Mayors of SF, LA, San Jose, Sacramento and Fresno Come out Swinging for HSR
This op-ed in the Sacramento Bee today, Case for high speed rail only grows stronger, is a big freaking deal. It is signed by San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, San José Mayor Chuck Reed, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, and Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin. It’s not just the standard “yay HSR!” talking points – it is a point by point defense of this crucially important project against recent criticisms. This may be one of the most important interventions in the HSR discussion we’ve seen in some time:
Now, 2 1/2 years later, the second guessing is in full swing. In recent weeks some have suggested that we should put the project on hold.
We couldn’t disagree more….
In the last 2 1/2 years the case for high-speed rail has gotten stronger, not weaker. When voters approved the plan, a barrel of oil cost about $55; today the price is almost $100. Unemployment was around 8 percent back then, and it is now over 12 percent statewide and even higher in many areas. Californians need the jobs.
Awesome. They nail it. And its gets even better when they go to the point by point defense:
Let’s take the criticisms one at a time.
First is federal funding. While we don’t know precisely how much we will get in future years, we’ve competed well up to this point. California’s project has received the largest slice of federal high-speed rail funds to date – $3.6 billion out of $10.2 billion. This is in large part due to the extensive planning already under way at the state level and the ability to leverage voter-approved Proposition 1A funds. There is no other program where California competes so well for federal funding. We will continue to encourage additional investment – both public and private – while promoting efficiencies that allow us to stretch every dollar in creating jobs and planning for the future growth of this great state.
In other words, these mayors are going to go to DC and fight for federal money. Alan Lowenthal and Joe Simitian, on the other hand, seem content to sit on the sidelines and complain. Federal funding doesn’t just fall from the sky, you have to push to get it. These mayors understand that. Why don’t Senators Lowenthal and Simitian?
Second is state funding. The voters said high-speed rail was a priority and authorized spending $9 billion in state funds. The state continues to experience fiscal constraint due to diminishing revenues, but because construction is ramping up slowly we will only need 2 percent of these funds in the coming year to keep the project on track. The amount approved by voters will be spent over many years, keeping the impact on our state’s budget low in any given year.
I’m guessing they said “many years” because the timeline is uncertain. But it’s worth noting California would pay the bonds back over 30 or 40 years. That’s an appropriately long period of time that not only minimizes budget impact, but ensures that HSR will be a net benefit to the state budget through the tax revenues and economic activity it will produce.
Third is private funding. Our high-speed rail system is expected to make money and attract private investment – similar to systems in Europe and Asia. Twenty-two different funds have shown investment interest in financing part of the system’s capital costs. Demonstrating our commitment by beginning major construction and finalizing all the approvals will minimize investor risk and net the best terms for the taxpayers.
Yep. The notion that the private sector is scared of this is absurd. Their only hesitation comes from the lack of political commitment. They are convinced it will make money. The state and the federal government need to get their act together, and the private sector WILL show up, just as they did in Florida before Governor Rick Scott killed the project.
Finally, there is the matter of where to start building. Many Southern Californians have said we should give priority to their part of the state; same in the Bay Area. We know that this system will never be a success until it connects these two population centers and does so in a way that is sensitive to local concerns. But the question of where to start does not require complicated analysis. The place to start is the place where we’re ready to start, and that’s the Central Valley.
No one thinks we should build the line through the Central Valley and then stop. And we won’t.
That’s awesome. This is solid, solid stuff. It undercuts the arguments of people like Lowenthal and Simitian that the choice of the Central Valley is unpopular in the Bay Area and SoCal. Voters understand that construction of big projects doesn’t happen all at once.
It’s huge to see these five mayors, who lead some of California’s biggest cities, step up to mount this powerful defense of the project. While the anti-HSR forces think they can kill the project by sowing fear, uncertainty and doubt, the pro-HSR forces remain strong and aren’t going away. And the public is on their side.
It also ran in the Fresno Bee, but credited Swearengin as the author with the others as having co-signed. Im not sure if the Fresno Bee is right about that or made a mistake,
Per barrel price of oil went up a greater percentage than CARRDs ad hoc ‘cost estimate’.
Think about the high cost of doing nothing vs the increased competitiveness CA will reap from having this transportation infrastructure.
Perhaps a little OT, but relating to Robert’s statement “the notion that the private sector is scared of this is absurd.” HSR haters keep quoting Bill Lockyer (saying that he thinks he can’t sell the bonds because Wall Street doubts the viability of California HSR) as proof that the private sector won’t invest in HSR. Has anyone explained to Lockyer that Prop 1A bonds are backed by the general fund, not by HSR project revenues? I don’t get why Lockyer’s baseless statement is allowed to linger out there; he needs to either correct it or to explain why Wall Street would treat HSR bonds differently from any other general revenue bond. Or is Lockyer on the “I hate HSR” team and deliberately distorting facts in order to undermine the project?
David Wells Reply:
June 9th, 2011 at 12:40 am
Geeeee, isn’t it interesting that people who comment on this blog can’t use quotation marks because they are disabled!!! ;:]}[{|\+=_-!@#$%^&*()_+?/., — but NO QUOTATION MARKS!!!
Mike says:
Has anyone explained to Lockyer that Prop 1A bonds are backed by the general fund, not by HSR project revenues? ”
- he needs to either correct it or to explain why Wall Street would treat HSR bonds differently from any other general revenue bond.
That’s the whole point Mike, California has the worst bond rating of ANY STATE!!! – GENERAL FUND COLLATERAL MEANS NOTHING – IN-SO-FAR AS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOES!!!
David Wells Reply:
June 9th, 2011 at 12:44 am
oPPPS! Mike —- I forgot to give you a citation where you can get further educated about California being having the worst bond rating of any state – sorry – here it is from the L A Times:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/04/local/me-budget4
Reading the comments, apparently people still do not fact check and continue to lay on the baseless claims. I think tomorrow I’ll be collecting all the information we have here and around the net on the financials for CA HSR.
Daniel Krause Reply:
June 7th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Keep in mind that part of the Reason Foundation’s work is to stuff newspaper comments with their endless negative drivel. I am sure many of these comments are from individuals, but the RF is there to stoke the tea baggers to give the perception the public hates HSR. It is always good if we as supporters can chime in just to remind people there are supporters and to push back at their bogus arguements.
Donk Reply:
June 7th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
Seriously? Does Darth Vader also work for the Reason Foundation?
Miles Bader Reply:
June 7th, 2011 at 7:11 pm
Hell no, those super-star-destroyers he toys around in carry way too many people to be compatible with the Reason Foundation’s love of individual liberty and freedom.
YesonHSR Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 12:18 am
doyou?
Read it and loved it, each before I came here.
OT: High speed rail tunnel in Belgium gets 16,000 solar panels
The solar panels are installed on the roof of the high-speed rail tunnel over a total length of 3.4 kilometres. The tunnel is primarily used by the high-speed train connecting Amsterdam and Paris through Brussels.
Alai Reply:
June 7th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
Why is that a tunnel at all?
Alon Levy Reply:
June 7th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Environmental concerns with running trains above ground through an ecological preserve.
Miles Bader Reply:
June 7th, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Er, surely the accompanying highway would have a much bigger environmental impact, and it’s not in a tunnel…
Alon Levy Reply:
June 7th, 2011 at 8:20 pm
The highway’s already there. Don’t shoot me, I’m just the messenger.
Andre Peretti Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 6:58 am
The reason for the tunnel was the danger of falling trees. Windstorms are more and more frequent in Europe. The 2009 “killer storm” uprooted millions of trees in France and Germany.
A tunnel works both ways. It can protect the environment from the trains but also the trains from the environment.
OT, to D. P. Lubic: check my blog – I just wrote something about the Amtrak/TSA turf war.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
June 7th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Glad you had a bit of fun with it.
GM CEO Wants $1.00 Extra GAS TAX
http://detnews.com/article/20110607/AUTO01/106070368/1148/rss25
Joe Reply:
June 7th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
Their awesome new compact car, the 40 MPG Chevy Cruz gets a combined 26 MPG on the Consumer Reports mileage test.
The 4 banger Camry gets 27, Altima gets 26, Malibu I believe gets 25.
Does he know the discrepancy between the PowerPoint briefings and real world performance?
Peter Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 4:40 am
Is that for the Cruze Eco? Because the other models get much less MPG than the Eco.
Anyone know if this has been published anywhere else aside from the Bees? I couldn’t find it in the LA Times.
Joe Reply:
June 7th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
So far no luck finding other outlets using google news searching.
Donk Reply:
June 7th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
I am confused. Are there two Joe’s here? One Joe and the other joe? You guys need to add a last initial or something. The capital/lower case thing is too easy to mistake.
political_incorrectness Reply:
June 7th, 2011 at 11:30 pm
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/jun/07/california-mayors-endorse-high-speed-rail/ San Diego
Donk Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 7:13 am
Here is another article from the San Diego UT:
Gov. Brown must end silence on rail project
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/jun/07/gov-brown-must-end-silence-on-rail-project/
They make a good point. Where the hell has Brown been on this whole thing?
StevieB Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 8:01 am
It takes a little time for other newspapers to report on editorials. From the San Francisco Business News: San Francisco mayor joins 4 others in backing California high-speed rail.
StevieB Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Here is an article from the Bakersfield Examiner. California Mayors make a pitch for High-Speed Rail.
Does the Mayor of Palo Alto support HSR and Caltrain ROW improvements? They just allowed a massive (I support it) Hospital expansion, 1.5 million sq ft of new development with long term construction disturbances. Menlo Park was paid 3.7 million to drop their objections and they’ll have more cars even with a heavy reliance on Caltrain.
Dear Mayor Rich Cline of Menlo Park;
I understand your City’s proposed downtown Menlo Park development project is expected to draw an addition 13,385 daily car trips to the city center. “All told, the plan is expected to add 330,000 square feet of retail and commercial development and 680 residential units to the downtown area, producing 1,357 new jobs and 1,537 residents.” I also understand that the EIR Menlo Park issued does not contain an analysis of the impact of this development project on Menlo Park’s residential property values. Such an analysis is not require and therefore was not conducted by the City.
Also, I read that Menlo Park has dropped it’s objections to the unanimously approved Stanford Hospital project constructing approximately 1.3 million sq feet of new development to neighboring Palo Alto. The lifetime impact of this new development on Menlo Park residences was alleviated for the loft sum of 3.5 million dollars in total.
Menlo Park has lectured the the State of California on the importance of valuing the impact of high speed rail on the property values of Menlo Park residences. In light of these recent decisions by Menlo Park City Government, can we citizens conclude that residential property impacts is a unserious concern your city chooses to not include in its own projects and therefore should be dropped form the HSR debate. And given the settlement for the 1.3 million sq ft Palo Alto development, would Menlo Park accept a check of that rate, $2.33 per sq ft, for any additional property developed for HSR within your City.
morris brown Reply:
June 7th, 2011 at 9:48 pm
@Joe:
You missed the real “biggie” Facebook coming to MP with an expected 9500 workers within six years. Don’t get me started on MP politics.
joe Reply:
June 7th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
Facebook expansion is technically TBD; just 3000 employees allowed under the Sun Microsystems deal with Menlo Park.
This week Palo Alto just approved the Stanford Hospital project and I was stunned your City accepted just 3.5M in traffic mitigation money. So you’re going to see many more cars and no amount of mitigation money will reduce the traffic volume.
You need better rail service and grade separation. You’re not going to stop City approved development and selling out for traffic mitigation peanuts. The City wants development money.
MP has to get people out of cars and walking/biking and riding rail into/out of your City. Right now every new condo is a two car residence.
morris brown Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 5:11 am
Joe, quite frankly you don’t know what in hell you are talking about.
This is not the place for a discussion of MP and its development.
This is my last comment on this subject in a blog that is concerned with HSR.
Peter Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 6:07 am
How is a discussion on land use in a town that will be affected by the construction of HSR out of place?
BruceMcF Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 6:32 am
OTOH, morris has promised that it can be discussed here without any effort on his part to disrupt ti, so that’s good.
Peter Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 6:37 am
Sadly, this is one issue where his local expertise would come in handy, in contrast to his otherwise constant regurgitation of really shoddy op-eds by right wing media outlets/Reason Foundation.
joe Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 7:09 am
HSR is the only way to realistically accommodate MP’s insatiable desire for growth; HSR funded grade separation improvements within the city and electrify Caltrain.
MP opposition to the project is inconsistent with their own development processes and disregard over the impacts to residential property and their “quality of life”.
Dan S. Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 8:15 pm
I went to HS in MP and I authorize this discussion! ;-) Not that anyone should listen to me anyway in that regard…
Try El Camino traffic thru MP during the day. It’s awful, and has been for a dozen years or more. It’s probably the worst bottleneck on the El down the entire Peninsula. I’d even wager that single family homes in MP average greater than 2 cars per household, but that’s just because I’d like to win a beer! (And I like making fun of my super-rich hometown area.) MP isn’t alone this way, but is arguably way behind the ball in supporting out-of-car transportation experiences that would demonstrably improve conditions within its borders.
Moving slightly farther afield, as suggested above, what the hell is up with Palo Alto? Their whole Stanford accommodation plan is predicated on Caltrain GO Passes, yet they can’t possibly imagine upping the footprint of the railroad that is already saving their bacon! Ah well…
joe Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 7:01 am
The City of Menlo Park can develop land, increase traffic congestion and NOT consider the impact to residential property values.
CAHSR **MUST** to consider the impact on residential property values in Menlo Park.
WTF?!
Well Fresno may be on board but then ……
http://www.hanfordsentinel.com/news/opinion/columnists/article_a40b49a8-9140-11e0-8179-001cc4c03286.html
Commentary: It’s time to move rail project to Highway 99
and
http://www.hanfordsentinel.com/article_93f4220c-9158-11e0-85d9-001cc4c03286.html
Now economic woes for the Central Valley if HSR comes
These just touch the tip of the iceberg of the huge opposition that has grown against the project in the Central Valley.
Donk Reply:
June 7th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
You are really starting the scrape the bottom of the barrel Morris. Do you seriously think these local articles are representative of the “huge opposition” against HSR?
This reminds me of the negative press that the Wilshire Purple Line subway extension has been getting in the Beverly Hills Courier. Because Metro wants to tunnel 70 feet below Beverly Hills HS, some parents have gone completely out of their minds and think that this will lead to terrorist threats and cave-ins that will kill their kids, and these people have influenced the BHC to write articles in opposition to the subway. There is a subway under the U.S. Capitol building for gods sake.
joe Reply:
June 7th, 2011 at 10:34 pm
Fascinating that a 100ft wide swath of land for HSR tracks is going to reduce county taxes such that 20% of the law enforcement has to be laid off.
I wonder if the crack analysts figured any benefit from the HSR stop in Kings County.
joe Reply:
June 7th, 2011 at 10:43 pm
Ruh-Roh
Gov’t employees outnumbers Ag by nearly 3 to 1 and those Gov’t jobs pay better.
Dairy production is at or below cost.
The unemployment rate in April 2011 was 16.6%, up from 10.1% in July 2008.
Yeah, Big Gov’t is ruining Kings County and HSR will kill the dairy industry cash cow.
Alon Levy Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 1:31 am
Don’t tell us that, most of us already agree there. Tell UP.
political_incorrectness Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 1:59 am
I am glad someone gets it in this group. If the Ag community wants to try and negotiate with UP, have at it and please pass the popcorn.
VBobier Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 8:17 am
Then the 99 will have to be straightened to be a usable corridor…
Good Luck on the UP, The best settlement there is being able to threaten to close their tracks to through freight, How? Simple lock a switch from the mainline onto a siding with a heavy sheriffs detachment to guard It until the UP cries Uncle and cooperates, After winning a lawsuit of course, Someone recently did that against Bank of America to a branch of theirs. Before that BofA wouldn’t do anything, After that they waved the white flag and cut a check within a few hours, Just so BofA could have their branch back.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 8:28 am
That would be three different shades of illegal and potentially a capital crime.
Elizabeth Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 9:12 am
UP may not be playing ball but it turns out that the limiting factor is not UP but the FRA.
Up until recently, the Rail Authority had been assuming in its plans and it analysis that it was possible to share ROW with freight (assuming freight said okay).
In December, van Ark mentioned a new constraint about being 100 feet from the nearest freight rail.
This is detailed starting on PDF page 24 of the May supplemental AA http://cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/assets/0/152/232/1d2400a9-2c5b-474c-8569-45064e83d705.pdf
The AA states that the EIR will assume that this condition holds. This will be a much wider corridor and complicate efforts to grade separate the rails as the overall corridor becomes much wider (250 feet?) . The AA goes on to state that they are re-thinking this, so I know don’t what is up.
It does seem like this is a crucial assumption and should have been one of the first things verified, a decade ago when planning started.
One of the big consequences of creating a new corridor in the CV is that a big advertised benefit of the HSR program – grade separating BNSF – is very limited.
Last August’s Federal Appplications http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/assets/0/152/198/1d8fc93b-96ab-4ce0-85d5-d890afd81452.pdf PDF page 5 estimated 35 or 40 BNSF crossings would benefit.
The latest unit costing data that we have from December shows a maximum of 6 grade crossings that would separate a 4 track corridor. Obviously things have been changing but it really is a very different project than originally described in the program level work and project work through last summer.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 10:48 am
In December, van Ark mentioned a new constraint about being 100 feet from the nearest freight rail.</em.
No one else in the world does it. Including places in the US.
Dan S. Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 8:26 pm
Read the AA — it’s not a “new constraint,” it just says that if you are closer than 100 feet, you need to build a barrier, and the closer you are (within that 100 feet), the bigger the barrier you have to build. So they are considering moving farther away so they don’t have to build a wall. Doesn’t seem like any ancient assumptions have been nullified, just some late-breaking quote-unquote value engineering. Well, that’s my reading.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 10:53 am
More evidence that the FRA is in desperate need of reformation.
synonymouse Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 11:15 am
I think you are ignoring the FRA’s primary mission, which is to prevent accidents and loss of life. Derailments regularly result in jack-knifing which could easily reach 100 ft. A derailment that occurs just as an hsr train passes could be disastrous. And we are not even talking about hazmat yet.
I-5 takes care of this conflict. Forget 99 as the primary hsr corridor and bankroll the Up to upgrade existing operations. And figure on an Amtrak operation rather than the exorbitant BART-Amalgamated-Muni-TWU management model.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 11:29 am
tractor trailers jack knife too. Ones carrying hazardous materials.
tony d. Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 11:58 am
You’re so full of shit syno! Freight rail across this state/country already pass
way within 100 feet of freeways, surface streets, other freight lines and even rapid transit lines.
Yet somehow things are different with HSR in terms of safety? I do like how you tilt this so-called
safety issue in pushing for an I-5 HSR alignment (sarcasm).
synonymouse Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
The hsr is new construction, not grandfathered. One tractor-trailer is no match for a freight train and toxics and flammables are common to rail freight. And what if it is the other way around – a Stilt-A-Rail jumps the viaduct and lands on a freight ROW.
I-5 could be quite cheap and we already own it. Dumb to not consider the option. Mostly no stilts required.
Clem Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
freeways, surface streets, other freight lines and even rapid transit lines.
Freeways, surface streets, other freight lines and even rapid transit lines don’t carry 800 ton objects moving at 220 mph. Those don’t exactly stop on a dime.
Peter Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
800 ton objects loaded with 350 passengers no less.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
The objects hurtling along freeways, surface streets, freight lines and rapid transit lines don’t stop on a dime either. We let 450 ton objects go over our heads at 550 MPH all the time…..
The Shinkansen have been running since 1964, remind us how many fatal accidents Japan has had with Shinkansen. Or how many fatal accidents DB has had.
Peter Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
At least an airliner can maneuver to avoid a collision.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
When the engines fail on a train it rolls gently to a stop.
Spokker Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 2:33 pm
Yeah, Boeing 747s are ninjas in the sky.
Gianny Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
@SPOKKER LOL.. yeap, they are swift in their movements when those engines fail.
Alon Levy Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
I’m pretty sure you mean SNCF. DB’s record is Eschede and the Berlin S-Bahn meltdown. Going back 20 years, Germany is only about twice as safe as the US.
Clem Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Recall that we’re talking about UPRR spilling a load of lumber. They haven’t yet managed to spill into the path of an airliner.
Alex M. Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
If the engines fail on a 747, it doesn’t suddenly fall out of the sky. It glides.
Miles Bader Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 6:34 pm
Nonetheless, the train’s chances of avoiding any casualties in such an incident are much, much, better.
Engine failure on a train is an annoying schedule interruption and inconvenience for the passengers.
Engine failure on an airplane is a major emergency.
Spokker Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
“If the engines fail on a 747, it doesn’t suddenly fall out of the sky. It glides.”
Into a mountain.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 6:50 pm
Oh the whole, airline turbofan engines do not fail. They’re simply astonishing pieces of engineering. Part of the reason they don’t fail is that the primary market (“self loading freight”) doesn’t tolerate any failures.
On the whole, US freight railroads do derail with great regularity. It’s what the market and their business model tolerate, and that is not going to change for decades, if ever.
(And, no, it’s not as if trains can’t come off the rails elsewhere. The frequency that is tolerated is just lower.)
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Spokker, look up the Gimli Glider.
Miles Bader Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 7:08 pm
Sure, the market in many ways determines how much effort is put into safety. One reason the Shinkansen has such a good record is that JR is very aware of how valuable their safety record is in attracting passengers, and as a result, they’re very very proactive about safety.
But no matter how good your tech you can never remove all external risks, and airplanes are simply in a much worse position when eventually something does go wrong.
[The Shinkansen will probably someday have an accident that kills somebody, but JR seems determined to do their damnedest to put that day off as long as possible.]
Dan S. Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
There have been suicides via Shinkansen, but never any rail accidents resulting in passenger fatalities.
synonymouse Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
One off-the-wall possibility of dealing with the existing low clearance overpasses on I-5 would be to moderately trench the hsr. This would also provide a concrete trough that would theoretically discourage jack-knifing of hsr cars in the event of a derailmant. End over end I doubt there is much that could prevent that.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
what happens when the chlorine truck goes out of control and falls into the trench?
Miles Bader Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
… then the media blames it on the train… :[
Tony D. Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Come on Clem,
Being killed is being killed, whether you’re smacked by a semi-truck or 800 ton train! Life happens my friend; if you want to be “safe,” just stay home, close the blinds, lock the door and never leave.
Clem Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
We’re not talking about pedestrians getting smacked. Unless I’ve totally lost the thread of the thread of the conversation (sent into pinball non-sequiturs by a certain New Yorker) we are talking about a freight train derailing, piling up, spreading wreckage onto the adjacent HSR tracks, and a 220 mph high-speed train not having enough time or distance to avoid smashing into the whole mess. This is a risk that European and Japanese operations simply do not face.
This collateral damage scenario isn’t so improbable; in fact, it’s already happened.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
Yes, all the HSR tracks in Japan and Europe are separated from everything more threatening that grass by 30 meters.
Alon Levy Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Serious, non-trolling question: do these accidents by freight derailments happen in China, where they have heavy freight trains sharing tracks with fast passenger trains?
political_incorrectness Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Recently, it has been shown that the US has more accidents in rail than any other country in the world. China is at the top along with Japan for fewest fatalities per passenger kilometer.
Peter Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 1:22 pm
I don’t quite trust the methodology that was used to determine that. Wikipedia, while incredibly useful, isn’t exactly the most reliable source.
Alon Levy Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
*Sigh*. I don’t trust the methodology for China and India, either. But I trust it for the US, the EU, and Japan, where rail accidents are widely reported in the press and will have English-language sources.
Peter Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Agreed.
Emma Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
That is due to our culture. People continue to cross the rails although they see the train coming. It’s this attitude that makes us the world’s leader in rail crossing accidents although we have less rail per square mile than any other OECD country.
That’s why I’m worried that we might have to spend more on keeping the rails free of vehicles and people than any other country with HSR.
BruceMcF Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
that’s at road intersections ~ the full Express HSR sections of corridor will be fully grade separated.
Reality Check Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
Another likely Caltrain suicide today in Burlingame. The train reportedly had 900 aboard and was annulled … many of them were baseball fans heading to the Giants game I assume. Last week (or the week before) there was another one that has now been officially categorized as a suicide between San Antonio station and the Rengstorff crossing.
Tony D. Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 7:02 pm
Maybe we should keep everything (houses, cars, people, etc) 100 ft. away from the Caltrain tracks (or relocate Caltrain to the I-5 ROW).
wu ming Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 7:07 pm
people walk across tracks all over the world, as flagrantly if not moreso in many countries.
Miles Bader Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Yup. I think liberal use of protective measures (elevated tracks/tunnels, fences, barbed wire) is unfortunately a necessary part of any good-quality HSR system.
Risenmessiah Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 7:28 am
This guy forgot to add….”they might start charging us water by usage, but I don’t think that would happen either”
VBobier Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 8:19 am
You’ll to do better than that Morris, My cat could do better than You and Your lies.
Donk Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 9:01 am
You know calling someone a kitty or a lier would have had a lot more sting on the 3rd grade playground.
datacruncher Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 10:17 am
The commentary helps to clarify to me the “huge” size of the opposition morris keeps referring to.
The commentary author says “I think Visalia is willing to sponsor a station. This solves the problem with an additional 10-minute drive.” That indicates to me the author (who is local) believes there is a lot of HSR support in just the city of Visalia which is 10 minutes away in Tulare County.
While supporters and opponents would exist in both areas, comparing all of Kings County to just the city of Visalia:
Kings County population – 152,982 (includes state prison inmates at Corcoran)
Visalia population – 124,278
That doesn’t mean concerns expressed by residents of Kings County or from Visalia should be ignored. Nor am I saying the ROW should be moved to 99.
I’m simply pointing out the morris’ idea of “huge” opposition may easily be offset by support from a single city only 10 minutes away, “huge” support that is even acknowledged by the opposition.
I know I’m getting receptive here, but we should really build the LA-SD extension as soon as possible. 2/3 of the Californian population live in Southern California. A little bit less than 1/3 live between LA and SF; and a tiny fraction is spread to Northern California, the deserts and all the places that CAHSR won’t serve.
It would be perfectly rational to have the LA-SD extension shovel-ready by the time we finish SF-Anaheim.
wu ming Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
the extension to san diego will not serve all of socal, it will serve the route between LAUS and san diego. the population of san diego metro area is about the same size as sac-merced (both are around 3 million). ideally, we would have both extensions shovel-ready by the time SF-anaheim are completed, if not before then with a separate bond issue, to get the whole system built ASAP.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
I thought the whole idea was that as soon as SF-Anaheim is up and running it would have enough profit to self-finance the extensions.
Elizabeth Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
That was the original idea. The 2009 business plan is pretty clear that any operating profits will go to payback revenue bonds/ equity investments.
BruceMcF Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Yes, the bonds Emma is talking about would be revenue bonds.
wu ming Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
even if it was, i think there’s a strong case to be made for speeding the process up, in a manner analogous to LA’s plan to build out the metro system fast. due disclosure: i live a short train ride from sac.
LA-SD should be next…but along the coast. Want some nice views!
political_incorrectness Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Good luck dealing with the NIMBYs worried about a tunnel.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
The tunneling wouldn’t be a problem so much as the catenary getting in the way of their beach views.
thatbruce Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Two separate communities are being conflated here.
My perception of the major obstacles of electrifying/straightening the coastal section of LOSSAN is:
San Clemente NIMBYs would be against catenary being erected on the existing shore line, and this stretch being double-tracked. This perception originates from the HSR studies done on this route in the mid-80s.
Del Mar NIMBYs would be against a tunnel putting the existing (unstable) cliff line underneath PCH in the middle of their town. This comes from present-day opposition to one of SANDAG’s proposed long-term projects.
Most likely, there will be other NIMBYs popping out of the woodwork when any attempt to duplicate the existing wooden bridges across waterways/marshes etc.
Wad Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
What about the Coastal Commission demands that essentially make any upgrade too cost-prohibitive to pursue?
thatbruce Reply:
June 9th, 2011 at 11:31 am
SANDAG seems to have no problem with various requests from the Coastal Commision in its duplication of track within the CC’s authority. For example, here is the CC’s report on SANDAG’s upcoming duplication of the Carroll Canyon Creek bridge, which on the one hand cites various sections as against the proposed work, but then agrees with the work due to the public transit benefits to the LOSSAN corridor as a whole, and observes that SANDAG’s scheduling of the project avoids most of the impacts (eg, new work inland, timing out of breeding season of the California gnatcatcher etc etc).
I don’t think that the California Coastal Commission would substantially make any upgrade to the LOSSAN harder or more expensive than inland sections, beyond some extra effort in how any sub-projects within the CC’s realm are carried out.
I want the train the way they have it on the CHSRA website…running along the coast even if its only to SD.
thatbruce Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
If you’re referring to the animated banner on the CAHSRA home page, which has a brief bit of a HSR train in the CAHSRA colors running alongside a waterway, I think that is meant to be around Sacramento.
Gianny Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Yes exactly that part….I voted for IT because I wanted to ride along the coast……… kidding, I support any route but I can dream right?
Off topic, but perhaps of interest: auto population and gas consumption continue to fall.
http://www.ci.corvallis.or.us/council/mail-archive/mayor/msg36333.html
This is interesting–seems this has been going on for longer than we thought:
http://www.automotivedigest.com/content/displayArticle.aspx?a=67648
Can we say “over-saturated market?”
Miles Bader Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
I saw an interesting Japanese talk-show a while back.
It was basically sort of a “those wacky youngsters” show, where they had a bunch of teens and young-adults talk about what they thought was cool etc, and then a bunch of older people would comment.
A lot of it was as you might expect, but what I thought was interesting was when they were asked about cars. The basic consensus among the young people was that they didn’t really want a car, that they were more trouble than they’re worth, they could just rent a car if they needed, etc. They weren’t anti-car as such, just not particularly enthusiastic about them. This drove the older participants crazy — they just couldn’t understand why the youngsters didn’t dream of car ownership (“when I was your age, …”).
This was in Tokyo, where of course it’s easy to live without a car, but the basic impression I was left with was that whereas for a previous generation cars were admired and looked upon as a symbol of modernity, and car-ownership viewed as a sign that one had succeeded, the concept of them as being “cool” has sort of faded by now. They’ve become just a thing you can use if you need to. [I'm generalizing of course!]
In many places, maybe it wouldn’t matter: if the whole infrastructure of a city and the lifestyle of its population is predicated upon car ownership, people will of course buy them whether they’re cool or not, and the entrenching will continue. Tokyo, however, has never reached that point… and maybe the tide has turned ….
D. P. Lubic Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
“. . .maybe the tide has turned ….”–Miles Bader
I don’t know how long you’ve been following this weblog, but there has been evidence that the tide has been turning for some time.
http://www.examiner.com/parenting-teens-in-los-angeles/teens-delaying-getting-driver-s-licenses
http://adage.com/article/digital/digital-revolution-driving-decline-u-s-car-culture/144155/
I’ve actually been observing this for about 20 years now. Two decades ago, I tried to promote a light rail line instead of a 4-lane road, and failed horribly. One of the things that stands out was that the people who liked the idea of a trolley system at the time were either under 40 or over 70, while those who hated it were between 40 and 70.
As is common for projects like this, it took a lot of time, long enough for me to see everyone getting older. The low-end break point moved from 40 to an estimated 50, and I now think it is over 60; I assume the high-end break point has moved up as well, and would now be over 90.
I first brought this up to an Amtrak marketing man when we were both in a local civic organization, and he said his marketing department had noticed this as well in regard to Amtrak.
Riding the commuter train, and the DC Metro system, I also notice the riding crowd is getting younger and more plentiful–enough that I was feeling like a geezer at 50 looking at all the younger passengers around me!
As you noted, I believe this may have to do with when we come of age. A psychiatrist will tell you that your view of the world, yourself, and all sorts of things, including your idea of the future, sort of solidifies at around 20. For the older crowd, this would have been in the prewar, pre-interstate era, and they miss what we had.
The group in the middle–40 to 70 then, over 60 to over 90 now–would have come of age between about 1950 and the first oil crunch of 1973. Among other things, for them the future was supposed to look like something out of “The Jetsons,” and that didn’t include trains or trolleys or anything like that.
The younger crowd would have come of age after the first oil crunch of 1973, may not appreciate cars as much as they should (and they are a great mobility machine in many ways), they are environmentally aware, and most importantly, they take cars for granted. There are also the factors of new communications devices that can’t be used well while driving, the loss of fun in driving (too much traffic, too many hassles from cops, too many friends dying in wrecks), the economy (though these trends actually predate the current recession, which has only been an accelerator, not the cause, in my opinion), and the general loss of cachet or glamour in driving (“What’s the big deal about a license, my grandma drives, and she drives like a grandma, too. . .).
And it’s not just here. . .
D. P. Lubic Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 8:10 pm
. . .as you noted, this is in Japan, and seems to have first been noticed there:
http://www.newsweek.com/2008/02/16/a-post-car-society.html
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/06/demotorization.html
http://www.leftlanenews.com/demotorization-of-youth-plaguing-japanese-auto-sales.html
D. P. Lubic Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Some other links:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28433813/ns/business-autos/t/japans-young-falling-out-love-cars/
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/09/business/fi-rebel9
http://detroit.about.com/b/2011/04/20/detroit-and-de-motorization-a-challenge-for-the-auto-industry.htm
You’ve mentioned that some of your coworkers are still very passionate about driving. Out of curiosity, how old are they, and are they aware of this generational gap or shift? Have they expressed an opinion on the subject?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
June 8th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
Found one more, much more recent than most of what I have above:
http://www.bnet.com/blog/electric-cars/demotorizing-what-happens-when-young-people-don-8217t-care-about-cars/3450
And another one, this time emphasizing the perceived safety angle:
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2010/11/09/114722.htm
OT: http://www.mercurynews.com/john-horgan/ci_18234413?nclick_check=1 Is this the first time that Mr. Horgan finds issue with the Legislature on HSR even though he seems to have been an oponent of HSR?