Financial Realities Dictate Need to Build HSR
As California high speed rail article overviews go, this article from the New York Times’ website is fairly decent. It screws up by citing the Legislative Analysts Office report as somehow being authoritative – a common error of American journalists, assuming that these reports are accurate without actually looking at the details. For example, the LAO’s claim that the project costs will rise to $67 billion are not based in any actual evidence and are merely an assumption backed by faulty logic.
On the other hand, the NYT post does a pretty good job of pointing out what too few articles do: the cost of doing nothing is not zero:
Melissa Lafsky, who edits the blog Infrastructurist.com, said the rancor captures the national mood….
Lafsky agrees with the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s argument: that $45 billion is a lot, but the alternative — expanding highways and airports as the state population grows — would cost almost double.
“Unless they invent flying carpets or beaming, that’s what we’ve got,” she said. So the question is, who pays for it? “And the ‘Who pays for it’ has really been the downfall of Obama’s high-speed rail plan,” she added.
I wouldn’t say it’s the downfall of Obama’s plan so much as it is a good example of the crisis facing American politics. We are a nation that has apparently forgotten the value of the concept of “investment” – by spending some money up front, you save a lot of money over time and in fact generate new profits and returns because you laid out some costs up front.
HSR opponents consistently ignore the cost of not building the system. They assume the cost of doing nothing is zero, that the status quo works just fine. It doesn’t. California wastes billions each year on driving and on oil consumption. And HSR can generate new economic activity, as a 2010 US Conference of Mayors report indicated:
In Los Angeles, [HSR would generate] as much as $7.6 billion a year in new business sales, producing up to 55,000 new jobs and $3 billion in new wages.
Depending on the tax rates, that new economic activity in LA alone would be enough to pay off the entire $10 billion Prop 1A bond within about ten years. By the time the SF-LA HSR route opens around 2020, the massive expansion of LA’s Metro Rail system should be complete, with its hub at Union Station – likely increasing the ridership and therefore the success and economic benefits of HSR in the LA area.
Considering that the $10 billion or so in annual HSR dividend in the study was just for the LA area alone, one could envision maybe $25 to $30 billion a year once the system is built out (including Phase II to Sacramento and San Diego). That would more than pay for the costs of construction and operation of HSR.
These benefits would appear in the form of new tax revenue as well as new jobs and new businesses. It’s the same thing California learned when it built dams, freeways and bridges during the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s: spend money on infrastructure up front and you generate immediate stimulus and long-term value.
Unfortunately, we are dealing with the legacy of the 1970s, when Californians decided they didn’t have to build anything new and could simply live off the investments that had just been made. Being cheap rather than being smart was the financial order of the day: low costs were the highest priority, even if it meant increasing inequality, decaying infrastructure, and a crippling dependence on oil as a result of our refusal to build more sustainable transportation options.
The result is the worst recession in 60 years. We aren’t in a recession because we spent too much, we are in a recession because we spent too little. Until we can build new infrastructure that enables a new, sustainable economy, we’re going to be dependent on the old failing status quo, and will suffer prolonged economic weakness as a result.
It’s not just the California HSR project that suffers from this bizarre and irrational aversion to new spending. Innovative infrastructure proposals across the state are getting hit with this. And even some transit advocates, like TransForm CA, have fallen prey to the “we don’t have a lot of money” argument, accepting anti-spending arguments rather than rejecting them out of hand.
California HSR is just a microcosm of the larger debates happening across the country, between those who are stuck with an obsolete mindset still believing that spending money is somehow bad, and those who realize that we have to embrace new infrastructure, new innovation, and who realize that spending now creates more wealth, more savings, and more value in the years to come.
The HSR project won’t live or die on its own merits. It will live or die based on who wins the bigger argument about America’s future. If we decide that actually building a future is a bad idea because it forces us to spend money, we’ll lose a lot more than HSR – we’ll lose our chance for building a better society.
Growth is overrated. California would be better off with a smaller population and a slower lifestyle.
Or go ahead and follow the drift of the “progressive” party line: secede from the hated US and be annexed by Mexico. Carlos Slim and the cartels will provide you all the hsr you can handle.
YesonHSR Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 1:16 am
[Comment deleted for violation of Comments policy.]
VBobier Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 8:27 am
Smaller Population? Sounds ominous, So what are Ya getting at?
Progressive? More like anarchist…
Mike Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 9:28 am
@Synonymous, growth may or may not be “overrated,” but the significant point is that growth is inevitable (birth rate exceeding death rate). Think it’s hard (or undesirable) to deal with the consequences of growth (e.g., expanding infrastructure with things like high speed rail)? Get a load of how hard (and undesirable) it is to try to restrict population growth. Want to try to reduce birth rates? Create such an unpleasant lifestyle and poor economy in California that the population flees (been to Detroit lately)? Someone will say “end (illegal) immigration” as a solution to population growth; without debating the validity of that strategy, the politics of immigration control make HSR look easy.
Peter Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 10:01 am
He’s advocated “reducing” the population in the past. Said the world was not ready for his ideas. Sounded a lot like he was in favor of killing off a lot of people.
StevieB Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 10:27 am
Killing is not necessary to reduce population. He could advocate forced sterilization or deportation of the poor. Like it or not California adds half a million a year to population from births over deaths.
Peter Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 10:29 am
“He could advocate forced sterilization or deportation of the poor.”
True. Doesn’t mean either is any less loony.
VBobier Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 10:38 am
I nominate We deport synonymouse to Mars… ;)
synonymouse Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 10:46 am
US internal population growth is reasonably stable so all you have to do is reduce immigration levels to pre-1965 quotas. And it resolves a big part of homeland security issues.
Only jihadists, ayatollahs, and maybe some realpolitickers like Kissinger are “in favor of killing off a lot of people”.
San Francisco “progressive” values equate to open borders and open jails. Good blinking luck.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Are you *******-ing serious?
You know, right that since 1964 the birth rate nationally has been under 2%???
And that between 1924 and 1964 (the golden years of quota based immigration) the birth rate only dropped below 2% in the Great Depression? If we shut the doors now, we might end up like Japan. It’s fine to say once upon a time we should have done something different, but really, the US birth date keeps diving off a cliff….
Peter Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Don’t worry about it. Pretty much everything he says is made up from whole cloth.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
I’m not stressing out. Usually synon begins with a possibly credible statement, and then as he works his way down they become more and more ridiculous. In this case, his first sentence was so wacky, I had to toss it back like a live grenade.
Also, I don’t respond to his baloney. But should he say something factually not true, then I’m more likely to squlech it for fear that someone could honestly believe him….
Nathanael Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 8:54 am
Bluntly put, Syn, as long as the US remains attractive, it is impossible to really restrict immigration. Previous attempts have *never worked*.
If the entire world started educating and empowering women and using birth control, we could have global population stabilization and reduction. Until we achieve that (sigh), the only way to make US population go down is to make the US *unattractive*. That seems like a very bad idea, doesn’t it?
Andy M. Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 9:05 am
I disagree. Immigration is something that can be both controlled and regulated.
High immigration is good for certain sectors of the economy because it reduces salary costs. The government thus controls immigration to meet the demands of corporations to depress salaries. Meanwhile we see high unemployment for example among African Americans because many bunsinesses who don’t want to hire them don’t need to hire them because they can hire Latinos for less who will put up with more abuse. That’s not the free market. that’s government-sponsored racism at work. If the supply of labour were limited through lower immigration, blue-collar salaries would rise and much of the poverty problem would be resolved. But it would mean less profits for those at the top.
Nathanael Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 9:10 am
Oh, it’s certainly true that high illegal immigration is good for certain sectors of the economy, and that’s why it’s tacitly encouraged. It’s also true that immigration at the “high end” of the job market can be controlled.
It’s also true that it’s completely impossible to fully control immigration. We have a border with Mexico which is not really closeable, a border with Canada which is even less closeable, and so many people going in and out by plane that we will never be able to prevent fraudulent entries entirely. Even an attempt to do so will make the country *much less pleasant* and therefore will essentially be a matter of making it less attractive….
…in fact, the country *IS* getting less attractive. Mexican immigration to the US has gone negative.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 1:35 pm
….because they can’t find jobs. We could open the borders wide open tomorrow and not have an immigration problem. Would just have to make it very painful for employers to hire immigrants without work permits.
That’s mostly the way it works for people from first world countries. They get visas easily, because the government knows they aren’t coming here to stay and they aren’t coming to work.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 10:22 am
Got two or three extra planets available by any chance? That’s just to support TODAY’S human population in the style which you believe is your right.
(1 + epsilon) ^ N > any number you care to name, so not very large values of N.
What IS inevitable is ecological collapse, and billions of humans, including the North Americans who consume 25% of its resources today, aren’t going to be doing very well at all at that not very far off point.
Jon Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 10:54 am
The idea of population reduction for “ecological” reasons is dangerously sociopathic. Population growth is inevitable without enforced birth control or a mass cull, like it or not that’s the nature of our species. Also, you’ve projected onto Mike the opinion that he believes a certain style of living is his right- he neither said nor implied any such thing.
There have been many studies which indicate that much of our current lifestyle can be preserved whilst reducing carbon emissions to a level sufficiently low to prevent runaway climate change, providing we are willing to make the effort to invest in energy conservation and carbon-free energy generation and to do it NOW. The problem is lack of political will to make that investment, not overpopulation. (Interestingly, long-distance travel by jet plane is one of the few activities for which there is no ecologically sound alternative.)
Nathanael Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 8:57 am
Population will have to be stabilized or reduced for ecological reasons; the Earth does have a maximum carrying capacity, and if we don’t stabilize the population humanely, starvation and disease will eventually do it for us.
Luckily, stabilizing the population is *easy*, we already *know* how to do it, and it’s *completely humane*. Educate women, give women legal rights (including right to work for their own living, etc.) and control of their own bodies, and make birth control widely available. Within a couple of generations, women will voluntarily bring the birth rate down to replacement rate — population stabilized, problem solved.
Bluntly, it’s only “the nature of” *males* of our species to engage in endless exponential population growth. Give women the control and it stabilizes quickly.
Jon Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 9:56 am
No argument with you there…
Peter Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 10:20 am
Agreed.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 11:55 am
Malthusian catastrophes are the commercial fusion of ecology. They are always just a few decades away.
Reality Check Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Lots of really bad human-caused stuff has been and continues to happen right now folks.
Examples are everywhere for those who want to find them. World’s oceans on verge of irreversible catastrophic collapse due to warming and overfishing (i.e. too many people for the oceans to support). Etc., etc., etc. There are waaaay too many people on the face of the earth. Have been for a long time now.
jimsf Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
There are not too many people on earth, there are just too many concentrated in certain places, mainly in line in front of me at the foodsco. But there are vast regions, even right here in cali, and certainly all over the us and the globe that perfectly habitable and very spacious were there is room for more. The problem is wasteful use of resources and unbalanced distribution of resources, not due to lack of ability, but due mainly to greed.
Peter Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
Soooooo, you’re in favor of more suburban sprawl?
jimsf Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Im for putting people someplace beside la and sf. it doesn’t have to be sprawling. it can be dense but either way. I don’t want more their asses here. SF will take more people when the other cities and towns step up and reach our density, once they catch up then we can move forward in equal fashion. But there are millions of acres of not very special land in california that you can put houses on.
jimsf Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
Sprawl doesn’t bother me. I don’t want to live in the suburbs but Id much rather have those people out there than have to live with them here. So grab the stucco and go to town. ( or to the country I mean)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
mainly in line in front of me at the foodsco.
Ya gets whats ya pay for. There are shorter lines at Cala.
jimsf Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
The ones at cala speak english. at foodsco I don’t have to overhear the lame conversations since they are all in foreign languages.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 9:25 pm
I never use Polish in Foodco, it’s all in English with some Yiddglish and Spanglish thrown in…
Reality Check Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Sorry Jim, the problem of an overpopulated planet has nothing whatsoever to do with whether there are still lots of open spaces to put people. Here’s another item highlighting how there are way too many humans on Earth and how f*cked we already are: Sizzle Factor for a Restless Climate
Nathanael Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 8:59 am
Jim, you may say “there are not too many people on Earth”. Maybe you’re even right. But if the population keeps going up, *eventually there will be too many*, and you can’t deny that.
Well, I should say, if you do deny that, you’re an idiot. We have many many limited resources, and although some of the limits are evadeable, there *is* a *hard limit* on Earth’s population. Admit it.
Reality Check Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 5:14 pm
The world’s biggest problem? Too many people
Our unsustainable population levels are depleting resources and denying a decent future to our descendants.
wu ming Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
so stop consuming resources then. you’re one of those overconsuming north americans.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
Never saw that one coming! You’re a master debater.
synonymouse Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 11:01 am
“an unpleasant lifestyle and poor economy in California” ?
Poorly-conceived, dysfunctional, gold-plated infrastructure that will prove to be underutilized and require maintenance for which there are no funds is one way to achieve the above.
Making analogies to highway construction misses the point. The damn freeways and roads are always full because it is diy mobility and they sell cars faster than they build roads.
California is in a swan dive into the 3rd world. Ask yourself why Mexico doesn’t have hsr when Carlos Slim could finance it out of his personal fortune. California can ill afford any more of BART-type proprietarizing stupidity and that is exactly what gerrymandering nonsense like the Palmdale-Tehachapi detour constitute. Not to mention caving to SJ over Pacheco.
StevieB Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
Is your theory that Carlos Slim is preventing HSR in Mexico? What evidence is there that Slim is in any way involved with transportation in Mexico? Your reasoning is ridiculous.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Oddly, the articles I’ve seen have said that he was interested in building HSR in Mexico. However, HSR has rather low profitability and return on investment compared to other options (such as expanding the pretty lackluster Mexican freight rail network), hence the need for some government backing for HSR and the lack of Carlos’ building it on his own.
Peter Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 7:40 am
From what I have gathered, Carlos’ plans for building Mexican HSR died right about when the drug war began seriously heating up. No idea why that may have caused someone to delay plans for a major infrastructure project…
Derek Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Maybe if we quit subsidizing growth, we would see less of it.
wu ming Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 11:04 am
if you don’t like living with nonwhite neighbors, perhaps you should move to idaho.
synonymouse Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 11:28 am
ha ha
If California continues to deteriorate all the “nonwhite neighbors” will move to Idaho before me.
wu ming Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
the non-racist among us will welcome your departure. not all of us are afraid of our neighbors.
jimsf Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
maybe not afraid of them, just annoyed by them when they act to third world-y. They just need to work on raising their standards of sanitation and other social skills. They need to cover their mouths when they cough and stuff like that. I always have to keep my coffee cup covered when im on the subway. all that icky ness.
synonymouse Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
I do not disdain the third world. Most everybody there just wants to be first world. I am not interested in seeing the US fall back but that’s where we are going. Cupidity and stupidity are, as usual, the primary culprits. Right now that is what we have to fear rather than FDR’s fear itself.
And when it comes to cupidity and stupidity the Palmdale caper is the “champeen”.
Not necessarily. Airline growth forecasts have been wildly optimistic. And tolling (or other measures) could ration limited road resources through market-rate pricing.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 10:34 pm
Have to wonder just what the criteria and projects those estimates are based on anyhow.
Matthew B. Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 7:24 am
Drunk Engineer – market pricing of limited resources is a good method of making the best economic use of existing infrastructure, but limiting resources in the first place really doesn’t make sense when the economic benefits of those resources are higher than the cost of building them. The question is really about deciding which resources are going to be built. Are they going to be more roads and airports, or can we reduce some of that pressure by providing the alternative of high speed rail so that people can use it when it makes sense. The lesson from around the world is that in basically every developed economy that has built high speed rail, there has been a latent demand for it, and that people have universally voted with their feet for HSR in place of roads and airports, often capturing a majority of mode share. The additional economic benefits to society that cannot be captured by ticket price (increased commercial and residential real estate values, increased sales at shops near stations, increased business activity in the markets served by HSR) indicate that government is the stakeholder best positioned to invest, as government can reap increased tax revenue from all of those activities.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 7:39 am
Matthew,
The point is that California does not *have* to build new freeway lanes or runway space for new population. As a policy matter, the State could (and should) decide such things should no longer be given away for free.
But you are correct that other countries decided secondary economic benefits of HSR more than compensate for start-up capital costs. Those countries had per-mile construction costs several times lower. And they did not have a laughably inept CHSRA.
Derek Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
“…limiting resources in the first place really doesn’t make sense when the economic benefits of those resources are higher than the cost of building them.”
When are the economic benefits of those resources are higher than the cost of building them? Do you have any proof?
Here’s proof to the contrary: The SR-91 express lanes “generate net social benefits of at least $12 million per year, compared with a scenario in which the lanes had been built but drivers did not pay to use them.” http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/97xx/doc9750/Chapter2.6.1.shtml
So you see, allowing the market to choose the price is a good plan.
Matthew B. Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Yes, allowing the markets to choose the price is a very good plan. Never building anything new again is not.
Joseph E Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 11:24 pm
If we toll I-5, I-15, 101 and 99, I bet we could collect enough excess funds to pay off the entire capital costs of high speed rail over the next 30 years, while immediately eliminating the need for further road widenings
flowmotion Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 11:47 pm
Unfortunately for this plan, the law states the tolls would need to pay the entire capital costs of I-5, I-15, 101 and 99 first.
Also, I don’t see how HSR does anything to affect the freight congestion problems which plague the state and disadvantage central valley cities versus the rest of the country. Sorry, but after CASHSR is built, not everyone will be riding unicycles to work and eating organic locally-made baloney to solve all our problems. We will still need to build out our under-invested long distance highway network to remain competitive.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 12:09 am
It’s not the highway network we need to invest in for freight, it’s the freight railroad network. It’s more fuel and pollution efficient, especially if you electrify (otoh, as that would likely require added nuclear capacity, the greenies will fight it tooth and nail until and unless they simply shove some more coal plants in Wyoming where they won’t notice/care; electrification is basically a nice to have though, it isn’t super necessary unless you want to wage a crusade against diesel particulate). The primary focus is, of course, on long distance intermodal transport, but some thought and investment should also be made for medium or long distance rolling highways to attract owner/operators and the use of roadrailers for short-medium distances from classification yards to industrial spurs (likely a prime business case for Class II and III railroads and area) from whence trucks can handle the first/last mile problem.
Joe Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Private sector. So we need to pay them to invest or they need to invest but are not?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 7:31 pm
We need to invest in order to shape particular items and hurry along things that serve the public interest (for instance, large scale electrification in order to cut diesel particulate matter pollution) and there is a degree of questionability as to whether they have sufficient funds to invest to meet simply with expected increases in traffic, much less seize the additional modal share that we would like them to.
If done as a formal investment, the state can also easily recoup the money invested (for instance, trackage rights based payments on double or triple tracking of lines via state investment or selling the electricity that an electrified network uses).
joe Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
Okay. Private sector rail is incapable of making informed investments so I need to subsidize, I mean invest in private infrastructure…so they can make more profit.
What do they think they are? A bank?
No way. I’m not interested in the deal as proposed.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Private sector rail doesn’t have the funds to necessarily do all the upgrades that we, the public sector, would like to see happen. Public investment, especially in the manner of traditional investments or low interest loans so as to represent either a net balance or net profit for the public sector before the consideration of externalities which represent a financial benefit to the public sector, is therefore useful for accelerating the rate of upgrades, having specific upgrades which benefit the public sector tremendously but are of little marginal worth necessarily to the private sector, etc.
For comparison: The private sector was unwilling to fund the transcontinental railroad despite its great potential. The government invested in it and reaped tremendous profits, both in terms of actual money and in terms of social benefit. More recently, you have public investment in the Alameda Corridor and Alameda Corridor East in order to reap certain public benefits that private industry wasn’t necessarily going to fund on its own.
joe Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 9:34 pm
No thanks, on the electric transcontinental railroad.
I’ll stick with fully funding medicare and social security and pass on helping UP modernize.
Peter Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 8:29 am
I actually think that BNSF (and presumably UP, as well) has crunched the numbers on at what fuel price it would make sense for them to completely electrify their entire network. I’m pretty sure that they will find the funds for that if necessary.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 11:14 am
BNSF’s chairman, president, and CEO says it would be about ten billion to electrify all their mainlines as of 2009. The number I’ve seen banded about the internet says about $4/gallon is the economic breakpoint for them. In 2008 they were approaching that, with an average fuel price of $3.15/gallon (page 91), but their 2010 cost (also page 91) was only $2.22/gallon.
While, as diesel goes higher, they will eventually find the funds to do so, it’s in the public interest to have it done earlier and cut the health costs and other externalities imposed by current pollution. Some public subsidy, to cut down the break-even point (as that apparent $4/gallon figure includes capital costs) would certainly make sense and repay itself either directly or indirectly. That wouldn’t necessarily need to be all that much either, perhaps one or two billion in total state funding (however, an “every last meter” approach to electrification would be about 20 billion at $4M/route-mile [however, inflation may have moved it closer to 6M/mile]; cheaper than HSR if you want to look at it that way though; solely electrifying UP and BNSF lines would be 15-23 billion however just electrifying the Southern Transcon and Sunset Route would be far cheaper and probably account for a majority of rail freight in California).
synonymouse Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 11:41 am
American railroads are deeply committed to diesels. The Milwaukee Road provides a still-valid example of electrification that peters out over the years, even with cheap electricity at hand. And let’s not overlook the NdeM’s debacle ca. 1980 with wire from Mexico City to Queretaro which was then quickly torn down.
I suggest nationalization is a pre-requirement for erecting catenary on US rr’s.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
MWRR made the decision to dieselize based on: 1. An overwhelming desire to merge with other railroads 2. Extremely low oil prices (about $15 per bbl when adjusted for inflation) 3. High copper prices (however when they sold, there was a glut). 4. An accounting error which counted costs twice and so made it appear as though the electrification was running a loss when it actually was running a profit. These factors do not apply to any of the current Class I railroads.
In the case of the Mexican railroad system, the wiring was torn down to create clearance for double stacked freight, not a consideration when adding electrification to lines already double stacked (and electrification could proceed apace with creating the necessary clearances where it does not currently exist).
synonymouse Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
You are missing the point. American railroads are wedded to the idea of “mobility” even if tho it is a fixed guideway. They don’t want any little or virtual “overhead”, namely fixed plant. They want tro be able to tear out track, etc. whenever traffic falls off.
It is kinda like the traditional argument made in favor of buses over streetcars.
With labor being so cheap in Mexico they could have adjusted their overhead – Reaganite
types took over the government.
Nathanael Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 9:02 am
Let’s start by not subsidizing the competition to the freight railroads, how about? We subsidize the competition by offering non-tolled expressways to the truckers.
YesonHSR Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 1:34 am
AND your TEABAGAGGERRAIL fan idea is more lame dome 55mph dome trains?
Regarding the LAO claim that the project will cost $67 billion—Quoting from the LAO (Peer Review Group Report)—”The Groups experience indicates that preliminary cost projections are likely to be optimistic, but we also acknowledge that the authority might accomplish a lot with value engineering”.
Seems to me that we will have to wait until October when the 2011 Business Plan comes before we will get a good up to date estimate of what the project will cost, and it also seems to me that savings made possible by “value engineering” may be a crucial part of that plan.
Why America needs a gasoline tax (Economist):
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/07/fuel-economy
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 4:11 am
I took a look at the comments on this article, and amazingly, they are much more reasonable and calm-sounding than their counterparts on the recent HSR article in the same paper (although only one or two seemed to go beyond the idea of cars, and promoted transit service).
For some reason, rail service is seen as a lightning rod, and it scares people.
I can’t help but think of the farmers who thought steam trains would burn down their barns and fields, and townspeople who thought they would kill everybody in the streets (which it took cars to really do). . .
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Until they figured out how to keep the big cinders in the smokestack, locomotives fairly frequently set fire to fields and barns. The High Line in Manhattan was built because having trains in the middle of 11th Ave killed people….
Robert and Brian: If you guys are going to occasionally delete comments as being against the TOS for ad hominem attacks, why is nothing ever done regarding YesonHSR and his comments? I have never seen him post anything constructive, informative, or in any way actually contributing to the discussion and his comments, for the most part, consist entirely of vile and invective. Just some examples from this and the last few posts.
“You need to be bitch kicked..or given a one way USA ticket to Tuson”
“Go shove corn up your Ahole NimbyBrown”
“Stop sniffing your armpits SYN..”
“cough up money for CAHSR ..asshole..does this violate you?”
Peter Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 8:45 am
Seconded.
wu ming Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 11:06 am
i agree.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
Fourthed.
Walter Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
+1
Dan Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
yup
Clem Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
Seventhed
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 10:27 pm
It’s untrue that “nothing is ever done” about his comments – I have moderated them in the past, but obviously there is a new epidemic of them here. I will deal with those comments and with him. Thanks for bringing it to my attention and my apologies for the delay in addressing them.
YesonHSR Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 12:15 am
Robert as a patron member of Californians for high-speed rail I suggest you deal with all the Nimbys and self-righteous know it alls that hangout on this board that you provide a free entertainment space for.. Your friends at CARRD clean your clock every day in the media.. whenever there is an issue about high-speed rail they go and interview them.. not you . ..Now let s make sure that your friends on this board can hang out and blab .. and never put a dime into getting HSR in Cail..
This thread from Robert would be more aptly titled “Financial Realities Dictate do not Build HSR” which would really be Reality, rather than what Robert has titled his thread
“Financial Realities Dictate Need to Build HSR”
note from this NY Times article is also:
Meanwhile, the authority will look to give the private sector a bigger role in the project, to shore up its cash shortfall. Diridon said he’s in contact with companies that are already forming mega-consortia as large as 100 firms.
“I would expect instead of covering around 10 percent of the project through private investments, that they will be covering something more like 50 percent, or in excess of 50 percent, from the private investors,” Diridon said.
Diridon, Kopp and others have been talking for years, but unable to produce any private equity for the project. Talk is cheap.
Walter Bell of the peer review committee stated it quite plainly, “that without government support, private equity won’t be available.” With the Feds, quite obviously pulling away, there won’t be further funding, from them; there won’t be this “dream” of Diridon’s that 50% of the project funds will be come from private equity.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 11:54 am
Eh. The crucial question is whether the Feds actually are pulling away. I think there will be a temporary downturn in funding, but the Tea Party folks have shot their bolt and 2012 will hand things back to the Dems.
Of course, whether Diridon is actually speaking correctly on consortia willing to put up 50% of the cash or if that is just a fantasy he has extrapolated from the existence of such consortia is also a good question.
tony d. Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
I actually (gulp) agree with PM. The Tea Party is thankfully digging its own grave with its no compromise, protect the rich scheme.
Why haven’t we seen the private sector step up yet? Because quite frankly, there’s nothing yet to fund, with EIR’s and exact routes still being hashed out.
Google itself is investing millions in solar projects, and that’s just one of the many corporations with the means.
HP, Apple, Oracle anyone? Just to name a few.
synonymouse Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
The teapartyers are rural and small town US. They will break away from the Republican Party when they are finally made to realize the GOP is all Wall Street.
There is nothing but the most superficial difference between a Bloomberg and a Pelosi.
Columnist Elias reports on his Thalys ride: CAHSR should learn lessons from Thalys bullet train
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Oddly, they don’t mention any significant changes except perhaps the suggestion that the CV stations are unnecessary.
jimsf Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
For those couple of areas in the valley where the farmers are worried about the diagonal cuts through the property, why not build elevated sections, BUT, instead of the monstrous structures that have been depicted, why can they build it on a single column Y shape structure like the bart elevated. Each column only takes up a few square feet of space and they can use the maximum span that modern engineering would allow. structure like this its easily farmed around and minimally invasive
joe Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
I’d spend the money with the provision that these 4th generation pillars of the community are legally barred from selling off their heritage-farms when HSR helps the local economy and its value jumps.
BTW Hanford is the only HSR station where farm land will be taken, that is if my town of Gilroy does not build in the eastern farmland.
Peter Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 11:21 am
Hehehe, maybe not the best advertisement for aerial rail, jimsf. Maybe one without the trash in the foreground?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Most notable quote from the article:
“This train is popular, packed, maybe loved. You can’t miss the throngs on the platform. Every seat in coach 18 has been booked; but there is no discomfort. Plenty of leg room. Plenty of space for baggage of all sizes overhead or at the front and rear of the car. Four airlines operate between Paris and Amsterdam, but thousands of passengers preferred the train this morning, even though it costs a bit more than many flights and significantly more than an ordinary train – even for second class.
Seating at the lowest price levels is far wider, more supportive and comfortable than on hedgehopper flights between European cities.
All this might indicate the California High Speed Rail Commission is correct in figuring that plenty of California residents and tourists would prefer the train to almost any airplane, even at a premium price.”
Most interesting comparison by the one detractor in the comments:
“Yea, because the European model has worked so well for America.
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder”
VBobier Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
Another reason to take the train over the plane, Cancer causing UV rays at 30,000′ are stronger in the thinner atmosphere at that altitude then at ground level.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
There is not a sufficiently high level to meaningfully raise one’s cancer risk however.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
V, could it be that “Mitch” (the detractor) has had his brain fried in one manner or another?
Pringle resigns from HSRA … also Face of $43 billion Golden State bullet train project resigns
this not not this
Clem Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
Not if it’s built to Amtrak “independent utility” specs.
Peter Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 7:43 am
Has anyone ever actually crunched the engineering numbers to show that building for heavier Amtrak trains does in fact increase the cost of constructing the aerials? Don’t the aerials have to be specced for the super-heavy maintenance vehicles, anyway?
Andy M. Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 9:17 am
I guess there is a difference between a once in a blue moon heavy engineering train and the several trains an hour of the normal high-speed stuff.
Eric M Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 8:23 am
What about the downforce of a Alstom or Siemens trainset at 200 mph? Would that equal the weight of an FRA trainset at lower speeds?
Andre Peretti Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 11:09 am
The downforce decreases at high speeds. The air cushion under a fast vehicle tends to lift it and reduce its actual weight. Loss of weight while the mass remains unchanged is one of the problems F1 car designers have to solve. The phenomenon was also monitored on the record-breaking TGV (357mph) but no figures were released. Alstom just said the wheel-rail contact remained more than sufficient.
Matthew B. Reply:
July 20th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
General relativity states that an object approaching the speed of light will approach infinite mass :-)
Nathanael Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 9:05 am
Weren’t the numbers crunched on this? The added structure needed to support Superliners or other Amtrak passenger cars was between non-existent and insignificant. So it’s basically a question of axle loading on the locomotive. Surely the purchase of a captive locomotive fleet with extra axles would be sufficient for “independent utility”.
Off topic, but perhaps of interest–small towns losing air service:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/business/economy/24-small-towns-may-lose-airline-service.html?_r=1&ref=business&pagewanted=all
Also off topic, but such a beauty has to be seen–a classic interurban under restoration, now awaiting its trucks and other mechanical parts:
http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=31746
Enjoy.
Speaking of financial realities—The Devils Slide tunnel above Half Moon Bay has encountered soil problems that will delay the opening at least a year and will add on to the cost of the project. Work started in Sept 2007 and completion is now estimated at late 2013.
There will be a lot of tunneling necessary to run high speed rail from The Valley to the Bay Area and to Southern Calif, and I assume that potential cost overruns will be factored into the 2011 Business Plan.
Another question— How can Phase 1 be completed by 2020? We still need to choose a route to Southern Calif, do the engineering. and then build the system which will involve multiple tunnels on a scale much larger than at Devils Slide. So if a single tunnel takes over 6 years to build, then realistically how long is it going to take to get from The Valley to Los Angeles? I don’t think that going beyond 2020 is much of a problem, but if it is going to take longer then we should have an idea of how much longer.
Nathanael Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 9:06 am
If the tunnels are drilled simultaneously, and started by 2013, phase 1 can be completed by 2020. Otherwise probably not.