakersfield has grown by 41% during the last two Census periods, while Fresno has grown by an average of 18%. This may not continue to hold true, but as Robert suggested, if Bakersfield becomes a bedroom community for LA, it very well could, or grow even faster. It’s tough to look at current data and always see the need for this type of infrastructure, but it’s not hard to look at these numbers, project 10 or 20 years down the road, and see that the need is going to be there. I think this gives pretty good evidence to the contrary that starting in the valley is the “train to nowhere”.
“If you can’t prove it’s viable from a business plan, it’s not a (project) the government should be funding,” McCarthy said Tuesday.
Wow, that is a fantastic quote. He’s literally saying that 95% of the government should shut down tomorrow. Including national defense.
Nathanael Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 2:50 am
Especially national defense.
Oh, and DEFINITELY all of the “black budget”. The CIA and so forth don’t publish their budgets, let alone their business plans!
(Counter Point to Kevin McCarthy from another Valley Congressman)
Today I recceived as many of the people in his district Congressman Cardoza news letter. His entire March 3, 20011 newsletter is devoted to High Speed Rail below is a short summaryof his two page letter. (The last paragraph was copied verbatim)
The letter starts by stating that the north valley needs to redouble our efforts in order to bring High Speed rail to our area. The congressman strongly supports the Merced to Fresno segment being built next because it makes the most sense and will allow a usuable segment from Merced to Bakersfield would allow greater ridership by connecting folks from the north to the South and the first segment would also be an excellent test track because of its length.
For example, if you were taking the train from Sacramento to Los Angles you would ride Amtrack to Merced. Hop off Amtrack in Merced and get on the new High Speed train going from Merced to Bakersfield in 45 minutes with one stop in Fresno. You would then get off the High Speed Train in Bakersfeild and board the bus whic will take you over the grape vine and then back on the train to Los Angeles.
While this is not an ideal scenario it is now a usuable segment having possibly three High Speed stations with one being in Merced a second in Fresno and the third possibly in Bakersfield. Ideally since the cost to go into Bakersfield via aerial is so high you could even hold off on the Bakersfield station until the Bakersifeld to Palmdale section is complete and continue to Bus folks over the grape vine. I believe the time saved by going Sacramento to Los Angles via this new route would be close to 90 minutes.
In the last paragraph of his letter the Congressman mentions the possible FRA money from Florida and how California is well positioned to receive these funds bringing renewed hope to Merced and the North Valley. However, there is an effort underway in the House of representatives to rescind this funding. Considering our unemployment levels 21% in Merced County this taking away of funding is irresponsible. These funds are available and should be used to put Valley Residents to work. As long as there are sufficient controls and oversights placed on the High Speed rail authority I will continue to support the project. High Speed rail invests in our future. It will generate thousands of jobs in the valley, reduce air pollution and traffic congestion and connect the valley to other urban centers of the state.
Sincerely,
Dennis Cardoza Member of Congress.
Now my own thoughts, again the Norht Valley continues to reach out to the authority and provide counter arguements to the Kevin McCarthy and Devin Nunes of the world. I hope Van Ark realizes that if this FRA money does in fact continue to go to Bakersfield south and he does not complete the Merced to Fresno segment as he stated is the next priority in his February 16th memo he will probably lose the North Valley for good. Congressman Cardoza letter makes too much sense vs the idea of just laying additional track. Besides Fresno the North Valley in particular Merced County has been the authorities biggest supporter over the years.
I beleive FRA is going to allow the final bit of money to be spent finishing the Merced to Fresno segment. I hope the authority Board and Van Ark will follow through on their February 16th memo.
Finally, I have been in meetings with the Merced County and City folks and they would not care if the WYE were placed in Merced County. (Why not skip Chowchilla all together)
Donk Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 11:00 pm
Who gives a crap if people in Merced like HSR? What if people in Eureka were big rail supporters, would you also argue that track should be laid thru the Redwoods before it gets to LA or the Bay Area?
Your argument for why they should build to Merced first is completely irrelevant. The only argument about building to Merced that makes some sense is Richard’s, because he is arguing that it is more practical to build it in segments up to Livermore to connect to BART faster.
Donk Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
I just read your post again. Are you seriously suggesting that it might make sense to build the leg into Merced before finishing the station in Bakersfield? You have lost all credibility and are simply out for yourself.
Castle Expert Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 11:54 pm
Yes, I am still advocating Merced to Fresno be built next. As far as me being out for myself I am only stating what the authority put in writing in their February memo.
Also as far who cares what people in Merced think about HSR. Considering Merced is the only area in the state that is impacted by High Speed Rail in route crossing. Merced to Sacramento, Fresno to Merced and Merced to San Jose I think it is only fair for our area have some input.
Lastly, while Congressman Cardoza has been critical of the orignial proposed route.
He is not in the league of Kevin McCarthy and Devin Nunes who want to kill the project and in his newsletter he openly supports the project. Please stick to the facts.
Donk stick to the facts.
datacruncher Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 8:53 am
“get on the new High Speed train going from Merced to Bakersfield in 45 minutes with one stop in Fresno.”
I don’t expect the Hanford/Visalia station being dropped so that would be 2 stops. The numbers from this week’s census had the combined population of just the 2 cities of Visalia and Tulare as over 200,000 (let alone the larger pax draw region which is probably around 500,000).
jim Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 9:04 am
The question is whether Bakersfield (station) to Merced (station) can be built with the Florida money and some state match. In order to make that happen, there may need to be some descoping of the segment. An obvious target for descoping is stations. They can be made simpler; Hanford can be dropped totally.
thatbruce Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
One or two platforms with seating and rain canopies, a (wide) pedestrian underpass and stairs/ramps up to the platforms, somewhere to sell tickets, and you’re set.
This is somewhat unrelated topic, but still related because it deal with the opposition. Being from the Central Valley, I believe using the 99 corridor would make more sense than going through Hanford. A station in Visalia (almost 3x the size of Hanford) makes more sense and the leadership there actually wants the high-speed rail.
Wonder if it has been discussed, or why the Hanford corridor is currently favored versus the 99 corridor connecting Fresno and Bakersfield