Republicans To Vote This Week On Using HSR Money for Flood Relief
As national politics in Washington, DC collapse into a bizarre, out of touch morass of deficit hysteria, the remaining federal high speed rail funds have been dragged into the widening crisis. As previously reported, the House Republican leadership is planning a vote on using the remaining $1.5 billion in HSR money for Midwestern flood relief:
“The flooding in the Midwest has been devastating,” declared Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-N.J., adding that “we must be serious about controlling the deficit.”
If Republicans in the House of Representatives succeed, California would lose $368 million, the Amtrak Northeast corridor would lose $795 million and a Midwestern high-speed rail corridor linking Chicago, Detroit and St. Louis would lose $404 million.
Typically, this is an unprecedented move, as Central Valley Democrat Jim Costa explained:
Since Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans in 2005, for instance, Congress has provided some $5 billion on an emergency basis without demanding budget offsets.
“We have always treated those as stand-alone items,” Costa noted.
The McClatchy article linked above mentions that the HSR funding will become part of a battle between the House and Senate, so it’s possible that the Senate will help block this nonsense. But it could also be the case that the Senate will have to find some other $1.5 billion to slash in order to get the flood relief funds.
And that’s the bigger problem. Demanding that we cut something else in order to pay for disaster relief is an insane way to budget. Disasters are by their very nature a one-time cost, and cutting other important services or projects to pay for them will simply undermine the effectiveness of government. Which is the entire point, at least for the GOP.
Worse, House Republicans are demanding that a project designed in part to help battle global warming be slashed in order to pay for the costs of a flood whose origins lie in global warming. High speed rail is an important part of a broader climate strategy, and without it, we can expect more extreme weather, which in turn will keep costing us money.
HSR advocates are fighting back. Go to Stand Up For Trains and tell your member of Congress to reject the Republican attack on high speed rail.
So HSR is an okay target, yet they are not willing to get rid of the $4 billion in tax breaks for big oil. Two and a half times that for high-speed rail, and does something productive instead of going down the drain. Better yet, if they tout deficit reduction, why are they not willing to tackle the big 4 items?
Ben Reply:
July 11th, 2011 at 9:06 pm
Of course the GO(B)P isn’t serious about the deficit. They also voted for $18B more in defense spending compared with FY 2011.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/08/usa-budget-defense-idUSN1E7670UA20110708
I don’t usually write in all capitals but here it is: VOTE FOR JANICE HAHN TOMORROW (JULY 12) IF YOU LIVE IN CA’S 36TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT (SANTA MONICA, SOUTH BAY). We need to send another person who supports investing in infrastructure rather than investing in hedge-fund managers and oil company executives to Washington.
Wait, I thought Republicans were all about states doing there own thing and not relying on the federal government? Let the flood money come from within their own states. Only only fair. Maybe they’ll have to cancel school for a year to afford it? Not our problem, if that’s how they chose to roll.
Alan Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 7:22 pm
The problem with your oh-so-sympathetic attitude is that much of the problem on the Missouri has been exacerbated by the incompetence of the Army Corps of Engineers, which seems to run the “flood control” projects for the benefit of recreational interests. If they’d been paying attention, they would have drawn down the upstream reservoirs much lower, much sooner, and have more room for runoff without causing inundation downstream. So whether you like it or not, there is Federal responsibility involved.
If the archetypical Tea Partyer can sit around and whine about how Real Americans shouldn’t have to pay for HSR in California or near HSR along the NEC shouldn’t people in California and along the NEC be asking why they should pay for flood relief in the Midwest? If the people suggesting that the money be shifted were true Libertarians they should be sending out nicely worded letters explaining to the flood victims that they should have taken out private flood insurance policies…..
swing hanger Reply:
July 11th, 2011 at 9:35 pm
Or better yet, it was their own economic choice to live in an area at high risk for flooding, and that the rational choice would have been to live on high ground.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 11th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
Well the libertarian thing to do is to deny them aid, it will encourage them to move to higher ground or carry insurance…..
JJJ Reply:
July 11th, 2011 at 10:14 pm
It’s the only logical conclusion. What kind of real american wants a federal aid handout? Real americans go to the free market for their aid.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 3:59 am
Except when they are too big to fail (translation: too big to punish).
I’ve been saying this locally for some time, I think the Tea Party types have it backwards. We don’t have the government taking over businesses, particularly banks; we have had the banks take over the government.
For proof, look who’s getting the big bonuses.
I am still amazed at comments by “conservatives” in the local paper that accuse our current president of being in the hands of a rich “elite” (which some would argue is true)–but then go and advocate for members of a party that is even more in the hands of the moneyed crowd.
How did my country turn so stupid?
Peter Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 5:49 am
Ha! Let’s see how much the free market is willing to invest in areas lying in flood plains…
I have also been arguing of late that we should look at abolishing or altering the corporate model of business. I say this because I think it is undemocratic.
In a corporation, you usually vote based on your investment. You have 10,000 shares, you get 10,000 votes, while the fellow who has 1,000 shares gets 1,000 votes. Is the man with 10,000 shares 10 times as smart, or 10 times as better (whatever that means) as the man with 1,000 shares? Not very likely–indeed, he may be less. Instead, he votes as a pile of money. What’s democratic about that?
A cooperative pays dividends based on shares, just like a corporation, and has the limited liability provisions as well. I can imagine shares being bought and sold easily, as in a corporation, too.
Cooperatives have long operated in all sorts of businesses, ranging from grain elevators and distributors in the midwest and west, franchised grocery stores (remember I.G.A. stores, the I.G.A, stood for Independent Grocers Association?), local utility firms, insurance companies (these usually have “Mutual” in their names), and banks. The latter are called “credit unions,” and I’ve been told by some credit union managers (during conversations on the audits I do on their payroll) that the regular banking industry hates them, and wishes they would go away.
I wonder why?
What could be the difference between a cooperative and a corporation?
The difference is that no how many shares you have, you only get one vote.
You vote as a person, not a pile of money.
That means you can’t use your pile of money to club the smaller shareholders.
Oh, do things become clear!
Andy M. Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 5:29 am
But who says corporations have to be democratic?
Take this one step further.
If small shareholders don’t like being clubbed by big shareholders, they should take their money out and stop being small shareholders. They can then put that money into small corporations or even privately owned enterprises and help them fight back against the big corporations. And I’m speaking from personal experience. I have share holdings in several very small companies. In contrast to the big corporations, shareholder meetings are not scripted performances in which dissenters are not welcome, but our managers are actively seeking to listen to our views on what they should do with our money. We have a great time giving our competitors a good run for their money and sometimes snatching lucrative orders out of their claws. Big corporations are often too blind with greed to understand what we’re doing. For them, keeping prices down means paying people less or offshoring or compromsiing on quality. For us it can mean making less personal profit and doing more for the company. They’re still much bigger than we are but we are growing and they are shrinking and we’re having a lot of fun doing it.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
Andy, I like your comments about having fun in business; it’s nice when it makes enough money for you to do that (note that said amount of profit does not have to be insane, just good).
One of the things that stands out about much in the modern business world is that nobody enjoys work anymore. Everyone is under pressure, pressure, pressure, and I think that even includes the financial big wigs we love to revile so much here. I am of the opinion that this is from placing too high a priority on money. Maybe it’s even a case of too much competition, maybe it’s having expectations that are too high in business, maybe it’s an excessive influence from the financial crowd (who are mostly a bunch of bean counters with no creative spark at all). In any event, the buck reigns supreme, and it is turning out to be the most demanding and fearsome of masters.
We do have a problem, as I see it. I don’t know what the companies you have invested in make, but I doubt any of them could tackle even a small infrastructure project, say along the lines of a tourist railroad or trolley line that also doubles for commuter traffic, much less a new HSR trunk line of even modest length. Granted, we are also dealing with a market rigged in favor of cars, yet a number of successful heritage roads suggest this is doable. Some also look to be great fun to work for, and to manage.
So, what do we do for the capitalist approach to something like this? How do you raise that kind of money without resorting to the Wall Street sharks?
P.S.–Are you at liberty to say what these firms you have invested in make, or what service they provide?
Andy M. Reply:
July 13th, 2011 at 1:46 am
Maybe I created a false impression about the type of investment I’m involved in. I have a regular daytime job which makes the money I need to pay the bills, and the other stuff I do on the side more for the fun. I am a sharegolder of one small book publishing company, and am also on their board. It doesn’t make very much money but a lot of people have published high quality stuff with us that were turned down by other more commercially minded companies. I am also involved with two micro breweries and in both cases its the same story. We are seeing the big brewing corporations riding roughshod and squeezing small bar and restaurant owners while raking in insane profits themselves. We can and do easily undercut their prices while still making good profits so growing market share is pretty trivial if people like your product. In the last 10 years we have repaid virtually all our loans and even bought a lot of new high-tech equipment without ever using that as an excuse to raise prices while our big competitors are raisng their prices “because they need to spend more on advertising”. How pathetic can you get? The last thing I’m involved in is indeed a tourist railroad. Obviously it doesn’t make profits or pay dividends but it covers costs.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 13th, 2011 at 4:03 am
“I have a regular daytime job which makes the money I need to pay the bills, and the other stuff I do on the side more for the fun.”–Andy M.
Very typical position for a small investor, particularly the first part with the daytime job.
“In the last 10 years we have repaid virtually all our loans and even bought a lot of new high-tech equipment without ever using that as an excuse to raise prices while our big competitors are raisng their prices “because they need to spend more on advertising”. How pathetic can you get?”–And M.
Ho, ho, ho, ho!!
I can think of a number of things here. . .
Stockholder at meeting: “That Superbowl commercial cost what?! How did that help our market share? And I thought it in bad taste, too.”
Board Member: “It is our patriotic duty to provide financial stimulus to our allies in the advertising agencies that they may maintain their standard of living, including their essential private jets. In that way, we support America, and the aerospace industry.”
“It is also our essential patriotic duty to maintain the spirits of the American people with high-quality advertising–especially if you take a look at what the programs are like today.”
Sounds like something for “Mad Men.”
There have been some excellent comedies about corporatism that have an element of truth to them. They include “Solid Gold Cadillac” and “How To Succeed In Business Without Really Trying.” I keep thinking there is a third that also stood out, but can’t think of its title at the moment.
swing hanger Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 5:29 am
Cooperatives? Capitalism is get what you can and screw everyone else, they don’t have what it takes to survive. This sounds suspiciously touchy feely and kumbaya to me. Sounds like a socialist plot, yeah that’s it… (sarcasm)
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
The funny thing is, cooperatives have been around quite a while. Credit unions, for instance, go back to 1852 in what is now Germany, and other cooperative efforts go back even further.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_union
Of course, in America the credit unions have an association:
http://www.creditunion.coop/
Hmm, a comment in one of the Wikipedia entries notes that the cooperatives need a dependable, reasonable, and understandable environment that includes appropriate regulation. Swing Hanger, I’m beginning to think the capitalist or corporatist system has mutated into something awful, something cancerous. I think the big corporations have become in essence amoral “supermen” (a reference to a corporate entity’s legal status as a type of fictitious “person.”)
I think they could drag us down if something isn’t done, but who will tackle that job?
The GOP continues to become the slime of the Earth. Nov 2012 can’t come soon enough!
The FRA needs to get the remainder of the HSIPR stimulus and FY10 grants obligated as quickly as possible. If they have to bend a few rules (just a little) and cut a corner or two, they should do so. Some of the projects have been stalled because of prolonged negotiations on the agreements between the FRA and the freight railroads.
In NY state, CSX is refusing to agree to 110 mph speeds west of Schenectady to Buffalo, although they are ok with 110 mph east of Schenectady to south of Albany because CSX does run much freight traffic there. Also, sections of the tracks south of Albany to NYC are already approved for 100 mph running. Word is that the negotiations are dragging on.
Expanding a bit on the key projects at risk in this rescission attempt are:
Chicago to Detroit: funding will get 235 miles of corridor up to 110 mph speeds after buying 135+ miles from Norfolk Southern and adding it to the 97 miles of Amtrak owned corridor. This corridor could see the single biggest improvements in speeds and trip times of all the projects funded with the $10.1 billion.
CT: New Haven to Springfield MA line for double tracking and increase max speeds to 110 mph.
PA: Keystone East Corridor – $18 million to close the last 3 grade crossings to seal the corridor to clear the way for 125 mph speeds and $40 million for track & catenary improvements
CA: bunch of projects for the Surfliner and Capital corridors
CA & Midwest: major bi-level passenger car purchase to get some new badly needed equipment.
NEC: the long desired catenary and track upgrades in central NJ so the Acela can run at full speed on the long straightaway; Harold interlocking bypass in Queens; Kingston RI station 3rd track to fix bottleneck.
Many of these projects are probably close to wrapping up the paperwork and contracts for obligation, but may need a few more months to get it done.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 8:26 am
Then never mind. The Harold interlocking fix is a complete waste of money; the catenary upgrade in Jersey would save the Acela about 1 minute; a third track at Kingston would be counterproductive because it would introduce switching moves; FRA-regulated commuter rail does not need any new cars.
Peter Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 8:47 am
I don’t think the point of the catenary and track upgrades for the Acela is to speed up the Acela. The point is more to replace ancient catenary to improve reliability…
Alon Levy Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 9:08 am
If the point is to improve reliability, then New Brunswick-Morrisville is the absolute worst segment for it: it’s the one place where intercity trains do not have to share tracks with slower commuter trains, and isn’t even a coherent segment. Much better would be to do Penn-Trenton. Or, even better, New York-Washington, which Amtrak said would be $1 billion 2 years ago, and which can and should be done in one piece to realize economies of scale. (So don’t grade-separate Harold; it’s completely unnecessary anyway.)
Alan F Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
Umm, no, in the NEC improvement documents, Amtrak listed $500 million (one document) and $1 billion in the NEC Master Plan as the cost (ballpark costs at best I’m sure) for upgrading to constant tension catenary in “High Speed Territory”, not the entire NYP to WAS corridor.
Amtrak has not released much specific information on what the $450 million recently granted will be used for, but it is not just replacing the catenary. It is upgrading the electrical power, signal systems, tracks, and catenary wires from Morrisville, PA to New Brunswick NJ and to also reconfigure the track switches at the western entrance to Penn Station in NYC. Yes, going from 135 to 160 mph over a 24 mile section only cut nominal trip time by 1.6 minutes, but it will help sell the Acela service and lead to more of the NEC (DE, MD) eventually getting upgraded to 160 mph speeds. Improving the reliability for at least 1 section in NJ is also a big plus.
Once the Morrisville to New Brunswick section work is underway, then Amtrak can seek funding for getting another section between Philly and NYC up to a true state of good repair with either replaced catenary or perhaps even plan to upgrade to constant tension catenary throughout.
As for the Harold Interlocking bypass, so you have done the detailed traffic and track use analysis for LIRR and Amtrak trains in Queens once the ESA project is done and LIRR trains are going to Grand Central? In this case, I will trust the judgment of the LIRR, MTA, Amtrak. consultant railroad engineers and the FRA who have determined that a bypass is worth it. Anything to improve NYP to Boston trip times is a big plus.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
I have detailed infrastructure maps for the current use (and so do you); Harold is unnecessary. Amtrak can use the northern tunnel pair into Penn Station with minimal conflict. ESA will make it even less necessary, because the few trains that conflict with NEC-through-northern-tunnels are LIRR trains to Hunterspoint, and fewer of those will be necessary once there’s direct service to Grand Central.
The problem is purely organizational: the northern tunnels feed into the lower concourse, which is the LIRR’s turf. The consultants, who haven’t even figured out that it might be a good idea to combine ticket vending instead of requiring people to schlep all over Penn Station to find a TVM for the service they need, are not going to propose anything that would prioritize infrastructure over concrete.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 7:01 pm
there is no “northern tunnel pair” there’s a flying junction underground in Long Island City. The tunnel order on the Manhattan end is eastbound, westbound, eastbound, westbound. The tunnel order on the Queens end is westboudn westbound, eastbound, eastbound.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 8:25 pm
No. Under the river, the tunnel order is westbound, eastbound, westbound, eastbound. It switches to what you say just east of the portal in Queens. The northern tracks in each direction, i.e. the NEC and the Port Washington Line, connect to the northern tunnels with minimal switching, while the southern tracks, i.e. the LIRR Main Line, connect to the southern tunnels. The issue is that the LIRR trains to LIC muck this up, but there are so few of them it doesn’t matter.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
for upgrading to constant tension catenary in “High Speed Territory”, not the entire NYP to WAS corridor.
Almost all of it is “high speed territory”. When it gets hot the untensioned catenary sags enough that the speed limiut between NY and DC is lowered to 80. Stretches the trip out to four hours.
It’s easier to come up with a good sound-bite that Amtrak is a ‘Soviet-style’ rail system than to get the facts staight. Any private company that sales more than doubled in a little over five years would be considered wildly successful.
“Downeaster Hits 500,000 Yearly Ridership. The AP (7/12) reports, “Annual ridership on Amtrak’s Downeaster has topped 500,000 for the first time, with ridership more than doubling since 2005 on the rail service.” Patricia Quinn, executive director of the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority, said that “ridership grew 8 percent and ticket revenue grew 7 percent during” the fiscal year that ended June 30, when it reached the milestone.”
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20110711downeaster_tops_500000_for_1st_time/srvc=home&position=recent
Alon Levy Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 9:09 am
Amtrak’s sales did not double; ridership on the money-losing state-supported corridors is rising, while that on the money-making NEC is stagnant.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
NEC ridership is up by 5.6% so far this fiscal year, which doesn’t strike me as stagnant.
Alan F Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
In the past 3 months (April to June), after a relatively flat growth period, the ridership numbers on the NE Regionals have gone up +13.3%, +10.1%, +9.8% compared to the year before. The Acela is up +6.8% for the first 9 months of the FY. So the NEC ridership numbers are doing ok.
Amtrak out out a press release today with the June ridership numbers. Despite some service disruptions in the mid-West and northern plains due to flooding, track work (Chicago – St. Louis Lincoln Service, Vermonter), and some severe slow orders for the Chi-Detroit corridor, Amtrak had a record June FY11 ridership of 2,672,163 passengers, a +4.1% increase over June FY10.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
It’s been flat from the early 2000s to today.
Insert standard grumbling by someone trained in the Earth sciences that even though the planet is clearly warming and we should expect more floods, that does not mean, ipso facto, that the recent flooding was directly caused by global warming, that we have to take a lot of different variables into account and ask a number of smaller questions about what caused the floods, and that any blanket statement connecting this year’s weather with climate change should have a lot of footnotes.
Also, HSR isn’t going to do much for climate–it might slow growth in travel emissions and make a slight cut if it destroys the short-haul flight market, but these will be probably overwhelmed by growth in other areas. If HSR’s a good investment, it’s because it does less harm than flying and you get more capacity per dollar with fewer negative externalities than equivalent increases in road and airport capacity. But if you’re talking about seriously addressing climate change, big HSR investment’s aren’t really a priority.
synonymouse Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 10:47 am
If you haven’t noticed Greece is moving inexorably toward default and the other PIIG’s are lined up behind like dominos. Austerity is a given now and that means that already promised funding from DC may be yanked.
Which means that the CHSRA needs to concentrate on the overriding challenge of connecting the two halves of the state and that entails closing the Bako-LA gap. There’s no use of rushing ahead on secondary segments like Borden to Corcoran if the funding is drying up. Expedite Tejon and put all the eggs in this basket.
In Norcal it seems that every transit issue always comes back to BART, which dominates all. It is time to revisit the unthinkable, namely making BART more compatible with other operations like hsr. The broad gauge issue, dual gauging for instance, needs to be re-examined even if the answer comes up no once again. LA was indeed fortunate in not getting saddled with this terrible mistake on the part of Bechtel.
Peter Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 11:13 am
What the eff does your repeated drivel have to do with Beta Magellan’s comment on HSR’s ability to address climate change?
I’m getting the feeling that the others are right, your comments ARE just a Turing test.
Jon Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 11:49 am
Look, synonymouse is just a train nerd. He demands CAHSR use Tejon and Altamont because he really really wants it to look like the San Francisco Chief, and he wants to destroy BART because it replaced the Key System. He hates PB & Bechtel because they created BART and are planning CAHSR in a manner not his liking. This, combined with pseudo-libertarian anti-union economic politics, feeds his conspiracy theories. (That said I have no idea where the I-5 nonsense comes from.)
The opinions of someone who has a strong personal motivation for favoring a specific alignment over another, whether that motivation is financial or just because it makes their inner train nerd happy, should be taken with a huge a pinch of salt. Making alignment decisions based on those opinions is the opposite of a detached, rational alternatives analysis.
synonymouse Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
The SF Chief is missed by many. The Key System had its shortcomings but most would agree that it should have been upgraded and saved along with the Sacramento Northern.
In the mid-sixties the railroad enthusiasts were excited at the prospect of BART but were nonplussed by the choice of broad gauge against a century of railroad experience to the contrary. In the first week of operation in the East Bay BART flew, but it was all downhill from there.
Bechtel came up with Indian broad gauge thru “a detached, rational alterntives analysis”?
I used to be a yellow dog demo until it veered off into the kinky like open borders and intactivism.
Jon Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
I think you just proved all my points…
I never said Bechtel came up with broad gauge though a detached, rational alternatives analysis. My point is that you’re obsessed with dual-gauging BART because the broad gauge offends your train nerd sensibilities, not because it would actually serve any useful purpose.
Jon Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Just out of curiosity- which particular piece of railroading history is fueling your I-5 obsession?
synonymouse Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
BART’s broad gauge discourages hsr from trying to use its ROW’s but no problem with Caltrain, tho the Caltrain entree is inferior to the BART East Bay lines.
I don’t like freeways, don’t care much for the automobile as the only transport alternative, and I am cheap. The Division of Highways spent a fortune and wrecked many a neighborhood so now it is time to even the score with the mobility lobby and take advantage of their Baron Haussman-like swath thru the west Valley for a very lo-ball yet very fast hsr starter.
Jon Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Ah, so it’s your beef with Caltrans that fuels your I-5 obsession. Like BART, Caltrans did wrong, and we all know that two wrongs make a right.
You are of course entitled to your opinions, I just want to illustrate that they are rooted in your own prejudices rather than any rational assessment of the engineering challenges behind HSR.
Spokker Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
“I just want to illustrate that they are rooted in your own prejudices rather than any rational assessment of the engineering challenges behind HSR.”
Pacheco or Altamont?
Jon Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 2:05 pm
What does that have to do with anything?
There are rational arguments behind both Pacheco and Altamont. If there wasn’t, people wouldn’t still be arguing over it.
Spokker Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Current arguments in favor of Altamont: Provides better service to more people.
Current arguments in favor of Pacheco: They picked it already.
Tony D. Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Just to add to Spokkers post:
Pacheco already picked because it serves Silicon Valley/San Jose directly, and Altamont will one day provide good service to more people (in conjunction with Pacheco) through the ACE HSR overlay project. But go ahead foamers, continue to ignore reality if you must ;o).
Spokker Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
ACE HSR overlay which is more money spent to provide what Altamont alone could. You act like Obama didn’t punt the gem of his transportation policy.
Serving San Jose directly is not a priority because San Jose is overstated as a destination for rail travelers.
It honestly doesn’t matter what your opinion is on the project because the least-cost, highest benefit solution will be forced upon you by economic reality or the project will not happen at all.
Jon Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Goddammit, why does everything anyone says on this site end up becoming Pacheco vs. Altamont? I DON’T CARE which pass they use.
Spokker Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Because you said, “You are of course entitled to your opinions, I just want to illustrate that they are rooted in your own prejudices rather than any rational assessment of the engineering challenges behind HSR.”
So if you were for Pacheco, you would be a hypocrite, because the rational assessments point out that Altamont is the superior option.
Jon Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
No. There are rational arguments both for and against Pacheco and Altamont. This is why it is still being argued over by a lot of ostensibly sensible people.
For example, Tony D says Pacheco is better because it serves San Jose directly; you say that doesn’t matter as San Jose is overstated as a destination for rail travelers, but you don’t cite any evidence to support that. Really you’re just expressing your opinion on the importance of San Jose as a destination, just as Tony D is (implicitly) expressing his opinion.
I’m sure you both could cite evidence which supported the importance or otherwise of serving San Jose directly, and the importance you each give to that evidence would be again weighted according to your own opinions on what is important for the HSR system. Providing you both have logical reasons for holding such opinions and weighting the evidence in such a way, we have a valid and sensible debate.
(The reason this argument refuses to die is that empirically the evidence for and against is so close that people get divided down the middle according to subtle variations in opinion over what is and is not important for the system. This is also why I don’t care; neither routing will be a disaster however you look at it.)
The point is, I’m sure neither of you would weight the evidence based on half-century old grudges over transportation decisions made by various state agencies. That’s why there’s a huge difference between the Altamont vs. Pacheco argument and synonymouse’s pipedream vendettas.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 7:08 pm
There is a huge amount of data in the EIR, the ridership model (and UC Berkeley review). The track diagrams for the TBT FUBAR are there for all to see. Pacheco arguments would carry more credibility if they were to refer to actual data. Instead, all we hear is “still winning”, and “it’s decided already”.
tony d. Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 7:13 pm
There’s an age-old sentiment out of some in SF/OAK (called the Herb Caen syndrome) that
San Jose/Silicon Valley are irrelevant and unworthy of direct HSR service. They’d rather see Tracy
and Mountain House have direct rail service over the 10th largest city in the US (I know, ridiculous).
Add to this the crying from PAMPA and you have the constant whining from those who
wanted Altamont-only (completely ignoring the HSR overlay proposal as well).
I guess all topics are fair game for the foamers; almost like therapy for them.
Jon Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
There is a huge amount of data in the EIR
Last time I checked, every significant statistic was very close for Pacheco and Altamont. LA-SF runtime, for example, was a two minute difference. You’ll have to do better than that if you want to prove there’s no argument to be had.
The track diagrams for the TBT FUBAR are there for all to see.
…which has what to do with Pacheco vs. Altamont?
synonymouse Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
What is good for Palmdale and San Jose regarding hsr are not what is best for the State overall. Similarly what was good for Bechtel and the Southern Pacific(ie., BART broad gauge)never has been nor will ever be the best for the Bay Area.
James M. in Irvine Reply:
July 13th, 2011 at 7:56 am
Two wrongs do not make a right, but three do….
Jim
Alex M. Reply:
July 13th, 2011 at 11:47 am
@Jon: I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
@spokker: It doesn’t matter if San Jose is a “destination,” what matters is that there are 900,000 people in the city and ever more in its greater area. Why you don’t want direct service for the south bay is beyond me. But hey, you’re from socal, so what do you know about the bay area and why do you feel so strongly about this?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
The SF Chief is missed by many.
All of them over 60 because by the mid 1960s people in San Francisco who wanted to get to Chicago, flew. The last one ran in 1971 which means anyone who was a passenger, and old enough to remember the trip, is over 40.
Alex M. Reply:
July 13th, 2011 at 11:49 am
Um, the SF chief went from SF to LA, not Chicago.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 13th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
From Wikipedia:
The San Francisco Chief was a named passenger train operated by the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway as Nos. 1 & 2 from June 6, 1954 to May 1, 1971. It covered the Santa Fe line from near San Francisco, California to Barstow, California, then east to Chicago, Illinois via the Belen cutoff.
My Official Guide has it going all the way to Chicago too….
This is why the US has a deficit. See that blue bit on the right of the graph, since about the late eighties? That’s the missing income which should be closing the deficit, paying for HSR and paying for Midwest flood relief. Not much point arguing over who gets a slice of the pie when the whole pie is shrinking this quickly.
HSR appears to be a big reason Fresno was selected as one of 6 cities for the White House’s new “Strong Cities, Strong Communities” initiative. Perhaps partially a message from the Administration that it still expects California to spend the current Federal HSR funding in the SJV and Fresno.
Per the White House blog:
“In Fresno, CA, Mayor Swearengin and the Community Solutions Team will work to capitalize on the coming high-speed rail station to improve the downtown area, and will also build on a successful neighborhood development program.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/07/11/announcing-strong-cities-strong-communities
A team of federal employees from several agencies will work full-time with the Fresno Mayor’s office. The team includes a full-time DOT employee assigned to work to “align transportation infrastructure with the City’s broader revitalization strategies and will work closely with the City and the California High Speed Rail Authority to ensure the successful implementation of the high speed rail initiative. DOT will also work with the City on its Bus Rapid Transit program.”
http://www.fresno.gov/News/PressReleases/2011/New+Federal+Partnership.htm
O.T. Desert Xpress news:
http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/jul/12/developers-cleared-start-desertxpress-engineering/
*it’s been a while since any new developments in this project
LA to Sacramento, using legacy track, is a perfectly reasonable Phase 0 service. A 4 hour trip still beats 7 hours of driving.
Caelestor Reply:
July 13th, 2011 at 10:37 pm
how’d this get posted here…
I know I may sound a little let-them-eat-cake-y here, but to be quite honest, these people choose to live in floodplain and then complain when it floods? Really?
And now we have to spend our money that could be going toward making real progress into pulling the state out of its deficit just because THIS WHERE MUH MAW LIVED A-HYUCK :B
This right here is why eugenics is a great idea.