KQED Forum’s Unbalanced HSR Show
Today at 10 am KQED’s venerable Forum radio show will discuss the California High Speed Rail project. Guests are Alan Lowenthal, Diane Harkey, Eric Thronson (author of the LAO report attacking the project) and Roelof van Ark.
In other words, 3 critics of the project against 1 defender – and the defender is the project CEO.
How on earth is that reasonable or balanced?
Last week KQED reached out to Californians For High Speed Rail inviting us on the show. We had someone who could call in, and someone who could appear in studio. But we never got the final invite. Even if we screwed up on our end somehow, surely they could have found another defender to balance the panel. It’s not about us, but about ensuring HSR gets a fair shake.
So we’ll need you all to call in and provide that balance over the phones. Be nice – the host, John Myers, is a good guy – but let’s take the fight to them. Call in at (866) SF FORUM.
Here are some ideas for questions:
Alan Lowenthal: Have you or anyone in your office been working with the LAO or other critics to attack the project? Are you attacking HSR just so you can grab the funds for your favored local rail projects? Are you aware that HSR around the world, including the Amtrak Acela, covers its operating cost through fare revenue?
Eric Thronson: Why didn’t the LAO include an assessment of the costs of delaying or not building HSR? Why is there no analysis of the economic activity, jobs, or tax revenue it will create? Why is there no analysis of the savings it generates by reducing carbon emissions? By not including those, aren’t you failing to fully inform the legislature about the costs and benefits? Also, is there anyone on the LAO staff with HSR experience? Have you gathered any data from other HSR projects around the world? Finally, you are aware that the Central Valley segment is just a piece of the SF-LA route and not a standalone service, right?
Diane Harkey: Actually, I can’t think of any questions, since she’s an anti-rail zealot. I have no idea why she is on this panel.
I’m sure there are other questions. Add them in the comments, then call in! Don’t let the 3 critics get away with misleading Californians about HSR.
UPDATE: Via Reality Check in the comments:
The full “Is There a Future for High-Speed Rail?” show is available on the KQED Forum Website now as an MP3.
I don’t know if I’ll get in, being both conservative and from SoCal, but I would like to ask how they intend on preserving the tourism and travel industries, as well as maintain and enhance our business advantages, without HSR, when rising incomes in China and the development of India and the third world mean that oil demand is rising far faster than supplies can be brought online and furthermore, conventional sources are flatlining and beginning to decline, resulting in an inherently higher base price via unconventional sources (such as Fischer–Tropsch). If I can get a second, asking how much they expect to save considering the need to expand road and air capacity compared to HSR’s ability to reduce intrastate air traffic and certain road traffic (mainly LA-SAN). LAX’s master plan and the new San Diego airport proposals alone total up to about 31 billion dollars.
Doing some googling on that latter led to an interesting tidbit: 2/3rds of San Diego air cargo is trucked up to LAX and ONT due to capacity problems. If the ONT station is still expected to go ahead, there’s some potential for electric intermodal freight in phase 2 for increased revenues (at a lower speed almost certainly, but there might be some potential for getting private investment from BNSF perhaps to partner up on that segment).
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 9:29 am
Also, listening to the earlier show, I think those might be a wee bit longer than they’re interested in having.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 10:33 am
And looks like Jeff Barker is the only one to be talked to, so I’m not going to call in myself.
Not many seem to consider the economic benefits of having a high-speed rail. If people were able to take a 2 hour train ride from SF to LA or vice versa, imagine how many more people would take a day trip to either city and the incremental spend. You could catch a Giants game, shop, and return to LA in the same day without having to go through airport hell. How many cars would it take off over-trafficed roads. It’s. time for the US to catch up to what other, more advanced societies have been doing for 50 years.
Jerry Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 4:34 pm
You are absolutely correct Jmcmanus. In the meantime it still takes eleven (11) hours to go by passenger train from San Jose to Los Angeles.
VBobier Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 4:35 pm
Or even to be able to go from LA to Sacramento to see a Lakers game against the Kings and vice versa.
wu ming Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 10:15 pm
if the kings stay in sac that long. otherwise, it’d be a commuter rail trip.
I hope Van Ark takes this opportunity to finally give a good answer to the criticism that we don’t have the money to do the whole project. Not a generic answer like “big projects never have all the money when they start,” but instead a specific answer that shows that he has a plan that responds to the various scenarios in which federal and private money might come in various amounts at different times. I’m confident that he has an answer, but I haven’t yet heard it and the criticism (that the money isn’t there) keeps coming back.
VBobier Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 10:25 am
Umm, Congress needs to fix the DOT’s outdated $5 Billion limit for projects that needs to be raised and for those in power to stop listening to BIG Oil Terrorists… But then loony Republicans in Congress are delusional and only want to hurt ordinary people and help Millionaires and Billionaires even when Millionaires and Billionaires do not want said help on taxes…
Mike Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 12:06 pm
Okay, I get that we all want to score our points on the opposition (whoever each of us interpret that to be), but this is not a helpful response. There is a criticism that keeps coming up. It is a legitimate criticism. There is a sound answer to the criticism. Van Ark needs to say how Van Ark will deal with the issue, and it needs to cover the various scenarios including “Congress opens up the money spigot” and “Congress resolves to never mention the words High, Speed, and Rail in the same sentence again.” Saying that the solution is that Congress does (fill in the blank) is not a sound or useful answer; it is just posturing and dreaming.
joe Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 1:42 am
Mike;
Where are we going to get the money for non-HSR alternatives – like adding airport capacity, widening highways or repairing the roads?
Van Ark needs to to answer questions for which there is no answer alternatives or consequence for not acting. It’s a impossible position. Since there are real costs for NOT doing HSR, our infrastructure problems require the naysayers to demonstrate how delaying or not building HSR will solve one problem.
When one side doesn’t have to solve the hard problem – it isn’t a debate.
Mike Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Well, even if I agreed 100% with you, what matters is what is believed in the court of public/political opinion. And in this venue, to say “it doesn’t matter that we don’t know where the rest of the money comes from because we’d have the same problem if we didn’t do high speed rail” just doesn’t fly. Maybe Van Ark and friends could work hard to explain that position and could get traction with it — but I doubt it, because it’s a pretty sophisticated argument for a populace and political class who can’t even understand that tax cuts and improved public services are incompatible.
Anyways, it’s not even necessary to try to make such a challenging argument. As I said, I am confident that Van Ark can explain, in clear and simple language, what we’ll get in different funding scenarios. It’s not like he doesn’t have the answer; he even gives the answer in bits and pieces. He just hasn’t packaged it together and deployed it as a solid answer to the “you don’t have the money” criticism. Maybe he’s saving it up for the October business plan.
joe Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 2:33 pm
“Well, even if I agreed 100% with you, what matters is what is believed in the court of public/political opinion. ”
In my court the naysayers must account for the high cost of doing nothing. So I reject the constraints on how Van Ark and CAHSR have to engage the public. It’s going to cost CA 100B if we don’t build HSR and piece meal-build out our roads. There’s no source for that money either so let’s debate the merits of adding efficient rail to our infrastructure.
Critics say Van Ark and CA don’t having the the money for finishing HSR – we NEVER had the money or said we needed it to start. We elected to create a Build as You Pay system.
So I wouldn’t debate where the funding will come fact without reminding the public that the funding model is a elected feature of the project – a feature the public voted to create with the Prop 1A funding.
We created HSR and then the Feds unexpectedly sent billions for CA to start building ASAP. It’s working.
LAO estimate used same methodology as CAARD apparently, just multiplying initial estimate by what was in the proposal for the Feds.
Caltrain’s high-speed rail tab raises red flag
Robert Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 11:44 am
This hardly seems like a dispute. Caltrain probably just billed for whatever they could to link to HSR, not knowing specifically for what they could get reimbursed. it doesn’t really seem like a big deal to me to find out what they can get paid for by ‘testing the water.’
Jeff Barker (apparently van Ark couldn’t be there?) is kicking ass on it.
Arthur Dent Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 10:42 am
Van Ark predictably bailed – that much is clear. He (or his handlers) have a habit of sending others in to take the hot seat in his place.
Jack Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 11:28 am
CEO on a Monday, it’s his secretary ( does he even have one) that failed, you never schedule interviews on a Monday.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 11:02 am
Barker usually does a great job at these things. And good to hear he held his own against 3 opponents. (I couldn’t listen live, unfortunately.)
morris brown Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Jeff Barker hardly kicked any asses. Lowenthal really got out after him, when he stated the flat out lie, that “all high speed rails systems make money world over”
Lowenthal then proceeded to name off a number of systems where this isn’t true. The true facts are that only the Japanese system (line from Tokyo to Osaka), performs at a profit. How many times is this falsehood going to be repeated?
Diane Harkey really scored many points. She knows her stuff.
Barker keeps talking about how the Central Valley is where to start, and he added that it wasn’t the Fed’s decision but the Authority’s also, is amazing.
In point of fact, the Authority’s board wanted to start in 4 locations, of which the Central Valley certainly wasn’t the most favored. Apparently, vanArk bolted from the Board when he recommended also that the Central Valley be started first.
Kurt Pringle back in Jan 2010, made a big deal of saying that whatever they started, would have useful independent utility. That’s when the board wanted either LA to Anaheim or SF to San Jose to go first. Well, pray tell, surely nobody is going to tell me the Valley needs a redundant second set of tracks, that is really needed, and that if HSR never goes further, these tracks will prove at all useful. Spend $6 billion and continue to say this is a good expenditure, even if the project can’t get funds to go further?
Want to view more local opposition in the Central valley look at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwXqIpViy1U
Joey Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 1:06 pm
flat out lie, that “all high speed rails systems make money world over”
Counterexample? I know the javelins loose money, but they function as a commuter service, not intercity. And SNCF (and I’m sure other operators) loose money, but that’s because their slow lines cost more money than their high-speed services make.
thatbruce Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Loose money is required to build the systems, lose money is what some people mistakenly think they do.
Joey Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Right. Sometimes I forget because nothing else is held to this standard.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Are you really going to make me waste time finding the link from TTP in which SNCF complains that 1 TGV in 5 loses money?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 1:08 pm
I would be highly interested in that link.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 4:00 am
http://www.blogencommun.fr/2010-01-tgv-les-lignes-pas-rentables-pourraient-etre-supprimees/
morris brown Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 7:08 am
http://www.blogencommun.fr/2010-01-tgv-les-lignes-pas-rentables-pourraient-etre-supprimees/
Translated into English for those of us that don’t read French:
————-
(google translate)
French – detected to English translation
SNCF plans to remove TGV lines by late 2010, reason: not profitable! Les Echos reports that the station is preparing a redesign of its TGV network.
On some destinations, this consolidation would involve the removal or reduction of frequency on some TGV lines.
Among these changes, the Paris-Arras, Lille, Strasbourg and Nantes-Strasbourg would be affected.
1 of 5 TGV currently lose money, but the SNCF would consider her decision final by spring 2010.
President Guillaume Pepy announced in late September that the station would show losses throughout fiscal 2009
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 7:11 am
Good, then I guess we will see the closure of money-losing roads here.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 8:17 am
Two defects in translation, one small and one large: the third paragraph should include the word “lines” somewhere. And, more importantly for you, the last paragraph should read “SNCF would show losses throughout fiscal 2009.” This is a one-off thing – in the wake of open access rules, France is doing such rent-seeking moves as hiking track access fees in order to make sure the profits are concentrated in state-owned RFF rather than distributed between SNCF and potential competitors.
Andre Peretti Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 9:56 am
And keep in mind that SNCF does what all corporations do: show losses and hide profits to reduce tax.
Even state-owned as it is, it sometimes treads the fine line separating tax avoidance from tax evasion.
There was even a scandal when it was discovered it had a branch called “Rail Consultants Ltd” headquartered in the Isle of Man, the sort of place the French call a “paradis fiscal”.
Andre Peretti Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 9:43 am
2009 was the worst year for the SNCF. I put a link to the 2010 results further down this page for updated info.
Stations are owned by SNCF, not RFF. Since 2010 their results are published separately in the “Gares et connexions” branch. In 2010 they were the most profitable branch with a 15.4% profit.
Profits are created by renting commercial space and fees payed by other companies (including taxis and buses) for access to the stations.
Selecting the worst year of operation doen’t seem to be very honest.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
“Selecting the worst year of operation doen’t seem to be very honest.” I wonder what the operating profit of US airlines net of government operating subsidy (which is routinely provided whenever the ticket tax less money appropriated for cap works does not cover FAA ops) would be in 2009?
Andy M. Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 2:12 am
It seems to me there is some confusion here between TGV services and high speed lines. The fact that a TGV train works a given service does not automatically qualify it as a high speed service.
Andre Peretti Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 6:54 pm
And it might not even be true that 1 TGV in 5 loses money. It’s probably the SNCF putting pressure on the state which it accuses of taking the TGV for a cash cow.
Contrary to Amtrak which hypes any profit it makes, the SNCF always insists on the money it loses, blaming the state for obliging it to run costly services while failing to pay its share.
Next year, the state may disengage itself totally. If a bill currently discussed in parliament is voted into law, the TER (regional express) network will be open to competition. That will make operating subsidies illegal, which won’t be a great change. The real change will be the end of SNCF’s monopoly.
So much for the American invention of “heavily subsidized” trains in “socialist” Europe.
wu ming Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 1:08 pm
are you and lowenthal still trying to claim that only paying back the entire price of constructing the system counts as “profit”? every HSR system in the world (and even the not-quite-HSR acela) run operating surpluses.
Jack Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Yep
Derek Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Not Taiwan, not yet.
Joey Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 4:37 pm
I thought they were covering their operating expenses…
political_incorrectness Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 4:38 pm
*BUZZ* Try again! http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/06/taiwan-hsr-generates-operating-profit/
Derek Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Well, that’s good news. Then I guess it’s the only HSR system in the world that’s losing money, overall, on HSR. http://www.railpac.org/2011/05/09/where-are-all-those-bankrupt-high-speed-rail-countries/
Joey Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 5:35 pm
The issue with Taiwan is that it was built almost exclusively with private loans. When the system didn’t generate enough surplus to pay back those loans, the government had to bail them out.
StevieB Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 6:36 pm
Taiwan not making an operating profit is a lie told by Sen. Lowenthal on the show. Although the private investors borrowed money at too high an interest rate and went broke the system now operates at a profit.
tony d. Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 4:19 pm
Are any of the California freeways built over the past two decades profitable? Just curious.
VBobier Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Nope.
Nathanael Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 12:13 am
Not even the toll roads, I suspect.
Nathanael Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 12:14 am
(I’m not saying toll roads *couldn’t* be profitable, but in this case they’re redundant to and parallel to free freeways, so they didn’t have much of a chance.)
Peter Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Are any of the California freeways built in the past 5 decades profitable. I’d wager a guess at … no.
datacruncher Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Such interest and concern about the Central Valley being expressed by outside-of-the-region opponents.
Do you also express such concern about the CV on issues such as its need for jobs, lack of a fair share of govt funds for various programs, etc? Probably not.
joe Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 7:17 pm
We have common interests, apparently a novel concept that people with common interests band together for mutual benefit. Since I am a CA resident, how is my concern for Californians sharing common infrastructure an outside interest?
datacruncher Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 7:41 pm
Because it is a very rare thing. Most of the time coastal Californians ignore the Central Valley, pretending it is not even part of the state. But many of its issues receive little interest from those outside the region even though it is part of the state. Shouldn’t Californians band together to help the Central Valley on other issues too since the region also consists of Californians?
joe Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 8:18 pm
We should band together. Labeling CAHSR a “Train to Nowhere” is an insult to the State. the CV is CA.
Morris is just searching the web for like Minded NIMBYs and those mislead by the sensationalism surrounding the project.
VBobier Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 10:39 pm
Yep the CV is CA & It has a population of 4 Million people, Hardly Nowhere, Heck there is even a town on the map by the name of Pixley, But no Junction. With 4 Million people & of course Farmers crops no wonder the CA SR99 having problems, Some unqualified armchair engineers still want a 101 alignment, Regardless of being practical or not & some still want an I5 alignment as they think this would placate Farmers, Farmers want easy access to their crops & to water, Give them both, stick to It & buy only as much land as is needed at a fair price & the Farmers will not oppose this, They are Farmers, Crops and Water are important & access to both is very important, without easy access(driving for miles out of their way to get to their crops or water is not what Farmers want), costs go up & Farmers like to keep costs down to keep their profits such as they are up, As they are only the 1st step in the food chain to the super market, As just like everyone else Farmers have bills & such to pay for, Just like everyone else does, But then they aren’t all rich. Also the project is better served by going as close to the route that serves the CV cities as possible to avoid as much farm land as possible and to be as straight as possible, As HSR through existing populated areas won’t be fast enough to test HSR trains to their design specs to make sure that prop 1a is met, Only the CV can do that, LA can’t and SJ to SF can’t, Nor can mountains or Deserts be a Test Track, HSR is high speed when and only when the ROW is exceptionally straight and curves are broad and gradual, ROW that was originally laid out in the 19th Century can only do so much without alteration as some things just can not be done at high speed, Like going very fast around a tight curve, Maybe an automobile can do that, But a train is many times heavier than an automobile. In any case the CHSRA is talking about 125 mph in the Cities of CA and 220 mph in the CV area. One guy even talked about doing Maglev as that has really fallen out of favor these days, So Maglev is not going to be done.
thatbruce Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 5:32 pm
@morris brown:
In this context, what is your definition of ‘profit’ ?
If you are citing high-speed systems that do not operate at a profit, please indicate where they lose money, for example, subsidizing a non-high-speed commuter operation, or running government-mandated routes elsewhere in the system.
@robert: morris does have a point, in that every time this falsehood (the one about most HSR systems not able to run at a profit) appears, there is no quick link to profit and loss statements for HSR lines (as distinct from systems which merely run a HSR line as part of their larger operations). Can a suitable glossary entry or blog post be done to cover this?
Alon Levy Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 4:05 am
Seconded, especially the part addressed to Robert. In fact I see the “Trains never make money” trope often enough I might soon do a post myself, covering both HSR and local transit.
Andre Peretti Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 7:18 am
“profit and loss statements for HSR lines (as distinct from systems which merely run a HSR line as part of their larger operations)”.
The SNCF publishes no separate results for TGV, but only for its “Voyages” branch which includes non-high-speed trains and the 55% of Eurostar it owns.
Here are SNCF detailed results for 2010:
SNCF 2010 results
As the report is in French and rather lengthy, I’ll select a few features.
Groupe SNCF as a whole had a turnover of €30.5 billion. Profit margin: 7.1% of turnover.
Among the charges: personnel: €12.35bn. Tolls: €3.7bn. Energy (electricity+fuel): 1.07bn. Tax: €1.07bn. (You can observe, whatever Mr Morris may invent, that SNCF subsidizes the state with taxes and toll, and not the reverse. It services its debt on its own funds, with no state intervention.
Results of Voyages branch (which includes TGV):
Turnover: €7.217bn. Profit margin: 12% of turnover.
These figures would make an airline owner salivate. In fact, if SNCF shares were floated on the stock exchange investors would line up to buy. Of course, unions will never allow it.
S&P (but not the other agencies) recently downgraded it from AAA to AA+. The reason given was that the announced competition of DB will oblige it to reduce its profit margin.
Maybe you’d be interested to know the composition of the SNCF’s board.
There are 18 members.
7 (including CEO) represent the state. They are high-ranking officials from various ministries.
5 are transport specialists appointed by regional agencies.
6 are elected by the employees.
Mandates last 5 years. The CEO is elected by the board but must have government approval, which may lead to long negotiations. The current CEO, Guillaume Pepy, was previously president of Eurostar.
Numbers are not a clear indication of members’ respective power. For instance, employees seem to be outnumbered but they have the huge weight of the unions behind them.
thatbruce Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 9:59 am
Thankyou for that. The lack of a separate breakdown for the HSR operations seems to be par for the course, as Amtrak seems to do the same thing.
Andre Peretti Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
As many non-high-speed lines just break even, you may safely assume that the TGV’s profit margin is higher than the 12% made by the Voyages branch as a whole.
The unions are said to have voted against the TGV being treated as a separate branch because it would make it too easy to privatize.
Nathanael Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 12:12 am
Morris, why do you lie? Fact: High speed rail systems do make money, the world over.
Here’s mine “is it really worth showing up to the airport 2 hours early, going through the security hassle, crossing fingers that the fog in SF won’t delay your flight for another hour, boarding 30 min before departure, spending 10-15 taxi-ing on the runway for takeoff, all for a 45 minute flight between LA and SF?”
Just heard Jeff Barker on NPR up against three HSR critics. Well done! Please know that there is a large number of us Californians who support the project and can’t wait to hop on board our state’s very own high-speed rail. Keep up the good fight!
J. Wong Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 2:00 pm
It wasn’t exactly 3 against 1 since the three opponents weren’t all a on at the same time. Still Barker stayed calm and collected and argued and responded well.
VBobier Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 9:06 pm
October 2011(reporting to the legislature for engineering, financing plans, detailed information about this 1st section[SF to LA], as is required by prop 1a[a Goal Post according to the KQED Public Radio announcer]) & January 2012(reporting to the legislature on all aspects of the project that’s done every couple of years) were according to Jeff Barker, two very important dates for HSR in CA. Diane Harkey of course is a Republican from Orange County CA, No matter what is done, She said She’d be against the Project, What a surprise. Van Ark picked a very capable subordinate in Jeff Barker and He handled the task with ease. Jeff also mentioned that as to money that the CHSRA is a bit ahead of the game in the money department, At least farther along then they’d originally thought & that more money will come in the future, Also that people in the Central Valley have to drive for as long as 5 or 6 hours to get to either LA or SF as there is no air service like in LA or SF, So HSR can pick them up in the Central Valley and Deposit them where they want to go or vice versa, From LA/SF to the Central Valley.
Alan Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Wish I’d known about this sooner…could have asked Harkey about her idiotic comment, labeling HSR as “cultural genocide”…
The full “Is There a Future for High-Speed Rail?” show is available on the KQED Forum Website now as an MP3.
once they get the HSR system built, and the leg up to sac completed, i will never have to fly or drive to LA again.
synonymouse Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 2:09 pm
That is if you can afford the ticket. Are you willing to subvent 8 weeks of vacation for the Amalgamated’s or TWU’s – that’s what Jerry’s giving the prison guards.
Seriously, if you want hsr to Sac expeditiously your only hope is dumping Pacheco and getting back to Altamont.
J. Wong Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 2:24 pm
The ticket prices will be no higher than the equivalent cheapest air fare. Everyone always claims it’s so cheap to fly from SFO to LAX while failing to note that those are very limited fares at very limited times.
political_incorrectness Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Exactly, once fuel costs double, it would be idiodic to keep fares the way they are now unless the airlines can subsidize the route, but I doubt that could happen.
Derek Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 4:18 pm
The overall average one way fare from SFO to LAX is $145.58. Yes, if you book far enough ahead, you can get airfares for $69.70 (including taxes and fees).
If HSR fares are set at 85% of average airfares, then the ticket price for that trip will be $123.74.
Spokker Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 10:34 pm
Southwest and Jet Blue will be charging $80 by the fall.
wu ming Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 10:19 pm
fud, fud, fud, fud….
synonymouse Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 11:08 am
Not at all. The consultants, contractors, and unions are milking the system mercilessly.
Interestingly no one has brought up the most important transport story of today, that is BART is so broke that it is going to try to gouge property owners in 3 counties with a tax increase to pay for new cars. NO mention of raising fares or cutting compensation packages.
Bloated payroll, underutilized branches, Bechtel proprietary eccentritech sabotage that has driven up the cost of everything, incompetent, politicized management. Is the Dugger fiasco FUD?
When the hsr cadres start talking up the hsr being profitable, all the public has to do is look at the BART ongoing comedy of errors. The hsr is going to require an operating subsidy – the best one do is adopt the fastest and most direct routes and try to keep the unions and their crooked political allies at bay.
wu ming Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 11:27 am
1) BART IS NOT HSR
2) you might not know this, but they have unions in europe and japan, and their pay/benefits tend to be far better than here in america. they even have corrupt, well-connected construction interests that love pouring concrete. and yet they all run HSR systems at an operating profit. why? because HSR trains make a profit, unlike commuter transit. which you know, because you invariably change the subject to talk about BART because there are no examples of HSR systems needing operating subsidies.
synonymouse Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 11:45 am
No one is going to take off-shore examples seriously when they have a case in point in your face. The Pelosi-Burton patronage machine created the CHSRA – BART is the previous and pet creation of said patronage machine – ergo BART is the template for the hsr.
And the lineage is obvious: same house consultant, same predilection for the bizarro, the eccentric, the politically connected, the over-built. Boondoggle, baby, boondoggle.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 11:48 am
Which is why Acela is a wonderful counterexample.
synonymouse Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 11:53 am
Yeah, an Acela that serves the bustling metropolises of Borden, Corcoran and Mojave but snubs the state capital, conurbation pop. 3 million.
Thanx, Quentin and Rod. Rizzo to replace Dugger. Who needs the rapture.
thatbruce Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Indeed. Its completely terrible that the state Capital hasn’t made it out of phase 2, staying there in favor of constructing, with federal monies no less, the essential core of the system’s first phase, without which no significant revenue operations are possible.
Sure, that population of 2,927,123 will just have to wait until a proven operation is put forward. It’s just tragic that a lesser population of 2,966,035 will be the first ones to utilize the system. It’s simply terrible that plans are in place to provide passenger service from Merced (241706) over existing lines, then new track through Fresno (1002284), near Visalia (410874) and back to existing track to Bakersfield (827173). All those insignificant cities benefiting from that new construction, the related jobs and seeing that new technology just makes me cry, cry out loud for those poor souls in the greater Sacramento area, laboring under the blight of the 9th busiest transit system in the US. It’s also tragic that such a small number of intercity trains stop there, just 32, barely enough to make the Capitol Corridor the 4th busiest route in the Amtrak system.
ahem.
I’m not sure where Mojave comes into play, but since you’re happy to mention it as an insignificant area, I’m happy to also add the Palmdale/Lancaster census area (483998) to the total of 2,966,035, a number which you might have noticed is just higher than that in the Sacramento conurbation.
synonymouse Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
Palmdale is off-route. It is LA regional’s baby. LA has plenty of money to pay for its own version of BART.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 6:53 am
You cannot reasonably argue population should rule and also argue that SF/LA should be late than Sac/LA ~ they are contradictory positions.
It’s unfair to call this “Unbalanced” since although it was three anit-HSR critics, they were not all on at the same time, and of them, only Harkey came off as being totally against HSR no matter what, which is what the moderator got her to admit. On the whole, it came off fairly balanced and Barker did a good job defending HSR and the future of HSR. Also, the e-mail’s and callers were balanced between critics and supporters as well.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 4:26 pm
Did you notice anyone from here?? I can never attend or would be able to listen to this and call in at work ..its far too busy.I have only been able to attend one evening open house they had about a year ago
Nadia Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Daniel Krause from CA4HSR spoke
VBobier Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 6:15 pm
It’s too bad this isn’t on YouTube, If It is, Someone find It and post a link here, We’re curious.
OT and just FYI: Robert already lamented Stanford Professor Richard White’s anti-HSR op-ed in the NY Times in “Richard White’s Flawed Attack on HSR. However, I just noticed Gilroy Patch has a May 9 Q&A interview (“What History Tells Us About High-Speed Rail“) with White in which he further details his views.
VBobier Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 6:24 pm
He’s a liar and a Farce.
joe Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 7:22 pm
Good to know, I’m a resident.
This comment by a historian, someone unequipped to speak on economic or environmental terms, is patently false and proven so by a recent economic study on HSR’s economic benefits:
“Patch: Especially in places such as Gilroy, where the train will make a stop, I’ve heard the argument made that local jobs will be created and more of a downtown area will be formed.
White: Well, think about this: Who’s gonna get on the train in Gilroy? [laughs] People in Gilroy might take a train to San Francisco, they might take it to Los Angeles, but as I understand it, you have to go at least 200 miles to make this really efficient, more efficient than cars. “
BruceMcF Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 9:39 pm
Is it that he doesn’t know SF/LA is over 200miles, or doesn’t understand the difference between a corridor and an individual trip?
wu ming Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 10:20 pm
doesn’t care, more likely.
joe Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 1:36 am
He was mocking Gilroy and the benefit to Gilroy of being 80 miles from SF on s HSR line.
The HSR rail benefit is only realized for distances over 200 miles. It’s apparently a historical fact – 200 miles. I suppose they 220 MPH trains and 70 MPH cars in the 1800′s and his historical knowledge about the transcontinental railroad gave him keen insight into HSR.
The UK HSR economic study proved him wrong. It also debunked his claim the economic benefit is temporary. The economic analysis is persistent and in Germany realized 4 years after completion.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 23rd, 2011 at 9:03 pm
Why am I so unimpressed with this guy?
This garbage of the transcontinentals being subsidized today? How long has it been since that old construction subsidy paid off in the reduced rates on government shipments? How many times did it get paid off (I’ve estimates that the land grants cost about 8 or 9 times what they were worth to the railroads.) The railroads weren’t needed until 30 years after they were built? Does he have a clue as to how slow and expensive road travel was in the horse and wagon era?
Then there is the bit about how we might need something like the HSR system in 30 years or so. He apparently hasn’t taken note of the peak oil problem, and the fact that over half the oil consumed in this country is for motor fuel, making that the real cause of oil addiction.
Then he says we might have a different technology in 30 years. What does he imagine it being? He doesn’t say. If he’s talking about maglev or monorails or something, you still have a lot of the same problems that you do with conventional HSR. These include limits on curvature (set by passenger comfort), limits of grade (as much for coming down as going up, indeed more so), and of course a right-of-way.
The monorail people make me laugh whenever I see something from one of them, saying “It has less impact than conventional rail because you have this single rail that can be fitted into places you can’t put a train.” Excuse me, your butt doesn’t get skinnier just because the track does. A full-sized monorail car–four seats abreast and a passageway–is going to be about 10 feet wide, just like regular equipment, because you have to built that around people, and the size of people doesn’t change that much. You will still need the clearances for a car of that size.
Then there is maintenance of the fixed structure, which will include (depending on materials chosen) attention to corrosion from rain, attention to spalling or freezing action, attention to keeping trees from growing into the light path of your right-of-way, etc., all things that a railroad has, and a good deal that it doesn’t (most track is laid on the ground, so you don’t normally have miles and miles of continuous viaduct to take care of).
And this guy is a historian? Historian of what? Certainly nothing involved in engineering.
And how many of you noticed that he said HSR systems could pay of construction costs, but had trouble paying their operational costs?
Where’s some aspirin? Oh, the pain, the pain. . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4HLHuS3hkw
Even in an older form, Simon sounds better than White, and looks better, too. . .
Alon Levy Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 4:09 am
Ouch. The guy is quoting carbon savings numbers from “Cal Berkeley” (read: Mikhail Chester’s unit conversion errors and lack of an estimate on traffic) and saying that people will “drive from Palo Alto to San Francisco” (did the Redwood City station get dropped?).
Signs going up in the Central valley.
http://ccin.menlopark.org:81/8040.html
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 8:13 am
I’m suspicious. Someone is paying for those. Why?
YesonHSR Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 8:41 am
AND WHO paid for those?? A group of NIMBYSs from the Bay Area in Burlingame and one of the worst ones to spreading fear and doom everywhere.. what should be done is put signs right next to their signs from the Valley residents and Californians that back high-speed rail…. donating money brown??
datacruncher Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 9:47 am
A WHOIS search of the website on the signs brings up the website owner’s name, he is also one one of the biggest Peninsula HSR opponents.
Again, smells like Peninsula carpetbaggers to me.
Nathanael Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 12:18 am
Thanks for doing the basic research. Disgusting to see.
Alex M. Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 8:45 am
“Lemon?” Are they serious? They’re opposed to HSR because the trains will be lemons?
Ken Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 9:46 am
Pro-HSR advocates should put up a sign right next to it that reads “that’s right, HSR freight can also carry lemons too!” with a $ sign of cost savings of transporting lemons on the big rig truck vs the hypothetical freight HSR.
That should shut them up. LOL
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 9:56 am
HSR isn’t going to be shipping agricultural products. Any freight is going to be parcels or other low density items.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 11:01 am
And unless they build a freight siding into UPS or FedEx’s hub it’s not fast enough.
Ken Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
HSR plans to build rail stations directly at SFO and Ontario; they could become freight rail-to-air hubs. I believe FedEx already uses Ontario anyway.
LA Union Sta. is the main freight rail hub too so freight HSR, if possible, can work in transporting agricultural products from the Central Valley to SoCal at a fraction of the cost of big rigging them.
I’m sure something could be figured out that benefits both Central Valley and SoCal in terms of transporting agriculture and commerce over HSR.
Joey Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Where HSR passenger stations are located is irrelevant. Freight terminals would likely have to be separate anyway, and much closer to the actual air freight terminals than the passenger stations (especially Millbrae, which is quite far a way from the airport itself). The same holds true for LAUS as the elevated station would be poor for unloading and loading freight onto local transportation (you also need some sort of buffer in between, i.e. some warehouse space). You really need dedicated facilities.
Andre Peretti Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
You might be interested in a European high-speed freight rail project. Here’s the link:
EURO CAREX high-speed freight
The idea was first developped by Fedex and La Poste (French postal service) who have long been partners. They already use TGV trains but the cars are just seatless TGV cars which don’t allow fast loading and unloading of air-freight containers. CAREX will use cars specially built for that use by Alstom or Siemens.
The program has been delayed by lobbying by some German firms who are not too happy to see Fedex set foot in Germany. The reason:
Fedex has its European hub at Roissy (Paris CDG airport). Freight arriving there on B-747s is then transferred on smaller planes to final destinations. The obstacle is airport curfew, very strict in Germany, which prevents night-time landing and takeoff. It is costly for Fedex because planes are kept idle for hours and delivery is delayed. Thus, high speed freight trains would be far more efficient and allow faster delivery since they have no curfew to respect. The problem is that DHL, which has near-monopoly in Germany isn’t too keen on seeing Fedex penetrate its market.
Negotiations with the Germans are under way and Fedex and La Poste think operation will probably start in 2012, at least for London and Amsterdam. Trains won’t go any farther than London because of the British narrow loading gauge.
thatbruce Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 10:12 am
Citroën is bidding to make them? Their cars are decent enough, but trains? Maybe?
wu ming Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 11:23 am
because two banners stretched over a parked truck on a single landowner’s property are more reflective of central valley public opinion than an election.
http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_18126706
LaMalfa investigates High Speed Rail Authority’s use of money for lobbying
and a similar story in the PA Daily Post (not on the internet) — I copy it below.
———–
Daily Post 5-24-2011 Page 8
HSR investigated over spending on lobbyists
A California lawmaker has launched an investigation into lobbying by the High-Speed Rail Authority, saying it overstepped its bounds by hiring federal lobbyists on its behalf.
Yesterday’s announcement by state Sen. Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, follows a story by the Sacramento Bee reporting that the authority has been paying two federal lobbyists, a Republican and a Democrat.
$100,000 paid out
The Democrat, Mark Kadesh, had served for seven years as chief of staff to Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein. He was hired in June 2007, according to the Bee. Last year, he was paid $100,000 by the rail authority.
The Republican lobbyist, Drew Maloney, was just hired this year. The rail authority paid his firm, Ogilvy Government Relations, $30,000 during the first three months of this year, the Bee reported.
LaMalfa yesterday called the expenditures “outrageous.”
“I will be conducting a full inquiry to determine the source of the funds spent on this federal lobbying effort,” said LaMalfa. “Use of federal funds for lobbying may violate legal restrictions, while using borrowed bond dollars to do so may also be illegal and is inappropriate, at the very least.”
Scathing report
LaMalfa said that since 2009, all funds spent by rail authority have been bond funds or federal funds. Earlier this month, the Legislative Analyst’s Office issued a scathing report on the project, citing poor management and predicting major cost overruns. LaMalfa has authored Senate Bill 22, which would put a hold on the issuance of any further state bonds until a true accounting of the project’s costs is avai Table.
The rail authority defends the hires by saying it is important to have representation in Washington since the authority is seeking federal funds.
“With the Federal Railway Administration being our major project and funding partner, we think it important to have representation in D.C. to interface with the administration and with members of Congress,” Jeff Barker, the high-speed rail authority’s deputy executive director, told the Bee.
So far, the Obama administration has provided California nearly $3.5 billion for a high-speed rail system whose initial route would stretch from Bakersfield to near Chowchilla
datacruncher Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
“while using borrowed bond dollars to do so may also be illegal and is inappropriate, at the very least.”
The State of California has long had lobbyists in DC pushing the state’s interests at the federal level.
California has also been issuing bonds to balance the state budget.
Has anyone investigated to ensure that the state wasn’t paying its DC lobbyists with the borrowed bond dollars used to balance the budget?
Alan Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
“LaMalfa said that since 2009, all funds spent by rail authority have been bond funds or federal funds.”
Really? What has CHSRA been doing with their appropriated funds, hiding them in a mattress?
Typical Rethuglican liar…
Matt in SF Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
*newsflash* Governors, mayors, elected officials everywhere go and lobby the Federal government for funding. Perhaps we should all be outraged and launch an immediate investigation. Disgusting! Sen LaMalfa is courageous in that he eschews getting paid for his work and applying for federal dollars from programs that are there to assist states. What a hero.
Morris Brown
If people don’t want HSR in CA, they are free to move to AZ.
What’s keeping them here if they don’t like how things are going in CA? Really, I have a hard time understanding this. Why cling on to something and be so stressed about it when all y’all have to do is move?
Alan Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Also consider that at least three of the loudest opponents are likely to be dead and buried before construction is even half finished. Why the h*** do they care? Why do they insult the intelligence of the public by repeating the same lies over and over?