Where Now For HSR Funding?
The recent news out of Congress has been, well, depressing. Right-wing anti-HSR extremism won a round when President Barack Obama caved and agreed to eliminate all HSR funding for FY 2011, meaning that it’s unlikely more annual HSR funding appropriations will come while Republicans control the House.
So what are the options – if any – for more HSR funding in the next year or two?
1. Congress passes a Transportation Bill. This didn’t seem to be entirely out of the realm of possibility at the beginning of the year, when Florida Republican John Mica, chair of the House Transportation Committee, spoke of his desire to get a new Transportation Bill done and his interest in including some HSR funding in it. This could still happen – but it seems less likely now than it did in January. Teabagger Republicans have flexed their muscles in the House and the impact of oil company and Koch Brothers money has caused a lot of Congressional Republicans to follow their puppetmasters and attack HSR. Mica lost the battle over HSR to his fellow Florida Republican Rick Scott, who took office as governor at the beginning of the year and promptly killed the state’s fully-funded HSR project. While it’s possible that a new Transportation Bill could happen in the next 2 years, it’s not likely to have much HSR funding at all given the way the House Republican caucus is behaving. With Obama having caved to their anti-HSR demands once this year, it’s hard to see how HSR funding will somehow get out of this House.
Clearly, the Democratic Congress of 2009-10 and the Obama Administration made a big mistake in not getting a Transportation Bill done, although the primary blame appears to lie with the US Senate. The alternative here is to wait out the Republicans, hope Democrats win back the House in 2012 while keeping the Senate and the White House, and that they’ll have learned their lesson from 2009-10 and not dither in acting on a new Transportation Bill.
2. California goes it alone. This has always been a possibility, and it has grown stronger with the events in Congress this week. If the federal government won’t help, then California could simply do what New York State did nearly 200 years ago with the Erie Canal and build it themselves.
How exactly that would happen is, of course, an open question. California could always raise taxes to pay for the construction cost. It’s not out of the realm of possibility – voters in Los Angeles and Santa Clara counties, two of the state’s largest, voted to tax themselves to build train systems in 2008. Rising gas prices could give statewide voters enough willingness to pay directly for HSR, perhaps as part of a bigger mass transit funding package. In the late 1940s, Governor Earl Warren helped implement a plan to raise gas taxes to pay for the state’s freeway construction program, which served as a model for the Interstate Highway System.
That’s not a particularly likely scenario, at least while the state budget remains in deficit. Governor Jerry Brown is focused on increasing taxes to close the budget gap, and only once that’s done would he and Sacramento Democrats be willing to even consider a funding package for HSR. Maybe in a few years, but not anytime soon.
Other possibilities exist. The voter-approved Prop 1A bonds, approving $10 billion in funding for HSR, are general obligation bonds, meaning they’re repaid out of the general fund. California could also issue revenue bonds to help pay the costs of the system’s construction. The California Aqueduct was funded by revenue bonds. The problem here is that we should not insist that the HSR project pay for both its operations AND its construction out of farebox revenues. That’s a recipe for either fares that are too high or for cost-cutting decisions that undermine system effectiveness. But it may be something to explore.
3. Increased private funding. California could simply ask the private sector to pay the rest of the cost. That could take the form of funding from an overseas government like China or Japan. It could also take the form of funding from private sector investors.
That latter model has been used for HSR before, and it’s very risky. Taiwan relied on a lot of private sector funding – about 80% of the total construction cost. Even though Taiwan HSR generated huge ridership, the cost of repaying the construction loans was simply too high. The private investors had to be bailed out by the government of Taiwan. The system soon began covering its own operating costs, but the cost of the bailout won’t be repaid for some time.
What might work is some combination of #2 and #3. If California taxpayers threw in another $10 billion, and a foreign government or private investor threw in the rest, then it might be more workable, especially if the federal government came back in later in the decade once the teabaggers were removed from power.
Those other options may seem less likely today. But things can change pretty quickly, especially as rising gas prices remind Californians of the need for alternatives and help burst the anti-HSR bubble. No matter what happens, California does need to explore ways to fund an expansion of mass transit, and a higher gas tax seems a sensible way to do that. And the stalled federal funding situation will force California HSR planners to explore some other ways to get the system funded. That’s a worthwhile exercise, and one we should embrace without fear. Californians know that HSR is a good idea and know that it’s worth building. Let’s see what the other options are to get it funded and see what we can do to keep this project going while both parties get their act together in DC.
Congress passes a transportation bill that gives SC’s Senators an improved port and CA HSR funding.
The anti-rail policics isn’t playing well in FL or WI. I think CA wil be able to get some funding, even Walker wants it.
political_incorrectness Reply:
April 14th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
Anti-rail got derailed in NC as well. GOP tried to kill funds, they had to give up. The GOP in state legislatures is compeltely off base. Even in rural states like Montana, and for people to be pissed here about the GOP, something tells me the GOP are gonna get kicked unless they come up with a solid platform.
VBobier Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 9:10 am
Lets see Grand OLD Party, that about sums It up… Past time they were turned out to pasture.
Toll I-5 and CA-99.
Start the tolling January 3rd, 2012 and HSR will be fully paid for by 2015.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
April 14th, 2011 at 10:52 pm
Illegal to do so with the I-5 and you’d need to pass a law specifically to permit it on CA-99 I believe.
JJJ Reply:
April 14th, 2011 at 11:14 pm
There’s a ban against tolling I-5 in the constitution? That would be news to me. Laws are meant to be changed.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
April 14th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
Federal level law, which the state cannot overturn naturally.
Peter Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 7:15 am
What federal law prohibits such tolling? I’m not saying that such laws don’t exist, but it’s not like there aren’t tolls on interstates already.
Chris Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 7:33 am
It’s not tolling that’s not allowed (though states must ask permission from the feds) but the diversion of revenue to other projects. See, e.g., the failed attempt to toll I-80 in PA to provide revenue to support mass transit.
Brandi Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 8:02 am
Pennsylvania tried to toll I80 and divert it like 75% to roads and 25% to transit. They federales said that tolls can only be added to existing interstates if the money is used to maintain that particular interstate.
Andy M. Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 9:34 am
But if HSR is in the same corridor you could say it is part of the same infrastructure, comparable to adding extra lanes to an existing highway.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 11:07 am
nope. gotta be asphalt with painted lines for the cars and trucks.
bleh Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Well, they could add two very nice, almost perfectly flat and straight lanes, concrete surface, “lampposts” (lots of them, on both sides)… and painted lines; then abolish the toll and start laying the ballastless track on said surface and install the catenary.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 11:09 am
The toll roads that are part of the Interstate system …. aren’t Interstates. They may have the pretty signs and the Federal government may even pay for the them but the toll roads don’t get any significant money from the Federal government. Yet another way the red states suck money out of the blue states.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 2:05 am
Tolled Interstates are older expressways, which were shoehorned into the Interstate system. The Interstate Highway Act forbids tolling, but grandfathers older roads.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 10:35 am
They don’t get any significant money from the Federal government. The budgets for the toll roads are online. The NY Thruway actually breaks it out, 1.7 percent.
Matt Korner Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 7:24 am
Tolling espressways and their lanes may work if express buses that operate like regional rail become more broadly available.
datacruncher Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 8:15 am
Tolls on I-5 and 99 were broached by SJV politicians a decade or so ago, revenue was to fight pollution in the SJV and for 99 upgrades. Rationale was many vehicles especially on I-5 were only passing thru between the Bay Area and Southern California adding to Valley pollution. Since CV residents and businesses had to deal with the resulting pollution problems and pay for the air cleanup the toll revenue would offset the impacts caused by that passing thru traffic.
thatbruce Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 1:03 pm
Then tolling I-5 and CA-99 isn’t quite the right solution. Instead you’d could charge for (truck) transit through the Central Valley, irrespective of which road that the trucks actually took. Tie it into a formula accounting for the age of the vehicles and speed of transit (older and faster costs more, while newer implies less pollution and slower implies stops and revenue for local businesses), and you’ve then got a revenue scheme without tolls on I-5 and CA-99.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Good idea. I have called for this many times, with the most in-depth post here.
I am not quite sure it would bring in as much money as you suggest, but it’s another good option.
In a related news, China’s Railway Ministry announced that they were capping the top speed of their high speed trains to 300 km/hr. This decision follows the finding that China’s brand new high speed tracks cannot support 350 km/hr revenue service, thanks to the former railway minister who took $130 million in bribes in exchange for overlooking poor construction.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703983104576262330447308782.html
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9MJ64RO0.htm
So be wary of taking Chinese money to build CAHSR system.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 14th, 2011 at 11:18 pm
By American standards, it’s all amateur stuff. (Or for that matter Korean or Japanese standards.) American media outlets are full of schadenfreude about every Chinese setback, never considering the fact that the same cost overruns and shoddy construction methods are far, far more prevalent in the US.
Andre Peretti Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 4:16 am
Do you have that in the US?
Useless Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 5:37 am
China’s HSR tracks, especially viaduct tracks, are built no better than that apartment buildings. Look at the foundation structure, which basically doesn’t exist.
The new railway minister capped the speed because he knows how poorly constructed those tracks are and he doesn’t want to see accidents under his watch.
VBobier Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 9:17 am
Yeah, He could lose His head over that, Their very strict over there. Of course If the construction were top notch, Then maybe the speed wouldn’t have been reduced. As to things being shoddy over here, Yeah some cut corners, I think Caltrans has tried very hard to not do that.
Andre Peretti Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 10:51 am
The Chinese say their trains can safely run faster because they have improved on western technology. Then, let’s compare identical European and Japanese trains:
The CRH5 is a previous generation pendolino. Some of the trainsets were even imported from Europe. They’ve had no Chinese “improvement”, and yet they are operated at 150mph vs 125mph in Europe. Same trains, 20% faster!
That gives credibility to Alstom’s and Kawasaki’s claims that Chinese bullet trains were “overclocked”. The decision to lower speeds to a more realistic (and safer) 186mph proves they were right.
Andre Peretti Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
I meant “let’s compare identical European and Chinese trains”.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 9:48 am
Yes we do all the time…
Emma Reply:
April 14th, 2011 at 11:30 pm
That doesn’t even make sense. Yes. The railway minister was corrupt, does that make all of their money corrupt? Who says that we have to employ a Chinese railway minister when wee accept their money?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 12:21 am
Useless just trolls endlessly in favor of Korean equipment, I’d just ignore him if I were you.
Useless Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 5:35 am
@ Emma
> That doesn’t even make sense. Yes. The railway minister was corrupt, does that make all of their money corrupt? Who says that we have to employ a Chinese railway minister when wee accept their money?
Actually, the conditions of Chinese money is that you must employ Chinese railway constructors and rolling stock companies. Ditto for Japanese and Korean money.
So the rolling stock would be Chinese(which will trigger a lawsuit from Kawasaki), and railway constructors too would be Chinese if CAHSR authority accepted Chinese money.
VBobier Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 9:22 am
Seems kind of ironic, To build part of the first transcontinental railroad, Chinese immigrants had to be employed, All things considered their very hard workers, If properly inspected a railway constructed by the Chinese doesn’t have to be shoddy, Nor should We allow It to be.
Andre Peretti Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:05 pm
But this time the Chinese will do the inspecting and Americans the sweating. Sweet revenge, might be worth sacrificing a few billions.
Eric M Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 9:25 am
Useless, can you post something to back up the conditions of the Chinese money agreement stating Chinese labor must be used to build the system?
Useless Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 6:56 am
@ Eric M
> Chinese money agreement stating Chinese labor must be used to build the system?
Chinese contractors, not labor….
Alon Levy Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
Chinese contractors would be a vast improvement over American contractors.
Eric M Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
Link?
Here’s a prediction:
Jerry loves HSR. CAHSR has enough money to keep moving for the next 3 years (at least). By that time, the economy will have recovered, and CA tax revenue will return to pre-recession levels (but spending will be far lower). Some of the new surplus will be used for HSR. Once HSR construction is in full swing in the (mostly Republican) Bakersfield–>Fresno segment, bipartisan support will be easy to come by.
Yes, I’m an optimist.
//dan.
Donk Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 12:08 am
Jerry loves HSR. I love lamp.
Tolling I-5 and CA-99 in the Central Valley would not be reasonable since the HSR backbone is committed in that area. If tolling should take place, it should be in the San Jose to San Francisco corridor to support construction from Chowchilla to San Francisco. A hybrid of Robert’s private investment idea would be to get an investor to help fund HSR from Palmdale (end of the Metro) to Merced and even to San Jose. This would get private money into the system but not so much as to cause the same problem that occurred in Taiwan. This would temper the HSR boo-birds plus get Bay area residents to commit to completing the line to the northern terminus.
JJJ Reply:
April 14th, 2011 at 11:15 pm
You can have multiple tolls. Its about time the highways get a business plan and a road-map to profitability.
What’s with the Florida money? It’s $400 million less or down to $400 million? How much could California expect to receive now?
AlanF Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 7:26 am
The available returned FL HSR funds are now $2.03 billion: $1.63 billion from the ARRA stimulus funding and $400 million left from the FY10 funding. Several productive NEC and Amtrak owned corridor projects that can put the money to work before Sept 2012, the $570 million request for the Portal Bridge north replacement and the PA $248 million application for the Keystone East corridor, are good candidates to get fully funded. The applications from WA, OR, IL, MI, NY, CT, ME, MD, NC are also mostly competitive and would lead to improved service. My guess is that CA HSR gets maybe $600-$700 million, but I have no inside knowledge of what the thinking in the FRA and US DOT is.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 8:45 am
Its $400m less, after the $400m for Florida from FY2010 funding was rescinded. So its $1.63b available.
The best way to fund CAHSR would be through foreign governments. They are by far the most patient, best-paying and most supporting investors with the lowest interest. I can see how e.g. Deutsche Bahn could be interested in profiting from HSR in California. Unlike our federal government, they are smart after all and see the huge potential. On that note, I can’t help but notice that we always mention Asian governments as potential investors and not one European government.
Honestly, I think it’s more likely that we will see money flowing to us from European governments or state-owned enterprises than from China. This is where the money is.
Andy M. Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 4:00 am
Nobody invests money out of altruism. They do so only because they see a fat return. If foreign cash builds HSR, then foreign investors will be creaming off all operating surplus for years to come. That means, for California, HSR will cease to be profitable.
Matthew B. Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 8:54 am
Hmmm, I think I remember from introductory economics that fixed pricing at the crossing point of the supply and demand curves leads to profits both for producers and consumers. There is already competition from automobiles and airlines, so we wouldn’t see monopoly pricing from the train system. It’s true that (some) operational profits would not be going back into the state budget, and that we would have diminished ability to lower prices to maximize societal benefit, but it would still be advantageous to Californians for a system to exist.
Andre Peretti Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 5:55 am
There are lots of European projects waiting to be financed and I don’t imagine European parliaments deciding to invest the money in California instead. On the other hand, China has no parliaments and no free press. Its leaders can spend huge sums for prestige with no explaining to do.
And why would the funds have to come from Europe when there is plenty of money in Wall street?
The first TGV line got no public funding and was entirely financed by Wall Street. Goldman Sachs has invested enough billions in Eurotunnel to secure majority ownership.
Thus, the question is: why doesn’t Wall Street invest in US rail projects as it does in Europe?
Andy M. Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 6:19 am
Maybe you’ve answered your own question?
The initial shareholders of Eurotunnels suffered a huge loss as costs escalated and Eurotunnel tottered towards bankrupcy. If Goldman Sachs saved Eurotunnel, it was at the expense of the original investors whose shareholdings were heavily diluted and who will now never recover their initial investment as the share value has collapsed and dividends are meagre. Goldman Sachs is making good money off Eurottunel because they are earning interest on the money they leant. So basically the people who payed for the project get nothing and those who came in once the worst part of the risk was over make all the profit. Not a very good way to convince people to invest their savings in such projects in future.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 9:22 am
By contrast, the original investors in the first TGV line did just fine.
Andy M. Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 9:31 am
I believe they just put up the money but the state absorbed the risk. So it was baiscally a bond scheme.
Andre Peretti Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
The state did not guarantee the bonds but I suppose the banks assumed the SNCF would have been bailed out if necessary. State guarantee for intercity rail projects is now illegal in Europe. That may be one reason Standard & Poor downgraded the SNCF from AAA to AA+ (whatever that means).
BruceMcF Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
It means they are investment grade assets, one step (of ten) below the top of the investment grade asset ladder.
Investment grade assets are broken down into lower medium grade (BBB-, BBB, BBB+), upper medium grade (A-, A, A+), high grade (AA-, AA, AA+), and premium (AAA).
And, yes, the fact that France is not allowed to bail out SNCF is quite likely why its top quality high grade rather than premium grade.
Though France is in the Eurozone, so it has its own risk of insolvency, like a US State ~ truth to tell, the only reason why French bonds would be considered AAA is because the BundesbankPlus, aka the European Central Bank, is not likely to impose the same austerity on one of the original Six that it is willing to impose on Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece or Spain.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Original Six? What is Italy, then?
BruceMcF Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Where football players go to learn to dive with grace and skill?
What Italy is is on the bubble ~ whether or not the BundesbankPlus would be able to count on more than one hand is something that Italy may put to the test later.
In any event, Spain seems likely to be the next of the so-called PIIGS to get the boot-heel to the neck.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 2:47 am
Italy isn’t quite on the bubble… for one, it had zero growth last decade. It’s just even more depressed due to the recession than it normally is, and hasn’t ever been a shining beacon of fiscal responsibility. Chances are the Germans won’t bail Italy out like they did in 1941, though.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 8:16 am
“on the bubble” means the marginal case? the one that could go either way?
Odds are quite high the Germans won’t bail Italy out as they did in 1941, but the question at issue is whether the Germans will bail Italy out in the hack and slash way they are “bailing out” Greece, Ireland, and Portugal ~ and quite possibly in the next three months, Spain.
The institutions actually being bailed out are German banks, of course, and maximizing the flow through to German banks has so far meant maximizing the economic damage done to the countries being “bailed out”.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
To clarify, when I say bail out, I mean bail out on the model of Italy 1941, not on the model of Italy 1943. Not that Berlusconi needs anyone else to tell him to slash welfare benefits…
Andre Peretti Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Eurotunnel’s mishaps more or less derived from Margaret Thatcher’s aversion to it. She kept repeating a rail tunnel made no sense as cars, not trains, were the future. She predicted failure and vetoed the guarantee the European commission was ready to grant. The absence of state involvement meant total freedom for speculators, and City businessmen imagined the most opaque funding structure ever contrived with 353 banks joining in the fray. All sorts of commissions and fees were paid to thousands of middlemen and traders. Before any shares were sold to the public, many had already got rich. Later, auditing was made nearly impossible since some agencies had had a short life, just the time to grab some money and vanish, mafia style.
Many shares were sold to small investors like tunnel workers who were persuaded to accept Eurotunnel stock as part of their salary.
The English also failed to honour their promise to upgrade the tracks from the tunnel to London. For years, Eurostar had to crawl at 50mph, powered by 700v DC third rail, often delayed by suburban trains. It was anything but high-speed and ridership was far lower than expected.
Then, a rumour spread that Eurotunnel was bankrupt and would probably have to close. It created a panic and all the small shareholders (including my stupid self) rushed to sell causing the shares to lose value every day. When there were all in the hands of bankers, among whom Goldman Sachs, their value began to climb.
The Eurotunnel saga has had at least a positive sequel: laws have been voted to protect small isolated stockholders from the greediness of big banks.
jim Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 7:01 am
The SNCF Expression of Interest envisaged a 70/30 public/private split of capital costs. I imagine that other potential investors would be looking for similar ratios.
There is still about 2.0 billion from Florida to be redistributed, unless the House manages to get that money taken away as well. Florida had 1.6 billion from stimulus funds, and 0.8 billion from the 2010 budget. Half of the money (0.4 billion) from the 2010 budget for Florida was taken back with the 2011 budget deal, but that leaves 1.6 billion in stimulus funds and 0.4 billion, or a total of 2.0 billion, to be divided up, so far.
Prediction: Gas goes up to >$5/gal. The majority of Americans start shitting themselves and talk about how America needs to invest in energy independence. Solutions include drill baby drill, HSR, and public transit. The political climate shifts, just like it did in 2008. Just as CA figures out how to spend the existing HSR funds, more funds start flowing to CAHSR just as it finishes the environmental plans for Pacheco and Palmdale, and the CAHSR system is built unimpeded. The Koch Brothers drop the bar of soap in the shower. Obama coasts to victory and the Democrats control the House, Senate, and Executive Branch. Obama is still a pussy and doesn’t pass any meaningful legislation.
Rob M. Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 1:22 am
The thing about >$5/gal gas is that we don’t know how that will affect the economy at large. It could cause another recession which would hit harder than the last. While it would make sense in such a recession to 1) do something stimulative and 2) do it in on something that could reduce energy prices, this assumes a rational electorate. What we’re seeing now is the effect of an irrational electorate. The stimulus, TARP, QE et al. are not popular programs. While those programs have flaws (some huge), HSR should not be thought of in that context. Cutting HSR now in OH, WI, FL, and at the federal level is insane, but it makes tea people happy. Unfortunately, an energy price induced recession might put more pressure on HSR funding, not take it away.
Beta Magellan Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 7:52 am
Agreed—I’m surprised we haven’t heard anything about just repealing the gas tax outright, or even subsidizing gas prices with federal funds. I can already imagine the push, as expressed on countless comment sections: instead of taking OUR MONEY at the pump, shouldn’t the government be GIVING IT BACK! Plus the tea party could add some pablum about how China (the “largest economy in the world”) subsidizes gas prices (never mind they stopped doing this around 2009) and make the same sort of logical leaps that were made in the China-themed anti-stimulus add.
Peter Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 7:17 am
“Obama is still a pussy and doesn’t pass any meaningful legislation.”
Uhhh, Healthcare Reform, anyone?
BruceMcF Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
OK, so he was able to pass a Republican health care system against fierce Republican opposition. Its not likely he could have passed a Democratic health care system, if he wasn’t even able to get a public option in his mandatory private insurance market system.
Look, if President Obama can’t get a transportation bill done with AT LEAST $40 billion over 5 years before the 2012 elections, then we’re screwed. My prediction is that Obama wins in 2012 and that the Democrats make up about half the seats they lost in 2010 on the back of an Obama victory, but it will still be a divided congress, and generally we will be in the place we are today. The transportation bill should be done now, just in case the president isn’t re-elected and the world comes to an end with a big oil backed christian inflamed republican puppet in the white house. You can count on there being ZERO high speed rail money then.
So, we need LaHood and other moderate Republicans (those who are still left) to make a good-natured compromise with democrats when it comes to a transportation bill THIS YEAR. Let’s get it done.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 9:00 am
The Trasportation bill is the way to pay for CAHSR thou it needs not even be 40billion..I would say 20-25 billion would give us around 1.5 to 2 billion a year and have enough for other projects around the nation…and this all would need a match so that stops all the projects that dont have a soild funding source and the states along the NEC would have to cough up money for upgrades..this is very resonable even for this budget cutting mindset the only thing against it would be the far right and hating any trains/anything O likes
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 11:13 am
the states along the NEC would have to cough up money for upgrades
The states along the NEC do cough up money for upgrades. Amtrak estimates that the split, in the past, has been one third Amtrak money and two thirds state money.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 12:42 am
Not Enough…NJT..and it own little needs does not equal a true high speed rail line..1933 PRR notwithstanding..try a 9billion bond
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 9:39 am
All those local trains running up and down the NEC – there’s a 1000 trains a day on the NEC – don’t get to do it for free.
Funding for the ARC tunnel was roughly one third Federal and two thirds local. Or 6 billion dollars out of a 9 billion dollar budget for a tunnel and expanded station in New York that would have freed up capacity for Amtrak and cut 5 minutes off everything between New York and Newark?
If Obama is reelected in 2012 and at least some of the main HSR projects can be signed and started by then or shortly after, they will be well under way by 2016 so that whoever will be elected then must accept that the point of no return has been passed. Once first lines start operating I predict that public opinion will swing further in favor of HSR and many Republicans will change their attitude to accomodate that.
As I have said before, HSR is not a left vs right thing. The first HSR in France was decided by a right-wing government, and at that time there weren’t many relevant reference projects as there are today and the technology was being developed from scratch. The risk and vision required there was orders of magnitude greater that what is required today. Similarly in Germany the ICE project was launched by a right wing govt.
Ken Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 4:55 am
And so did Japan, which created the world’s first bullet train under a right wing gov’t.
But at the same time, you also have to realize that majority of the countries that invested in high speed rail had very litttle overseas oil interest in their home countries. Oil cos aren’t the biggest lobbies in those countries, the largest lobbies are the manufacturers. So in all it’s still the same as the US, those who wield the most money and influence are the ones who get to control the politicians.
Andre Peretti Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
It’s funny how France is sometimes the exact opposite of the US. The Right supports the TGV because it makes money and needs no subsidies while many on the left say it’s a businemen’s train.
On the other hand, the socialists are pressing the government to cut the gasoline tax which they call “a tax on the poor”.
VBobier Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
Yeah that does sound strange, But It’s their country and how they do things there is for the French to decide, We’ll just watch.
Andre Peretti Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
You have to realize that gasoline price is now reaching intolerable levels in France. It seems to rise everyday. Yesterday it was €1.59 a litre, which corresponds to $8 a gallon. For every euro paid at the pump, only 29 cents is gas. The rest is tax. It is actually equivalent to a flat-rate income tax. Those whose earnings are below the income tax threshold pay as much as the rich. That’s why the socialists call it a tax on the poor. Which, in fact, it is.
VBobier Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Our gasoline/fuel taxes aren’t so high of course, But I sympathize with Your plight, As My income is really low, currently It’s $845 a month, In July It’s supposed to be $830 due to budget cuts, Republicans here won’t allow the voters to vote on extending some about to expire taxes & fees, So It’s either an all cuts budget which will hurt the schools or the voters will approve renewing those taxes after a petition drive has been launched to put the tax matter on the ballot for the people to decide. Our Governor Brown is a Democrat, But He’s no ordinary one, He’s an honest one and He’s cheap where needed.
A key thing is going to be what happens with the DRAFT business plan that the Authority promised the Legislature by Oct 14th.
Based on the comments made by the Treasurer – Brown needs that plan in order to justify funding HSR: “The Legislature and governor have to approve the specific projects in the future,” he said during the NBC interview. “They’re going to have to go back to the Legislature and show that they’re a real deal here or it won’t go.”
http://www.voiceofoc.org/countywide/this_just_in/article_904bd426-656e-11e0-ab38-001cc4c002e0.html
Van Ark got a letter signed by legislators outlining that they need to answer a number of specific issues raised by the Independent Peer Review committee by Oct 14th.
You can read the letter dated 3/21/11 here: http://www.calhsr.com/
From what we’ve heard, the negotiations with hiring the Financial Consultant that will author the business plan have fallen through twice already because no one wants to sign on to the “indemnification clauses” in the contracts. So far, PWC and KPMG are out. Even if they hired someone new today – will they get the business plan done in time?
And if they don’t get the plan done, what happens?
observer Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 11:26 am
Unless CHSRA shows up with a fully funded plan to build a completed usable segment of High Speed Rail, ready for High Speed Rail operations with that funding plan, that can operate without subsidy in its own right, with a ridership study for that segment to back up the revenue claims, they will not qualify for AB3034 bond funding – and therefore they will not qualify for even the state matching funds they proclaim to already have today (to match to the fed grants) – even for their first segment, let alone future segments. They so far are not even making a plan to build a completed usable segement of HSR. (no electrification for one.) Will they be showing up with that plan on Oct 14th?
And secondly if there is no future federal funding in the foreseeable future, how does that speak to RISK for private investors, and therefore how does that speak to risk of the state of California getting stuck with a lame ass chunk of HSR out in the middle of central valley connecting nothing but grizzly baseball park to cocoran prison. And if that’s the only USABLE piece of HSR that can be counted on in the AB3034 time horizon – does the california state legislature have the legal right under ab3034 to appropriate AB3034 bonds for any part of it?
Peter Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 11:35 am
So, in other words, your entire argument boils down to an extremely literal, conservative, interpretation of “usable segment”?
joe Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Worse than that, he’s arguing the project can be funded unless it’s already built.
thatbruce Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 12:52 pm
I think you meant “he’s arguing (that) the project cannot be funded unless it’s already built”.
joe Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
The FUD and squirming about terms [useable segment] will not end until the project’s over or at least the finish and run trains along the San Jose to San Francisco Elevated structure.
joe Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
If no party wants to sign the “indemnification clauses” what does that really mean? It’s a problem not related to HSR.
The Oct deadline isn’t hard, there’s no streaking meteor or solar eclipse involved in the deadline.
If the indemnity clause is an issue there’s some info here about the recent ruling:
http://www.constructionandinfrastructurelawblog.com/2011/02/articles/design-and-construction-defect/the-year-2010-in-review-design-and-construction-defects-litigation/
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Keep in mind, Nadia, that California voters mandated the system be built. It has widespread political and public support. So if the deadline is missed, it’s missed, it won’t stop HSR from happening. It’s a practical issue that can and will be addressed, and it should not be seen as something that would jeopardize the project itself.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Nadia is your favorite band Journey? When I read your post I can’t stop hearing “Don’t Stop Believin’” in my head….
morris brown Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 8:10 pm
If they don’t produce an acceptable business plan by Oct. 14th, they lose much funding from Prop 1A. That’s all written into the budget.
A session of Congress only lasts two years ~ spend the money you’ve already been appropriated, break ground, get moving.
Doing a straightline projection of HSR’s prospects from the current House shenanigans is like selling short at the bottom of the market. To actually kill HSR funding, they needed to get all the projects, and they didn’t succeed. And that was at what could well be the high water mark of their power, after the Koch-Governors’ over-reach on union stripping.
joe Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
We are probably seeing a high water mark for nonsensical legislation.
I expect 2012 will see rail funding with keyword games to save face but also allow for projects that will help get the incumbents re-elected. I bet they avoid the term High Speed Rail but legislate that the state spend fed transportation dollars on rail projects connecting LA to SF.
California squeezes out enough extra cash to build Modesto*-Palmdale (another $6 billion?) at which point profitable 4.5 hour Norcal-Socal revenue service can begin, setting the stage for incremental build-out.
With 10-15 million riders a year on the half-built system, political pressure for full build out begins, and the word “boondoggle” leaves the vocabulary of the CAHSR discussion.
*Why Modesto? 30 miles of cheap track from Merced, existing rail connections to Sacramento, Oakland (San Joaquin) and potentially to San Jose (ACE extension) Serves most of the Norcal population (ca. 6 million) without building a tunnel.
Donk Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 9:30 am
“With 10-15 million riders a year on the half-built system, political pressure for full build out begins, and the word “boondoggle” leaves the vocabulary of the CAHSR discussion.”
-But the HSR haters will still compare the actual ridership of the half-built system to the projected ridership for the full system in 2030. This is the tactic that rail haters always take.
egk Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 12:14 pm
Just as well, it will certainly undermine their credibility: It will be so very obvious that a trip consisting of 1.5 hours of real high speed electric (for about 2/3 of the distance) and 3 hours of slow diesel (for the remaining 1/3) is not HSR from LA to the Bay Area. [But you point to a rhetorical reason not to have semi-high-speed through-running - that they would rag on].
By 2030 it will be built out anyway – incremental improvement of existing profitable rail lines is so much easier a sell – to both taxpayers and private investors.
Bakersfield is concerned about lowering the track to ground level in parts of the city. They are stating a preference for an aerial route thru the entire city. According to these articles about 2 miles in Bakersfield might be lowered. Interestingly one of these articles indicates Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearingen is in favor of lowering as much of the Fresno aerial as possible.
http://www.bakersfield.com/news/local/x2058366605/City-council-hears-high-speed-rail-update
http://www.bakersfield.com/news/local/x2058366671/Government-roundup-Hearing-to-focus-on-local-impacts-of-all-cuts-state-budget
http://www.bakersfield.com/opinion/editorials/x2092349433/Ground-level-or-elevated-rail-We-like-elevated
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
Actually, Swearingen’s propensity for at-grade construction makes a lot of sense if you consider that she might use local sales tax dollars to grade-separate roads from the tracks. That would allow her or the Fresno transit agencies to award the contracts, as opposed to the Authority who would then only be paying for the track and the associated infrastructure.
Has there been any talk of seeking out pension funds as investors? I think I read somewhere that pension funds in Britain were financing a HSR line. It seems to me that a lot of pension funds in the US are facing a crisis of poor returns and/or high risk in their investments. This might be a way to solve two problems at once.
Andre Peretti Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 4:57 am
It’s actually a consortium of two Canadian pension funds: Borealis Infrastructure and Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan. They won the 30-year concession of HS1, the 68-mile line linking Eurotunnel to London. They will collect tolls from rail companies and revenue from commercial and advertising spaces at stations.
The British government got far more than the £1.5 bn it had expected. The competition was very intense and the Canadians finally won by offering £2.1bn ($3.43bn).
Notable losers were Goldman Sachs-Eurotunnel and Morgan Stanley-Abu Dhabi Investment Authority.
After 30 years, the state will recover full ownership of the line and stations.
CARRD, if you are “neutral” as you say you are about rail, please start posting and spending time on the BART extension to San Jose. It say’s is will cost $5.9 billion for the full 16.1 miles to Santa Clara. That is over $360 million a mile!!
If Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD) is truly that, you will spend time analyzing other rail projects such as BART. Otherwise, you are just showing your true colors of trying to slowly kill the CA HSR project by a thousand cuts. And the excuse of “we don’t have enough time” is lame. If you named your group what it is, then you need to be more adverse and look at rail which spends $300 million a mile, or rename your site.
Please CARRD, convince us otherwise as to your true intentions?
Robert, maybe you can to a piece on CARRD.
Elizabeth Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 10:37 am
We would agree that the ridership projections should definitely be scrutinized, given the consequences of bad projections for BART to SFO. Right now we are past capacity with:
1) Real life. We are all volunteers with families, work etc.
2) HSR.
3) Caltrain which is at an immediate crisis point.
If there are volunteers out there with applied microeconomics backgrounds, please contact us and we will get started on this. info@calhsr.com
joe Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
CARRD memebrs live next to Caltrain tracks and don’t give a hoot about the East Bay or the cost per mile of projects. CARRD is purely prioritized by what inconveniences it’s members personally.
synonymouse Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
BART has infinitely more juice with the political patronage machine that is the primary reason for the continued existence of the CHSRA. Public support for hsr has clearly dropped as reality has supplanted pr. BART, on the other hand, is on a roll. The closer BART gets to Santa Clara the farther hsr-Caltrain is out of the Peninsula. With the hsr via Pacheco terminating at San Jose you might as well start rethinking Altamont. It is a better route overall.
The underlying problem is that California doesn’t have enough taxpayers to sustain the current level of welfare spending, let alone more subsidies. And face it the current iteration of hsr is nothing less than welfare for the San Joaquin Valley – a meandering glorified TEE serving some of the lowest income areas of the state. It has operating deficits written all over it. It will very likely end up under Amtrak aegis. The BART management model is a disaster – witness the cashiered million dollar baby GM and board political infighting. BART is the spawn of the patronage machine; there is every reason to foresee the CHSRA degenerating along similar lines of excessive compensation packages and deferred maintenance.
The newest rumor has Jerry putting a tax initiative on the fall ballot. I doubt it would get enough signatures unless it was soak the rich. Ordinarily I could think about it but when George Schulz reports that 30% of the education outlay is wasted on bureaucracy, fuggedaboutit. Besides the rich can and will either shield their income or simply change residency.
joe Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Troll, troll, troll, your boat….
BruceMcF Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Hey, I’ve got an applied micro background ~ one of the fields in my doctorate is Regional Economics. Perhap’s that’s part of why it jumped out at me that your “HSR will generate no jobs” report was a steaming pile of shyte.
The question is, why would someone with an applied micro background want to have their name associated with that kind of nonsense?
Drunk Engineer Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
Huh? CAARD has been highly critical of the Pacheco alignment decision. Had CHSRA gone with Altamont, there would be no need for a BART-San Jose extension project.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 11:55 pm
There’s no need for BART to San Jose. HSR, no HSR..
joe Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 12:33 am
A mendacious claim I hope CARRD disavows.
Funding for the BART project was approved by voters. Measure B is of course the 1/8 cent sales tax increase to help bring BART to downtown San José.
The HSR Altamont alignment is redundant with existing ACE Altamont and Caltrain service connecting to the same terminus.
There’s no record of the Altamont express route factoring into the BART extension.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Santa_Clara_VTA_sales_tax_for_BART,_Measure_B,_2008
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Santa_Clara_VTA_sales_tax_for_BART,_Measure_B,_2008
Drunk Engineer Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 7:18 am
HSR is also redundant with Coast Starlight service, so really don’t see what your point is.
And I assure you that less expensive conventional rail option was part of the BART “debate” for Santa Clara County.
Clem Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Of course there’s no record. These things aren’t decided at the ballot box; they are decided in the San Francisco board room of Parsons Brinckerhoff Quaide & Douglas.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Who needs trains? Those things are redundant with stagecoaches.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 6:36 pm
And think of the effect on all those privately run turnpikes. And all the people milling planks for them.
The CAHSRA just held an industry forum on April 12 so we need to wait and see how that went first.
Californa voters mandated that CHSRA meet the requirements in AB3034.
(2) The plan shall include, identify, or certify to all of the following:
(A) The corridor, or usable segment thereof, in which the authority is
proposing to invest bond proceeds.
(B) A description of the expected terms and conditions associated with
any lease agreement or franchise agreement proposed to be entered into by
the authority and any other party for the construction or operation of
passenger train service along the corridor or usable segment thereof.
(C) The estimated full cost of constructing the corridor or usable segment
thereof, including an estimate of cost escalation during construction and
appropriate reserves for contingencies.
(D) The sources of all funds to be invested in the corridor, or usable
segment thereof, and the anticipated time of receipt of those funds based
on expected commitments, authorizations, agreements, allocations, or other
means.
(E) The projected ridership and operating revenue estimate based on
projected high-speed passenger train operations on the corridor or usable
segment.
(F) All known or foreseeable risks associated with the construction and
operation of high-speed passenger train service along the corridor or usable
segment thereof and the process and actions the authority will undertake to
manage those risks.
(G) Construction of the corridor or usable segment thereof can be
completed as proposed in the plan.
(H) The corridor or usable segment thereof would be suitable and ready
for high-speed train operation.
(I) One or more passenger service providers can begin using the tracks
or stations for passenger train service.
(J) The planned passenger service by the authority in the corridor or
usable segment thereof will not require a local, state, or federal operating
subsidy.
(K) The authority has completed all necessary project level environmental
clearances necessary to proceed to construction.
jim Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
And the request that bonds be issued in sufficient quantity to provide the matching funds as agreed to with the federal government will, no doubt, be accompanied by included descriptions of (A) through (F), identification of (K) and certifications of (G) through (J). The bonds will be issued as requested and construction will begin.
You may not, personally, believe the certifications. But, then, who are you?
Paul Dyson Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
It’s clear to me that the Fresno – Bakersfield line is not a usable segment as defined, since there is no money for rolling stock or electrification, and the law mandates electrification. Unfortunately the law as written, if it is followed, seems to prevent the project being built until the money is shown to be available to complete phase one, and that is not the case at the moment. For CHSRA to continue to function at all is probably illegal, and it’s certainly futile as they cannot build anything. I think we need to change the law, if need be by going back to the voters, to break the project up into more manageable pieces that can be fully funded before construction begins. These could include Los Angeles – Palmdale, Palmdale to Bakersfield, San Francisco to Sacramento via San Jose/Dumbarton and Stockton. Each of these add incrementally to the existing systems and offer tangible benefits although I doubt they will be “profitable” until connected.
Continuation on the present course, with a “stranded asset” in the San Joaquin Valley, will only provide ammunition to our opponents.
StevieB Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
“Usable segment” is defined in AB3034 in Article 1, General Provisions.
No matter how you personally define “usable segment” the definition in the California bill is very simple.
Spokker Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Hahaha does an Amshack count as a station? Let’s get this thing started as soon as possible.
That backbone in the middle of nowhere could be the best thing to ever happen to high speed rail. A 220 MPH train would exist in America but doesn’t connect major population centers. People would be outraged enough to want to finish the goddamn thing.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
More like said population centers would actually have to ensure that they get it.
VBobier Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
The area is not the middle of no where, Cause You don’t live there You think It is, Of course lots of people do live there.
joe Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
In addition to the definition of usable segment, there is the requirement it be suitable and ready for HSR operation – not a requirement to run HSR on the segment as a validation test of usability. The requirement can be validated by analysis and observation – that when electrified, the segment will support the required service.
(f) “Corridor” means a portion of the high-speed train system as
described in Section 2704.04.
(g) “Usable segment” means a portion of a corridor that includes
at least two stations.
…
(H) The corridor or usable segment thereof would be suitable and
ready for high-speed train operation.
…AND…
2704.09. The high-speed train system to be constructed pursuant to this chapter shall be designed to achieve the following characteristics:
(a) Electric trains that are capable of sustained maximum revenue operating speeds of no less than 200 miles per hour.
peninsula Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 7:49 am
And this….
(G) Construction of the corridor or usable segment thereof can be
completed as proposed in the plan.
(H) The corridor or usable segment thereof would be suitable and ready
for high-speed train operation.
(see definition;2704.09. The high-speed train system to be constructed pursuant to this chapter shall be designed to achieve the following characteristics:
(a) Electric trains that are capable of sustained maximum revenue operating speeds of no less than 200 miles per hour.)
and this..
(D) The sources of ALL funds to be invested in the corridor, or usable
segment thereof, and the anticipated time of receipt of those funds based
on expected commitments, authorizations, agreements, allocations, or other
means.
(Note today that they DO NOT have all funds to complete an HSR usable segment, see Van Arks’ comments about their plans with current federal funding for the CV Segment)
AND ALL the other requirements (The Ridership/revenue study based on HIGH SPEED TRAIN OPERATION ON THIS USABLE SEGMENT ought to be a real LOL moment. I’m sure it will show how high speed train operation on that CV usable segment will be able to operate without subsidy. (?!?)
morris brown Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Prop 1A certainly does not require that all funds be available for completion of Phase I,
before funds from Prop !A bonds can be released, and construction be started.
Prop 1A does require that the project be built in ” usable segment(s)”, and that full funding for completion of “usable segments” must be in place before construction can be started.
As proposed by the CHSRA, the CV plan does not meet the requirement that construction be done in “usable segments”, since no electrification and other requirements are included in the plans thus far released. In point of fact,when the AG was asked about the legality of the proposed plan, the AG has refused to render a decision. There are number of “hoops” that the Authority must clear to get funding for the CV plan, including the peer review committee.
These requirements that were included in Prop 1A, were inserted to make sure that the project would not morph into something else other than a true HSR project. Yet here we have the Authority seeking to side step the issue, by saying that only later will the remaining needed components be added. The extra cost is of the order of 28% to construction cost.
StevieB Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
Try and get an anti-rail politician to demand that train sets be bought before track is laid. They would look pretty foolish to the general public but perhaps someone will think it worthwhile.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
And you can use it by putting a diesel train on it. Just like the diesel trains the state already owns and operates as Amtrak California.
joe Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Morris;
“These requirements that were included in Prop 1A, were inserted to make sure that the project would not morph into something else other than a true HSR project.”
…which is why using the requirements to stop HSR is not going to work.
VBobier Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
You can’t get Your way Morris Brown, Too bad, So sad. ;p
jim Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
But you are not the one being asked to make the certification. Nor are you in a position to dispute certification by the CHSRA. As long as CHSRA is prepared to make the required certifications (and the legislature accept them), the bonds will issue.
Elizabeth Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 9:47 am
People,
The CHSRA itself acknowledges in every presentation they make that the current money (fed plus state bonds) will build the first “construction segment”, which is different than the first “usable segment”.
They are planning to present plans (funding) for the first usable segment in October. This timeframe is dictated by the bond provisions which mean that things have to get in motion well before the June 2012 start to the 2012-2013 fiscal year.
They have not yet determined the “usable segment”. I have heard Fresno to San Jose, bakersfield to Gilroy. Who knows.
The fight will be over two things.
1) Is the “usable segment” really going to be cashflow positive? This gets down to the ridership model. There is this new ridership peer review group who is supposed to be shoring up the existing one. The timeframe they are working on however makes no sense given the October timeframe.
2) Are the additional funds required to go beyond a construction segment to a usable segment (many more miles of track, track, electrfication, trains, maintenance facility) “secure”? Can you get all the people whose approval is required to sign off on this?
joe Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 10:23 am
Jim’s point is simple,
“As long as CHSRA is prepared to make the required certifications (and the legislature accept them), the bonds will issue.”
There isn’t a fight becuase the majority of CA wants HSR. The Bond even passed with a majority in Meno Park.
CARRD is really about stopping HSR and will have to sue and sue and sue over inane interpretations of the law. The law extolls the benefits of HSR and urges a system be built.
Opponents see it as a way to stop the project.
Inane interpretations of the requirements “makes no sense”
jim Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Elizabeth, could you clarify this? Who will be fighting with whom?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
When reasonable people read it they read “someplace with a station on either end and tracks inbetween so that trains can use it”. Other people think that it means that HSR infrastructure needs to be instantly available between San Francisco and Los Angeles or no money can be spent.
Arthur Dent Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
And some people think that if tracks get laid with HSR funds, those tracks will offer high-speed rail service. I would argue that both of your examples are unreasonable.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Tracks don’t offer service, operators running trains do. All tracks can offer is the capability to permit a service of a particular class.
morris brown Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 8:19 pm
VanArk has introduced a new term “construction segment”, which does not exist under Prop 1A.
Prop 1A demands construction be done in “usable segments” and that full funds for “usable segments” be in place before Prop 1A funds can be released for construction. Exactly what is needed to be included in a “usable segment”might somewhat be question, but for sure it
1. includes 2 stations
2. must have electrification (which thus far vanArk is not including. Other items Elizabeth mentions surely must be present as well.
VanArk is trying to re-write the requirements of Prop 1A. Thus far the AG has refused to rule on the legality of his attempts — their silence is deafening.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Why does it need electrification to be useable? Diesel trains don’t need catenary.
joe Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
“Thus far the AG has refused to rule on the legality of his attempts — their silence is deafening.”
Tonight’s Comedy
YesonHSR Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 1:54 am
We are building a real HSR system..not a SP domeliner over the mountains to LA..TRAC fomers wet dreams aside will never equal what 95% of Californianis need and want..and would never ride a slow Amtrak train between LA-SF
Off topic, but this is the Obama I want: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/15/obama.signs.budget/index.html?hpt=C1
His comment about Paul Ryan at the end was great.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 1:47 am
He needs to be alot more loud about these teabag REBFACISTPIGS
Brandi Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
I agree it’s a shame his on record comments can’t be a strong and to the point. Time he spoke the truth out.
AB3034 requires a usable segment of HSR, ready for HSR operation that will be completed with the funding indentified for that usable segment. (and that usable segment has to be operable without subsidy, with a ridership analysis to back that up.)
The will of the people, as Robert is so fond of spouting, was to provide bond funding for HIGH SPEED RAIL, and HIGH SPEED RAIL only. Not for the building of Amtrak line that might someday maybe sorta end up being convertible to HSR.
Spokker Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
“Not for the building of Amtrak line that might someday maybe sorta end up being convertible to HSR.”
This may be the only path to HSR in this country.
joe Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
The portions built will be 100% compatible with HSR service.
There is no requirement to immediately operate a fully operational HSR line within a completed segment and achieve cost recovery.
I didn’t see any exclusivity or requirement forbidding use of the rail for non-HSR service. It’s written so the system can achieve the capability but not all utility has to meet the performance requirements.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Quite ~ the only binding constraint there is the no subsidy one, and that can be met by bidding out the right to operate the preliminary system, tied to the right to operate the full Stage 1 for a specific period once completed.
So, as the review committee said, its critical to settle on a business model. Once there is a business model in place, it should be straightforward to establish how a service on a usable segment will be operated without subsidy.
jim Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
Actually, if one wants to be boringly legalistic, (I) just requires that some passenger train could conceivably use the segment, not that anyone actually will, (J) requires that no subsidy be paid, which h would be satisfied if no actual train does use the segment. So a segment which could conceivably be used, but actually won’t be, satisfies AB3034.
This sort of amateur lawyering is useless. I understand why Morris Brown does it (and observer, if he’s someone different). But why anyone else plays along is unfathomable.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 8:30 am
Well, it goes without saying that what they mean are, of course, what a judge says that they mean ~ Morris is arguing the most extreme possibly interpretation in favor of the kill the system people. Since the clear intent of legislature was to put limits to ensure the quality of the system to be built, and not to put up roadblocks to prevent a system of that quality from being built, one would hope that if the opponents were able to shop a judge willing to rule in favor of killing the line, it could be overturned on appeal.
The clear intent of the legislation also seems to include preventing the bonds from being spent on just any old rail infrastructure, so the precise constraints will be known once it is tested in court.
But “operable without a subsidy” meaning operating with no service, hence no subsidy required, does not sound like a sure thing. OTOH, depending on how much of Florida’s funding CAHSR gets, a service that can be franchised without subsidy is already coming within the frame.
Morris Brown interpreting the constraints so that they are always magically out of reach of whatever funding CAHSR has is part of a FUD strategy, so its going to continue until the interpretation is conclusively thrown out in some way, at which point he will get instant amnesia on that talking point and hare after some other talking point.
A northbound Caltrain hit a car at Charleston this evening, at least one fatality in the car, the car was headed east across the tracks and was pushed into the crossing signal on the north side of the tracks.
http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_17859347
Caltrain had just finished putting in pedestrian gates at that intersection, it’s not clear yet what happened, exactly. Trains were still idling and the intersection was still blocked as of 6pm.
“on the north side of the tracks” should be “on the north side of *Charleston*”
Off topic, but of interest, as always; in this case a miscellaneous collection of items, all linked from the Midwest High Speed Rail Association:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/scotts-lawyer-admits-he-gave-fla-supreme-court-1401594.html
http://www.bradenton.com/2011/04/15/3117095/florida-gov-rick-scotts-lawyer.html
http://www.urbanophile.com/2011/04/13/the-sprawl-bubble-by-chuck-banas/
D. P. Lubic Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
And some other items:
http://www.midwesthsr.org/amtrak-empire-builder
http://www.midwesthsr.org/want-to-cut-passenger-train-costs-run-more-trains
http://www.midwesthsr.org/envisioning-a-truly-national-rail-network
D. P. Lubic Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 8:36 pm
And one final fun item:
http://www.midwesthsr.org/sites/default/files/pdf/M-497.pdf
YesonHSR Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 12:51 am
No Pennsy..?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 5:01 am
Not this time, the PRR didn’t run any tests with jets. . .
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 9:40 am
They were probably satisfied with the 164 MPH test they did with the electric train…
D. P. Lubic Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 5:10 am
The Germans had some experiments with a propeller variant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schienenzeppelin
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/03/schienenzeppelin/
http://www.google.com/search?q=rail+zeppelin&hl=en&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=SIWpTbvZOMXpgQe899TzBQ&ved=0CDAQsAQ&biw=970&bih=613
One of the problems that arose with this thing was how the prop wash would blow people and their baggage around on station platforms when the Schienezeppelin went droning past. . .knocked’em right over, it did!
Andre Peretti Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 4:25 am
The French also used jet engines with Bertin’s Aerotrain. The final version, powered by two Pratt & Whitney engines, reached 270mph in 1974. It was never commercialized. The noise would never have been accepted near cities. Besides, the efficiency of a jet engine at low speeds is very bad: the maximum efficiency is reached when the speed of the vehicle equals that of the ejected gas.
TGV-001 used helicopter turbo-engines coupled to alternators. It was never commercialized, either. France was so badly hit by the first oil crisis that phasing out fossil fuels was declared a national emergency.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 5:18 am
Ah, knew this would be around somewhere–the evil Professor Fate’s rail rocket car, from the late Blake Edwards’ “The Great Race,” starting at 6:02:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4At3K-5opZk&feature=related
Amazingly, this spoof of a film was very (extremely!) loosely based on an actual around-the-world auto trial in the very early days of automobiles!
VBobier Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Spoof or not, That was a Great movie, Thoroughly enjoyable.
To paraphrase the Honorable Senator Jon Kyl (RepuB(P)lican-AZ) it seems like nothing the GO(B)P says is meant to be factual.
Gov. Scott’s attorney admits giving inaccurate figures arguing against high speed rail money
Orlando Sentinel
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/os-scott-attorney-high-speed-rail-20110415,0,1772945.story
VBobier Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 8:08 am
Which says to Me that Scott doesn’t have the interests of the People of Wisconsin at Heart, Just Money and Power.
VBobier Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 8:11 am
Oopsie, Make that Florida. Too many anti-rail nuts.
Ben Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 8:18 am
I suppose when hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes (i.e. campaign contributions) from the Chamber of Commerce, Exxon-Mobile, Koch Industries, isn’t enough to help you get your way, they can just blatantly make things up.
VBobier Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 8:42 am
Yeah, Their tentacles reach quite a ways.
Some funding could come from a CHSR development impact fee. New development in any CHSR county would pay an impact fee based on ridership miles generated. Phase 1 station counties would pay a higher fee but track only, Phase 2 and Altemont Overlay only county’s would pay a lower fee per new dwelling unit, square feet of office, ect. This could fulfill the funding plans for local funding. This might pass politically because it is a fee on developers instead of a tax on voters and because it will not effect counties that will never see CHSR come to them. Even though the fee money would come in later when development picks up, future anticipated CHSR impact fee money could be bonded against to get construction money now.
Somehow I doubt the Japanese will be plunking in as much as everyone thinks they’re willing to do. It might’ve been a good possibility before, but Japan today has its own worries about recovering from the triple earthquake/tsunami/nuke plant disaster. I doubt the Japanese citizens will be for their politicians to spend $30 billion in building HSR in CA when that same $30 billion could be used to help their own country.
Jack Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 10:31 am
This would be an investment, over time, over a LONG time were talking 25-50 years. Japan already well on it’s way to recovery. Yes it will take time to return to normalcy, but they are not going to go broke and cancel all investments. Did the US stop investing after Katrina??
Ken Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 11:07 am
The majority of Japan is pretty much center-right country just like the US. Just like we have teabaggers here, they too have a mass of net-uyoku (internet rightists) who are for smaller governments and using yen to focus in their home economy than “wasting on stuff like ODAs to places like Vietnam and Cambodia.”
Add that to the disaster situation, it’s not really the best time for Japan to be discussing about planking down $30b to help CA build a HSR system. To most Japanese, they’ll just say “unlike Vietnam, US is a rich 1st world nation with a world class scientists and research facilities (some even better than our own!), why can’t they just build their own HSR themselves?” How do you respond to that?