Avoiding Mistakes By Building High Speed Rail
So, this is a pretty ridiculous article:
This is the piece in which I out myself about California’s high-speed rail mistake. Let’s face it, now is not the time to be spending a decent size country’s GDP on a fast train between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Instead we should be spending that fortune completing much needed regional mass transit systems for Los Angeles, San Diego, Anaheim, Irvine, San Jose, the Bay Area, Bakersfield, Fresno and Sacramento. Given the astronomical estimated cost of the high-speed rail project I doubt I have overpromised California’s major population centers on the regional transit construction.
There’s a whole ton of nonsense in just this first paragraph. California’s GDP is $2 trillion. Even if HSR cost $60 billion, that’s just 3% of the state’s GDP. The United States’ GDP is about $14 trillion, meaning federal funding for HSR is a drop in the bucket.
Joel Epstein’s argument is that we should instead spend the money on “regional mass transit” for urban areas in California. Why is it an either/or argument? California needs both urban mass transit AND high speed intercity rail. There’s no reason to assume we have to choose one or the other.
Unless, of course, you believe a recession is a time to spend less money:
It’s simple arithmetic that even this mediocre math student can understand. In an ideal world there would be enough money to build both the high-speed rail and all the regional mass transit California needs. But we don’t live in that Emerald City.
There is more than enough money to build both. Borrowing costs are at historic lows, and California had no problems selling debt today. With a national GDP of $14 trillion, there’s also a lot of room to raise taxes on the wealthy, or on gasoline, to fund the cost of construction entirely.
We know this to be possible because it was done before, during the Depression. According to people like Epstein, we shouldn’t have built the Golden Gate Bridge or Boulder Dam or built post offices and paved roads as was done in the depths of the Depression. His argument is rooted in the assumption that a recession is a time to do less and not more.
Austerity policies are being discredited across the globe, with leading economic observers almost screaming for much more stimulus. Now is the time to double down on our call for more rail funding, rather than play the game of rail opponents by scaling back our ambitions.
And of course, as is always the case with HSR critics, the underlying assumption is that Californians don’t ride trains:
Let’s put that logic to work by changing the construction plans and building the Metro, Muni and BART trains and buses we need everyday rather than the sometime convenience we long for when we think of inter city travel in France, China and Japan. That train too will come but not until we make regular regional transit riders of most Californians.
In fact, Californians already are regular regional AND intercity transit riders. Amtrak California has been experiencing high ridership for several years now, with trains packed to capacity. The same thing has been seen on commuter trains like Metrolink and urban mass transit like BART and Metro Rail, all of which have strong ridership bases.
In the end, most HSR criticism and opposition is rooted in the following two beliefs:
1. Austerity is a good thing and during a recession, we should spend less money, no matter what economics or FDR or the crisis facing the global economy today shows us.
and
2. Nobody rides trains in America.
The facts disprove both beliefs, and therefore discredits virtually all HSR criticism and opposition. Unfortunately, since we live in a world of post-truth politics, where people choose to believe something not because it is supported by the evidence, but because it feels right to them and validates their pre-existing assumptions.
How do we counter this? Facts can help, because discrediting your opposition does go a long way to winning the argument. So too does organizing. More about that tomorrow.
#1 is the political-economic flavor du jour, unfortunately, throughout the developed world. Witness the whole Euro debacle. Americans, however, have become expert at carrying it to ludicrous (and absurd) extremes.
#2 is just patently false. Amtrak California has done nothing if not prove that, when provided the opportunity to do so, Americans will ride trains.
“Sure, Central Valley workers need jobs but far more are out of work in LA and the state’s other big cities.”
I guess he hasnt looked at the central valley unemployment percentage numbers recently? Hint: Mendota is at around 40%. That’s forty.
Anyway, basically his argument boils down to:
We can spend all we want on roads and planes and boats, but when it comes to transit, it’s an either/or choice. You get one project, and only one.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
And once you decide that you want intraurban transit instead intercity transit the song and dance will change to “but more people use roads and our roads are falling apart” or “our schools are falling apart, think of the children” along with “if we only cut taxes on businesses that would unleash the powers of the magical free unicorns everybody would get”
JJJ Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 11:43 pm
It’s only natural that the goalposts keep moving. Although the teaparty did insure that the posts can’t move any further. How can you go past “we shouldn’t spend any money at all”?
Nathanael Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
How can you go past it?
“We should not only not spend money on useful things, we should sell off useful things we already built at fire-sale prices”.
Oh wait. They have already pushed for that too — “privatization”. So yeah, you can’t go any further. Feudalism without the nice parts, that’s the current right-wing agenda.
Carlton Glüb Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 10:47 pm
JJJ,
Mendota County has 11,000 people. Three zeros. Say half of those people are in the labor pool, 40% gets you, what, 2,000 people?
Compared to L.A. County which has 12% unemployment in a county of 10,000,000. We’re talking many hundreds of thousands unemployed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendota,_California
If you look at any of Joel’s other columns on HuffPo, you would literally *never* find him arguing in favor of unlimited spending on roads and aviation.
CG
Jesse D. Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
When I read “That’s forty.” I thought of this.
http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kxvc0lAH4j1qzdzcdo1_500.jpg
I have to admit I’d probably give up the billions for HSR there were some avenue to spend it only on good projects (like a Geary subway, second tube, 30/10, Vermont metro) and strong planning initiatives—urban growth boundaries, Parisian quality buses in most cities, pro-density-pro-affordability housing politics, and implementing some kind of combined congestion/CO2 emissions-per-mile tolling system I’d go with that, but those options are hardly on the table (with the exception of 30/10, of course, which has its own avenues for funding).
All Epstein wants to do is pour concrete in a different place—not between cities but in cities. Color me unimaginative or ignorant of local conditions, but what the kind of fixed-guideway mass transit could be built at a reasonable cost/passenger in places like or Fresno?
JJJ Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 11:48 pm
Forget fixed-guideway mass transit in Fresno, too many streets still lack sidewalks, even on the busiest of avenues.
I must note that there is a booming local business for “no pedestrian” signs and elaborate sign posts.
http://g.co/maps/z7vjb
Note the dirt, it’s obviously been walked on many, many times.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 11:54 pm
Man, that’s crazy. Not only the “No Pedestrian” sign on a barrier (actually, I interpret that to mean “No walking in the street with the cars”), but that dirt path has a wheelchair access cut in the curb!
Oh well, at least someone is planning for a sidewalk someday. . .
swing hanger Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 12:48 am
It’s like a big middle finger in the face of people who don’t, or can’t drive. Welcome to the Real America.
JJJ Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 1:19 am
No really, those things are everywhere. This corner even has two.
http://g.co/maps/rmv79
Whoever makes those barriers is rolling in money.
This is my person favorite sidewalk segment in the city.
http://g.co/maps/ms7g5
It’s on a busy section of the busiest retail street in the city. Street just got repaved this year too, courtesy of Obama Stimulus money. Shame the sidewalk couldn’t be stimulated into a useable form.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 1:36 am
Isn’t the sidewalk supposed to grow right out of the curb assuring that the pedestrians are as close as possible to the fast moving cars?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 8:08 am
“No really, those things are everywhere. This corner even has two.”
Whatever happened to old-fashioned “Keep Off The Grass” signs?
That “favorite sidewalk segment” reminds me of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmageddon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmageddon_II:_Carpocalypse_Now
All of which in turn reminds me of the comedy-chase classic film, “It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.”
Alon Levy Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
In Carmageddon, the sidewalks do have pedestrians. You just get points for running them over.
(Don’t knock the game. It introduced me to Iron Maiden.)
Howard Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 12:07 am
So does Epstein want to spend CHSR money on BART to Antioch, Livermore and San Jose as well as MUNI central subway, “SMART” and Sac RT’s DNA?
Robert writes:
“Even if HSR cost $60 billion, that’s just 3% of the state’s GDP”
You should be quoting State revenue, not State GDP. Latest State budget is around $85 billion.
But the $60 – $65 billion for cost Phase one, now being accepted as the present cost, is only the tip of the iceberg in cost.
Look at:
http://www.cc-hsr.org/assets/pdf/bnote-17.pdf
(Work by Bill Warren and William Grindley)
Conclusions: Using the complete thirty-five year payback period, the cumulative negative cash flows for Phase One double to about $137Billion in the No Operating Margin Case.9 Completion of the ‘entire system’ leads to cumulative negative cash flows of $114Billion – $240Billion. Proceeding to build Phase One is highly questionable; but planning to build the ‘entire system’ exhibits extremely risky behavior.
If you think the $240 billion number is just smoke, just beware, that these numbers have been presented to financial people in the State legislature, and they confirm these are real numbers that match very well with numbers they had also calculated.
So, it is not $60 -65 billion. That is only the direct construction cost for phase one. You just can’t ignore debt service. These numbers assume no private equity and debt service at 6%.
Get private equity involved, and your looking at returns they expect on their investment of 16%, not 6%.
Robert: Is there any price that this train would cost, at which you would say it is too expensive?
Derek Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 11:54 pm
How much will $240 billion 35 years from now be worth in today’s dollars?
ericmarseille Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Pffff….$240 billion…Gimme half of the sum, $120 billion only, and I’ll contract everything out to foreign consortiums for $100 billion, financial interest and penalties for delivering it 10 years late included, because of all the trials and legal action taken by NIMBYs, BANANAs, extreme ecologists, farmers, dwellers, urban planners, town mayors, humans, birds, coyotes, grass, rocks and all that is definable and numerable whatsoever in your country…Then I’ll retire the richest man on earth or so.
Good plan.
Peter Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
The “work” by Grindley and co. reminds me a lot of the healthcare reform debate, where people with axes to grind, the republicans, tried to make it look like the legislation was a lot longer than it really was, by increasing the font size, by increasing the margins, using thicker paper, and other shenanigans.
Here, the people with an axe to grind are manipulating the numbers to make the project look a lot more expensive than it really is. Different shenanigans, same strategy.
I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a more PRO-transit advocate than Joel Epstein, whom I know to be a frequent rider of Metro Rail and buses alike. I think he’s just taking the position that we’re facing scarce resources and so we need to allocate them where they’re most urgently needed — expanding urban mass transit.
I don’t necessarily agree with Joel, but it’s in injustice to him to paint him with the same brush as NIMBYs and fact deniers. He has basically unassailable transit cred, and has been known to lob his share of rhetorical bombs at those who want to impede transit progress in L.A.
I just wish you did a little more homework, Rob, before using Joel’s column to rehash a few more pro HSR arguments.
Sincerely a pro-HSR commenter,
CG
BruceMcF Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Unassailable transit cred or not, $6b/yr (or less) as the GDP of a substantial country is silly talk. And that’s just the project horizon. Over the use horizon you have 20 year, 50 year, and 100 year improvements being built: at an average of 30 years, that’s $2b/yr or less.
And the “we should be spending that on”: its not fungible pile of money available to be spent on whatever an individual transit advocate dreams up. The Federal funds that California has already won cannot be shifted to local transport any more than Florida, Ohio or Wisconsin could shift theirs to highways, despite TEA Party Gubernatorial candidate lies to the contrary, nor would local transport attract interest from private or, indeed, overseas investors.
And, indeed, if Joel Epstein gives the NIMBY’s and the Take Everything Away Party assistance in killing the HSR project, it makes advances in local transport less likely, not more.
Robert, you should be citing California’s GDP over a) the construction of the project, or b) the life of the project – not one year. That $60 billion you cite is for the entire project, which at a minimum would take 10 years. Projecting a conservative 3% per year growth in California’s GDP, high speed rail would be 0.26% of California’s 10-year GDP.
I suspect we spend more than that on toilet paper.
JJJ Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 11:49 pm
Wouldnt it be better to calculate value over life of project?
$60b +/- future operating loss or profit + maintenance cost
Compared with 100 years of GDP.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 12:10 am
And compared to 100 years of paving roads and runways.
Off topic as I often am, but of course possibly of interest. . .
An interesting observation from the satirically named “At War With The Motorist” (pro-bicycle site from London, GB); interesting demographic pattern that may suggest trains are for rich guys, and so are elitist (which means, more money for roads):
http://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/rich-mans-toys/
Some comments from Donkeylicious (who comes up with these crazy site names?) on teenage drivers and fatalities:
http://www.donkeylicious.com/2011/09/teenage-driving-policy.html
Finally, a comment from Cap’n Transit that suggests our recession and even a Japanese-style “lost decade” may be our best available option, despite the distaste and the misery associated with it (interestingly, it could also tie in with the generational observations we have had comments on before):
http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2011/09/are-we-ready-for-recovery.html
I’m genuinely flattered by the attention and that you reprinted my piece in parts. Unfortunately your post paints me as against infrastructure investment which couldn’t be farther from the truth. See my countless pieces at: huffingtonpost.com/joel-epstein and elsewhere in support of America Fast Forward, 30/10, an infrastructure bank, federal spending to get us out of this mess created by decades of bipartisan neglect of our transportation infrastructure. For starters you might want to read this piece about Hoover Dam, which you mention in your criticism of my logic: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joel-epstein/mass-transit-and-a-public_b_576710.html
As for Fresno’s transit needs, my transportation policy cred is better than my math and I never said build rail throughout California’s cities. I said quite clearly, build the Wilshire Subway, lots of light rail and bus rapid transit (BRT) as called for. Of course the solution should fit the challenge and BRT is a cost-effective solution for many cities and regional routes.
As for my familiarity with and indifference to the Central Valley’s unemployment needs noted in the comments, mea culpa for being so harsh. My apologies to the people of Central California. I should have known better than to slam the Valley’s workers whose very real problems I know more about than I let on. It’s true the Valley needs the jobs the HSR would create though I stand by my assertion that the money buys far more jobs and value in the state’s cities.
At the end of the day, your criticism of me and my piece would have been more constructive had you not impugned my reputation. I have been and remain a tireless supporter of urban and regional mass transit, and even HSR when we can afford to.
Yours in transit,
Joel Epstein
Peter Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 9:53 am
Where in the post was your reputation being impugned?
Carlton Glüb Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 10:19 am
The part where it calls the article “ridiculous” and paints him with the same brush as those who would argue “austerity is good” and “no one riders trains.”
Peter Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 10:32 am
The article is ridiculous. That says nothing about the reputation if its author.
While he may not have made the claim that “austerity is good” or that “no one rides trains”, he did, in the sections quoted verbatim, imply that we shouldn’t make this investment because it’s too expensive right now, and that we have to first make regular transit riders out of Californians. How is that any different in effect from “austerity is good” or “no one rides trains”?
joe Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
Let’s face it, Joel’s an AOL pundit trolling for hits.
The man offers his opinion on HSR and without much effort in presenting fact or persuasion.
Criticize his AOL column and you’re attacking his reputation. It is all about Joel and his awesome opinion, oh and don’t hurt his fees-fees.
Some people think they can write opinion about topics and not be held accountable for their writing or that their reputation is something that hold’s criticism at bay.
Jon Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 10:25 am
I would argue that in the long term, nothing will help America’s urban transit systems more than than switching the default mode for intrastate travel from air to rail. (Well, that and changing land use regulations to encourage density and reduce sprawl.)
Arriving at LAX, the most convenient way to get to your final destination is to rent a car; arriving at LAUS, the most convenient way to get to your final destination is to take mass transit. HSR will stimulate demand for improved urban transit, and in turn improved urban transit will feed HSR by making it more convenient to take the subway to the HSR station than drive to the airport. The two developments go hand in hand as part of a statewide network of fast and convenient ground transportation.
We need to demand funding for both. We might not get funding for both, but you’ll get funding for nothing if you don’t ask for it.
RisenMessiah Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
You know what would really help America’s urban transit systems is a national sales tax: once people see how much 20% of $30,000 car ownership is going to be out of reach for all but a few.
Now, I’m not a Fair Tax fan– it’s that urban transit systems are funny things. If anything, the mere increase in property values from HSR stations will be a rising tide that lifts all boats including urban transit…
synonymouse Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 11:09 am
What I find curious is that the CHSRA scheme is indeed primarily regional mass transit: SF to greater SJ; Modesto to Bako(the Valley thinks big); LA to Palmdale.
To connect these 3 wannabe- BART’s they have selected the meandering secondary, more expensive routes, presumably to pad the contracts.
Peter Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 11:33 am
So, let me make sure I understand you. Because the plan connects multiple cities along the route, it’s suddenly mass transit? What about Germany’s ICE system? Is that just mass transit?
JJJ Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
It’s most certainly public transit. As is amtrak, greyhound and even the airlines.
You pay a fare and get transportation in return. No membership is required, anyone from the public can ride.
synonymouse Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
No excuse for the Palmdale-Tehachapi detour and Pacheco, scandalous and irresponsible sops to LA and SJ.
If federal aid is shut off, a very real scenario, Brown needs to move quickly to fiscal triage for the CHSRA and emphasize incremental improved passenger rail. Put our DC crowd on the crusade to pull the strings attached to whatever funding remains so that Borden to Corcoran can be deferred to the key link of Bako to LA.
Tony d. Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
You’re an idiots! (Please don’t delete Robert).
BruceMcF Reply:
September 18th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
Yes, its common carrier transport. “Transit” implies local transport.
Joey Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
I’m having trouble thinking of a single high-speed line in existence that connects two major metropolitan areas with no intermediate stops.
ericmarseille Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Paris-Lyon? Paris-Lille?
Alon Levy Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
Le Creusot-TGV and Mâcon-Loché-TGV are both much closer to the cities they serve than any possible location for a Bakersfield station that avoids the built-up area.
Joey Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
Paris-Lyon has intermediate stops, as Alon Levy said, as does the LGV Nord (Haute-Picardie and a connection to Arras. All this information is available on Wikipedia, just for future reference. Even so I’m not sure Lille fits the definition of “Major Metropolitan Area” I was going for.
Andre Peretti Reply:
September 16th, 2011 at 10:46 am
The Lille-Roubaix-Tourcoing conurbation had a population of 1,106,885 in 2007. If you count the cross-border (Belgian) part of the conurbation, which also uses Lille’s TGV station, you have a total population of about 2 million. Lille is also an intermediate station on Paris-London, Paris-Brussels-Amsterdam, Paris-Cologne. Hence the name of the station: not Lille-TGV, but Lille-Europe.
LGV Nord parallels the A1 freeway on 140km.
By the way, A1 is part of European E15 reference route, starting at Inverness (Scotland) and ending at Algeciras (Spain).
Stephen Smith Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
The maglev that’s being built in Japan will have only the Tokyo, Osaka, and Nagoya stops paid for by JR Central, with any intermediate stops paid for by the prefectures themselves. Last I checked nobody is asking Fresno to pay the cost of its stop, though.
morris brown Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Joel:
On this blog, if you don’t support this project with all of it obvious short comings and the disaster that it is posing to the state, you get painted in all kinds of ways.
It is great you have seen the true nature of the project and exposed some more reality.
It is truly amazing how many who comment here seem to live in their own world and ignore what is indeed reality.
Keep watching this project. Although nothing more than a rumor now, it seems that the Authority is not going to deliver on its obligation to deliver a business plan by Oct 14th.
They have failed before to deliver business plans. We shall see what happens this time.
Eric M Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
“seem to live in their own world and ignore what is indeed reality”
Pot calling the kettle black!
ericmarseille Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
I arguably live in my own world (France, Europe). True.
Now, please tell me how a 800 mile HSR line can cost $240 billion? Do you plan to build, all along the projected line, Beverly Hills type mansions before buying them back at 150% of their price and destroying them in the process ?
Or maybe the central valley farms are made of solid gold? Their land worth 100 times what it is worth everywhere else? Please tell us, we listen.
We, in our own world, KNOW what the costs of HSR are actually because, you know what, we HAVE HSR.
synonymouse Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
Mon cher ericmarseille, a vrai dire, (sorry about the missing accents), PB can really blow the bucks, as it has shown time and again with BART.
The CHSRA is not the SNCF, a real railroad. The CHSRA has been dominated by political hack and has been taken advantage of by it consultants. If the UP or the Santa Fe were asked to design an hsr for California(and of course properly compensated for their efforts)they would most certainly not come up with the likes of the CHSRA scheme.
ericmarseille Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
My dear synonymouse, please, don’t mind the missing accent on the a, my pleasure, for once I’m someone’s “mon cher”.
Listen, I understand the US have their particularities, which I don’t know enough about, etc., but at $240 billion, it ain’t particularities anymore, it’s called POTLATCH.
Please don’t take it as a joke, I’m dead serious, although I try to drape my seriousness in a humorisitc coating ; it would be a disservice to the readers of this blog to pretend I was joking ; if this was a french blog, I’d be very angry (luckily I wouldn’t be alone).
synonymouse Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
It is a very serious issue that we don’t have a better handle on what the costs are going to be.
My attitude is start with the the most needed and then the best design, and pay the price. Quality pays long-term rewards, long after the sticker shock. Reduplicating the Tehachapi line, with its strong freight and eastern orientation, is not quality planning. And the new, second line cannot even be used to relieve the freight congestion. Tejon offers the luxury of a brand new, separate rail route.
Similarly I-5 reasonably accomplishes most overall goals and could represent a tremendous bargain. I suggest it is a dumb move not to let the engineers work their magic on this alignment and see if they can finesse a plan that saves maybe half.
One way to try to get a handle on price is to consider all options. Flippantly ruling out the cheapest ones is a sure way to create uncertainty about what the ultimate cost will be.
VBobier Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Syno You are a cheapskate and a troll. You know You won’t get Your way, Governor Brown will not allow It.
VBobier Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
I just looked up what Mon Cher means. LOL. I’m of French descent and I can appreciate a good laugh.
VBobier Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Oh and the laugh is not at You ericmarseille, Just at Syno, He needs to be more careful with His spelling of foreign words and of their meaning.
VBobier Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
That should be mon chéri, If that’s what Syno really meant, As that’s the masculine form.
Andre Peretti Reply:
September 16th, 2011 at 11:08 am
“Mon cher” doesn’t mean “my dear”. It’s rather manly and distant, and not affectionate at all in modern usage. Example: “Mon cher, you’ll soon realise I’m nobody’s fool”. Modern French usage would have been: “cher Eric”. “My dear” would translate into “ma chérie” (feminine) or “mon chéri” (masc).
VBobier Reply:
September 16th, 2011 at 11:38 am
French isn’t the language I was taught, so please forgive Me, as the family has spoken English for a long time, probably from around or before 1770 is My guess, My ancestors arrived in Ireland after 1690 from France, So I have no idea how long French held out as a language in My family, We came to the USA in 1850.
ericmarseille Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
Reading back my comment, I want to precise exactly my thought : I believe deeply that it is impossible even for the most incompetent authority in the most trial-happy country to blow up the price of 800 miles of HSR to $240 billion eventually ; he who made up that amount and tries to intimidate the Californian and American public with it should be made responsible for that and sued.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
The sad thing is that Amtrak’s NEC Vision proposal costs almost as much per kilometer: $117 billion YOE for around 450 miles.
Never underestimate the incompetence of English-speaking planners.
ericmarseille Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
Mmmm this is something else!
When I was in geography class in secondary school I was told that Boston-NY-Washington was but a gigantic megalopolis (the first one of its kind, my geography teacher, though a zealot socialist, told us) ; of course I know we must be wary of such classifications, but I suppose the price to put everything down in the way of a NEC must be enormous, isn’t it? Do you mean the land and compensation prices would be comparable in California? For let’s not fool ourselves, in building HSR, it is the price of eminent domain (and delays due to legal action, I’m afraid) which will make the difference.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
The price of eminent domain isn’t all that high. Check the CAHSR cost breakdown – land acquisition is $2.892 billion, compared with a total budget of $42.594 billion.
The reason Amtrak’s plan is so overpriced is that it’s very heavy on tunnels, especially urban tunnels. 10% of the cost is blown on a brand new tunnel through downtown Philadelphia, even though there’s an existing route that has plenty of capacity and is maybe 2 minutes slower. Another 12% is blown on a tunnel in New York that’s so gold-plated it costs more than the just-canceled ARC disaster.
About two-thirds of the NEC (south of New York, north of Kingston) is already good for HSR. It might require facelifts in the form of catenary upgrades and a few small curve modifications, but practically nothing in the way of new structures, which are the main cost generator. Of the remaining third, more than half (New Haven to Kingston) can follow a relatively straight freeway without much development; that part of the Northeast is the main gap in the megalopolis.
ericmarseille Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Very interesting.
I didn’t know so much of the NEC was HSR-possible. Too bad that so many tunnels are “needed”.
Relative to CHSR, I believe the price of the works to be totally reasonable at nearly $40 billion, but I have a hard time believing in only $3 billion in land acquisition and compensation for loss of property ; I didn’t manage to have the details for LGVs in France, but I have a feeling that it is much more costly in France, which I find paradoxical.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
I wish I had the full breakdown for a completed projects. Right now I can only find breakdowns for American proposals (including CAHSR) and total costs (usually final, occasionally the original budget) for projects elsewhere. Do you know how difficult it was for me to find a cost estimate for Japan’s Aomori extension?
ericmarseille Reply:
September 16th, 2011 at 12:06 am
Whew! I found it!
The official post-construction cost-analysis of a french HSR line : the LGV mediterranée between Lyon and Marseille.
So : keep in mind that some operations were done as early as 1991 and some as late as 2003, so prices don’t reflect constant prices, and that prices considering inflation should be reevaluated now at between 20% (2003) and somewhere around 50% (1991)
Anyway, for 240 kms of LGV (150 miles)
LAND ACQUISITION : € 221 million equivalent 1991 = more or less € 330 million 2011 = more or less $ 450 million 2011
Clearing the land for readying the works : € 133 million
Earth moving and cleaning : € 998 million
Ordinary and special works (?) € 422 million
Large works (tunnels, viaducts) € 854 million
Fencing, roads and lanscapes € 152 million
Total Non Rail Works and Equipment € 2781 million
Railway and ballast € 339 million
Signalling € 169 million
Catenary € 128 million
Electric feeding € 53 million
Telecommunications € 58 million
Buildings € 111 million
Total rail € 858 million
Administration costs € 348 million
Total HSR Line € 4233 million
Related investments their Admin. costs € 279 million
Total € 4512 million
There we are!
So :
1) Acquisition is 5% of the total ; I doubt it could be the same in California
2) There is no mention of legal costs ; I can’t imagine the same in California, I’d provision $ 10 billion as soon as I could
3) let’s multiply those costs by 14 (5.33 for the total length, 800 miles/150 miles, 1.35 for the average inflation after construction of the LGV Mediterranée, 1.4 for FUTURE inflation, 1.4 for the euro dollar change), and we have a $63 billion CAHSR complete system
4) Let’s be generous and up the ante to $ 85 billion because of the “particularities” of California
The proof’s in the pudding.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 16th, 2011 at 4:18 am
Thank you, Eric, it sounds like you had a job finding this!
And it’s interesting that your numbers, with all the fudging and guessing you had to do on account of the passage of time, variations in inflation, variations in exchange rates, length variations, and the like, all seem to confirm that the cost estimates by CAHSRA are at least “in the ballpark,” which is as much as one can expect at this stage. That the ridership estimates recently passed a peer review test is also a good sign, again allowing for uncertainty. All of this makes me quite certain this project should go ahead. There is certainly less that is unknown about this than there was about the Interstate project, and far less than was unknown about building the transcontinental railroad in the late 1860s, both as an engineering exercise and as a business proposition.
In contrast, to continue to rely on cars and airplanes as we have done will certainly–certainly!–trap us into cycles of economic partial recovery and bust (I don’t see any prospect for full recovery unless we tackle the oil monkey), will trap us into the limits of driving, and will trap us into continual resource wars we will ultimately not be able to afford.
These are the things the president, the secretary, and the governor should know–and explain. Ironically, we would get a better country–a better way of living–out of all this if some of us weren’t so hung up on the “cars are freedom” nonsense. It seems a no-brainer that these are the sorts of things we should be hearing from the president, the secretary, and the governor.
The only reason I can think of that we do not is that they are too cowardly to speak these things, afraid that the voters would be unable to handle this truth.
How did my country turn out so dumb and wimpy?
Peter Reply:
September 16th, 2011 at 6:31 am
@ ericmarseille
I think you’re wayyyy inflating the legal costs. There’s no chance this is going to be anything close to even $1 billion. It will be something in the millions, and unlikely to even reach the tens of millions.
ericmarseille Reply:
September 16th, 2011 at 8:52 am
To D.P. : “in the ballpark” that’s what I wanted to check
To Peter : So that’s good news!
To Alon : Hope you read my reply, it was hard enough to find the document
My aim was simply to prove how out of this world those considerations of $240 billion are
VBobier Reply:
September 16th, 2011 at 11:45 am
That works out to be about 6.78%, that’s pretty small, hopefully the eminent domain proceedings won’t be needed too much, but if their needed, use them without hesitation and then compensate fairly and justly.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 17th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
Eric, yes, I read the reply. It’s interesting, and thanks.
Not that I’m doubting, but if it’s online, do you have a link?
Peter Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
The nice thing about eminent domain in the US is that it’s very straightforward. The government condemns your property and pays you what it thinks your property is worth. Then you sue the government if you think you weren’t paid enough.
ericmarseille Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Oh yeah? Funny.
I’ve been told that in France it works like this : first, plenty of studies are made so that the government is sure there’s no big trouble ahead in buying the land ; then a law of “public interest” is specially passed (i.e. : it officially becomes eminent domain, and please, don’t even think about suing us, we’ve got chapped lips and it hurts when we laugh) ; then one day a commercail knocks on your door :
- the LGV is going to pass right on where your house stands
- Oh shit
- Be a good citizen
- Oh shit
- Of course we know perfectly the value of your property ; we are ready to pay for 150% of this value
- Suddenly I feel an urge to be a good citizen ; where do I sign?
More or less it is like this
The good thing is that you can start the works with 98% of the land already acquired : peace of mind.
Peter Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Similar here. They don’t exercise eminent domain unless someone refuses to sell, either.
Andre Peretti Reply:
September 16th, 2011 at 4:50 am
I think CHSRA should examine how things are done in France.
First, owners never learn in the media that their property is going to be impacted. When the news is published, they already have been individually contacted. A different approach would create an uproar, with press campaigns, and the dreaded “questions to the government” at the National Assembly (e.g.: “is this France or China?”).
Then, the individual arrangements which may be too typically French to be imitated:
the property is officially paid at its current value, which means the seller is making no profit and will pays no tax on the operation. This also has the advantage of not distorting the “index immobilier” (current average real-estate price) in the area, preventing speculation.
The rest, which may represent the larger part of the deal, is negotiated between the two parties and paid as damage compenstion. It’s nobody else’s business and is not made public.
When accused of overpaying properties, RFF answers that a deal is always better than a lawsuit.
Nathanael Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
The funny thing is that the current Philadelphia route, with its two-minute penalty and wrong-side-of-the-river station, is due to one of the oldest NIMBY infestations I’ve seen documented. Had the appropriate tunnel been built back when…. it would have been pretty cheap (cut-and-cover with 19th century labor costs).
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 11:47 pm
Unfortunately the technology didn’t exist in until very late in the 19th Century to run frequent train in tunnels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Belt_Line
Nor were the Reading or the Pennsylvania about to abandon those shiny new terminals that had just been built.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
The $240 billion figure was invented out of whole cloth by someone with an axe to grind. CARRD, hardly an uncritical supporter of the current cost projections, says $65 billion.
morris brown Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
@Alon Levy:
As I wrote above, this $240 billion was not smoke and was not arrived at by CARRD. The numbers have been vetted to the finance people in the State Capitol, and they agree very well with numbers they have calculated independently.
This is a full cost bottom line.
The myth that the TGV makes a profit has been dismissed many times before congressional committees. If you take off the books, construction costs and finance costs and magically add in a subsidy to make sure the SCNF will show a profit, that’s how you get to HSR in France being profitable. It is all a big shell game.
Let me add here:
Robert wrote in the main article:
“1. Austerity is a good thing and during a recession, we should spend less money, no matter what economics or FDR or the crisis facing the global economy today shows us.”
I would hardly think that the Federal budget is an austerity budget, when over 40% of what is being spent is being borrowed.
ericmarseille Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
How much profit for the interstate system?
Tony d. Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
The thinking of some here (from morris to synonymous) never ceases to amaze. Why don’t you just come out and claim that HSR final price tag will be a cool trillion?!
Andre Peretti Reply:
September 16th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
I think it’s unfair to lump Synonymouse and Mr Morris together.
Mr Morris has a visceral repulsion for HSR. For him, a good HSR is a dead HSR.
Synonymouse rather likes HSR but thinks CHSRA is making a mess of it all.
Peter Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
If the $240 billion number had been vetted by a peer-reviewed journal then I might take the numbers seriously.
VBobier Reply:
September 16th, 2011 at 11:53 am
And If any Congressional Committee ever had anything to do with HSR, I’d be surprised, Which one and when, give us a link to this claim Morris Brown…
Alon Levy Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Dude, did you, like, read SNCF’s profit and loss statements, or did you just read third-hand accounts? Because the statements include tolls paid to RFF (i.e. construction interest) and depreciation. The subsidy you’re thinking of is either for people with disabilities or on unemployment, or for local transit operation. It’s not for TGV operation.
Andre Peretti Reply:
September 16th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Mr Morris, I don’t know where you found your facts about SNCF. I can’t believe your are deliberately lying, it would be so unamerican.
You can find SNCF 2010 financial results HERE
The document is in English. It is signed by the chairman and the executive vice-president for strategy and finance. I suppose the congressional commitees you trust so much have never read it.
You don’t have to read the 164 pages. Page 8 contains the main figures. Maybe you won’t read it. Many people prefer not to read anything that might shake their beliefs.
You don’t have to read the 164 pages.
On page 18 you have the results for the “Voyages” branch, of which the TGV is the main part.
Gross profit: 12.7%, down from 15.6% in 2009 (due to strikes, snow, and the crisis).
RisenMessiah Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Mr. Epstein,
What’s a little difficult to swallow about your article is that a common refrain especially in Southern California is to consistently deflect attention from timely projects to other ones as a way to slow things down.
The Wilshire subway is a great idea and one I hope happens. But do you really think it would be necessary if businesses hadn’t abandoned Central Los Angeles after the Watts Riots? By 1980, the busiest intersection in the city was supposedly Wilshire and Westwood Boulevard…not Main and 1st street….
If you don’t build Warner Center in the Valley in the 1970s…do you really need the Orange Line? Right now there are two rail connections between downtown Los Angeles and Long Beach (one is the Blue Line, the other the Alameda Corridor) guess which one makes more money?
In other words, there will always need to be a way to move people between various metropolitan areas…but there is not always a need to move people between various places within metropolitan areas. Every city in the state could adopt a new general plan…we would still need HSR.
Don’t pit the Bus Riders Union against LACTC again. It’s only going to ensure that nothing (for both mass transit and HSR) gets done….
Alon Levy Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Did you just say that if LA had not suffered from white flight, it would not need rapid transit?
VBobier Reply:
September 16th, 2011 at 11:56 am
LA even without white flight would still require Mass Transit, I lived in LA most of My life, so I ought to know.
Matt in SF Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
Joel, you have every right to your opinions, but if we “in transit” think you are guilty of thinking small or are just outright on the wrong track by saying America (the greatest superpower in world history) can’t afford it while the rest of the world continues to expand their systems, well, don’t be surprised if we write you off as not particularly helpful or well-informed.
Nothing is stopping cities from building out transit. CHSRA is not funded by municipalities – it is a project of the state and federal government with planned contributions from the private sector. I’m surprised you didn’t bring up how HSR is going to take away money from Medicare and grandma’s Social Security while you were criticizing the effort to create the first sustainable intra-state mass transportation system in the U.S., but then maybe you did as nobody goes to AOL-HuffPo anymore.
joe Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 9:00 pm
Commenting on AOL sites like Huff-Po means you must create an email linked account AND agree to let AOL have access to your “contacts”.
Joel’s just trying to drum up hits and comments for AOL.
VBobier Reply:
September 16th, 2011 at 11:59 am
I read the Huff-Po and I’ve seen virtually nothing about HSR there, good, bad or indifferent.
Spokker Reply:
September 16th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
“Nothing is stopping cities from building out transit. CHSRA is not funded by municipalities – it is a project of the state and federal government with planned contributions from the private sector. I’m surprised you didn’t bring up how HSR is going to take away money from Medicare and grandma’s Social Security while you were criticizing the effort to create the first sustainable intra-state mass transportation system in the U.S.”
You’ve compartmentalized tax dollars to protect your own special projects. It’s a good strategy, I have to admit. Unfortunately this strategy works best for defense spending.
Anyway, local transit is funded at the city, county, state and federal level. When you have a light rail project or what have you, funding comes from a variety of sources. It’s very easy to say, “High speed rail money is high speed rail money so you can’t touch it neener-neener.” You could always just cancel the goddamn project, like through a voter initiative, and not spend the money. Then you are partially justified in spending the money on more worthy causes. Hell, put two items on the ballot. One to cancel HSR in California and one to spend $10 billion on rail transit in major CA cities. I already know how I’m voting.
synonymouse Reply:
September 17th, 2011 at 11:54 am
@ Spokker
Of course government funding ultimately comes from the same source, including bonds and guaranteed loans. That would be the taxpayer. Believe it BART is the poster boy of your mass transit operation in direct conflict with the CHSRA over territory(reminds one of MLB)and funding That is why BART has managed to place its MTC operatives in place like vultures to pick the bones of a wounded hsr.
And the scandals never cease. The SF Chron story link is not yet active about the BART pr dude, the one who got some nekkid pix of hisself posted on the internet by dissident hackers, who had BART suv’s pick up some hand-picked, choreographed and coached “witnesses” to testify at hearings against protesters. Ham-fisted and embarrassing since most all the inconvenienced BART riders were pissed at the protesters anyway.
But this one takes the cake for sleaze and incompetence:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/09/17/BASL1L5NKR.DTL
Between Rose Pak and this creep how can Muni stoop any lower? This is why important and controversial projects do need to be subjected to a vote to stop grotesque mistakes and excesses.
BruceMcF Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
I agree with several others here that Robert is impugning the quality of the article you wrote, which seems entirely justified based on the content of the article.
As far as your credibility, publicizing the caliber of an article you have written can only do your “cred” damage if you’ve written a piece which does not stand up to scrutiny, as in this case.
As noted above by several, this is not one year of operating spending, it is ten year’s of project spending with a capital life of variously 30 to 100 years. For the record, a GDP on the order of $4.8b to $6b in a single year is something like the GDP of Mongolia, Kosovo, Rwanda, Niger, Tajikistan, Zimbabwe, Moldova and Malawi, on IMF figures. Hardly “a decent sized country’s GDP”. On a capitalized basis, you’re heading toward the island microstates of the Eastern Caribbean.
joe Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 9:06 pm
Bruce;
Krugman’s often commented, correctly, that reputation isn’t relevant in an argument. Clearly Robert’s paid more attention and has more facts mastered than Joel. Joel’s playing the Lazy Pundit, presenting us with a false choice and passing the moral-based austerity argument off as economic justification.
Spokker Reply:
September 16th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
Epstein is the King of All Jewish Transit Advocates.
http://www.jewishjournal.com/los_angeles/article/all_aboard_the_case_for_an_all-pervasive_metro_20110223/
He does good work and his opinion on high speed rail is valid. With budgets strained to their limits and future federal funding a distinct impossibility, we need to do everything we can to prioritize transit within cities. It does not mean high speed rail is a bad thing. It means we have to make some difficult choices to do the most good with the limited amount of funding we have.
Unfortunately, due to post-9/11 paranoia I care less about this issue today than ever before. My favorite commuter rail service recently said that photography at stations is considered suspicious and should be reported. That hit my morale something fierce.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 16th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
I pick getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan and raising taxes to the onerous levels of the Clinton Administration to come up with the money.
As for taking pictures, the control freaks who like to work as cops have to have something to do. Check your favorite commuter rail service’s website. There should be an official policy concerning it. Most here on the East coast are some variant of “you can take pictures in areas passengers are expected, handheld cameras only, don’t use a flash at the approaching train or bus”
Spokker Reply:
September 17th, 2011 at 7:35 am
Short of Ron Paul, no candidate, including the current President, is going to get us out of the Middle East. That money is going to spent.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 17th, 2011 at 9:20 am
And so is money on schools and mass transit and broad spectrum of other things. One of the major reasons spending is constrained is that the Republicans refuse to consider raising taxes on any one or anything anytime. They aren’t going to be able to get away with that forever.
joe Reply:
September 17th, 2011 at 11:14 am
1. Afghanistan is NOT the middle east.
2. 45% of related DOD contracts are no bid, that wastes billions.
3. Contractors are more expensive than US soldiers – cut the contractor workforce and replace with US troops.
4. Stop nation building: roads and schools.
OT: but it looks like next November the 9-county Bay Area MTC will have a 10¢ per gallon gas tax on the ballot. Extra funding to go to roads and transit, including possibly HSR in the Bay Area. Don’t mind one bit paying a little more at the pump for better roads and transit. Paying more at the pump to line the fat cats wallet (Big Oil!)..that’s another story.
Donk Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
Link? Will they really pay for HSR locally?
Peter Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/09/15/BAE21L4L4J.DTL&type=newsbayarea
Nathanael Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
MTCs have the power to pass local gas taxes in CA? I had no idea.
I wish our local governments had similar ranges powers — we’re shackled in upstate NY because local governments have precisely one source of revenue which they are allowed to vary, the property tax. (Technically they could *lower* sales taxes but they can’t *raise* them, and every single other revenue source is determined by the state.)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 16th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Local districts levy taxes in New York. The most notable one is the MTA. Local jurisdictions can levy sales taxes. Look at a chart for sales tax in New York State. There’s five different rates in Westchester county.
VBobier Reply:
September 16th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Lining the pockets of Big Oil, We’ve been doing that for Decades, nothing surprising about that to Me, Dad hated Big Oil and Yes He was a Republican.
Nathanael I think It’s a difference in the CA and NY constitutions, CA has for good or bad the initiative process, which now can only be held in the General Election in November(as It should be) and not when the minority can say to the majority whose in charge like in a primary or a special election, It also saves the state money too. Kaching!
GoGregorio Reply:
September 17th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
No way in hell it’s passing by 2/3 majority in Solano County, where I grew up. Problem with the structure, it seems, is that will tank the whole thing (not that it would be smooth sailing otherwise).
Peter Reply:
September 17th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
A loss in a single county doesn’t sink the whole thing. As long as 2/3 of the entire electorate of all the counties votes for it, it would still pass, I believe.
GoGregorio Reply:
September 17th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
You’re right; I missed the part where it specified that it had to be all counties combined. I’m interested to see what kind of polling results they get from this, although I’m certainly not holding my breath.
OT: Farming giant jumps into high-speed rail fray – J.G. Boswell Co. asks for 180-day review
Read more: http://www.hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/article_be487ab2-dfb4-11e0-a20d-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1Y3iuEqF3
“The letter requests that the Authority board hold a special meeting to consider the issue. The Authority originally had a Sept. 22 board meeting scheduled, but that meeting will not be held due to scheduling conflicts, said Wall. The board’s next meeting isn’t currently scheduled until Nov. 3, although Wall said the Authority will probably hold a meeting sometime in October. The EIR comment period is currently scheduled to end Oct. 13.”
Peter Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
How is this ridiculous demand anything other than a blatant attempt to delay the EIR, blow the ARRA deadlines, and thereby killing the project?
joe Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
“J.G. Boswell grows and mills cotton in California’s San Joaquin Valley.”
Boswell grows the water-demanding crop, Cotton, in semi-arid California’s central valley.
Andre Peretti Reply:
September 17th, 2011 at 3:54 am
It’s a sad thing how agriculture in a free country can create the same ecological disasters as Stalinist agriculture did in the Soviet Union.
joe Reply:
September 17th, 2011 at 11:19 am
These guys love their subsidized water, Ag relief payments and Ag infrastructure but have issues with HSR infrastructure for the State.
political_incorrectness Reply:
September 17th, 2011 at 11:44 am
As per ususal, “I like the idea of cuts but don’t cut the prorgram that benefits me”
Eric M Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
First the critics complain the EIR is incomplete or inadequate, but now they say there is too much material to review in 60 days!
So what is it?
6 months for review is a joke. Just another stall tactic in which they hope the delay will force the CAHSRA to miss the deadline for federal funding, loosing billions which they hope will make the project topple. They can sense the momentum gaining as construction nears.
For those interested, the full 13 page letter from the attorneys is available on the link I provided in the box to the left that says “related documents”
@ Eric – volume and quality are two different things (did you ever see the Erin Brockovich movie?).
Here’s an article about Bakersfield’s initial reaction to the EIR:
http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/128215458.html
from the article:
“”This is the first time we’ve actually seen how parcels are affected,” Eggert told Eyewitness News on Monday. “But we’re having a little problem understanding the routes to some degree.”
Eggert looked over three large volumes that make up the EIR. One is about 250 pages, and that has maps showing properties along the proposed routes, and colored sections marked as “temporary” and “permanent” impacts.
Eggert said the maps are hard to negotiate, it’s tough to sort through how the material is organized, and it’s difficult to make out the two routes still under consideration in the Bakersfield area.
“I couldn’t tell you if this particular parcel was impacted for this particular route,” Eggert complained. And he added even the names of the routes seem to be changed in this latest document.
Eggert said the city got a copy of the huge report, and he’s heard the only copy available to the public is at the county’s Beale Library. He thinks that’s not nearly enough for residents to have real access to the information.
The public can go to the HSR Authority website to see the EIR. However, Eggert also complains it’s difficult to download some of the big documents.”
Our contacts in Bakersfield have told us there are folks who would be impacted but didn’t receive notices. This is an issue to keep an eye on.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Our contacts in Bakersfield have told us there are folks who would be impacted but didn’t receive notices. This is an issue to keep an eye on
They can’t complain on one hand that the information presented is imprecise, difficult to understand etc and then on the other claim that they know people who should have been notified, weren’t.
Nadia Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
Of course “they” can because they are two different sets of people.
Those that got the information have concerns (ex. City of Bakersfield).
Others (not at the City level obviously), never received any information and are just now getting up to speed that their is an EIR that would affect their area.
sorry if that was unclear
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
If they haven’t read the documents – to determine who will be impacted and who won’t – how do they know they should have received a notice?
joe Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
Yes, it is difficult to download a large file.
Wikipedia sez:
iTunes has over 200 million television episodes sold as of October 16, 2008
Of course the public has the right to the information and libraries do have internet enabled computers.
What? Spammer.
220mph trains on grade separated corridors are safer than 80mph cars on interstate highways.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 7:12 pm
The shoddiest train safety practices I know of – those of the present-day US – still produce about 20-30 times fewer passenger fatalities per passenger-km than the US road network. You don’t need to go as high as HSR to find safer transportation.
Spokker Reply:
September 16th, 2011 at 6:46 pm
This is spam you dummies :)
I like you guys but come on, this is an obvious spambot and should be deleted by Robert.