CA4HSR’s Op-Ed in Bakersfield Californian: “A Train to Somewhere”
Daniel Krause, Executive Director of Californians for High Speed Rail has published an op-ed in today’s Bakersfield Californian. Titled “High speed rail: A train to somewhere” it pushes back against the Legislative Analyst’s strange argument that the Central Valley is not a good place to build high speed rail. Visit the Bakersfield Californian’s site to read the whole thing, it’s good stuff.
It’s worth noting that, at least as of this second, CA4HSR’s board is made up of people from the Bay Area and Southern California. We are working to get Central Valley representation on that board (contact us if you’re interested or know someone who is), and we have worked closely with HSR supporters and elected officials in the Valley in support of the project. I mention this because it shows that we truly support high speed rail for California – and that we reject the LAO/Simitian/Lowenthal argument that HSR money should just go to regional projects. We support a statewide system that actually connects California’s metropolitan regions to each other. And we believe the Central Valley is a good place to get that system started.
“But slow one down and connect it to a diesel locomotive, and it can continue on Amtrak’s existing statewide network…At Madera, northbound high-speed trains can slow to conventional speeds and continue to the Bay Area and Sacramento on existing track.”
….wait what?
joe Reply:
May 13th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
welcome to the ARRA funding requirement – the ARRA work, when completed, must have stand alone utility.
peninsula Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 6:39 am
luckily Prop 1A requires a higher bar – utility with existing conventional networks doesn’t cut it for the bond funding unless it also is completed, usable segment of HSR that can operate without subsidy, in and of itself.
Sigh. Best industry practice for this is to electrify the connecting legacy lines, even when a high-speed line is under construction: see France and especially Korea.
political_incorrectness Reply:
May 13th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
That is why it would make sense to get the ends connected via the Central Valley. Once the tunnels are completed, you could start a line. Now if only UP would actually stop getting in the way and be forced to cooperate but I am not planning on it.
VBobier Reply:
May 13th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
UPrr=Far Roght Wackos… Agreed forced.
Beta Magellan Reply:
May 13th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Towing a light high-speed train behind a heavy compliant locomotive might keep the FRA happy–that plus avoiding an outcry over “wastefully spending” on legacy track electrification are the only real advantages to a diesel approach.
thatbruce Reply:
May 13th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
The FRA regulations are aimed at every vehicle operating on the tracks; non-FRA vehicles being towed behind FRA vehicles in revenue service would be a distinct no-no without much agonising over obtaining a waiver.
There won’t be any shiny non-FRA HSR trains running in revenue service on the CAHSR tracks until more than just the Central Valley has been completed.
VBobier Reply:
May 13th, 2011 at 5:29 pm
I think It would be nice If service was up and running even with transfers to Amtrak while construction was going on, When I5 was being built in the Central Valley back around 1971(I was 11 years old then), People could drive on the completed sections, Yeah I realize It’s not the same, But still, It’s a thought…
Joey Reply:
May 13th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
There is not justification to buy high-speed trainsets until one or both of the mountain crossings are built.
VBobier Reply:
May 13th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
Its too bad the tehachapi line next to hwy 58 couldn’t be electrified as a temporary RR line, probably expensive and maybe too tight on the curves and too much single trackage, It would need to be widened and double tracked with maybe some new sidings, sigh. Of course It’s owned by the UPRR and BNSF has trackage rights, As It used to be an SP line. Of course It’s possibly the route chosen in a study or at least nearby to the one the CHSRA picked as a probable route. If I’m wrong, Ok, Just speculating no harm done.
Joey Reply:
May 13th, 2011 at 9:46 pm
Electrification wouldn’t do you much good considering that lightweight high-speed trainsets would not be permitted anyway.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 13th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
But the hairy part of the Bakersfield / Palmdale / Sylmar alignments are supposed to be the south side, not the north side. If they decide to go with the Palmdale alignment, they’d want to push through to Palmdale anyway and maybe think about whether they can get a jump start on the Antelope Valley alignment while working on the Sylmar/Palmdale stretch.
VBobier Reply:
May 13th, 2011 at 10:19 pm
Well I hope the CHSRA or whomever, Takes the least expensive route with 2.5% grades at the max.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 8:37 am
“Least expensive” is a broader question for a train that will be generating offsetting operating surpluses. The “least expensive way” to get the service launched may be to build an expensive section that breaks through a bottleneck efficiently, and connects to existing links that can be upgraded to provide adequate capacity for a preliminary service. The earlier the preliminary service can be launched, the earlier a franchise to operate can be set out to bid, and the earlier there is a foundation for revenue bonds to complete the system.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 8:56 am
Vegas bookies would put the odds of a Palmdale alignment at less than 10%.
-It costs too much
-Every extra mile brings extra risk
-There are growth induction issues (this was part of official blurb from CHSRA)
And if you have to do Palmdale, the odds for the entire project fall in line.
joe Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 9:05 am
“And if you have to do Palmdale, the odds for the entire project fall in line.”
Nonsense. You know very well then once begun, HSR is going to happen.
Congressman Honda said so himself.
This is the time to stop HSR. This is the time to grab the money and dole it out to local interests. If the central valley segment starts, the state will complete the system.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 10:13 am
Risk per mile is not uniform, and cost per miles is not uniform. The project risk of the grapevine versus the more detailed information on the descent from Palmdale to Sylmar is part of the study that they are going to do. Certainly following the alignment alternatives process tells us that the cost per mile and the project risk is greater than they were expecting for the Palmdale alignment, which is of course why it would be prudent to take a second look at the overall trade-off if there is even a 5% chance of the trade-off going the other way, given the billions of dollars in projects risk compared to the cost of taking a second look.
While concluding in advance of the study what the chances are that the nod will go to Palmdale tells us nothing about the actual chances, it does tell us that the person making the conclusion has a preference for underinformed conclusion based on grossly oversimplified analysis.
Much as we would expect from the geniuses who concluded that the HSR project cannot create net economic benefit for the state at all ~ a direct implication if it creates no employment gains at all ~ but yet still claim to be supporters of HSR “done right”.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 11:26 am
A couple of points:
1) The documentation released so far shows that the risk of Palmdale are far greater than originally assumed. The engineer at the operations meeting was pretty clear that mile for mile, they look at Palmdale and the Grapevine as having similar costs and challenges. I would encourage everyone to pour through the appendices for the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to LA alternatives alignment on the Authority’s website.
2) In addition to the costs/ risks inherent in a longer alignment, the longer alignment requires higher speeds to make the 2:40 minute requirement. The entire Palmdale alignment is being engineered to a 250 mph for 220 mph operations. THere are a few curves that have been discussed for possibly lowering speeds but in a very limited fashion.
3) The Grapevine alignment would probably lead to a station on the west side of Bakersfield so that the trains can be heading directly south towards the 5. I am not saying that this is a good or terrible idea but that it will be a natural consequence. Such an alignment would save billions on the Bakersfield downtown alignment and get rid of issues like going through some disadvantaged areas and the high school. Again, no comment on whether or not this is a worthwhile tradeoff but the AUthority is in cost and complexity cutting mode. It is hard to imagine them not taking a bite of the apple.
4) We have been very clear that we are separating out the temporary jobs effect from the long term jobs effect. In a resource constrained state like California, you must look at the NET effects. You will gain some through this project and lose some through the cuts you make to pay for the project.
$500 million in cuts to CSU = 10,000 fewer students and the teachers and the support staff to teach them
$140 million cuts to low income preschool = 28,000 fewer slots and the teachers to teach them
Even with the Feds paying half, the types of cuts being made in the state budget are to much more labor intensive industries than the designing and building of a high speed rail system.
Being generous, we will call it a wash.
The longer term job benefit of high speed rail and the longer term job benefit of CSU slots/ high quality preschool are harder to quantify.
Robert Cervero gave a depressing talk at the recent High Speed Rail conference in Berkeley that van Ark spoke at. His research showed that most of the benefits would be redistributive, not additive. And that the redistribution would be away from Central Valley towns and to San Francisco.
Jury is out.
5) There are other potential benefits (environmental, standard of living for those living far from good air service, tying together the state) but they depend heavily on the execution of the project.
At this point in history, state dollars are precious. I would expect everyone to have a high standard for how they are spent.
Robert repeatedly says this state will change its ways and tax dollars will flow freely again. I will remind him and everyone that voters turned down an opportunity to secure the state parks and to give free access for everyone (most parks cost $5 / car) for a measly $18 / vehicle tax.
Joey Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 11:43 am
But for the moment, we have no definitive way of knowing which alignment will actually be cheaper.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 11:45 am
Joey,
The engineer gave a very rough estimate that they expect to save $2.5 billion.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 11:45 am
And this doesn’t count the money saved by a different Bakersfield alignment.
joe Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
“$500 million in cuts to CSU = 10,000 fewer students and the teachers and the support staff to teach them
$140 million cuts to low income preschool = 28,000 fewer slots and the teachers to teach them”
School funding? Really ?
You want to hangout out the straw-man argument that a HSR “risks” is taking money from our schools?
I got one for you, the “HSR is going to ruin my upper middle class neighborhood” will cost the state 10′s of bilions in additional highway repair & construction, automobile pollution, CO2 emissions, respiratory disease and traffic deaths.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
This is not a straw-man argument. This is the incredibly depressing situation California is in.
It does not mean you don’t do anything. It does mean that there is a real opportunity cost and you should be very careful.
It has been hard to watch planning dollars being wastefully spent at the same time we see cuts coming to local agencies, and this is chump change compared to the costs of construction.
Donk Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
Elizabeth, you make some very good points, but I agree with Joey – you fell asleep on point 4. You first talk about temporary and long term job effects. Then you make it sound like bond approved funding for HSR is going to permanently eliminate funding to schools. Not only does that spending have nothing to do with the cuts in school funding, but the cuts in school funding are temporary, not long term.
And of course, as always, you single out voter approved HSR bond funds, not stem cell bond funds, highway spending, excessive and wasteful school and community college construction bonds, etc. It is all HSRs fault, right?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
The engineer gave a very rough estimate that they expect to save $2.5 billion.
And Synomouse’s neighbor’s cousin’s co-worker’s mother who works for the Authority said the Grapevine is much much cheaper but it’s all a conspiracy of the concrete vendors and ex-urban tarct house developers to go through Palmdale.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Joey,
The discussion is not about other projects (which I think we would all be more discerning about if the linkage between general state spending and bond financing were more clear).
The question is about whether HSR is a jobs creator for California. The claim is made over and over again. The claim is made for the construction period (temporary construction jobs vs the education jobs over the bond life).
A construction project like this one that will be heavy on fancy equipment and materials is going to cost an equivalent number of teaching jobs during construction.
(nb – this is reason 93 why the federal govt accepting California’s ill advised match for ARRA dollars was counter to the whole notion of stimulus)
The claim is made for the system once operational. There would be a limited number of direct jobs (in the thousands) and there are indirect jobs – those from additional economic activity.
The long term cost or benefit is harder to figure out – both the long term benefits of this project from the activity and the long term costs of cutting education / preschool funding.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Polls have also shown voters would support taxes to avoid education cuts, but the Republicans refuse to let the voters have that choice.
The state already changed its ways; 2/3 of local tax measures typically pass at each election. Statewide is sometimes a different matter, although it is very rare that taxes are proposed statewide. Higher taxes on the rich and on large corporations typically gain widespread public support, but again voters are never given that choice.
So I continue to point out that the state’s anti-tax mentality is overstated, and when Millennials make up an even larger portion of the electorate, 1978 will finally end.
As to economic benefits of HSR, the numbers are clear that HSR delivers a substantial green dividend of several billion dollars annually. Did that speaker at the HSR conference give an analysis of the economic costs of high gas prices? Still above $4 and the long-term trend is still upward. Funny how you never seem to discuss that rather important point.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Just so everyone is clear -
Unlike local bonds where additional property taxes are assessed to pay for construction of new schools or libraries or whatever, state bonds to pay for things like HSR don’t raise any additional revenue.
Principal and interest payments on the bonds are made from the general fund, the same fund that pays for education.
This is also true for Federal government spending.
The difference is that California has a balanced budget requirement so that when it choose to spend money on servicing bonds, it has implicitly chosen to either cut other spending or raise taxes.
Raising taxes is near impossible. Everyone is just hoping the Governor can convince voters to keep existing ones.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Robert,
Things could be different in another generation for a lot of reasons but the question relevant to answering the question about whether there will be a significant number of net jobs created during the construction phase is about this generation.
The question of the long term benefits are mostly about the long term implications of how California invests its money this generation.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
Wow, Elizabeth – I never expected you to make an overtly right-wing argument like that. But that’s exactly what you did by claiming that government spending never creates new revenue.
You are quite wrong when you say “raising taxes is near impossible” – the evidence clearly shows otherwise, for both local taxes and for income taxes on the rich. The 2/3 rules are an impediment to some of this actually becoming policy, but it is inevitable that those barriers will be overcome, as people realize that their future depends on taxes going up.
Elizabeth’s whole worldview assumes a permanent 1978. Nothing ever changes from that era – voters will never support new taxes, people will never ride trains, gas will always be cheap, nobody will ever want to live in a dense place, nobody will ever want aerial structures, so on and so forth.
Betting against change is a bet that is ALWAYS sure to lose. Always.
Joey Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Whoa. A lot of people seem to be mistaking other people for me in this thread. I’ve only made one short comment.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Sorry Joey.
Robert,
I am not making right or left winged arguments. I am making math based arguments.
If the marketing materials for the HSR program had a little asterick next them “Assuming Prop 13 is repealed”, then I wouldn’t say anything. But making those claims without giving the appropriate caveats is disingenuous and and a lot of people are will be in for a shock when they don’t see the project move the unemployment meter.
Indeed if jobs was the primary factor AND we assumed Prop 13 was rolled back so money was no object, you would be better off spending the $100 billlion or whatever it is on roads because that would create more jobs (more money, more jobs).
There are plenty of arguments in favor of improving the transportation network but jobs are not where you should hang your hat.
Eric M Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Wow, true colors are starting to show now!! LOL
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
you would be better off spending the $100 billlion or whatever it is on roads because that would create more jobs
You have a cite for that?
It doesn’t really matter much to the people working in the steel mill, cement plant, gravel quarry etc if the products they are creating are going to end up under an automobile or under a train. The same construction workers who assemble all those products into roads or tracks still get paidn
Eric M Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
adirondacker12800,
No she doesn’t.
The latest data on stimulus spending shows that funds spent on public transportation created jobs more effectively than stimulus funds spent on highways.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 7:12 pm
People,
I am not advocating for spending $100 billion on highways. I am merely trying to point out the absurdity of the argument that spending a lot of money on anything is good because it creates jobs in a state like California where you cannot deficit spend.
My point is not highways or train tracks or anything. It is simply that $100 billion would be more money spent (ergo more jobs) than $40 billion or even $65 billion.
If you want to start talking about stimulus numbers, the conversation will come to a quick end as there were surprisingly few jobs as a result of stimulus money on construction. There were a ton of jobs for the money spent on schools.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 7:19 pm
You can’t spend HSR money on schools so why bring schools into the conversation?
Elizabeth Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
I just followed the link. A couple of comments:
1) The unit is job-months????? This is getting ridiculous. If only we could talk about job-minutes – then the numbers would really get big.
2) $1 billion = 16,000 job-months = 1,300 annual jobs.
3) These are really old numbers for the first projects funded. Does anyone know where more recent numbers are?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 7:39 pm
Since the money can only be spent on rail feel free to refuse it like Florida and Wisconsin did. I’m sure Amtrak can find plenty of things to spend it on along the Northeast Corridor.
1300 jobs, if that’s the number, is better than having the jobs appear in New Jersey.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
The state doesn’t have “high speed rail money”. It has an authorization to sell bonds. The legislature gets to decide whether it wants to issue said bonds and pay the interest/ principal payments out of the general fund or whether it wants to spend more money on something else.
Our analysis for the short term impact assumed that the fed paid half.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
The state does indeed have “high speed rail money” ~ it has capital grant subsidies from the Federal government dedicated to high speed rail. Abandon the HSR project in favor of a commuter rail project, abandon that money.
Your “analysis” for the long term impact assumed that the project was useless. And if the project is useless, why “support it, but only if done right”.
And, yes, advocating turning back the HSR money ~ where advocating “demand the freedom to spend the HSR money on any project we feel like” is indeed advocating turning back the HSR money, even if it comes with a Groupon for a free excuse talking point ~ is advocating billions on highways. California’s population is growing, and if y’all abandon breaking ground on the HSR project, you’re going to end up building that intercity transport capacity in the way that you are accustomed to doing.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
“My point is not highways or train tracks or anything. It is simply that $100 billion would be more money spent (ergo more jobs) than $40 billion or even $65 billion.” Except the job generation is roughly twice as many jobs per dollar, and saving money versus more expensive ways to provide the same economic benefit means that the crowding out of jobs from current government consumption that you are worried about is smaller for the same economic benefit.
Even supposing that tax rates cannot be raised, then the long term approach to higher tax receipts than otherwise is investment in infrastructure that supports economic growth. And doing so in a way that is heavily dependent on driving for intercity transport, which is he alternative to investing in the HSR system, exposes the state economy to spikes in income leakages with every oil price shock.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 9:19 pm
Oh, and just so everyone is clear: the way financial markets work, you do not have to pay interest on bonds until you first borrow the money, and the way that goods and services markets work, you do not have to spend the money until you are paying for the goods and services. So this idea that the “short term” impact includes the full cost of debt service and repaying the principle is quite absurd.
Let’s take 1.3 jobs per $m, since Elizabeth has accepted that. Those are, of course, direct, on project jobs. There is also 7.8/$m indirect jobs created for these kinds of infrastructure project, for 9/$m direct and indirect. Assuming 30% instate induced demand (which is low ~ I have seen input/output modeling for Maryland which gives 38% in-state induced demand, and California is a more populous and geographically much larger state that will capture more of the induced demand than Maryland will), so there’s 11.7/$m.
The short term impact of borrowing $1b/year each year over, say, four years (it would be a gross deception to talk about the “short term” and have it include the entirety of a decade long project) would be 1,300 direct jobs per year, at a 6% annualized debt service, and at 50% local match (which is lower, now, as the excessive 50:50 match that the Governator was promising has been scaled back).
Of course, there would also be induced and indirect employment:
$1b project => $500m local => $30m service, so $30m year 1, $60m year 2, $90m year 3, $120m year 4.
The claim that there are no short term jobs created, stretching out “short term” to include four years into the future, is that the state would be getting 11,700 annual jobs out of $120m, which is $10,257/job for a teacher or university professor.
I find that implausible.
Roger Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 11:24 am
On the FRA issue, the Talgo cars on the Cascade are not FRA compliant:
“The Amtrak Cascades is normally operated in a push-pull configuration with an EMD F59PHI at one end, a 12 or 13 car Talgo-built rake, and an unpowered EMD F40PH locomotive called a Non-Powered Control Unit (NPCU) on the other end used as a cab car. The NPCU contains a cement weight to meet FRA weight requirements for collision safety. The NPCU units also serve to meet Federal Railroad Administration regulations for crash safety for the Talgo cars, which are not FRA crash-rated.”
Also, electrifying conventional lines in the interim phases seems very unlikely. What is likely, is those lines would get signal upgrades giving them Automatic Train Protection or control. I believe if all trains have ATP, FRA allows non-FRA compliant train-sets. If the Chatsworth disaster taught us anything, it’s that the FRA safety philosophy of building locomotives like tanks doesn’t work. Things are changing towards a European-style philosophy of preventing accidents, instead of trying to make them survivable.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
When you say that electrifying conventional lines during interim phases is unlikely ~ which precise conventional lines are you referring to? For both the Caltrain corridor and the Antelope Valley Metrolink line, it does not seem unlikely at all.
For connecting an LA/Bakersfield/Fresno/Merced line to the Bay via the existing San Joaquin alignment, yes, I think a transfer station is a far more realistic approach ~ especially since that transfer will still be required for the Sacramento run until Stage 2 is finished.
Nathanael Reply:
May 13th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
I suspect BNSF would be OK with electrification of the connecting lines, provided VERY HIGH clearance was ensured — Denver is the key example here, where BNSF specified that the catenary would need to provide electrical clearance for doublestack, and in the Pacific Northwest they’d also require clearance for airplane parts. Metrolink would certainly be OK with it and there’s nothing much UP can do about it now that Metrolink has control. Caltrain wants electrification.
But UP wouldn’t accept it, you can bet on it. :-P And UP controls track on *both* branches of the San Joaquins. :-P So there’s little point unless that track is purchased first.
I would hope for and expect electrfication of much of Metrolink when the HSR line finally reaches Sylmar.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 12:36 am
I hope for the same and expect much worse, since Metrolink has shown no interest in even Caltrain-grade modernization.
Although off topic, there are some interesting comments and thoughts on James Repass’ “Destination Freedom” newsletter (last three items):
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df3/df05092011.shtml
Speaking of train to somewhere, April ridership on the San Joaquin was up 18.3% year over year.
Bakersfield has a large population than Madison WI 233k. Metropolitan Fresno 1.1M rivals Milwuakee 594K and the larger metro area 1.7 M
Since Madison and Milwaukee were the anchor points for WI’s HSR line, the link between Fresno and Bakersfield is very similar in terms of population supported. If the Central Valley segment is no where then WI is no where.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 13th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
To be fair, I’m willing to believe most people would agree that WI is nowhere. And the main purpose was to connect south to Chicago in any case.
joe Reply:
May 13th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Most people think you’re sneezing when you say “Wisconsin”.
Or it’s the 20th most populous state, 23rd in area. The comparative sizes of the two cities for HSR segment compare favorably to the Central valley segment.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 13th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Except, as noted, the purpose was connecting Madison to Chicago at 110mph, really not comparable to the 220mph CV segment without a direct rail connection to LA.
Joey Reply:
May 13th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
And on upgraded tracks (i.e. they won’t just be used by a pathetic number of passenger trains every day), not completely new dedicated tracks.
joe Reply:
May 13th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
“pathetic”?
Joey Reply:
May 13th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
Is the number of trains they are planning to run measured in trains per hour or trains per day?
BruceMcF Reply:
May 13th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
In trains per day ~ I think the query was more along the lines of what kind of juvenile gets into a pissing contest over what train frequencies are appropriate in what transport markets?
joe Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
Railroad Tycoon.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
Then you get trains per month or year :p
BruceMcF Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
Yes, one or two Saturday/Sunday steam excursion trains per month during the summer time would be an appropriate frequency for Newcastle NSW to Maitland NSW.
But that’s more a tourism thing than a transport thing.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
Uh, oh, Bruce, you let yourself in for me and my steam trains. . .
I’ve been thinking, what would the pro-car, anti-rail crowd think of steam excursions, or a full-fledged heritage railroad, particularly one doing a job that might be suitable for autos, such as taking people to the top of a mountain for the scenic view, or to a historic western town?
I think they would hate those, too. The would complain that the Strasburg Rail Road, Cumbres & Toltec, the Western Maryland Scenic. and a number of others were Communist because their passenger cars are painted red. They would say the East Broad Top Railroad & Coal Company, the White Pass & Yukon, the Cass Scenic Railroad, and others are environazis because their passenger cars are painted Pullman green. They would say all these railroads are guilty of reverse racism because all–all!–of their steam locomotives are painted black; there isn’t a white engine in the bunch!
Actually, not all steam locomotives are or were painted black, but that still won’t satisfy this crowd. The steam locomotives that aren’t black are either dark green or have a dark green boiler jacket, or are blue (Agh!! A dirty Democrat!!) And I won’t get into the politics of a locomotive like the Eureka, built in the 1870s and lovingly restored, which is a true “green” engine in the sense that it burns wood!
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=336432&nseq=15
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=335765&nseq=17
Communists!! Environazis!! Reverse Racism!! Red Cars, dark green boiler and cylinder jackets, on a predominately black locomotive. . .
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=199825&nseq=227
Oh, no, there’s more. . .
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
Dirty Democrats!! The whole train is blue on the Reading & Northern!! Agh!! Never mind that this is the color scheme used by the Central of New Jersey back in the 1920s on a train called the Blue Comet:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=330376&nseq=8
Environazi!! Communist Sympathizer!! Traditional green passenger color scheme with red touches on the Southern Railway:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=338664&nseq=4
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
California trolleys were Communist!! They were Red Cars on the Pacific Electric!!
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=79983&nseq=17
As if environazism, reverse racism, and Communism weren’t enough, we have the Yellow Peril, too, from the Los Angeles Railway (a/k/a the Yellow Cars)!!
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=59608&nseq=4
It’s just too much for Real Americans(tm) to stand!!
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=306053&nseq=2
Have fun.
joe Reply:
May 13th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
How do the distances compare between Madison and Milwaukee and Fresno-bakersfeild? That was the segment Mad to Mil.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 13th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
Line of sight: Mad/Mil: 72 miles. Fre/Bak: 104miles. So with equally efficient alignments, to be equivalent time gap, Fre/Bak would have to be 44% faster.
Our favorite libertarian public transit-haters over at the Reason Foundation are at it again: Bob Poole & Adrian Moore: Why Highways Beat High-Speed Rail
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 7:57 am
I’ll have to look at that when I get some time; for now though, although completely off topic, something that looks like it was cool and fun, even allowing for it to be a sometimes loopy San Francisco:
http://getenergysmartnow.com/2011/05/14/imagine-theres-no-cars-in-the-streets/
Wonder what Poole, O’Toole, Moore, Cox, etc. would think or say?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
I started watching this thing, and couldn’t finish–it was too disgusting, more a matter of attitude, of “we know what’s right for you.” I’ll admit I am a rail enthusiast, love steam trains (as regular readers here know), but also see the benefits of rail travel, and have experienced them, even at slow speed (two hours for 75 miles). Lots of other people see the benefits, too; you here are visionary enough to understand what faster running can bring, as well. We also see the costs; I also saw what I thought might have been cherry-picked numbers (specifically, the bit about the Boston system losing market share, what is the area of the market, what are they including or excluding in their area?)
Over on the Infrastructurist, another poster noted that rail and other transit supporters don’t want to eliminate autos, but the car crowd sure wants to keep us in cars and make sure we don’t have trains.
I wish I had more power to help you out than I do, but I look at this, and think of the people with money who back these clowns, and I feel like an ant. On the other hand, I also noticed the crowd didn’t look real large, and as is often the case, it also looked mostly old. The comments on the YouTube site also were mostly negative as well, as the bulk of watchers there didn’t buy Poole’s and Moore’s lines.
Maybe there’s hope in that, but I’m afraid there is none for me personally (i.e., getting to ride such a train while I’m still alive).
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 8:02 am
Looks like other people don’t care to listen to “Reason” (Foundation); Amtrak sets ridership records again:
http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/hotline/more/hotline_706/
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 8:17 am
More bad news for the car crowd (even though this is from an electric car site):
http://etcgreen.com/blog/general/are-you-driving-your-last-gasoline-powered-car/pdf
Original site where I found the above:
http://www.grist.org/transportation/2011-05-12-why-are-we-so-angry-at-the-pump-because-we-have-no-choice
political_incorrectness Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
So 6-8 years and we should still widen roadways. Here is one suggestion STOP!
At $7 a gallon, who will want to drive on a regular basis? I sure wouldn’t.
Jeff Carter Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 9:29 am
I listened to this while making some breakfast… and I picked up a few things to question. Does anyone question their reports/data/ theories?
Are there any reasonable counter arguments to their rail bashing ideas?
They claim that 40 something percent is spent on mass transit, yet only 3% of travel is made on public transit and transit is loosing riders. Is there evidence to back this up?
They claim that HSR in Europe and Asia is loosing riders to cars and highways/toll roads?
They claim the gas tax used to be and should only be a true (driver) user fee, and that highways are not subsidized?
They claim that people don’t want to ride trains and that people want to drive and ride airplanes?
They want to take away massive funds from mass transit (boondoggles) that serve very few people, however, maybe we should throw a few table scraps towards transit and we should build a network of bus rapid transit?
They also bash policies that use gas tax monies to build livable communities and fund things like sidewalks and bikeways.
They questioned the first CA HSR segment linking one tiny town to another tiny town?
Where do these people come from???
BruceMcF Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 10:00 am
Gas tax is pretty straightforward. Federal gas tax is only spend on Interstate, US, state, county and township highways. Its not spent on urban streets that fall outside that group, so all gas tax paid to drive on city streets is cross-subsidizing the funded highways. That’s always been the case. The “pure user fee” idea is, and always has been, just a convenient myth.
On top of that are all the other hidden and cross-subsidies to driving. Take local policing of both driving and of car theft ~ how big a proportion of a local police budget is required to police bus and train driving and to chase down bus and train thieves? Take the medical system: since the injury and mortality rate for driving is higher, every mile driven rather than taking the bus or train is adding to the cost of our grossly expensive medical system. And one of the biggest is the zoning mandates that force developers to provide “free” parking ~ which is, of course, not really free, its just that the cost is not charged to the motorist using the parking, while the parking itself directly increases the cost of providing transit to an area.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 10:37 am
all that pavement drains into the combined sewer system overwhelming the sewage treatment plant when it rains forcing the sewage treatment district to upgrade the plant. Street lighting. I’m old enough to remember when the side streets didn’t have street lights. Had to keep an eye on the main street so you knew when it was time to go home – when the street lights came on. Storm water runoff wasn’t a problem on some of those streets because they weren’t paved, they came and dumped cinders on them in the winter. A cheap solution in 1960 but a toxic waste site in 2011. There’s all sorts of hidden subsides lurking.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
They lie. It’s plain and simple. Poole lied to Rick Scott and thus to the people of Florida and said the state would be on the hook for cost overruns and operating losses (the contracts said the private consortia would be responsible).
So I’m not going to waste time with every claim Poole makes. I’m pretty sure every nontrivial thing he says is wrong. I’ll just refute the things you mention that I know off-hand:
1. Gas taxes and tolls, even including those diverted to mass transit, pay for about 67% of the cost of gas tax-eligible roads in the US (see FHWA data). But gas taxes are also collected from gas tax-ineligible roads. If you compare the taxes generated by a road segment to the segment’s costs, then according to a TXDOT study that was scrubbed from the net – see remnants here and here – then not a single road in Texas has a recovery ratio of even 50%.
2. Current federal spending is about 75/25 highways/transit. The correct base of usage comparison should be peak-hour, peak-direction trips, since expansions of transportation capacity do not really benefit off-peak travel anyway. For those, transit can have a surprisingly high mode share; Downtown LA’s is 50%, though you’ll have to ask Wad or Spokker for a link.
3. HSR in Europe and Asia is not losing riders, and you can see it by checking the ridership numbers. Rail in Japan has grown more slowly than driving since, say, 1960 – but then Japan had very few cars, so it’s not an appropriate comparison for the US. In Europe, the opposite is generally true: rail travel has grown faster than car travel in the last 15 years. (This has also been true in the US, but in the US rail travel was tiny in 1995, much like car travel in Japan in 1960.)
Clem Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 10:51 am
Subsidyscope.org has a nice database that shows that out of the ~$17B spent annually on roads in California, only about 30% is user fees in the form of gas taxes and tolls.
joe Reply:
May 15th, 2011 at 10:54 am
And one could add the cost of vehicle repairs per year driven on our under repaired roads.
when people say the train is to nowhere, the underlying message is that people in the central valley are nobodies. which is a message that people in the central valley can hear loud and clear.
VBobier Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 8:29 am
And being I lived there a while, I can empathize with the people that live there, It was a time when I had good memories, I’d wished We’d stayed too, But It wasn’t to be. But then people from the Central Valley aren’t nobodies, The rich-snob-nimbys are nobody, As their nobody to be proud of, thats for sure.
joe Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 9:07 am
Fresno and Bakersfield areas are comparable in population with the largest and second largest city in Wisconsin; Milwaukee and Madison.
Jack Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 9:38 am
This Hyperbole, The “Bridge to Nowhere” served about 10,000 people and was truly an example of a pork project. Trying to label CAHSR the same is preposterous at best. Truth is the best weapon against malfeasance and that’s why the “train to nowhere” nonsense isn’t getting traction.
political_incorrectness Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
It is exactly why Fresno and Bakersfiel are going to be railroading the LAO report under the next San Joaquin. This is a huge project for the CV and the political crap is derailing something that would be highly beneficial for the citizens. We could have called LGV Sud-Est, nowhere to somewhere with its initial segment terminating outside of Paris and just outside of Lyon. It will take time but the payout would be enormous.
Now I do see one major issue. They are expecting 123 miles at the average cost of $52 million per mile. If that does not include the stations, then I think that cost average needs to be brought down. If this is including the 40% of viaducts, then I wonder how much in savings could be achieved. There could be an operational segment from Merced-Bakersfield and start the pass connections.