SF Chronicle Recognizes Need to Continue Ahead with HSR
Obviously this is “LAO report reaction week” here on the California High Speed Rail Blog. That’s out of necessity, given the impact of this report. And it’s good to see that there’s one paper out there that kind of, sort of, gets it:
But dumping high-speed rail would be a myopic mistake, and the report stopped well short of recommending cancellation. The underlying reasons for the project remain sound: It will save highway and airport money, power the state’s economy and safeguard the environment. Fix it, don’t forget it.
That’s the spirit. I disagree strongly with some of the things they say about the project and the LAO report, but I can work with this kind of attitude. Clearly the San Francisco Chronicle wants to get the project done right. This blog does too. So let’s help them out.
But the LAO did identify issues that must be addressed. For starters, the estimated $43 billion cost will surely rise.
Probably, yeah. BART’s costs rose dramatically, but as a result of the Vietnam War-induced inflation that hit the US in the late 1960s. The state legislature allowed the BART district to raise taxes to cover the shortfall and the project continued ahead. Who knows what will happen to construction costs in the next decade, but it would be good for California and Congress to figure out how cost overruns will be paid.
State voters approved $9 billion in bonds and Washington is promising up to $19 billion. Can federal sources be depended on to come through, or will train riders be socked with sky-high ticket prices that will leave seats empty?
That’s a good question. We absolutely don’t want sky-high prices; tickets should be as low as possible (and, ideally, subsidized). While the federal situation currently looks dire, keep in mind that political fortunes can change rapidly. This time in 2009, the Democrats looked set to have Congressional majorities for some years to come. While Republicans have retaken the House and caused havoc, especially with federal HSR funding, we should not expect them to stay for long. Democrats have pulled ahead in the generic House ballot polling, a key indicator of possible Democratic recovery of the House in 2012. If Nancy Pelosi becomes speaker again, HSR might be in much better federal shape in a short period of time.
The Chronicle goes a bit wayward when discussing the Central Valley:
Another issue is a deadline to begin work. Under a federal agreement, the rail project is due to begin a 140-mile stretch in a sparsely-populated part of the Central Valley next year. The report reasonably argues that this start date be lifted to avoid the “train to nowhere” hurry-up project.
Excuse me while I go bang my head against the wall.
The Central Valley is not nowhere. Both of those “sparsely populated” cities that the Central Valley segment will serve – Bakersfield and Fresno – have metropolitan populations that are larger than the City and County of San Francisco.
I’m happy that the Chronicle wants to keep HSR going, but do they actually read? What will it take for these newspaper editorials boards to stop lying – and yes, it is absolutely a lie – that the Central Valley segment is a “train to nowhere”?
As to the stimulus funding deadline, Congressman Jim Costa indicated that isn’t likely to be relaxed. Nor should it be. We don’t have time to waste, especially as gas prices keep rising.
They also addressed the governance questions:
Less dramatic than money and steel rails is the overall governance of the project. The review said the largely autonomous agency is “too weak” to handle the task. A better idea would be folding the project into Caltrans, the state highway-building agency that could lend its skills at contracts, land buys and community relations.
Of course, as we’ve said before, there’s no reason why the Authority simply can’t contract with Caltrans for those services where appropriate. Caltrans has no real experience building a big rail project, so they’re not exactly a good home for the Authority.
But if the Chronicle is serious about fixing whatever it is might need to be fixed with the HSR project (and I don’t think it’s as much as the Chronicle believes) then they should at least be open to sensible discussion, based on facts, about ensuring the project gets built.
Although it would be nice if they dropped the “train to nowhere” nonsense.
For the SF Chronicle to publish an editorial like this, which certainly points out many of the problems with the project, shows everyone just how much positions have changed with regards the project.
In 2008 this paper would never have thought of sending out any negative criticism. SF voters were 80% in favor of the project. Obviously not so today. I am a bit shocked to read that now even Robert admits the $43 billion price tag will surely rise. So many of the predictions of the Reason report proving true.
The Chronicle bottom line, still saying the project should continue is wrong, but at least they look at the LAO and other reports and conclude drastic changes must be made.
Jack Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 11:08 pm
Even a loss is a win eh morris, the winds are always blowing your way…
VBobier Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 11:45 pm
Only problem is Morris sticks around like a Cat, Waiting for His Meow Mix…
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 6:34 pm
Nah, not Meow Mix, Morris goes in for 9 Lives:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_the_Cat
http://www.google.com/search?q=morris+the+cat&hl=en&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=fxXXTf26D8f30gHYhPyZBw&ved=0CCEQsAQ&biw=992&bih=615
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=morris+the+cat&aq=0&oq=morris+the+
Sorry, Morris, I couldn’t resist the temptation, the devil just made me do it. . .
VBobier Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 2:19 pm
No wonder I can’t find 9 Lives locally. :D
neville snark Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 5:19 am
“I am a bit shocked to read that now even Robert admits the $43 billion price tag will surely rise.”
– Me too. All those bridges, freeways etc, most of ‘em ran over their foreseen costs. Shouldn’t have been built.
Peter Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 6:36 am
Oh, right, because everyone who disagrees with you is wrong?
Hahaha, like their “numbers” that they themselves don’t know how they came up with? AKA “pulled out of their asses”.
Nothing else that Reason comes up with turns out to be true, why would this be any different?
YesonHSR Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 9:00 am
SF STILLS supports HSR by a vast amount…any comments in this article are Nimbys along Caltrain and the usual teabagger/rightwing commenters that havee no life and post on every article in SFgate
Why in the world would you think that other than some perverse fetish for subsidization?
Paul Dyson Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
Agreed. This blog has been fanatical in pursuit of the letter of 1A, including the 2hr 40 min end to end running time. So why suddenly are you selective about 1A and operating subsidies? If we can dump one provision, we can dump any of the others.
Emma Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
Here’s the right-wing argumentation again. You do know that subsidies would boost ridership? All countries began HSR by subsidizing the service. It was simple too expensive back then. But after the number of riders was high enough to make HSR self-sufficient, the slowly phased out subsidies up to the point where you don’t notice that the subsidies disappeared.
It’s not too hard of a concept to wrap your mind around.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 7:32 am
Golly, it’s almost like there might be conservative supporters of high speed rail or a need to help win others of them over.
Which is irrelevant. Higher numbers of ridership is irrelevant in and of itself. Show the business case that subsidization would bring in more revenue than it cost.
1. Citation needed.
2. Temporarily running a loss for the first few years is distinct from what Robert referred to.
Emma Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 9:24 am
You know, private enterprise has always used “subsidies.” They call them rebates. The whole concept is built on the economies of scale. Companies are willing to charge less for their services in hope the number of customers increases. Although the price would be lower, that enterprise would still be able to cover the cost of production.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
I don’t think you actually understand what a public subsidy is.
neville snark Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 10:00 am
Also: Don’t forget that driving is also ‘subsidised’, in the form of the maintenance of roads and bridges, etc. We don’t call it that, but our taxes pay for them all the same (to say nothing of construction costs, but leave that aside). We don’t expect the driver to pay for all the costs of what he is doing, rather we spread it around via taxation. Same thing with riding the trains (and the metro, and buses).
Rick Rong Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 10:50 am
It is an over-simplification to suggest that general tax revenues pay transportation costs. In fact, state and federal revenues used to pay for highway-related transportation costs (as opposed to local streets) appear to come in large part from fuel taxes. In other words, those who use state and federal highways pay “at the pump.” See the information at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/osp/ctp2025_files/ctp07.pdf See, also, figure 6 which, along with the text, suggests that state and federal highway expenditures come mainly from fuel-related taxes which can thus be considered user fees, while local street expenditures are financed by revenues generated by “across-the-board” forms of taxes.
I don’t know if there is anything more current, but the document, prepared by Caltrans, states:
“According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, in fiscal year 1999-00, California spent about
$15.5 billion in public funds on transportation. In addition, the private sector spends billions
of dollars to purchase and operate the vehicles that travel over the transportation network
and to build, operate, and maintain privately owned railroads, seaports, and airports. The
following provides a brief overview of public transportation fund sources and allocations.
32 Legislative Analyst’s Office, California Travels – Financing Our Transportation, May 2000.
“Transportation in California is funded from a variety of State, local, private, and federal fund
sources. State funds consist primarily of the State excise tax on gasoline and diesel fuels (18
cents per gallon) and truck weight fees. Federal funds consist mainly of the federal gasoline
and diesel fuel excise taxes. The main sources of local funding for transportation include local
sales tax measures for transportation, a one-quarter percent share of the State general sales
tax, and local general funds.”
Neville Snark Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
Yes of course you’re right. So – discounting the ‘costs’ of various subjective or hard to assess factors including parking and taxis or whatever – the issue boils down to (a) the cost of a journey on hsr + subsidies collected via taxes versus (b) the cost per journey for a car user including gas (which includes taxes) + subsidies collected via taxes. I’m presently in the UK and it is a real choice whether to drive or take the train; normally if it’s just me, it’s cheaper to take the train, whereas if more than me is involved, the train is cheaper.
Rick Rong Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
My point is that state and federal highways appear to be paid for with funds collected by the people who use them, as opposed to being subsidized from general public revenues. The fuel taxes are essentially user fees, which would be analogous to what a railroad passenger would pay when he buys a ticket to ride. Some money apparently is transferred to rail operations in order to make up the difference between fare box receipts and actual costs. I don’t know where that comes from. M.
Spokker Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
“My point is that state and federal highways appear to be paid for with funds collected by the people who use them”
Yes, it appears that way.
Appear, as in “gives the impression of being.”
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
An important difference to note is that fuel taxes–yes, a user fee for the motorist–at best covers only about 51% of the cost of the highway system. The rest is subsidized out of sales taxes, property taxes, etc.
What many of us here have an issue with is that the rail service is expected to pay for 100% of itself out of the user fee (ticket sales), which the highway system doesn’t do (in fact, rail cost recover ratios are typically in the 70% range, and sometimes considerably better). This is an example of a double standard, and an unrealistic expectation with the highway system getting what amounts to a near 50% discount. Fix that, and you fix the profitability problem for rail.
This is a problem that has been around for too long; this railroad-sponsored film on this subject goes back to the 1950s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElyERLwsV0c
VBobier Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
Very informative and that’s just what came from Illinois.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 9:06 pm
This is patent bullshit.
When I buy a bottle of wine, are the excise and sales taxes collected dedicated to building more wineries?
Of course not! So why should scandalously low taxes on some types of fossil fuel be deemed to be dedicated to construction and maintenance of some classes of roads, rather than flow into the general fund in the same was a every other sales tax (on meals, on computer hardware, on ciagarettes, on trains!!!!!!) does?
In any remotely — remotely! — rational world, punitively heavy leavies on CO2 emission, including but not limited to motor vehicle fuel, would function as Pigovian taxes and would be dedicated to countering their quite literally catastrophic side-effects.
Gasoline taxes are only a “user fee” because the roadway construction lobby magically legislatively decalres them to be so, not because this has even the remotest relation to objective economic reality.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 11:16 pm
This was an issue in the September 1947 edition of Trains. Founder and then-editor Al Kalmbach had an editorial post in that edition in which he argued that income taxes should be used to create more income, property taxes could be used to create more real estate, railroad taxes would be used for more railroads (naturally!)–and whiskey taxes would be used for more whiskey, too!
I’d bet there are some people here who would like all of those, and some especially that last one!
Rick Rong Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 1:16 am
“When I buy a bottle of wine, are the excise and sales taxes collected dedicated to building more wineries?”
Maybe not, but fuel taxes go into the Highway Users Tax Account to be spent for the purposes described in the following constitutional provision:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_19
mike Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 11:00 am
The question is not where the taxes are earmarked for – the earmarking itself doesn’t make them any more or less of a subsidy. The question is whether gasoline pays a higher total sales tax than other goods.
In California, the answer is yes, and the difference between the gas tax and the sales tax could legitimately be considered a user fee (though it amounts to only a small fraction of statewide road spending). But in other states, the answer is no. For example, in Texas gasoline is actually taxed at a lower rate than other goods. Ergo, there is no user fee in Texas…only a user subsidy!
Rick Rong Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 11:46 am
There are actually several taxes assessed on gasoline, and the same is true for diesel. The following link may help provide more clarity:
http://www.caltax.org/research/gastax.htm
Note the statement, “Fuel taxes have typically been viewed as similar to user fees, because they are correlated with the amount of road usage and are earmarked for transportation uses,” although it then goes on to discuss the impact of alternative fuels and increases in fuel efficiency.
Purchasers of motor vehicle fuel can get a refund of certain taxes imposed on the purchase of the fuel if it is used “off road.” I guess the idea is that the “user fee” concept does not apply to fuel used off the highway. (see http://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_gastax_faq_gen.html#sect2678)
There are federal and state excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, and apparently state and local sales taxes are added on top of them. (see http://laist.com/2008/06/12/californias_gas_tax_breakdown.php)
For a rebuttal to the idea that gasoline taxes are properly considered “user fees,” see http://www.calpirg.org/news-releases/transit-news/transit-news/myth-busted-road-costs-not-covered-by-gas-taxes.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 6:49 am
Speaking of wine taxes, we actually have higher tariffs on imported wine than we do foreign oil.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 8:43 am
Actually, the peer developed countries that do HSR have profitable long-distance services, including both HSR and lower-speed trains. Korail, SNCF, DB, SBB, the mainland JRs, National Rail, and even RENFE and THSR make money.
The previously discussed long letter in the Hanford Sentinel
http://www.hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/article_cbf055d4-819c-11e0-a250-001cc4c03286.html
references an incident between Kings Co. Farm Bureau spokesman Diana Peck and an exchange she had with Chair Kurt Pringle at the May 5, board meeting.
I have posted the video of this exchange on YouTube for those who want to see (7 min 30 sec)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmZAxjudOxo
Again, this points up the major opposition from Ag interests in the Central Valley to the project routing, seriously impacting their farms and their businesses.
Jack Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 11:08 pm
Nope Try Again.
Someone should make a list of “nowhere” cities. Since nowhere apparently starts at 1,000,000, I gather the list would be quite lengthy.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 11:14 pm
Like the 800,000 people in San Francisco?
VBobier Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 12:01 am
Or the pint sized cities of the Peninsula, Like Palo Alto(July 2009: 33,899), Menlo Park(July 2009: 30,276), Atherton(July 2009: 7,501), Talk about tiny, Hesperia CA(July 2009: 86,194) is bigger than All 3 combined.
Nadia Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 9:53 am
For the record, you cited EAST Palo Alto.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pol/default.asphttp://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pol/default.asp
The City of Palo Alto Police Department provides services to a resident population of approximately 61,200. The large number of high-technology businesses and the Stanford University campus increase the daytime population to over 125,000 persons. (more)
mike Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 11:02 am
Huh? If you want to talk about “daytime population,” then San Francisco easily exceeds 1 million. Please, let’s compare apples to apples.
Joey Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 11:16 am
Actually, daytime population might be a better prediction of ridership than residential population.
Arthur Dent Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 11:27 am
Since you bring it up, daytime populations actually matter a great deal more than overnight populations when it comes to increasing the use of public transportation. Building high density housing next to stations doesn’t give a good bang for the public transit buck compared to building high density offices, etc.
I would imagine there’s a correlation between Caltrain’s station ridership numbers and their daytime populations. San Jose may be the anomaly, probably due to its sprawl.
Peter Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 11:51 am
However, overnight populations matter a lot as well, because the people who commute have to live somewhere, too.
That and San Jose’s feeder transit sucks. I was extremely surprised to discover that the Santa Teresa light rail line did not connect in any meaningful fashion to Diridon, having assumed there was some intelligent thought involved in planning the light rail system.
Arthur Dent Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Sure, they both matter, but one matters more. Research has found that if a person’s workplace was near a transit station and their home was not, they’d be more likely to take public transportation than if the locations were reversed. Of course, this is in the context of commuting. I don’t know what the statistics are for longer-distance travel.
RE: San Jose’s feeder system – agreed. Same could be said for Caltrain in SF, or the SFO airport connection. The entire Bay Area’s transportation system sucks when you look at how they (don’t) feed or connect with each other. So many wasted opportunities.
JJJ Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 12:02 am
The reply was supposes to go here :/
And Boston, at 617,594. Austin? 790,390. Sacramento. 489,676. Baltimore is at 620,961.
Or my favorite, Stamford Ct, which every Acela rider knows well, 122,643.
Mind you, that’s the second busiest amtrak stop in the state, the busiest in CT is New Haven, with an enormous population of 129,779. In fact the entire urban area tops out at 569,000. And it’s the terminus for the Northeast Regional and some Acela trains!
In fact, New Haven is the 12th busiest amtrak station in the entire country. Did I mention the population of 129,779?
If 129,779 people make it the 12th busiest amtrak station in the country, I’d expect Bakersfield with 347,483 to make the top 10 easily.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 8:44 am
12th busiest Amtrak station = running 12th in the Special Olympics.
JJJ Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Not at all. Think of the big train cities. NY, Boston, DC, Baltimore, Chicago, LA, Philly, Newark. Thats 8 already. The fact that a city of 129,000 can hold its own again our mega-cities says an awful lot.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Let’s not forget that No. 10 on the list has a population of 7,761. YMMV because I wasn’t going to go rummage around for current figures and used the numbers in Wikipedia.
JJJ Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 11:49 pm
I also used wikipedia, sorry if I didnt make that clear. No PDF hunting for me!
Alon Levy Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
My point is that if Bakersfield gets three times the ridership of New Haven, which works out to about 1-1.5 million a year, it’ll still be a failure. The only Tokaido Shinkansen stations with this ridership are beet field stations.
JJJ Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 11:51 pm
We’re comparing golden delicious with golden delicious here, not fuji’s. In this country, the northeast corridor is considered a success. If HSR is on par, thats good enough.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 2:53 am
The agency projects ridership at the low end to be 5 times as high as the NEC. At the high end, make it 9 times.
joe Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 8:30 am
Wow must be bogus right? Nor maybe not.
The Agency projects more ridership in the future than what the NEC sees today.
by the time HSR finishes, 2020 CA population projects to 44,000,000, LA county 11,210,000.
Source: California Dept. of Finance
When HSR begins, 8 Million more people (36M today) and no new highways, no new airports.
By 2050, 60 M people in CA.
Joey Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 11:01 am
joe: yes, but that wasn’t Alon Levy’s point. Ultimately HSR in California would be a failure if it failed to get more ridership than the NEC.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 12:05 pm
For the record, I’m nearly the only person here who both believes that the (lower end of the) ridership projection is credible and uses terms like Diridon Intergalactic.
By the way, it’s stupid to compare California’s population to the Northeast’s. The Northeast has lackluster intercity rail, with low mode share by HSR standards coming from low speed, low frequency, mediocre reliability, airline-like queuing for boarding at the major stations, and high ticket prices. Looking at the populations and distances of the cities involved, it should be getting close to 100 million annual riders, not 13 million.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 12:30 pm
airline-like queuing for boarding at the major stations
What’s the typical wait? 7, 8, 9 minutes? On Thanksgiving weekend when the yokels are out in force? It takes longer to walk from the ticket counter to the TSA in some airports.
high ticket prices
…because Amtrak can get away with charging them. It’s not like the trains are empty. I’m sure Amtrak would love to run 4 times as many trains at half the price. Coulda done that in 2017 of so but the project that would have allowed that was canceled.
low frequency
When everything that is capable of moving is out on the track moving it’s difficult to increase frequency. One of the other capacity constraints on the NEC is lack of rolling stock to service the demand.
mediocre reliability
That happens when you don’t spend money on state-of-good-repair.
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 12:38 pm
It should be pointed out that the Northeast Corridor is not really comparable to California for the purposes of this discussion. The northeast is largely settled around the fall line of various rivers and not necessarily positioned on strategic rail lines. California, on the other hand, was basically built on the Southern Pacific right-of-ways…
What I think is key here is that Acela and comparative Amtrak service really can only be measured in terms of a few trips. Baltimore to Washington, Albany to New York… one has to remember that it is possible (although maybe not advisable) to use NJ Transit if you want to go between Philadelphia and New York City, Boston to DC is still relatively slow. And then there was really stupid rule about no standing on a flight between NYC and Reagan National airport.
By contrast, SF and LA are almost 500 miles apart. California’s population is almost neatly split in half between north and south.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 1:53 pm
I had to queue single-file for 15 minutes at Boston South last month. Security people walked along the line with dogs, and then we were led to the train past a single person who checked tickets, in addition to the ticket punchers on board the train. Not Thanksgiving or anything, just your average Amtrak trip.
As for using commuter rail, that’s what I do when I don’t need to transfer. When I do, it sucks. I usd to visit Philadelphia frequently; Amtrak took a little more than an hour, but NJT+SEPTA took three hours counting a missed connection.
And Boston, at 617,594. Austin? 790,390. Sacramento. 489,676. Baltimore is at 620,961.
Or my favorite, Stamford Ct, which every Acela rider knows well, 122,643.
Mind you, that’s the second busiest amtrak stop in the state, the busiest in CT is New Haven, with an enormous population of 129,779. In fact the entire urban area tops out at 569,000. And it’s the terminus for the Northeast Regional and some Acela trains!
In fact, New Haven is the 12th busiest amtrak station in the entire country. Did I mention the population of 129,779?
If 129,779 people make it the 12th busiest amtrak station in the country, I’d expect Bakersfield with 347,483 to make the top 10 easily.
Thankfully, Robert that’s not the only development this week:
Apparently Desert Xpress has a new obstacle…another developer: http://www.lvrj.com/business/sports-complex-developer-has-eye-on-site-sought-by-desertxpress-122280379.html
Meanwhile, it looks like the Japanese and French can breathe easier as far as bidding goes:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704904604576332851326635210.html
My only thought was…they have environmental laws in China???? Isn’t the reason companies relcoate there in part because they aren’t as stringent as the US (if they exist at all?)
Andy M. Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 9:03 am
They do have environmental laws in China. The problem is the authorities do virtually nothing to enforce them.
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 9:55 am
So is it a ruse of cancelling the program on environmental grounds, or is there a genuine problem?
Emma Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 9:30 am
As Andy said, China has environmental laws. The citizens know about it, but they also know that they won’t enforce them. However, they enforced these laws during the Olympic games in all major cities. Then they switched back to third world standards, but people noticed the difference and there are plans to go back to Olympic games levels.
They also have a huge program to become more energy independent. China realizes that it would be a security threat if 1 billion people completely depend on oil.
From the Economist
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/05/high-speed_trains_0
High-speed trains
The Difference Engine: Fast track to nowhere
This article really tells the whole truth about the economics of HSR. Laid out plainly, these are the facts, and those who have examined the systems around the world know them.
Eric M Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 11:45 am
Are you just going to keep spamming and never respond to peoples questions to you about what you posted?
VBobier Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
Morris Brown won’t respond, Cause He’s a Sore Loser.
Reality Check Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
It’s hard to take seriously an op-ed piece that talks of a CA HSR spur to San Luis Obispo in the same sentence as San Diego and Sacramento spurs, cites a study on HSR cost carried out in 2008 by the Reason Foundation and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and concludes HSR can’t work in CA because “there are simply not enough people packed into the 50-mile wide coastal strip that wends its way 350 miles from Los Angeles to San Francisco.”
VBobier Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Oh I get It, So the Raisin Fountain & HerkyJerky are saying that between SF and SJ that there isn’t enough population for HSR and so that justifies their idiotic stance against HSR? Their Nuts and should be ignored, But then they preach bankrupt lunacy.
J. Wong Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Yup, just repeats the tired old tropes “Californians won’t ride trains”, etc.
I believe Babbage actually lives in the L.A. area. I wonder how long it takes him to get to the airport.
Spokker Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
Assuming the end goal is for the transport system to turn a profit.
My goal for the transport system is to facilitate the ability of its users to turn a profit, both in wealth and in happiness.
BEIJING—China ordered a halt to construction of one of its high-speed rail lines due to violations of environmental rules, the latest sign of greater government scrutiny toward a high-profile project that has already been jolted by corruption and debt concerns……..(taken from article posted by Risenmessiah)
Don’t worry California we have many protections in place to ensure minimal to no Corruption or Dept concerns including our Union Camps, Parson Brinkeroff, URS and most importantly the HSRA (which is full of rail experts, budget and finance experts and trained engineers…right?). I would think for the price we are paying for HSRA staff and consultants I would expect a better financial plan and a much better engineering and outreach plan.
OT: But here a proposal on how to fund green energy initiatives and high speed rail.
Redistribute all the subsidies that go towards oil companies. I think if there are any companies that DON’T need subsidies, then it’s the multinational oil corporations. Each of them makes $40 billion in profit every year.
Residents: High-speed rail would affect home values
At Palo Alto rail workshop, concerns shared about housing prices, traffic
Emma Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
Just because you have a link to a website doesn’t mean that you can back up your argument. Ask the folks living next to a station that serves TGV, ICE, Shinkansen and Talgo. All of them moved away. Not because their property values decreased. The opposite happened. Companies were buying off land nearby to build skyscrapers. The owners sold their homes for many times the value they purchased it.
The values will skyrocket.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Or ask the people with Metro North, LIRR, NJTransit, Metra, SEPTA etc service what it does to property values. I’m sure it’s going to turn Palo Alto into the slums of Scarsdale and make Menlo Park into the industrial wastelands of Cos Cob.
Emma Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Comparing apples to oranges again?
Alon Levy Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
Emma, use the following flowchart in the future:
Did the sun rise in the east today? If yes, then Adirondacker’s comments were sarcastic. If not, then they were meant to be taken seriously.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
What’s the significant difference between Palo Alto and any other rich suburb in the OECD?
wu ming Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 12:51 am
eichler homes.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 9:39 am
For reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Eichler
http://www.eichlernetwork.com/ENInfo.html
http://www.eichlersocal.com/
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 9:46 am
http://totheweb.com/eichler/
http://www.eichlerhomes.com/
http://www.google.com/search?q=eichler+homes&hl=en&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=gOnXTbDlMYq_0AHXlYH8Aw&ved=0CCUQsAQ&biw=992&bih=615
Is it me, or do I detect a sense of snobbishness about these houses and their owners? I mean, they are nice if you like the mid-century modern style (and a 1957 Chevrolet, late-50′s Dodge, or anything else from that time would like right at home in the driveway–except maybe a Willys or a Nash Metropolitan), and I’m glad these owners appreciate their history, but do they seem to go overboard just a little?
At the same time, the idea of making the Caltrain corridor a heritage or tourist road that also serves as a commuter route looks better all the time. . .I say we not only run steam power, but some vintage diesels, too. . .
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 10:38 am
DP, they have very few mass produced Mid Victorians to faun over or actual Colonials so they have to faun over something.
wu ming Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 9:14 pm
i know quite a few folks who own eichlers (or who are into them but don’t own them), and it’s more of a combination of historical preservation-type hobbyist interest combined with an appreciation for the modernist aesthetic of the 60s (when a lot of the bay area was built). not necessarily snobbish, and certainly not necessarily of the sort that’s opposed to HSR. personally the whole aesthetic and floor plan of those houses bugs the heck out of me (craftsman bungalows and some of the less-frilly victorians are more my style), but hey, whatever floats people’s boat.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 9:52 am
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=355675&nseq=6
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=353300&nseq=10
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=192435&nseq=313
Winston Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 8:57 am
It’s special there.
Spokker Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
This could be a possible real life application of the bullshit I learned in school! Yay!
joe Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
San Carlos home values along the improved Caltrain ROW increased in value.
Jerry Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 12:05 am
There are already trains in Palo Alto. Killing people at grade crossings. Already making noise. Blowing horns at the crossings. People who buy next to the trains already know that the trains are there.
Jerry Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 12:08 am
Maybe Palo Alto wants to keep the old diesel trains because they love the smell of diesel fumes in the morning.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 12:52 am
The yups that live in paloalto today are not the people that bought those blue collar homes in 1954
Off-topic, but here’s a video tour of LA Noire’s extremely accurate portrayal of Union Station: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZH5McyF1EY
YesonHSR Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 12:58 am
Blade Runner …and where is the the floating cop car…LA 2035 ..and of course a dome car…
Spokker Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 1:12 am
Sadly they did not put any dome cars on the tracks.
Though the Red Cars stop right outside the station.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 1:23 am
The floating cop cars..ever see Blade Runner?? SCI-FI cira 1982..when I lived in LA in SilverLake
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 1:23 am
That looks like a Santa Fe train out there, and I don’t think the road got domes until 1951. I think the game is, what, 1947?–so domes are still in the future.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 1:27 am
We are in the future..maby Cheverons idea of it
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 1:27 am
Don’t know if you’ve seen this before, but there is a railfan page dedicated just to dome cars.
http://www.trainweb.org/web_lurker/WebLurkersDOMEmain/
This site is fun, too; check out the rail pages, there are several in it.
http://www.carofthecentury.com/
YesonHSR Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 1:31 am
Yes..teabagger railfans think thats all we need ..dome cars…I like the 1950s American railroad era thou thats just what todays baggers want to kill..strange mindset
synonymouse Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 11:52 am
The fifties were not at all a pleasant time for railfans. The end of steam, the end of electric traction most everywhere in the US, and the end of the narrow gauge. Hopper’s world gone forever.
The establishment vision of the future was one of freeways 2 blocks away from every house and the absolute triumph of Brutalism.
Of course PB’s 4 track aerial would crash property values in PA just as the removal of the Embarcadero Freeway caused them to inflate.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 12:06 pm
The width of a 4-track aerial is about 70′, or 120′ with extravagant stations. The width of an Interstate ROW is 300′. Not the same thing.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 12:53 pm
“The fifties were not at all a pleasant time for railfans. The end of steam, the end of electric traction most everywhere in the US, and the end of the narrow gauge. Hopper’s world gone forever.”–Synonymouse
True, true, true . . .
For reference for the younger crowd who may not be familiar with Edward Hopper:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Hopper
http://www.google.com/search?q=edward+hopper&hl=en&prmd=ivnsob&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=vxfYTcWOD4WtgQf71rRY&ved=0CDUQsAQ&biw=992&bih=615
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Hopper’s best known painting is undoubtedly “Nighthawks.” A model railroad enthusiast named John Armstrong interpreted this scene for his own miniature empire in O scale. Which is Armstrong’s model scene, and which is Hopper’s original?
http://carendt.us/scrapbook/page76/hopper1.jpg
http://carendt.us/scrapbook/page76/hopper2.jpg
I’ll be back with the answer, but for now I’ll let you guess. . .
VBobier Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 4:33 pm
404 error on both DP.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 4:54 pm
403 which is slightly different. you have to have been at
http://carendt.us/scrapbook/page76/
to get to the pictures. It’s to stop people from leeching bandwidth by linking to the picture.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Yep, that’s where I was; curious that it didn’t work for V, I click on this, and they work for me.
VBobier Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 5:53 pm
DP It’s probably in Yer Cache. ad~12800 I’m not worried.
VBobier Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 5:56 pm
Ok I clicked on Your link ad~12800, Nice find.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 7:36 pm
Glad you could get’em.
Just in case you’re interested, No. 1 is Armstrong’s model interpretation; No. 2 is Hopper’s original. The most notable difference (at least to me) is a combination of a row of houses visible in the background of Hopper’s painting, and that the sidewalk in front of Hopper’s diner is quite visible compared with a darker location in Armstrong’s photo.
Off topic, but perhaps of interest: new track being laid on the Strasburg Rail Road in Pennsylvania. This is a heritage railroad with steam engines, but it also handles freight, and this track is for a new public freight siding with a capacity of 16 cars. It’s what is called a team track, a term dating from when wagon drivers with teams would pull up alongside freight cars to transfer cargo (early intermodal!) Of course, that traffic is handled with trucks today instead of horses–but then again, this is the Strasburg, and it is in that Pennsylvania Dutch country. . .
http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=31322&sid=0e5e8480c629f2cae355e4e8cad3a75b
Anyway, there are discussions of how much this cost per foot, which may be of interest here.
Some of the very most ridiculous statements being made here state property values will not decline when HSR is built nearby. Here is new article on this subject; there are tons more. Here even where one might best expect to see upside appreciation, those projections completely fall apart.
Property values slide near Amtrak station
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/122372329.html
J. Wong Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 2:28 pm
Yes, they slid but not because of the station. That’s like saying property values slid and the area is criss-crossed by roads so roads cause property values to slide.
Peter Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 2:29 pm
You beat me to the punch.
Peter Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Morris, as usual, you take a premise that could be considered reasonable, but then try to back it up with something that either doesn’t support your premise or is obviously, even laughably, propaganda (citing Reason Foundation etc).
Here, you argue that HSR causes property values to decline. As proof, you cite an article that states
How does that support your premise of HSR causing property values to decline? Short answer, it doesn’t.
As a side note, I wonder just how much development didn’t take place there as a result of the Milwaukee-Madison line being cancelled… Ever think of that? Probably, but you would never admit it.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 2:43 pm
That’s why real estate ads never ever never have phrases like “walk to station” or even “bus at the door” in them.
datacruncher Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 2:48 pm
Doesn’t that article indicate the cancellation of rail plans by Walker is hurting the development and thus preventing property values going up?
“Downtown Ald. Bob Bauman and Mayor Tom Barrett agreed that future development still could turn the neighborhood around. But both said the development prospects were somewhat diminished by a turnaround in the state’s attitude toward passenger rail. Gov. Scott Walker’s election reversed some 20 years of planning, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, to extend Amtrak’s Chicago-to-Milwaukee Hiawatha line to Madison….”
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 3:02 pm
…well yeah. TOD looks less enticing if you remove the T and without the T there’s nothing to O around.
Peter Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 3:03 pm
You just OD, then.
Beta Magellan Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 3:58 pm
As a quasi-local (former Milwaukeean who often goes back—via Amtrak and through this station, no less) who’s following both midwestern HSR and redevelopment in Milwaukee, I can say that the issue isn’t that rail caused property values to slide (the station’s been there for decades), but rather high redevelopment expectations in a challenging market. It was hoped that refacing the formerly-brutalist station and turning it into an intermodal hub would help catalyze this stretch of downtown. Typically these plans also involved moving (and then demolishing) the brutalist post office next to the station, but those have been put on hold and the post office remains a major roadblock to revitalization, as is the presence of a highway across the street (so J. Wong’s sarcastic response is actually kind of true). For reference, here’s the street view of 4th & St. Paul, less than a block east the station:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=4th+%26+St.+Paul+Milwaukee&aq=&sll=43.03469,-87.916117&sspn=0.007921,0.01914&gl=us&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=W+St+Paul+Ave+%26+N+4th+St,+Milwaukee,+Wisconsin+53203&ll=43.034652,-87.916115&spn=0.007921,0.01914&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=43.034652,-87.916115&panoid=EgsmBnA0St7iSv5xuX064w&cbp=12,90,,0,0
In addition to these factors, Milwaukee may have simply overestimated the area’s potential for redevelopment (the Third Ward across the river took off in the 1990s, so they may have expected gentrification to head west). It’s more an issue of the physical environment and real estate market not improving as quickly as the city would wish rather than anything to do with trains (and I’d expect we’d still see the same story if the extension to Madison went ahead).
JJJ Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 10:36 pm
My home lost 50% of its value in 2008. I blame the nearby road system. If my driveway were connected to a river, I guarantee the value wouldnt have gone down by 50%.
joe Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 10:56 pm
Factually, San Carlos property values near the Caltrain ROW went up after the grade improvements.