Kevin Drum Dismisses HSR Without Even Looking at the Details
(See below for Kevin Drum’s response, which is also the first comment to the post. He submitted the comment late Monday night, but I wasn’t able to approve it until Wednesday morning.)
Kevin Drum, the Orange County-based political blogger for Mother Jones, last week chose to trash HSR without even making a close look at the details of the project. Once again an HSR critic rests their case on flawed evidence:
If the cost of the entire project balloons at the same pace as the Central Valley section, the San Francisco-to-Anaheim railroad would cost from $63 billion to $87 billion, similar to what independent analysts have been predicting. And those figures do not include inflation, which could push the final cost toward a staggering $100 billion. When California voters approved the project in 2008, the state said it would cost $33 billion, but it soared to $43 billion a year later.I’m no engineer, but I’m willing to risk a few C-notes that this project ends up at $100 billion or more in 2011 dollars. Any takers? This is a very long-term bet, of course, since the line isn’t scheduled to be finished until 2020 — and I’m willing to put up a few more C-notes that it’ll be more like 2025 or 2030. Or never.
I’ll take that bet.
The problem here is that Drum doesn’t even bother to ask why the costs are increasing. He hasn’t been paying close attention to the project, saw a headline, looked at the Mercury News’ numbers, and thought “oh my god this thing is headed into the stratosphere.”
Well, no. Let’s actually look at what is going on here before jumping to conclusions.
The 2008 estimate of $33 billion was in 2008 dollars. That was always considered by many to be low. However, the spike to $43 billion was due to a federally mandated change in accounting. That number, released in December 2009, was based on year of expenditure dollars – which assumes inflation.
Both numbers, however, were preliminary estimates done before much of the detailed design work had been done. Over the last 3 years that work has been done. The Central Valley segment cost estimate, however, reflects a much deeper and more accurate level of project planning.
While the ~$10 billion number for the Central Valley segment could still change, at this stage it seems unlikely to change by very much, unless there are significant changes made to the project design after this point – and those mid-project change orders are typically the greatest source of project cost increases. Drum just looked at the progression of numbers from 2008 to 2011, did not stop to ask what explained it, and blithely assumed it was just a constant trendline upward. Not so.
Drum wasn’t done making conclusions he can’t back up with evidence. He then went on to argue, against a mountain of evidence, that HSR can never be successful without subsidies:
Look, I’m sorry HSR lovers. I love me some HSR too, but this project is just a fantastic boondoggle. It didn’t even make sense with the original cost estimates, and it’s now plain that it’s going to cost three or four times more than that. What’s more, the ridership estimates are still fantasies and it won’t be able to compete with air travel without large, permanent subsidies.
OK, that last part is just plain wrong. Drum is obviously totally unaware that the Acela generates an operating surplus and has high ridership. One could argue that the government still subsidizes it by owning the tracks, but then many governments subsidize airlines by owning the airports and the air traffic control systems that make air travel possible. And of course, there’s the global success of HSR, which repeatedly gets ignored by every HSR critic, where ridership is high and HSR operates without subsidy. That’s true of HSR in Spain, Russia, Taiwan, as well as in Japan and France.
Drum might argue that California is different, but there’s no evidence for that either. California’s current intercity trains carry large numbers of riders. California compares favorably to those globally successful HSR routes, including population density and overall population.
Drum also has to ignore the inconvenience and time required to fly, which makes door-to-door travel times very close between HSR and flying (and that’s before we factor in rising oil prices). HSR is far more convenient than driving, especially since one can’t stay connected using their digital devices while behind the wheel.
This is just too much money to spend on something this dumb. It’s the kind of thing that could set back HSR for decades. Sacramento needs to pull the plug on this, and they need to pull it now. We have way better uses for this dough.
Like spending at least $100 billion to expand roads and airports to handle the passenger loads that HSR would take?
Kevin Drum doesn’t have to like HSR. But he does need to get his facts straight before he attacks it.
PS: Alon Levy makes an excellent contribution to the discussion with this fantastic post titled Cost Overruns: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Hate Bent Flyvbjerg. It’s a good read.
UPDATE: Kevin Drum responds in the comments:
“at this stage it seems unlikely to change by very much”
Famous last words! But I’m still good for the bet, so we’ll have to catch up with each other around 2020 or so to settle up.
BTW, I’m well aware of everything you mentioned in this post. The Acela comparison is specious because Acela costs far less than our proposed HSR, and LA, to put it mildly, is not an ideal city to be an endpoint for HSR. European cities mostly are. The door-to-door time for the LA-SF train will be barely competitive with air even if they meet their goals. Which I doubt. And the ridership numbers are just fantasies.
LA-SF is at the very high end of what’s feasible for HSR, and that only makes sense if the conditions are ideal. Ours aren’t.
But obviously this is all speculation at this point, regardless of how much evidence we can each amass. We’ll know for sure in a decade or so.
“at this stage it seems unlikely to change by very much”
Famous last words! But I’m still good for the bet, so we’ll have to catch up with each other around 2020 or so to settle up.
BTW, I’m well aware of everything you mentioned in this post. The Acela comparison is specious because Acela costs far less than our proposed HSR, and LA, to put it mildly, is not an ideal city to be an endpoint for HSR. European cities mostly are. The door-to-door time for the LA-SF train will be barely competitive with air even if they meet their goals. Which I doubt. And the ridership numbers are just fantasies.
LA-SF is at the very high end of what’s feasible for HSR, and that only makes sense if the conditions are ideal. Ours aren’t.
But obviously this is all speculation at this point, regardless of how much evidence we can each amass. We’ll know for sure in a decade or so.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
To be fair to CAHSR, the HSR and air trip times are comparable to those between NYC-DC, where Amtrak has a two-third’s share.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Never been to a metro NY airport have you? And anyway the only time New York City or Washington DC is part of Real America is when Sept. 11th is being discussed. The rest of the time it’s filled with bagel eating chardonnay swilling effete Easterners who don’t… … don’t vote Republican. Same as San Francisco and Los Angeles.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 18th, 2011 at 8:17 am
Metro LA airports aren’t any better. Just getting to them takes a week.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
August 18th, 2011 at 8:24 am
Would you mind explaining what any of that has to do with what I said?
Peter Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Both LA and SF are ideal endpoints for HSR. Both of them have very extensive public transportation networks. In fact, I think that LAUS will be an even better terminal than TBT in terms of mass-transit access.
IT DOESN’T MATTER WHY. The minute the HSR foamers chose to LIE to the California voters with Prop 1A 2008, they locked in to law those false pretenses to which voters eventually agreed. HSR might be the best idea in the world, but the CA HSR defined by Prop 1A is nothing but a pipe dream, and the plan they now have (beginning to crack the surface of reality), does not qualify under AB3034. So you can dream all day long big fat stinking HSR wet dreams but the reality is – what’s happening now is illegal under AB3034 – because its NOT meeting the very specific conditions that the voters approved (you know – that overwhelming support of the voters you’re so fond of referencing That WASN’t unconditional HSR love. It was only approved by voters because of the very specific protections it provided. Go take a look at what they supported. Its not this HSR plan.) Robert – you don’t have to like the fact that the voters were very specific and unrealistic about the conditions under which CA HSR would be allowed to go forward – but you need to get your facts straight.
joe Reply:
August 15th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
Kevin Drum has an readership that demands better researched opinion.
Tom McNamara Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 8:13 am
Man if you are this angry about Prop 1A…I can’t imagine the look on your face when you found out the Iraq War wasn’t going to create $20 a barrel oil or that the financial industry needed a bailout…
I mean, all Prop 1A did was authorize bonds for specific construction. Was 2006 Prop 1B also a LIE because much of its money was redirected too? Was Prop 13 a lie because it destroyed local finance?
Alan Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 10:22 am
peninsula, have you considered professional help? Modern medicine can do wonders.
Acela Express does not have high ridership, it is about 9,000 per day, California is projected to have 250,000 per day. California commuter rail rider ship is very small compared to the Northeastern. LA has 30,000 per day, New York has 700,000 per day. The number sdo not add up.
Please stop writing about Acela and profit in the same sentence. Amtrak’s claim of Acela’s operating profit is based on false accounting. When Amtrak acquired the train sets a lot of operating costs were put into the capital account (no GAAP in sight) because Amtrak gets an annual capital grant but has to fight for an operating budget. Incidentally, 95% of Amtrak’s capital grant goes to the NEC, the rest of the system gets the leftovers. California taxpayers pay twice for their state supported Amtrak services, once through federal and a second time through state taxes.
As far as the CA high speed project is concerned, the current SJV plan is a total waste of funds and seems to be supported by those whose rationale is that if you spend enough the government will be forced to spend even more to avoid a stranded asset. That’s morally reprehensible. You may as well pay people to dig holes and fill them in again.
As for the alternative of inaction on HSR costing $100 billion, that’s a suspiciously round number and best dismissed out of hand. Case in point, SWA have upgraded most of their fleet to 737-800s. Each flight has about 20 extra seats compared to the old version. Runway, ATC and terminal investment needed? De minimus.
If we want modern railroads in this state we need a sensible plan that allows us to build in moderate, affordable increments with each stage representing real value in terms of enhanced service and expanded network. Clearly the current policy of the CAHSRA will not achieve that end. They will simply keep spending until the funds run dry and the consultants will find the next cow to milk.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 15th, 2011 at 11:55 pm
<Em.95% of Amtrak’s capital grant goes to the NEC, the rest of the system gets the leftovers.
There is no “rest of the system”
Alan Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 10:15 am
I guess all of those other trains in other parts of the country are just illusions, and the ROW that Amtrak owns outside the NEC is a myth.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 10:35 am
Amtrak owns insignificant ROW outside of the NEC.
Alan Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
I wouldn’t call Chicago Union Station “insignificant”. And the capital budget also includes Amtrak-funded improvements to freight railroad infrastructure, such as the improvements which are about to begin on NS-owned trackage on the Chicago-Detroit line. (BTW, Amtrak owns part of that line) Moreover, “capital” isn’t just ROW, it includes motive power and rolling stock, and the system outside the NEC has been starved for capital for years.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
They haven’t spent significant amounts of money on rolling stock in decades.
Spokker Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 4:54 am
Amtrak California will be entirely on the state soon. Aside from a few token Surfliner runs, it already is. Re-brand it as *the* state rail network and let’s institute streamlined ticketing. No reason to call it Amtrak. No reason to weigh it down with that baggage.
Tom McNamara Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 8:09 am
I think that’s where the Bush Administration was headed, actually. The freight railways and Joe Biden of course, disagree. However, what might be feasible is to put some of the subsidies currently for air service and give them to Amtrak to serve out of the way communities more frequently. The Amtrak could be run less schizophrenically, and it could bid on operating high speed rail corridors including its own.
HSR is going to all but eliminate Amtrak California anyway once it usurps much of the Surfliner traffic and the San Joaquins. Phase 3 or 4 of course, is building the “Tahoe Express” using the current Capitol Corridor alignment.
Jon Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 10:37 am
Hell yeah. Forget Altamont, build San Jose – Oakland – Sacramento as the next priority. A station at West Oakland BART would fix SF – Sac travel without the need for a new bay crossing, as well as providing express service in the East Bay and commuter service for Emeryville/West Berkeley and cities north of Richmond.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 10:41 am
You have designs for the double deck BART cars that would be needed at peak travel times? That would run at far less than capacity east of West Oakland?
Jon Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 11:44 am
Nyes, they’re here in my back pocket…
Okay, so this approach defers the need for a new bay crossing rather than eliminating it. Eventually the transbay tube will hit capacity and you’ll need to build a new one, either for BART or standard gauge.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 12:03 pm
Eventually was in 2006 or something like that.
Jon Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Clearly you and I have a different definition of ‘at capacity’. It’s a subway train; it’s okay for it to be standing room only between West Oakland and Civic Center. The new cars will provide more standing room, and there’s still capacity to add more trains and more cars to the existing trains.
FWIW, BART are working on the assumption that the current transbay tube will be at capacity by 2030: http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-06-22/news/17249908_1_transbay-tube-bart-east-bay
Jon Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
BTW the non-archived version of that article contains the following poll:
Which BART extension would you most like to see?
I-80 corridor north of Richmond: 10%
2nd Transbay Tube to Van Ness Ave: 13%
New line along I-680: 9%
As long as we’re dreaming, how about around the Bay?: 69%
Clear the ROW, Caltrain, the people have spoken!
synonymouse Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Of course, in the real world, that means goodbye hsr as well. 4 shared trax was the key to the shotgun marriage. And PAMPA would insist on its 2-track only subway.
Forget BART mit hsr. Ain’t gonna go down that way. If you want hsr on the Peninsula you w will need to support the Simitian blend.
synonymouse Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Unless of course, you can handle Altamont to SFO via Dumbarton, the best alternative.
Jon Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
Fortunately, public transportation planning does not rely solely on unscientific vox pop surveys
Joey Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 8:34 pm
Of course they say it’ll be at capacity in 2030. If they didn’t, they’d have to forgo their fringe extensions in favor of new rolling stock and signal upgrades.
Seriously — BART is having issues already. I guess I can’t say much about the other lines, but the Pittsburgh-Baypoint line is packed during parts of rush hour, and it’s already eating almost half of BART’s slots during that time. When a train goes out of service, as it does often enough with BART’s dilapidated equipment, chaos ensues.
Jon Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 11:24 am
Sorry, but having commuted/ridden on a variety of metro systems I have a hard time accepting the notion that BART is ‘at capacity’. Ride the Moscow subway and then we’ll talk.
Anyway, a new Transbay tube would be best as standard gauge, which would tie in nicely with a San Jose – Oakland – Sacramento HSR line and remove the need to transfer at West Oakland. This is still the best proposal: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/01/06/crossing-the-bay-again-but-not-necessarily-with-bart/
Derek Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
The transbay tube will only hit capacity if it isn’t priced efficiently. Supply and Demand is covered in Economics 101.
political_incorrectness Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
One that will not be eliminated is Surfliner to Santa Barbara. I think that will allow for enhancement. Hopefully, tracks will be upgraded from Santa Barbara-Los Angeles. The Capitol Corridor would probably be turned into a commuter rail system. If less Surfliners are needed down south, the equipment could be diverted to service Sacramento-Auburn and hopefully Reno in the future.
Tom McNamara Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Indeed. Santa Barbara and the Central Coast are just big enough that there will probably be a “Coast Daylight-esque” service between SJ and LA. If I had to guess though, not every train would go the whole route. Instead, most trains would turn around in Salinas or Santa Barbara but a couple would go from end to end. Another good place to put the money would be in a train to Yosemite…or a night train between Sacramento to Eugene, OR…etc…etc.
Miles Bader Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
Oh, a train to yosemite would be brilliant! are there tracks…?
JBaloun Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
http://www.goldrushcam.com/2007/Mariposa%20News/El%20Portal%20100%20Year%20Train%20Anniversary.htm
synonymouse Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
The Yosemite Valley Railroad was abandoned in 1945.
Tom McNamara Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
There supposedly several old rail lines that were used by the rail tycoons to get ridership up by offering trips to the new-fangled national parks a century or so ago… a private company owns the one that runs to the Grand Canyon, but it’s a very inconvenient transfer from the Southwest Chief. The Empire Builder actually stops right in Glacier National Park…
Alon Levy Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
Glacier National Park was heavily promoted by the Great Northern, precisely because their mainline went right through it.
thatbruce Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
@paul dyson:
You have some interesting contradictions in your posting. For example:
If we want modern railroads in this state we need a sensible plan that allows us to build in moderate, affordable increments with each stage representing real value in terms of enhanced service and expanded network.
Ok, that’s a valid point. The essential problem is that the values that people use change depending on who the people are, and which segment is being suggested. Take the Central Valley for instance, you think that As far as the CA high speed project is concerned, the current SJV plan is a total waste of funds. Personally, I think that the CV segment has excellent political and learning value for both the CAHSRA and California, even though the financial cost may be higher than similar systems over similar terrain. This is in part due to the CAHSRA at times not having a clue, and some of the funding requirements leading towards the building of heavier structures than HSR-in-the-rest-of-the-world requires.
But, if you really strongly feel that everything the CAHSRA is doing is a complete waste of money, why don’t you volunteer your services, especially since you’ve obviously got much more serious infrastructure experience than anyone the CAHSRA has hired or issued contracts to. Why, you’ll be able to easily identify the current problems and put forward viable plans for building a system in, what was the term, ah, moderate and affordable increments.
( For the sarcasm-impaired, the preceding paragraph contains twice your daily dose )
I’m not going to attack your claims about the Amtrak Acela funding model, except to note that you seem to be lacking some evidence to back up your claims.
As for the alternative of inaction on HSR costing $100 billion, that’s a suspiciously round number and best dismissed out of hand.
Much like your posts are suspiciously without supporting evidence really.
Case in point, SWA have upgraded most of their fleet to 737-800s. Each flight has about 20 extra seats compared to the old version. Runway, ATC and terminal investment needed? De minimus.
You’re conflating the vehicle costs (each airline) with the infrastructure costs (government). SWA could upgrade their fleet to even larger planes that can still utilize the existing infrastructure, and the (inadequate) fees that they pay to the airports would not change. But who would be on the hook for paying for required upgrades to the runways and terminals if SWA went and bought a fleet of Dreamliners or A380s? Those planes need longer runways and modified gates to be usable.
For that matter, who is paying for the maintenance of existing runways, ATC systems and terminals? These are paid for in large part by the FAA, a government-funded entity, and when Congress is not playing games of financial chicken, they are also paying for upgrading/replacing of facilities. I’m sure you’ve seen some news articles to that effect.
That figure of $100 billion is an estimate on how much it would cost the FAA, Caltrans and other government entities to maintain, upgrade and expand the aviation and road infrastructure over the construction lifetime of the CAHSRA project. You can generate your own estimate by looking at previous financial reports filed by these government entities for recent construction projects, and extrapolate based on the distances involved. You will definitely come up with a different figure, but if you do it honestly, and not pretend that certain costs will never occur, it will be a rather large figure.
Chris Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 6:55 pm
To be fair, I think a good number of the people who oppose HSR would also oppose spending $100 billion in tax dollars on highways and airports. There does exist the alternative of just not building new capacity, or more reasonably letting prices rise to the point at which private funding steps in to wholly fund new projects.
joe Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
I’m thinking back to the dark ages and can’t find many examples of the invisible hand making roads – these essential services were, are, and will be investments made by the the state.
Chris Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
There’s a difference between making the investment and putting up the money. The government can provide the capacity for investment (particularly eminent domain, but also zoning) and an asset pooling function without having to commit to putting up any public funds. Indeed it can generate lots of revenue doing so, to cover its expenses and return profit to its general revenue pool, in the same way that private equity does.
joe Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 7:52 pm
Yes, this is about profit – that added fee I endlessly pay to a corporation well beyond the cost rcovery of building the road.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 10:19 pm
In the early 1900s, there were roads built by the private sector – with tolls, mostly. The Lincoln Highway is one famous example, but there were more. It all ended when the federal government started building free highways and encouraging state and local governments to do the same.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 10:40 pm
The Lincoln Highway was tolled?
Alon Levy Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 11:52 pm
No, but it was privately built. The tollway I was thinking of was the Long Island Motor Parkway.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
A good number, but not even close to a majority. Ask Morris Brown about the Interstate system sometime. Or Michele Bachmann on earmarks to roads.
thatbruce Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 9:29 am
@Chris:
To be fair, I think a good number of the people who oppose HSR would also oppose spending $100 billion in tax dollars on highways and airports.
The problem is in how it is spent. Certainly, most people would balk at being told ‘you must pay $100 billion for X’. In the case of $100 billion being applied to roads and airports, its never a staggering sum at any one time. Instead, its a few hundred million here, just under a billion there, all in various projects related to expansion of roads and airports. Eventually, it adds up, but because it is spent piecemeal, the public doesn’t hear about the total.
On the other hand, most HSR projects are put forward as one giant sum, with the result that the public gets sticker shock.
political_incorrectness Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
SWA is not replacing all of their fleet with 738s, they haven’t even gotten their first few yet. They only have 20 738s on order as a matter of fact. I am not sure if you were posing a hypothetical situation though or not.
ericmarseille Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
Speaking about airlines I think it’s fair to stress the innumerable advantages and subsidies that the airlines benefit from ; just one example in the US :
“Airlines are paid all the time, even when their aircraft aren’t being used, for agreeing to make their planes available on demand to the government as part of the Reserve Air Fleet ”
Nice. I’m waiting for high-speed rail to benefit from such programs.
Maybe it would be interesting to compare costs with LGV Nord which, contrary to other lines, was 25% over budget. The line is 350km long, of which 330km is dedicated HSR. 133km were built along the A1 autoroute (6-lane freeway). It occupies 16.5 km² (6.4 square miles).
Total cost: €3.33 billion, of which €1.169 billion for civil engineering. The rest was for stations and various expenses. 16% of the total construction cost was spent on protection of the environment (wildlife migration paths, archeological sites, noise, etc…).
The overrun was mostly due to route modifications under political pressure. Labor costs also increased when the 35-hour week was voted.
Some of it is probably due to price fixing, but nothing could be proved and the SNCF lost all lawsuits.
Construction took 4 years, as planned.
Job creation: 55,000 jobs/year during construction, 6,000 permanent.
Ridership was overestimated. Although the line is operationally profitable, it hasn’t paid its contruction costs in 8 years as originally planned. The reasons invoked are the appearance of low-cost airlines and the generalization of fuel-efficient diesel engines which made cars competitive when carrying more than one person.
To make the same clarification I made on my blog, I don’t hate Flyvbjerg – he does important research, and the issues I have with his work are quibbles. I hate the way his work is treated in the mass media as implying roughly that “Final costs are always 45% over the original estimate.”
joe Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 8:13 pm
I’m curious about parallels between cost, risk and schedule dynamics for complex transportation and overruns on software projects.
Also, is Campbell’s Law in effect, his metrics get gamed and distort what is being measured.
Gall’s law, A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. The inverse proposition also appears to be true: A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be made to work. You have to start over, beginning with a working simple system.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
I’m curious, too. I haven’t seen literature comparing cost overruns on public works and software projects, but the issues surrounding both are similar and it’d be an enlightening comparison. If you know anything, let me know.
I wonder if anyone has ever calculated the cost of the state’s entire freeway system, from Oregon to Mexico and Nevada to the ocean? Bet it’s a *lot* more than $100 billion. If someone had looked at that number in 1958, would we still have freeways today?
thatbruce Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
If someone from today jumped back to 1958 with an armful of maps and costs (in 1958 dollars), the system would have been much slower to start. Affordable and moderate increments after all. But if that same person also outlined the economic benefits that the California freeway system has resulted in over time, then we’d see much the same pace of construction, hopefully allowing for some of the political hiccups along the way.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
If people had known in 1956 how much the Interstates would’ve cost, they might have canceled the system. A lot of city neighborhoods would’ve been spared the bulldozer.
joe Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
Supply creates demand so they 1958 mindset wouldn’t think the highways were necessary.
As for the urban impact, alas the highways run through the poor and minority areas so, no, they would have not minded displacing The Other.
That’s the same mindset that disproves of public transit because it will enable The Other to visit their town and parks.
Peter Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Interestingly, one of my environmental law professors told us how a contractor advising a California state agency recommended not even bothering investigating building potentially environmental unpleasant facilities (freeways, waste incinerators, etc) near wealthy neighborhoods. The company stated that it was incredibly expensive and difficult to fight wealthy NIMBYs, and that the agency should instead focus solely on less well-to-do communities for its planning.
The same 1956 mental therefore exists today.
Regarding the $100 billion alternatives figure: Is there a breakdown on where those costs are incurred and how HSR prevents them or is it just a rectal extraction figure?
joe Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
I’d invert the question.
What are alternative projects that will increase transportation capacity between the CV and the coasts and Nor/So CA given the state’s population will grow to 45 M in 2025.
The Menlo Park Almanac is just out with an editorial that pretty much tells why the project should be killed
http://www.almanacnews.com/news/show_story.php?id=9483
editorial: The slow death of high-speed rail
Time to wind down this project
Eric M Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Bla Bla Bla. Smoke and mirrors from the typical NIMBY’s from Menlo Park, Palo Alto and Atherton.
VBobier Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
cold dead hands…
joe Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 8:22 am
Wow, the case is compelling:
Unfortunately NONE of the implied problems above are TRUE.
The Peer review didn’t conclude the ridership model was flawed.
The PR firm quit because it was about to be fired by HSR for ineffective work and over billing.
Baker’s departure was expected.
SacBee sez:The move comes as Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, continues to recast the administration. Barker, a Republican, was appointed by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and was an aide to Schwarzenegger before joining the Rail Authority.
Rhttp://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/07/jeffrey-barker-leaving-high-sp.html#ixzz1VIeWcbLG
HSR is on track.
Tomorrow, Wednesday 8/17/2011, there is a meeting at which apparently will be the first public release of the CalTrain capacity study and how this fits with the Simitian/Eshoo/Gordon blended/phased plan for the Peninsula.
Meeting is at the San Matio Public library and starts at 3:00 PM. (probably no public input, but an open meeting. The meeting group is the group formed by San Mateo, and Cities north. Menlo Park, Atherton and others have refused thus far to participate. This group is obviously trying to take over the whole process. At least they are now having open meetings, rather than meeting behind closed doors.
This is all taking place where the MTC is making big noises that they are going to ramrod the project through the Peninsula, having setup a new sub-committee to dictate how this is to be done.
Of course the MTC has plenty to explain with its behavior in changing the results of the Ridership study, which they funded, and which has to now been the basis for the inflated numbers.
joe Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 7:30 am
Accountability is a two way street.
PAMPA refuses to participate. PAMPA demands their parochial interests supersede the state of CA and when CAHSR runs along the peninsula, PAMPA demands a free trench.
It’s a masterful plan until it fails and PAMPA is SOL.
Gilroy is funding a study on HSR so they CAN influence the CAHSRA on how the system passes into , out of Gilroy and where the station is located.
Eric M Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 10:39 am
“PAMPA refuses to participate. PAMPA demands their parochial interests supersede the state of CA and when CAHSR runs along the peninsula, PAMPA demands a free trench.”
I don’t think this can be emphasized enough. They talk about price increases, yet think it is okay for them. This needs to be shoved back in their faces frequently and put in the media. Like you said, it is a two way street.
synonymouse Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
MTC is a shill for BART Ring-the-Bay.
This project has become an example of how it is impossible to build large scale infrastructure under the current mess of environmental rules and regulations which Sacramento and Washington have inflicted on this state. None of the infrastructure we depend on, not I-5, not Hoover Dam, not the Golden Gate Bridge, not SFO could be built under the current job killing regime of enviromental laws.
I am completely amazed at the cost of the Central Valley portion of the line. Something that the French could build for $30 million/mile is costing 2 to 3 times that amount in California. This is the French we are talking about, who are known neither for being hard working nor low paid. 4 week summer vacations! 36 hour work weeks! Universal health care! And still they get it done for a lot less than California.
I am convinced that the reason that California is so much less efficient than France is job destroying outfits like the Sierra Club and the NRDC, who tie our hard working, low paid Californian workers up with so much waste and red tape that the French can run rings around us even after their lunchtime bottle of vin rouge.
There’s no way I can support this project given the latest cost estimate. If even the valley is costing that much, the mountain and urban sections are going to be mind blowing. High speed rail is unbuildable until we get rid of the Endangered species Act, the Wetlands Protection Act and the National ( and California) Environmental Quality Act. Maybe then we will be able to get it done for French prices.
Joey Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
And this is supposed to be the easy section…
political_incorrectness Reply:
August 16th, 2011 at 11:35 pm
Yet the roadways in the rural areas are cheap. Something ain’t smelling right. Maybe a bit of PBQD greed, regulations probably don’t help at all, litigation, eminent domain of property since we sold most of it.
schrodinger Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 12:00 am
My guess would be California’s mess of rules and regulations, and all the litigation opportunities they provide.
Tom McNamara Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 7:12 am
Looking at the EIR, what stands out on the Fresno to Bakersfield section is the cost of ROW acquisition. Do I think that it’s overstated, perhaps, but van Ark recently concurred they were realistic estimates over the 2009 business plan.
I suspect much of this has to do with the fact that agricultural land (especially in the eastern half of the San Joaquin Valley) is actually more valuable in terms of production than resident land is now. It’s easy for people in the cities to view the San Joaquin Valley as a “wasteland” but it’s actually extremely important agricultural land. So, it wouldn’t surprise me that as the dollar falls, the land becomes more valuable in nominal terms.
Also, realize that comparisons with France and Japan are not very apt. They are unitary governments where the national government went in and built the systems. In the US, individuals have many protections from state governments because of past issues with discrimination. Combine that with the more litigious environment in the US, and even if California had no environmental regulations at all…it would still be slow going….
Alon Levy Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 7:31 am
Japan actually has much stronger property rights protections than the US. Read something about how hard it was to evict the residents from the area condemned to make way for Narita Airport. In fact, one of the reasons Japanese cities have a high transit use is that land acquisition costs are so high that it’s prohibitive to build large freeway networks; subway construction costs are elevated as well, but by much less, since subways are more space-efficient than roads.
Tom McNamara Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 9:58 am
I’m no expert on Japanese land tenure, but I think the point you are hovering around is that most large-scale contractors in the US that deal with federal funds assume that Washington will eat the cost of overruns and therefore there is little incentive to stay on budget. The contractors recognize that because energy-poor nations have to hold US Dollars just to buy oil from the Saudis, Washington can simply print more money and not face the dire consequences that an Argentina did, or even the British. Although there is strong evidence to back this up, this appears to be not the only factor.
For example, the Trans-Texas Corridor also collapsed even though the Texas Department of Transportation was going to rely completely on a foreign company Spain’s Cintra to build and then operate the road, rail, and utility lines involved in the project:
:
Although people like to claim that the project did in fact die because of laws passed by the Texas Legislature and actions at the Federal Highway Administration… Cintra did succeed in building a portion of the project outside of Austin, Texas as SR-130…. If the project had been so viable of course, people wonder why it wasn’t built to completion, even without federal money?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 10:16 am
and subways can go under roads which are owned by the government.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 10:29 am
Yes, and freeways can go above them – and indeed, urban freeways in Japan tend to be elevated over existing roads.
But even when you stay under a road, there’s disruption above, and takings. Second Avenue Subway needed to take a few buildings on the Upper East Side, even though Second Avenue is much wider than the streets of Tokyo.
joe Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
My understanding is that Imperial Japan was industrialized and modernized around rail transportation.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
Well, yeah, Imperial Japan industrialized around rail, but so did the UK and US, and look where they are now. This is way newer than Imperial Japan. The private commuter railroads and the intercity main lines were built in the first half of the 20th century, but the capacity into Central Tokyo was pitiful. Tokyo’s second subway line was only built in the 1950s, and nothing else other than JNR (much of whose capacity was used for freight at the time) entered the CBD.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 12:01 am
The low-end estimate of the easy section is about $33 million per km, or $53m/mi, going by the EIR; going by how much the HSRA thinks the segments it’s about to put to tender will cost, make it $28-30 million per km. The most recent French cost, of the LGV Est’s second phase, is $24 million per km.
Anyway, that’s exactly what I’m afraid of. Californian costs are not normally equal to French costs; subways in California get built for twice as much as the equivalent Parisian cost, and the Parisian subways are more complex.
joe Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 7:16 am
I was curious, what’s the name of the fault line than runs across France?
Alon Levy Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 7:27 am
It’s not the fault lines. Comparing subway construction costs in California and Italy only makes California look worse. And of the hurdles facing BART to San Jose, the Central Subway, and the Wilshire Subway, excessive earthquake-proofing costs are really not high on the list.
synonymouse Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Does France have Rose Pak?
Alon Levy Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
I have no idea. But Rose Pak is not the reason the Central Subway costs so much.
synonymouse Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
AFAIK she was a major player in moving the project from the vastly superior and likely cut an cover 3rd & Kearny route to 4th & Stockton.
The money should have been spent on Geary subway-surface. You could even make the argument that extending the Sunset Tunnel in both directions would have been a wiser expenditure.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Still, the best Central Subway alignment is one that isn’t built.
Subway-surface is only good if the trains branch out immediate as they leave the tunnel, as is the case for Muni Metro and the Boston Green Line. Otherwise, the mismatch in capacity is too glaring, and you end up saddled with the costs of a subway and the capacity of light rail.
synonymouse Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
On Geary there is not much choice. You could go trolley coach, low-floor tramway, subway-surface or full-blown subway. BART would love to build out broad gauge, but the Richmond District would be instantly totally trashed with high-rise tenements. ghettoized.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Muni can build a full subway, too, if it wants. The operator matters less than the capacity.
As for ghetto high-rise tenements, I’d invite you to a tour of the slums of Yorkville, Kips Bay, and the Upper West Side, but I no longer live in New York.
joe Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
Let’s make cost comparisons where they are more representative and spare the dramatic “it’s only worse”.
My bias, until I understand otherwise, is retrofitting and construction safety in seismic areas ads cost. A lot of cost? I dunno yet but the geology is very different an we are digging.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Your bias is floating in a fact-free void. Don’t worry, though, you’re not alone there in the void: this sort of magical thinking fits in nicely alongside suggestions that “environmental regulation” causes 100% project cost blowouts, or that 18 (dubious) months of project delay induces 500% bridge cost inflation, or that only Americans are uniquely blessed by their Divine Creator with non-expropriable real property rights.
joe Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
First off I wrote that I didn’t know the increase in cost for seismic construction but please jump in a make an ass of yourself again. The creationist attack is outstandingly stupid – are you that seeped in prejudices?
The seismically similar area around Istanbul suffered massive failures in buildings because contractors cut costs in materials and did not build to code. Obviously there is some non-trivial savings using inferior concrete and etc.
However, since our resident ass is into thought experiments try the null hypothesis: There is NO cost increase for safety during construction or in the construction of subways in earthquake zones.
Another exercise: How would the Richard Stallman of rail (sans any accomplishments but I’m sure you’re very good with EMACS) react to a project cost projection in a seismic active area that followed construction costs for a project in a seismic inactive area?
He’d shit his pants, again.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 6:09 pm
You’re getting Turkey wrong here. The megaprojects in Istanbul are earthquake-proof, like in California and Japan. The shantytowns built by individuals are also earthquake-proof, because the people who build them intend to live in them and make sure they’ll last. The housing projects built by commercial developers to resemble shantytowns are what collapses during earthquakes.
Joe Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Housing consruction and apt buildings that failed. The point is cutting corners saved money and illustrates there is some addition reqs and cost for seismically sound construction.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
The point is that the cheap transit projects in Turkey are not where they cut corners.
Joey Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 7:28 am
The Central Valley is subject to earthquakes, but has no fault lines that actually have to be crossed. For non-viaduct construction, there shouldn’t be a huge difference.
joe Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
None that are mapped: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/cgs_history/PublishingImages/FAM_750k_MapRelease_page.jpg
The issue is comparing Paris and LA Subway construction costs. LA is seismically active, Paris, not so much. IMHO the comparison is possible but should consider not just retrofitting but safety and air quality precautions mandated during construction. I expect a higher per mile cost in LA.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
Milan. Rome. Naples. Athens. Vancouver.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 8:13 pm
..Tokyo, Osaka…
Andre Peretti Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
“I was curious, what’s the name of the fault line than runs across France?”
The Afro-Eurasian fault line runs parallel to the Mediterranean coast of France. In 1909, the Lambesc earthquake (magnitude 7.0) killed 46 people and destroyed 2000 buildings. The earth often trembles in the Nice region. Fortunately, the region is rocky and the soil is shallow, so you don’t have the destructive oscillation created by deep alluvial soils. In 1887 a quake killed 635 people in Italy but only 8 in the Nice region, altough the distance from the epicenter was the same.
The SNCF considers all regions south of Lyon as seismic and all bridges are built accordingly. There are seismographs connected to the signalling system every 10 km on the LGV Med.
Seismologists think quakes with a magnitude over 7.5 are unlikely in France because the African plate continuously slides under the Eurasian plate, with a hiccup now and then. In Japan the plates push against each other.
What type of fault lines do you have in California?
ericmarseille Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 9:15 am
Est second phase includes a very costly tunnel under the Vosges mountains.
This comparison isn’t exactly relevant.
Better take the entire price of Est phase 1 + 2 and compare to CAHSR.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 10:29 am
Est second phase has a single 4-km tunnel. Even the CV segment has a tunnel near Fresno, though I don’t know how long it is.
Peter Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 11:21 am
Tunnel near Fresno? Where is it supposed to be?
datacruncher Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 11:24 am
If I remember right, the tunneling in Fresno is to cross underneath elevated Freeway 180 instead of the original plan of a very high viaduct over the freeway. I think only a short portion will really be a tunnel.
Peter Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Looking at the Draft EIRs for both Merced-Fresno and Fresno-Bakersfield, I’m not seeing any reference to any tunneling. There’s just at-grade and elevated. Not even any trenching.
Eric M Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
I believe they (HSRA) has a trench going under a Union Pacific westward spur in downtown Fresno
Eric M Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 12:33 pm
This one
Peter Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Are they converting the underpass for E Belmont Ave into an overpass? That should allow them to not have to go quite as deep for the tunnel as well as shorten it somewhat.
Eric M Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
I think they said it was only suppose to be about a mile long trench
Alon Levy Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
From the email circulated by the HSRA:
jimsf Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
I hope the give the bridge over the river a decent architectural treatment. Its a rather scenic area – at least on the bnsf protion and should have at the very least, an arch bridge.
Joey Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
You mean like that “iconic” “bridge” over San Jose’s scenic freeways?
Or the Bay Bridge’s made in China™ Signature Span, probably responsible for most of the project’s delays and cost increases?
Seriously. I have no objection to architecturally interesting structures, but Americans need to figure out how to build them without breaking the bank.
Peter Reply:
August 18th, 2011 at 7:44 am
There’s luckily a fairly good chance that the “iconic bridge” for San Jose will simply be a basic viaduct with slightly arched spans.
jimsf Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
river
jimsf Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 4:12 pm
river99 with arch
jimsf Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
riverat99
ericmarseille Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 11:37 am
4km tunnel for only slightly more than 100km overall.
I maintain that taking in account all of Est 1+2 costs is a better approach.
If I want to be the devil’s advocate, let’s compare the projected costs of the PACA line, obviously the most difficult and costly LGV except of course for Lyon-Torino, the indispensable money pit. Arguably much more technical, ecoological and perhaps NIMBY and political constraints than in building the CAHSR.
Length : approx. 220kms
Estimated cost : €10bn
Estimated price converted in miles and dollars (1.43 rate) : $104 million per mile
CAHSR : 800 miles of tracks ; with the same estimated costs : $83bn, in the higher part of the suggested bracket.
I hosnestly think the PACA line should cost more than only €10bn, maybe €12-13bn, but anyway CAHSR looks like a piece of cake compared to the PACA line.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 12:43 pm
Est 1 was $16 million/km. (P.S. I’m using the PPP rate of €1 = $1.25, not the exchange rate.)
Sud Europe Atlantique is $25.7 million/km excluding financing, or $32.3 million/km including (link).
joe Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
$104 million per mile makes this tunnel as expensive as adding 10 miles of HOV to I-405.
political_incorrectness Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
2200 pph versus 24000 pph capacity, hmm, I wonder which pencils out?
joe Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
At least we understand the cost of construction compares to adding a lane on a freeway in LA – CARRD doesn’t care about that cost.
I’m all for adding a new freeway in CA between SF and LA/SD because we will have 40-45 M poeple in CA by 2025.
Running this new freeway (can be a toll way and pay for itself too) along the Bay Area Peninsula is requirement 101 is full and congested in 2011.
I propose CA turn El Camino into a Tolled Expressway.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Why 10 miles? The 405 project was $100 million per mile. It’s actually higher than the tunnel-ridden LGV Provence if you do calculations in PPP dollars.
joe Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 7:15 am
I enjoyed the French stereotypes – but you forgot to reference Pepé Le Pew.
So far the HSR tie-ups been wealthy NIMBY cities suing CHSRA and they demand a free trench too.
Environmental groups understand the alternative is more cars and highways. In my town, the horrible environmentalists agree with the City and residences and want the HSR rail station in the downtown.
ericmarseille Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 9:12 am
+1
Puzzled at the cost of CAHSR.
I simply don’t understand.
synonymouse Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
The cost of California hsr is an inherent feature. It is not supposed to work that well or make much sense but suck up a lot of money. See BART & Bechtel.
The regulations you decry are the creation of the Pelosi patronage machine, the same prime mover behind the CHSRA. There never was any doubt that the scheme would be totally effed up, just like BART to SFO. The raison d’etre of Prop 1A is to transfer money from the taxpayers to the consultant-contractor-labor complex, ie. the interests that Wunderman et al represent. And from them back to Pelosi in the form of campaign contributions. See, everybody wins. Well, most everybody. Just not nobodies like yours truly. You need to be a friend of the regime.
jonah Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
now considering that Pelosi has one of the safest seats in congress, why exactly would she need to organize such a scheme? Have you looked up her campaign expenditures ? $2.7 million spent on the 2010 election… hardly seems like a grand conspiracy.
synonymouse Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
That’s how a patronage machine works, in this case the well-oiled one she inherited from the late Phil Burton. It is a well proven m.o.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
The regulations you decry are the creation of the Pelosi patronage machine
Yes Nancy swept back her hair to reveal her horns, put on her cape, got in her time machine and went back to 1969 to force Richard Nixon to sign NEPA into law….
synonymouse Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
When it comes to regulation she is the bull-nanny.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
No environmental regulation in France or Germany or Spain or Japan, no siree. When you think “environmental protection”, you think “only in God’s Own US of A”.
Off topic, but interesting:
http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2011/08/our-transit-system-could-be-profitable.html
Costly Rail Project Boondoggles Still Fascinate Politicians
http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2011/08/17/costly-rail-project-boondoggles-still-fascinate-politicians/
How very true.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 8:06 am
Bob Barr should stick to shooting himself in the foot.
Not directly related to this, but here are how Chinese construct their railways cheaply and on budget.
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/439/13135869843387446.jpg
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/pb-110811-bullettrains-11a.photoblog900.jpg
ericmarseille Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 9:18 am
Ouch.
you certainly won’t see this in France (I suppose neither in Korea).
Peter Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Hell, you won’t see that anywhere other than in an autocratic regime.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
Or places where real estate is expensive. Under the Pulaski Skyway for instance. Or those places in Europe with the quaint shops under the tracks.
Peter Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
But how many people actually live underneath the Pulaski Skyway? In apartments or houses, I mean, not transients. And I haven’t seen any dwellings underneath the arches in Berlin. I can’t speak for other European cities, though.
Peter Reply:
August 18th, 2011 at 7:54 am
And somehow I doubt that the design in China was chosen because real estate was expensive. More likely because it was super-cheap.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 18th, 2011 at 8:21 am
China’s construction costs aren’t all that low. The Beijing-Shanghai PDL was about $42 million per km, interpreted properly (i.e. PPP dollars). It’s 86.5% on viaducts, probably because the population density of the areas it passes through is so high that this is the only way to construct grade separations.
Peter Reply:
August 18th, 2011 at 11:23 am
Oh, I meant it was super-cheap to build the houses there, because no one else wanted that real estate. I wonder how well those houses are renting out after the accident where the cars fell off the viaduct…
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
Except for the pictures people here love to post of the charming little European shops snuggled under the arches of the railroad viaduct. Ya gotta take US 1&9 Truck between Jersey City and Newark sometime. And see all the stuff that’s under the Skyway. Especially the bit where the Turnpike goes under the Skyway and over 1&9 Truck.
Peter Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 11:22 am
I want to live THERE.
NOT!
jimsf Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
looks very sturdy though. no worse than living next to the 405 or the bayshore, in fact probably better.
Peter Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
Looks can be deceiving.
I think you weren’t on the blog when we were discussing the fact that China’s entire high speed rail network was built with substandard concrete and with hastily built structures that are already showing flaws.
jimsf Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
oh yes well if the concrete is bad, that’s different.
Joey Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
Kinda reminds me of the ugly, modern stepsister of the Roman aqueducts. I wouldn’t expect it to last near as long though.
Washington Post blogger answers Kevin Drum and crunches some numbers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/is-californias-high-speed-rail-really-a-boondoggle/2011/08/16/gIQApisjJJ_blog.html
More bomb keeps coming from China today. China’s government newspaper People’s Daily confessed that China had no self-developed “indigenous” high speed rail technology to speak of. Chinese engineers do not really understand how to design a high speed train’s structure, and all core components were bought from foreign suppliers as modules. Chinese don’t have source code of their trains either.
What Chinese can do now is selection of painting color, seat replacement, and interior change, and that’s the sad reality according to the quoted Chinese train engineer.
http://house.people.com.cn/GB/164315/165997/15420304.html
I can’t believe Chinese government just confessed that they knew nothing about high speed train engineering.
thatbruce Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
A (not perfect) translation. I’m not sure that the ‘Chinese Government’ is the one formally doing the confessing. People working for the Chinese Government or on their projects perhaps, but not the Government itself.
Useless Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
@ thatbruce
The People’s Daily is the communist party’s official newspaper. It speaks on behalf of the party.
Andre Peretti Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
I read that the Chinese drivers selected to train other drivers were ordered to learn in 10 days what German instructors said should take at least two months. Manuals had been hastily translated and were partly incomprehensible. That shows the hierarchy’s total incompetence.
The Koreans didn’t take such risks. They sent their drivers to France for hands-on training on TGVs.
Joey Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
Apparently they know how to stretch out the train’s nose and crank up the speed limit by 20-30 km/h…
Joint Strike Fighter : Delayed and over budget!
“Customers for Lockheed-Martin’s stealthy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter—among them Canada, Israel, Britain and Australia—are shifting their mood from anxiety to paranoia over increasingly unpredictable costs.
Foreign analysts now expect JSF prices to significantly exceed even the latest Pentagon estimate, putting government officials in fiscal and political jeopardy as they try to craft a rational purchase plan for the fifth-generation warplane.
Adding new concern was congressional testimony by Lt. Gen. Mark Shackleford, military deputy to the assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisitons, who says that ”we currently expect up to a two-year delay” in fielding the first operational unit, which shifts the date to 2018. The delay is being triggered by the most recent program restructuring.
Delayed? Over-budget? Where are the Republican “Tea Party-driven” diatribes about this boondoggle? They’re going to need these planes to strafe I 5 in the Central Valley when Pelosi’s army tries to retake those Southern California counties that seceded from Sacramento rule!
Jerry Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
“Where are the ….. diatribes about this boondoggle?”
Fair question. Could it be that it’s not in someones backyard?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Dude, there’s been diatribes against the F-35 and its budgetary issues for years, long before there was even a Tea Party.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
Which the Tea Party seems to be blissfully unaware of….
Paulus Magnus Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
This would be the same Tea Party largely responsible for shutting down the second engine program for the F-35, yes?
Joe Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
Touché
synonymouse Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Why would the Tea Party be happy over a screwed-up F-35 project? Makes no sense. If you friends in the military you will hear horror stories about the new stuff. There are botches all over the place. And can we forget the Mars lander that was lost because they forgot to convert some measurements from imperial to metric(or vice versa).
Whatcha gonna do? I am sure the Chinese are going to have some snafus with their new aircraft carriers. You have to procure new equipment to replace the old. At some point it is no longer practical to try to rehull that boat that is rusted out after 40 years in the water.
As much as the military has effed up I still don’t think they have ever equalled BART broad gauge for intentional stupidity and “planned obsolescence” as they used to do in the Motor City.
Peter Reply:
August 18th, 2011 at 7:51 am
“Why would the Tea Party be happy over a screwed-up F-35 project?”
They’re not. They just believed, rightly so, as did many Democrats, that the project was turning into a financial black hole. Thank god the plug was finally pulled on that drain…
OT: Does anyone know what the Statute of Limitations is for filing suit against an EIS under NEPA?
Just wondering because it’s been more than 30 days since the EIS for DesertXpress was certified, and I haven’t heard about a lawsuit yet. Could it be that the first high speed rail project likely to break ground dodged that bullet?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
180 days I believe
Peter Reply:
August 18th, 2011 at 7:46 am
Ah, ok. CEQA definitely has them beat on that.