Obama Proposes $4 Billion for HSR In Jobs Bill
President Barack Obama sent his Jobs Bill to Congress yesterday, and it includes $4 billion for high speed rail:
The proposed legislation states that at least 85 percent of the funds “shall be for cooperative agreements that lead to the development of entire segments or phases of intercity or high-speed rail corridors.”
As we know, House Republicans are in no mood to agree to the request, given their strong opposition to HSR funding. And they have declared their opposition to other aspects of the bill, including the tax proposals that would help pay for it.
None of which is a surprise. President Obama didn’t propose the bill because he expected Republicans to roll right over and agree to it. He seems to have finally learned that he has to fight to get his priorities enacted – and needs to work to rally the public to his side.
The fact that Obama is once again proposing HSR funds shows his commitment not just to HSR, but to standing up to Republican obstruction. He has caved on a lot of issues in his time in office, and he could easily do so again on HSR funding. But he refuses. His persistence is one of the crucial things that has kept HSR going in the face of NIMBYism, refusal to accept the 20th century is over, and Republican HSR denial backed by oil company money.
The American Jobs Act proposal also includes:
-$2 Billion for Amtrak for capital grants for repair, rehabilitation, or upgrade of railroad assets or infrastructure, and for capital projects that expand passenger rail capacity. Most of this would likely be for the NEC.
-$3 billion for transit capital assistance grants
-$6 billion for state of good repair capital expenditures as directed by the Secretary of Transporting, where the “Secretary of Transportation shall apportion not less than 75 percent of the funds under this subsection for the modernization of fixed guideway systems,”. Looking up the definition of fixed guideway systems that means rail of all types or trolleys and buses in exclusive right of way operations.
-$5 Billion for capital investments in surface transportation infrastructure as discretionary grants. The list of eligible projects include passenger and freight rail.
Also, the terms for the $4 billion of high speed and intercity passenger rail grants also do not require 20% state matching. “The Federal share payable of the costs for which a grant or cooperative agreements is made under this subsection shall be, at the option of the recipient, up to 100 percent.”
Now all we need is for the House to cave in and pass it or at least mostly intact. Not holding my breath on that part.
VBobier Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
Yeah, Good point, Repugs don’t like loosing campaign money and so are spineless creatures and as such will do whatever Big Oil wants, back in the 60′s My Dad was against Big Oil and now I am too, It’s a fight worth fighting, as good jobs are at stake and the leaders of the Repugs just don’t care about the unemployed, people can tell whose responsible and Its the Repugs in Congress and their loyalty to the unemployed voters is questionable.
Surprised you haven’t posted about these guys yet:
http://wemaketheroadbywalking.com/
The best thing about this is that it funds Amtrak on a separate grant, which means that there’s hope none of the money that should go to California (all $4 billion of it, to complete LA-Bakersfield) will instead trickle to the colossal incompetence that is Amtrak’s Vision.
RisenMessiah Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
I don’t even think with 50% match from Prop 1A that we could get San Jose to Corcoran. Also, although we could use it for Bakersfield to Los Angeles, that’s not going to be enough.
I think this is a ploy to drop money in battleground states like Nevada, Florida, and Ohio. California might get a token amount… but I think there’s other alternatives for CHSRA out there like the Rail Rehabilitation Loan Program… that could get us more money.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Battleground states which either don’t have an HSR program (Nevada) or explicitly rejected them…yeah, that isn’t going to happen. Illinois is probably the only other state that will get any, although ideally, it would all be for us.
RisenMessiah Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
The political strategy though from the Obama camp is “divide and conquer”. He wants to force Rick Perry, Rick Scott, Brian Sandoval etc to turn the opportunity for jobs down. Secondly, it’s in his interest to focus on projects that are true high speed rail projects and Illinois wouldn’t be doing that yet.
He’s way better off proposing a high speed Hiawatha in Wisconsin and Illinois. Improvements in Missouri, funding for HSR in Texas (that will really piss off Perry), some money for Florida (though not as much as last time) to make Scott look like a fool. Don’t be surprised if he pulls a number on Kasich, Christie, or Mitch Daniels either.
Once Fresno to Bakersfield is complete… then CHSRA can start using federal loans to expand… while freeing up direct grant money to other states.
GoGregorio Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
If those states don’t apply for the money, how will can it be awarded to them?
joe Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
He’s probably right: The economy sucks and is worsening; The GOP Governors will be asked to reconsider and re-apply for HSR funding. They willrefuse and have to defend their choice as unemployment and gasoline prices rise.
Meanwhile CA gets a big chunck of the funding and El President gets to campaign and tell a story about jobs and stubborn Governors and priase CA for the HSR investment.
IMHO IL will get some modest funding to improve feeder lines and ROW improvements for passenger rail. I lived along the LaGrange-Hinsdale Metra ROW in the SW Suburbs in 70s. There is ample opportunity to fix or improve ROW in Chicagland.
Also States could pay for studies for HSR, Like along I-90 to Rockford or other pet rock ideas.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 7:29 pm
That sounds like a pretty bad political strategy. Rick Perry will be able to say Texas doesn’t need any HSR and is doing fine as it is. High gas prices are going to be good for Texas so it won’t suffer. Scott, the most unpopular of the Tea Partying Governors as well as the one in charge of the most important and swingiest state, won’t even apply for the money, as if LaHood is going to award him a cent if he does given past behavior.
joe Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
Phhhft.
Swing states are FL, OH, WI. He strengths himself in IL and CA.
Compare and contrast. Obama will be in each state campaigning.
Yes, FL’s Scott isn’t going to apply which is the EXACT point of making HSR available and raising an issue that had him at odds with his own Party. Put Mica on the defensive too.
WI’s Walker can argue why not apply for HSR funding when he’s fighting a re-call election in 2012. Walker the idiot applied for funding for work he turned down. Let OH’s Gv refuse to apply and defend himself – these are all very unpopular Govs for their anti-growth, anti-union policies.
Beta Magellan Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
Meh—as someone who voted absentee in the 2010 Wisconsin election and whose mother was involved in one of the recall campaigns, rail was only a big deal for Milwaukee and Madison and a marginal issue on the margins in LaCrosse (whose paper endorsed Walker with the caveat that he should continue with rail—the city has an Amtrak station) and Eau Claire, both of whome were considered candidate intermediate stations for Madison-Twin Cities. The rest of the state could care less, and rail was half-forgotten by the time Walker started his mischief. Walker’s Amtrak application barely made headlines.
Electorates have short memories. A couple of the recall elections ended up being only tangentially related to Walker—one of the races became more about the incumbent Republican’s personal behavior, and the other (the one my mother was involved in) became more about Milwaukee’s more liberal north shore suburbs trying to beat out the more conservative (and populous) western ones. Touting rail won’t do much because few people care enough about transportation—it doesn’t pay their medical bills.
Risenmessiah Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 6:19 am
Remember, there’s a redevelopment plan to expand a Talgo trainset factory in Milwaukee. The issue isn’t transportation, it’s jobs.
Beta Magellan Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 6:54 am
As I said before, it was a big deal in Milwaukee—but it’s worth remembering that Milwaukee has nowhere close to the dominance over Wisconsin that Chicago has over Illinois—not only does it not have much political clout, but Milwaukee County (the other counties in the MSA are solidly red) only makes up around 17% of Wisconsin’s population. In contrast, Cook County (where Chicago lives) makes up 40% of Illinois’s. Jobs in Milwaukee aren’t perceived as being that important for the state as a whole.
RisenMessiah Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 10:32 am
I know what you are getting at but John Kerry won Wisconsin by 10,000 votes. Al Gore won it by 5,000. There are more votes to be found and had in Milwaukee County than anywhere else and Obama is likely to win by a razor thin margin this time. He really doesn’t need the rest of the state if he does well in the southeast.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Walker’s approval rate is dismal. If Obama needs an HSR photo-op to win in Wisconsin, the Democrats have bigger things to worry about.
Beta Magellan Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
And it’s worth stressing that HSR is such a marginal issue for most people that it’s only going to be mentioned in passing, if at all. HSR’s barely even part of the Obama’s political strategy—it’s just a nice side benefit.
joe Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 9:48 pm
Marginal to some, not so marginal to others like our Governor. Since the point is to get people working and riase economic activity, CA will be far better off for Dems seeking re-election. If that economic activity is due to HSR fanboys loving it or average folks apply for work on WHATEVER – it’s still the HSR construction that matters.
Beta Magellan Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
Illinois HSR is still at the conceptual stage, so they might not be that much of a threat—the only true HSR grant they looked for last session was a couple million for planning. However, I do know that Chicago’s been milling around looking for funds to do through-routing at Chicago Union Station—that could potentially take a decent chunk out of the budget. But again, even though that’s much closer to fruition than the full Illinois HSR it’s still far behind anything California has in terms of planning. And given that nothing running into CUS is electrified or has high-level boarding, any near-term through-routing might not qualify.
I think (or rather hope) that O’Hare HSR is either too premature to qualify for anything (good), doesn’t want to get any federal funds (better), or is just a figment of Daley’s imagination that everyone humors him on but no one takes seriously (best).
In terms of other states, Missouri had an ambitious request for planning and ROW acquisition for a Kansas City-St. Louis line during the last round, so they might ask for that again—if they get it (and decide to keep it), that could be a take bite out of California’s HSR funding. Minnesota’s DOT might conceivably request something for Minneapolis-Rochester, although I think that’s another project that’s more of a concept than a plan.
I’d guess that, supposing this funding somehow slips through and isn’t bargained away to keep the state-supported corridors afloat, the lion’s share would go to California with the change going to a few other states’ planning departments.
Peter Baldo Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Don’t count Illinois out! We’ve done rather well upgrading our Amtrak lines, and calling it HSR. We got over $1, going on $2, Billion, and it’s being spent on actual track work right now. Pretty soon we’ll be double-tracking parts of the Chicago – St. Louis line.
There are advantages in partnering with a willing freight line and making upgrades with the freight line’s crews on the railroad’s private property. No NIMBY whining. No endless bickering over right-of-way. The job just gets done. The railroad and the passengers win.
Our problem in Chicago is that trains with scheduled speeds of 45 mph arrive 12 hours late, for no apparent reason. HSR to us means trains with scheduled speeds of 70 mph which arrive on time! We’ll settle for an Amtrak that’s not a complete embarrassment.
I imagine that most of midwest high speed rail is going to happen like that, at least in the beginning. Considering the distances involved, and the inadequacy of existing infrastructure, California has no choice but to build a real HSR line. But it sure is painful to watch!
Beta Magellan Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
We’re (I live in Chicago) currently funding track work south of Dwight, I believe. That means work in the Chicago MSA—where most of the delays currently happen due to freight interference (and track’s shared with Metra to boot)—isn’t happening yet. The Illinois route isn’t about connecting Chicago to St. Louis: like most Illinois transportation projects, it’s about spending money on downstate as quickly as possible. So you’re right about people winning, though—for now, downstate’s winning because they’re getting money, even if you get a better return on dollar invested from Chicago. UP gets its infrastructure upgraded for by the state and current Amtrak passengers get quicker speeds, if not necessarily much more reliability until the Chicago issues are cleared up. You’re not going to be seeing many new passengers, though.
Even though Chicago-St. Louis is one of the better-performing medium-length routes (I heard that, not taking depreciation into account, it was breaking even in the pre-recession years), it’s not good enough to make a dent in the travel market—you’d need Chicago-St. Louis run times of three hours or less to get people off their planes and out of their cars, or to get any induced demand on the line. So, to those of “us” who only take Amtrak when it’s competitive with other modes, Chicago-St. Louis is definitely far enough to justify HSR. And there’s no way to get from a 70 mph mixed-traffic mainline to 220 mph—you have to build anew.
Joey Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
Speeds like 90 may seem fast to people in America, but by international standards, anything with a top speed of 125 or below is standard speed, not high speed.
Sorry, some people get a little touch about the terminology. I guess I’m one of them.
Andre Peretti Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 6:32 am
American journalists using the term “high speed” for what actually is standard speed are confusing the public. How many will understand the difference in cost of projects in Illinois and California since both are called high-speed?
Professionals from all countries should agree on a common terminology but, unfortunately, trainmakers seem to be joining in the confusion. Alstom, seeing the term “high-speed” is devalued now uses “very high speed”. Ridiculous. And what if “very-high-speed” also gets misused? Shall we see “super-high-speed”, “ultra-high-speed”, “hyper-speed” to confuse the public even more?
Alon Levy Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
Journalists are just following politicians on this matter. Politicians like the sound of high-speed rail, so they’ve diluted the term to mean everything with a top speed higher than 79 mph.
I have no idea why Alstom wants to keep a distinction between high-speed and very high-speed trains. Is it that they want to keep the brands of service for the Pendolino and the AGV separate, maybe?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
If I remember correctly New York applied for more than a billion in the last two rounds. New Jersey and Pennsylvania have a FONSI for the half billion it will take to reestablish service to Scranton. There’s lots of stuff laying around that could be used.
Beta Magellan Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 9:14 pm
I was under the impression the new counted-before-hatched HSR money wasn’t going to be eligible for Amtrak+—hope I’m wrong.
Howard Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
If California got the entire $4 billion how far south could we go (Bakersfield through Palmdale toward LA)? How far with a 25 percent match, a 33 percent match and a 50 percent match? How much is needed, with what match, to at least get to Burbank?
It is in Nevada’s (and Senate Majority Harry Ried’s) interest to see High Speed Rail build between Palmdale and Los Angeles (or at least Burbank) so that with just a short privately funded extension between Victorville and Palmdale Desert Xpress can run trains from Las Vegas to Los Angeles (or at least Burbank). I think Los Vegas casinos need High Speed Trains to LA to compete against closer Native American casino’s. I think politically the only way we can get more Federal funding for high speed rail is to sell it as part of a Interstate Southwestern High Speed Rail system and not an Intrastate California High Speed Rail line.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
First, there’s money in Prop 1A for a 50% match. There’s money for even more, but Prop 1A explicitly requires its money to be matched 50%.
Second, with $8 billion, i.e. $4 billion plus the 1A match, there’s money to get from Bakersfield almost to Sylmar. (I’m basing it on the full amount of Bakersfield-Palmdale plus half of Palmdale-LA; according to CARRD, Palmdale-Sylmar is exactly half of Palmdale-LA.) To get all the way to Sylmar requires another $800 million, which can be moved away from Fresno-Borden.
Third, once trains go to Sylmar, it’s cheap to just electrify to LA and run trains at lower speed. If the FRA decides to be an asshole, and for some reason time-sharing is impossible, it’s even possible to force a transfer at Sylmar. It’s very non-ideal, but it’s enough of a usable segment that it’s reasonable to expect money to finish Sylmar-LA to materialize. It’d be like how in the first three years of operation the Tohoku Shinkansen terminated in Omiya, 25 km from Tokyo, before being extended south to Ueno, just outside the Tokyo CBD.
joe Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
And why NOT match 50%?
If CA matches 50% then CA frees more Bond funding for the CA project – that would pacify Peninsula, Morris as well as CARRD which all worry about not having enough money to compete a segment.
Ha ha ha.
Joey Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
The only reason not to match to match the whole amount is that we don’t want to spend all of the Prop 1A money before we have all of the funding in place. Not having any money to match with could jeopardize our eligibility for federal funds in the future.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
Indeed, why not? California can and will match every dollar it can get from the feds this time, and will still have $2 billion left in the Prop 1A money for later matches.
Joey Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 12:23 am
$2 billion? Even at an 80/20 match that still gets us only $8 billion more. And the last time I checked the project wasn’t 3/4 funded.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 2:23 am
Yes… Prop 1A has $9 billion. Existing funding uses $3 billion of Prop 1A money. $4 billion in additional federal funding would use an additional $4 billion in 1A money. This leaves $2 billion.
I really wouldn’t worry about the viability of the project once a usable IOS opens. If there’s enough money to build LA-Fresno, people will find money for SD-SF and Anaheim-Sac. Business travelers will use the trains, building conservative support and eroding existing opposition, which is based 100% on hippie-punching. Travelers will see the difference between slow and fast trains, building support for tackling the NIMBYs. Additional political support will lead to more statewide and federal funding, beyond Prop 1A matching funds.
Much of this was supposed to happen with Florida HSR, but Scott successfully lied to the courts to get them to approve the cancellation.
Elizabeth Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 6:04 am
In the calculations of the cost of getting to Sylmar, you need to add in a couple of things:
1) The current HSRA numbers are absurdly low for the mountain crossing which is mostly tunnels and high aerial structures @ $59 million YOE, including soft costs. They should be doubled.
2) The ICS numbers don’t include Bakersfield, electrification, signaling, the $600mm maintenance facility. This adds up to several billion. This needs to be added in to be HSR ready.
We were hoping to see updated costs at the September 22 board meeting when the board was scheduled to review the biz plan that was due in October but it sounds like the October biz plan may become the December biz plan.
Elizabeth Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 6:06 am
Apparently the September board meeting has been cancelled. This will mean 4 of the normal 12 monthly meetings won’t have happened this year.
Peter Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 7:57 am
“This will mean 4 of the normal 12 monthly meetings won’t have happened this year.”
So, what are you insinuating? Your conclusion must have a point.
Elizabeth Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
We have a point. We are concerned that critical decisions are being made and they are not being made by the board in a public forum.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
And do you have evidence of such?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
So they should gather together, say “we don’t have anything on the agenda this month, thank you for coming” and leave?
Peter Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 5:07 am
You know, you’d probably help your cause more if you stopped trying to generate crises. Especially when you have nothing to back up your claims with.
Alan Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 9:06 am
What’s your basis for the claim that the costs of the mountain crossing “should be doubled”? And who are the civil engineers preparing that basis?
As I recall, the ICS is not required to be “HSR ready”, but it must have “independent utility”. Two different things. The ICS must be useful in and of itself, but that doesn’t necessarily require electrification.
Any other half-truths and misinformation you’d like to spread?
peninsula Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 10:45 am
“independent utility” are words you will not see in AB3034. AB3034 – the law that provides for the HSR bond funding, requires fully funded plans for “Usable Segments”, The term Usable Segment is the term used in the law, and does in fact mean that the proposed, fully funded segment will be ready and suitable for high speed train operation upon completion of the proposed funding plan.
The federal funding requires ‘independent utility’ only. But if they expect to match with AB3034 bonds, they’re going to have to jump over a higher bar called ‘Usable Segment’.
thatbruce Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 11:20 am
The key phrase there is ‘upon completion of the proposed funding plan’. One of the steps towards completing the funding plan and getting an AB3034 ‘Usable Segment’ can be a period of ‘Independent Utility’.
In simplistic terms, a possible funding plan might be:
Usable Segment = ( $X Federal Funds + $X AB3034 funds ) + ( $Y Other Funds + $Y AB3034 funds )
with that first grouping, involving Federal Funds, leading to a segment of track that has ‘Independent Utility’. There might be a period before the ‘Other Funds’ are identified and AB3034 funding to match that is released in order to bring the ‘Independent Utility’ segment up to being a true ‘Usable Segment’.
Your assumption is that AB3034 funding can only be released for a segment in one chunk, and thus all matching funds must be available within the same time period. AB3034 is silent on this matter, and it can be taken that AB3034 funding for a segment can be released as matching funds become available from other sources.
peninsula Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 11:35 am
The funding plan for the usable segment, must show ALL sources of funds for that usable segment, that all environmental clearances are complete ready for construction, that the usable segment can be completed per the plan they are bringing forth, that the usable segment will be suitable and ready for high speed rail operation upon completion of that funding plan. The ‘phasing’ you are inventing around ‘Other Funds’ (as yet unidentified) for completing the usable segment is certainly not in AB3034, and AB3034 is not silent on this in any way shape or form. Its quite explicit in its use of the term ALL. You want to argue the time period for completion of the usable segment – OK the time period is unspecified and could 100 years? 1000 years? But they still have to have the prerequisites satisfied per AB3034, which cover an entirety of a usable segment.
thatbruce Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
If you want to play that game again, that’s fine with me. You are getting caught up on ‘ALL’ sources as an excuse to delay ANY action on the project. I can imagine you in a role as a bank loan officer, demanding that applicants produce all pay stubs for the duration of the loan. You’ve also missed the opportunity to use the phrase ‘done right’ when referring to the environmental clearances.
Now, AB3034 2704.08(c)(2)(D), the source of the request for all funding sources states:
The sources of all funds to be invested in the corridor, or usable segment thereof, and the anticipated time of receipt of those funds based on expected commitments, authorizations, agreements, allocations, or other means.
Note the phrases ‘anticipated time of receipt’ and ‘based on expected commitments’. Since the CAHSRA hasn’t yet put in a request for AB3034 funding as per 2704.08(c)(1), we can only
guess how the request will be phrased. My guess, and the basis for my assertions in this thread, is that should there be an absence of a committed private sector funding source at the time a request for AB3034 funding is made, that the CAHSRA will nominate itself as the source of future finding, based on its role as per 2704.07 and the possibility of issuing revenue bonds.
Of course, neither of us are lawyers (I’m not, and if you are, you’re not a particularly good one) or privy to exactly what the CAHSRA is going to do when it makes a request for AB3034 funds.
Your other points can be dismissed by noting that the same EIS would be used for both a segment with ‘Independent Utility’ and a ‘Usable Segment’, and acknowledging that any request for AB3034 funding does need to come with a commitment and outlined plan to eventually bring forth a complete ‘Usable Segment’. No-one is expecting a plan detailed to the level ‘nuts of size X will be used to secure poles used for overhead wiring’ at this point.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
thatbruce, they want a contractor who can wave a magic wand and have the completed system erupt instantaneously from the bosom of the earth just as a train flies in, complete with revenue generating passengers. Anything else violates the spirit of the law. Installing the catenary and signals after the grading is complete is against the law. Putting ties down before they lay rail is against the law…..
J. Wong Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 6:46 pm
@peninsula keeps hoping for a “Hail, Mary” that will stop HSR. Good luck with that! (not)
Alon Levy Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
ICS and IOS are two different things. An IOS needs to be able to achieve high speed and connect to either the LA Basin or the Bay Area, or else the money is for the most part wasted. It’s one thing to pretend for legal reasons that letting Amtrak run at 110 mph is utility; it’s another to actually believe it is going to be operationally useful.
The entire point of putting all eggs in the LA-Bakersfield basket is that a real HSR line connecting a megacity to a few small cities is going to be a good demonstration of the technology, and also get enough ridership to avoid being a boondoggle. The point of this is to a) create a usable line, and b) create a usable demonstration that will change the business-class position from “trains are for hippies” to “trains are really good for business.” Just because an Amtrak-plus disaster is legal does not mean it’s advisable.
That said, electrification is cheap. Fresno-LA electrification is $1 billion according to the business plan. System elements are another $1 billion. (Remember, Fresno-Merced is unimportant right now.) And there’s always the ability to further downscope by designing the viaducts for lightweight HSR trains rather than for heavy Amtrak locos, given that there’s almost enough money for an IOS. Add this, the $300 million or so in 1A funds that aren’t needed to match existing federal funding, money saved from Fresno-Merced, and maybe portions of the connecting segment, and a reasonable LA-Fresno system becomes feasible.
jim Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 9:30 am
While I don’t accept all of Elizabeth’s points, it’s true that the existing just north of Bakersfield to halfway between Fresno and Merced will not be electrified or signaled (or have associated comms). To complete Bakersfield-Merced between the Bakersfield and Merced stations to the point where it can carry high speed trains will cost on the order of a couple of billion dollars. The Palmdale segment as described in the 2009 Business Plan started south of Bakersfield, so the 2009 estimates for it need to be increased to cover the costs of construction between the Bakersfield station and the point where the 2009 segment began. There’s some aerial structures involved. It also didn’t include the Palmdale station (that was in the Palmdale-LA segment). Stations, as conceived by CHSRA staff, cost $250M or thereabouts. So the Bakersfield-Palmdale segment cost is going to be well north of $5B. Between that and the cost of completing Bakersfield-Merced, there isn’t going to be much change out of $8B to pay for drilling through the San Gabriels. Cutting back from Merced to Fresno isn’t going to yield enough, either. I’d doubt that dropping Merced after (being perceived as) committing to it is politically viable, either.
IF California got all the $4B and IF the CHSRA board was willing to match at 50%, there would be perhaps enough to complete an IOS between Palmdale and Merced. It’s possible that the Antelope Valley Line could be upgraded and electrified as well (can some of the non-HSR portion of the AB3034 money be used for that?) which, with FRA approval, would create a sub-three-hour LA-Merced run. Rolling stock and its associated maintenance facility can be funded through RRIF (as Amtrak has demonstrated with its CitySprinter buy).
But Sylmar is a range too far.
joe Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 7:08 pm
Upper bound is 8B, 4+4. That’s a lot of money.
We need interstate support to move forward BUT the best way to get that interstate dream kick started is to have a segment that is usable in an area that has low risk and also build construction expertise.
I would like to see Bakersfield connected to LA and get NV involved but have concerns about geologic risk and timeline. I’d spend more money in 2012 to plan routes and identify risks and mitigation options for that segment.
Howard Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
If the Tehachipi mountain crossing is too risky for the next (second) construction segment then we should use the 8 billion to build Palmdale to Los Angeles segment next (second). This would serve the states largest city (not a train to nowhere) and it would encourage the two gaps to be closed next (Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Victorville). Because this track could be used by Interstate Desert Xpress as well as Intrastate CHSR it should be more politically viable at the national level (US Senate)..
Beta Magellan Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 9:35 pm
Or you could try to have a viable LA-Fresno line via Tejon that could be used as an example by the rest of the country instead of banking on a connection with a highly speculative private sector project with a questionable financial plan.
Getting from LA to San Francisco should be the first priority above all else. The last thing any megaproject needs is to be saddled with a bunch of other sub-goals that potentially keep it from attaining its primary objective.
joe Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 6:46 am
I agree. While this project needs Reid’s support, he’s not asking for CA to favor building Palmdale-LA
CA Bond money should be spent focused on the project’s primary objective; SF-LA and getting some use out of the existing track – I’d build out from the CV, N and S.
Peter Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 7:22 am
You know, I actually don’t care whether or not DesertXpress as a company “makes it” in the long term. More important than whether they are successful financially is that they get the infrastructure built. Once built, even if they go under, someone will take that infrastructure and run trains on it.All that really matters timing-wise is that if they go under, they go under after the system is built and after we reach a point where short-sighted Republicans can claim that their financial failure means “trains are doomed”.
Beta Magellan Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 8:41 am
Taking government loans, going bankrupt due to inability to pay back loans with ticket revenues, and having a state agency take over operations (or bail them out and contract operations to someone else) doesn’t seem like a way to garner Republican support for high-speed rail.
Peter Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 9:01 am
That’s why they can’t go under until HSR has proved itself elsewhere in the U.S.
Peter Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 9:02 am
I miswrote that, I just realized.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
Why not? they do it for banks and Wall Street.
VBobier Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 10:18 pm
Ah, a pincer movement, then the center area between the two new sections has to come next to close the gap.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
Ew. Bakersfield-Palmdale should be the first segment, not the last; it’s the only one that simply can’t be done on legacy rail, no matter how much organizational reform there is.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 1:28 am
Central Valley was eligible for ARRA funding, Bakersfield-Palmdale wasn’t.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 2:19 am
Yes, but this can be chalked to previous decisions to advance the EIR on Bakersfield-Merced before advancing that on LA-Bakersfield. Thus the CV is shovel-ready and the connections over the mountains are not.
joe Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 6:39 am
Starting in the CV can be chalked to physics.
LA-Bakersfield crosses more complex terrain. Getting bogged down in that region would undermine confidence in the project.
I teaching my 6 year old to ride a bike beginning with flat pavement, not mountain bike trails.
Peter Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 7:59 am
They knew before the ARRA funding was awarded that the EIRs for the CV were more advanced than the ones for the mountain crossings. More complicated to plan a route through the mountains than to plan it through a flat valley.
Joey Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 9:30 am
joe: yeah, it’s not like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Italy haven’t built through more difficult terrain before with zero problems. The technology and practice is well established.
I probably missed a few.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Yes, LA-Bakersfield costs more per kilometer than Bakersfield-Merced. It also serves about an order of magnitude more passengers. It’s more complicated to plan, but it’s the key to the entire project and should’ve been prioritized in planning.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
So they should have just passed on the chance to get something built in the Central Valley because in an ideal world they wouldn’t start it that way? Gonna be awfully hard to get between SF and LA without tracks between Fresno and Bakersfield.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
Remember that in 2008, they thought they’d get $10 billion in federal money and the rest in private funding and that they’d get the money very quickly. Based on what they believed then, there was no point in phasing.
Now, as soon as money became scarce, phasing was an issue. And, yes, they should’ve asked for more money to be able to complete Sylmar-Bakersfield first, with Bakersfield-Fresno an alternative in case they got less money. The decision to start with Fresno-Hanford was great for intra-state politics – it’s nice for one of the state’s regions – but it’s sheer blind luck that they got extra money to extend it to Bakersfield and now possibly to Palmdale or Sylmar. If Scott had lost his lawsuit, they wouldn’t have had the money for a decent IOS.
synonymouse Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 11:07 am
Alon is totally right in putting the mountain crossing at the top of the agenda, but California will have to do it on its own. Weiner’s seat went to a conservative Catholic Republican in a district tht has been Democratic since 1923. Between that and the ongoing Solyndra scandal Stimulus Part Deux is DOA. My guess is that the Republicans will take mercy on the unemployed and mostly approve an extension of unemployment benefits, and somewhat reduced transport spending but no hsr funding.
But a forced rethink and re-ordering of priorities is not a bad thing. On the mountain crossing I am taking the optimistic view that the engineering study will be very positive for Tejon. My reasoning is that PB dissed that alignment primarily and sunmmarily in response to political pressure and that a good route is waiting there to be distilled out. I hope PB will take a no-holds-barred approach, even looking at zig-zagging I-5 to find the lowest ruling gradient and avoiding the Chandlers and Disney as much as possible.
I am going to stick my neck out and suggest that this route has potential resale value, to an unnamed class 1. Also that is would possibly attract the military’s attention as a strategic asset.
In sum, move Tejon to the top of the agenda and add Sac to the starter and you will have a much improved, much more viable CHSRA plan.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
It’s a conservative Jewish district, not a conservative Catholic one. One of the reasons Obama has lost support especially among Jews is that he’s perceived as anti-Israeli. Most of it is standard racism against someone whose middle name is Hussein. If it were the Upper West Side, nobody would’ve cared who Dov Hikind endorsed.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 7:31 pm
The Italians in Middle Village the Irish in Belle Harbor etc. have converted to Judaism? Maybe that’s whey the Polish Masses being celebrated in Maspeth are so sparsely attended…..
Alon Levy Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 6:08 am
Turner didn’t win in Queens by all that much. He got the bulk of his margin from Brooklyn. It was on the order of 75-25 vs. 55-45, if I’m not mistaken.
Risenmessiah Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 6:29 am
Just to answer your question Howard:
$8 billion would get us through Pacheco and the Wye. It’s an open question what happens from Gilroy northward or south to Fresno…but that would get us into the Santa Clara Valley….
jim Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 10:41 am
but not with Bakersfield to the wye electrified and signaled (and not with a station at Bakersfield either). So no actual trains running.
At some point CHSRA needs to start running trains.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
Trains don’t need electricity to run. They don’t need signal systems either. There’s many reasons why you may not want to run them without electricity or signals or both but it can be done.
jim Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
High speed trains need electricity and signals.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Who said anything about high speed trains?
swing hanger Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 6:09 pm
The very concept of running passenger trains (at any speed) without a fail-safe signal system makes me shudder.
Peter Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
Yeah, we can ask the Chinese how well that worked for them…
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
One locomotive under steam is extraordinarily safe and doesn’t require any signals. If it takes an hor and half for the medium speed diesel to get between Fresno and Bakersfield and it runs every two h ours there won’t be more than one train on the tracks at a time.
RisenMessiah Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
They do, but I think as a practical matter Amtrak California can use the route first with modified Talgo trainsets. The reason is pretty simple…the less that the San Joaquins competes with freight traffic to the Port of Oakland, the better.
And just so you know, I meant from Gilroy to the Wye…not from Gilroy to the “ICS”.
Peter Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Why do they need to run Talgos? Why not just run their existing equipment? The infrastructure is being built to carry the heavier FRA-compliant trains, last I heard.
RisenMessiah Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
Talgos present the chance to experiment with new ideas on Amtrak California that might be of interest to the full HSR line. Also, there’s a value in using less fuel and having trains that can articulate better. If you remember from when I posted a while back, this would only apply to two of the four trains that currently end in Oakland, shifting their final destination to San Jose.
Robert and I have been discussion another installment about using Talgos after that change is made.
Peter Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
If you’re talking about Amtrak California running Talgo trains with the Talgo XXI powerheads, I’m all for it.
If it’s simply a matter of running Talgos in the Amtrak Cascades configuration with the dinosaur locomotives, though, why bother?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Yes lets experiment with new ideas for a few years and then run the experimental trains off a cliff whne the system is completed. Unless you are expecting that high speed tracks are going to magically apperar someplace with an operator interested in buying your used experimental trains. Although by the time the first revenue HSR trains are running the bugs in the experimental trains might be all worked out so they might not be all that experimental.
…I hear Amtrak and New York State have some Turboliners available they might be willing to let go cheap.
Peter Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Maybe not buy them (CA probably doesn’t want to get stuck with them), but lease them? Why not?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
It would probably cost Amtrak and New York State more in bookkeeping costs than what they would lease for. You can get them really cheap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboliner
Peter Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 5:19 am
Maybe instead buy two or three ICE TD’s? The fuel for them is a lot cheaper (use less). Admittedly, we would have to wait for PTC to be established, and possibly have to get a waiver, but they’d be a proven design, at least. Only problem is that they’re high-platform.
jim Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
CHSRA is building the stations with 48″ OTR platforms which rules out Talgos which are necessarily built to 760mm OTR floor height.
Peter Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
From what I’ve been told, you can easily temporarily raise the tracks up with ballast so that they are at the right height. Then, once you’re ready to start running HSR trains, you remove the tracks and ballast, and put down the permanent tracks. This approach has the side-benefit of not having to build a new station at Diridon in order to connect it to Bakersfield.
Joey Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 7:21 pm
The CHSRA has yet to settle on a platform height. And yes, the vast majority of high-speed trains do gravitate toward the high-platform side, but there are at least a couple that support low platforms, the Talgo AVRIL and the TGV Duplex, though at this point I’m convinced that we want distributed traction.
Joey Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 7:23 pm
And Peter: I would hazard guess that it’s a lot cheaper to raise the platforms when the time comes, especially if they are designed with this in mind.
Peter Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 7:28 pm
Raising the platforms would require a complete rebuild, I would expect. So, no, not cheaper.
Joey Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
Platforms are just a hunk of concrete. I fail to see how that would be more expensive than rebuilding the tracks themselves.
Max Wyss Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 6:35 am
Lowering tracks is easier and cheaper to be done because it can be done using appropriate machinery. We can easily assume that the ballast had to be cleaned anyway, and if it has been sufficiently high to begin with, it is essentially removing ballast, cleaning it, putting back ballast, retamper etc. Something which can be done at pretty nice rates. Work would be done within one or two nights.
Increasing the platform height on the other hand, requires to remove all installations on the platform, preparing the platform, rebuilding the concrete with all the required pipes and lines in it, and finally replace the equipment. If done carefully, that would keep the platform unusable for one to two months.
You gotta respect the man for sticking to his guns on this one. I thought for sure he would cave. Even though this will never get past the house, at least he making clear that HSR is something worth fighting for.
On the flip side, looking at this very pessimistically, maybe he’s just throwing this out there as a sacrificial lamb, knowing that it will get cut, hoping that they get distracted by HSR and let some of the other items through.
joe Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 7:14 pm
IMHO, he’ll fight. $4 B is peanuts in the scope of the Fed budget BUT it’s a vision and a story to tell when asked for HIS path forward for creating 21st century jobs and economic recovery.
If CA matches the funding, he can show that Fed-State partnerships work and also defend himself against favoritism or against reprogramming the money to by some GOP pork-head. PLUS the national economy gets the added boost of the State’s Bond money being spent in a recession.
StevieB Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 4:48 am
House Republicans will fight to keep Obama from any goals that can help with his reelection. High Speed Rail having been mentioned in his State of the Union address targets the program. The House reduced the budget of all discretionary spending while increasing the Pentagon budget. Republicans have set their priorities and many are without compromise.
YesonHSR Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 12:03 am
Its Amtrak “JOE” and most of you people dont even know it
Off topic, but amazing–someone thinks the American government is better run than their own! (Link originally from Monorails.org):
http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2937921
Part of the complaint is that this monorail system is to be demolished, without ever entering revenue service:
http://www.monorails.org/tmspages/Incheon01.html
http://www.urbanaut.com/index.htm
I am afraid I don’t quite get the attractiveness of monorails. It’s essentially an elevated railroad with a different suspension system, specifically one that normally intrudes into the carbody, usually undersized carbodies, and runs on rubber tires that increase rolling friction and generate heat at anything even resembling peppy operation, much less HSR or even semi-HSR
Alon Levy Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 7:19 pm
In Israel, most people contrast corrupt Israel with normal countries, which include the US.
Beta Magellan Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
American liberals idolize Western Europe, Western European liberals idolize the US.
Elchu Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 7:55 pm
Speaking as a Western European liberal: no we do not!
The point remains, though: the grass is always greener on the other side. Just in some places it grows naturally, and in others it has to be forced.
Beta Magellan Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 7:59 pm
I was always under the impression that liberal refer more to classical liberalism there, as opposed to in the US where it’s meant to mean more social democratic. Maybe that’s breaking down, or the difference in usage was just exagerrated.
ericmarseille Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 8:28 am
You mean I suppose Western European liberals in the European understanding of what a liberal is (a laissez-faire capitalist) worship America!
American liberals idolize (and idealize) slightly Western Europe, Western European liberals (in the American sense, leftists and socialists) are very uninformed about America and fear what’s not to fear when they don’t fear what’s to fear in America ; just tell them America doesn’t have universal health care (WHAT?)…Nobody knows here! when you tell people they just can’t believe it…
Beta Magellan Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 8:42 am
Yay! Someone got my joke…
ericmarseille Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 10:04 am
It was a hard one to tell so deep runs the ignorance between our two cultures…
Mandarin pleasures really
synonymouse Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 8:17 pm
Israel more corrupt than San Francisco?
Alon Levy Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 10:51 pm
You know the Burton family? Israel has about 18 of these. They run the oil companies, the dairy companies, and all public contracting, and are plugged into the military and political establishments. The quid pro quo is that the military creates makework for those companies, and in exchange those companies give jobs and sinecures to retired officers. The national boosters then point out to the number of officers with high-ranking corporate jobs and say that the IDF teaches valuable leadership skills. Clueless Americans swallow this whole and believe that indeed Israel is a nation of leaders. Israelis know this is a ruse – the phrase “the IDF method” refers to how a boss or commanding officer will create problems and make things unworkable so that he can come off as having solved them – but normal Israelis don’t work for
hackhousesthinktanks andragsrespected international magazines, so the rest of the world doesn’t realize this.synonymouse Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 10:33 am
Obviously there are some root “issues” if the typical Israeli resident is shelling out a great part of monthly income for rent.
But anyone in Israel match up to Willie Brown for sheer rascality?
Alon Levy Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 11:03 am
You should ask the opposite question: is there any important member of the Knesset who is not a complete rascal? (There are, but very few.)
synonymouse Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 11:23 am
I confess to insular naivete.
At the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Conference in San Francisco on Tuesday:
The California model: Next up at the conference was U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood.
He told the delegates that transportation, which accounts for two-thirds of America’s oil consumption and one-third of its carbon emissions, is a “crucial part” of President Obama’s jobs plan and his “vision of a 21st century economy.”
LaHood referred to the administration’s recently enacted fuel efficiency rules for new cars to 35 mpg by 2016, and 55 mpg by 2025, and the administration’s “historic investment in high-speed rail,” the largest of which, he noted, is in California.
“California will be a model,” he said.
How reassuring is that to those of us who feared California’s $43 billion project was getting derailed, along with others across the country?
In a private meeting ahead of the conference, LaHood told Steve Heminger, executive director of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and Jim Wunderman, CEO of the Bay Area Council, that “California is the place it’s going to happen,” according to Wunderman. “The president is fully behind it,” Wunderman says they were told.
Now, it’s back to those little local obstacles – additional funding sources, lawsuits, environmental impact reports – which the Bay Area Council, the MTC and other organizations are seeking to address.
“It does feel like we have the chance of getting high-speed rail on track,” Wunderman said after the meeting.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/09/13/BU181L3SUQ.DTL
“the 20th century is over” .. Quote of the day. That is how all HSR discussions should start.
synonymouse Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 11:22 am
The 20th century will be over when BART cars are painted a nice, bright color.
Peter Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
So, it’ll be over then when BART rolls out its new fleet?
jimsf Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
nice. I like it.
Mike Brennan Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 9:26 am
The new design is quite subtle.. I kind of like that.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood in Oakland Tuesday was very supportive when asked about High Speed Rail.
@Robert:
Note:
Weiner Seat Goes to Republican: Turner Calls Win ‘Message’ to Obama
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/213771/20110914/weiner-seat-goes-to-republican-barack-obama-democrat.htm
Momentum gained by Republicans in last year’s mid-term Congressional elections continued in New York’s 9th Congressional District special election Tuesday as voters chose a first-time, 70-year-old former television producer over Democrat Dave Weprin.
Robert: You keep talking about the House going back to a Democractic majority next year and then the money will flow to HSR.
Well that isn’t going to happen, and this is just a forerunner of how the political forces are blowing.
Really un-believable that this 3:! majority of the Democrats in this congressional district could not hold this seat.
Donk Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
It was just because the Democrat (who is orthodox Jewish) had some statements that were anti-Israel, and the Republican seized on his comments and turned the race around last minute. The district is highly Jewish.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
It’s not a 3:1 Democratic district. The registrations may be highly Democratic, but those are the kinds of Democrats who follow Dov Hikind. Obama won the district 55-44, and his popularity specifically with Orthodox Jews has declined unusually sharply, due to his perceived anti-Israel bent.
morris brown Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
You can state what you want; the article I read said it hadn’t gone Republican since 1922. Stick your head in the sand and keep on believing the Democrats are going to regain control of the house in 2012
As was reported, the Democratic party leaders were of the opinion the district was safe under any circumstances; otherwise they would not have forced Weiner to resign,
Alon Levy Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
I don’t know what party leaders said, but 538 said the district was moderate and unfriendly to Obama and could go Republican as soon as the possibility of a Weiner resignation was raised.
Districts change over time. Sections of NY-23 hadn’t gone Democratic since the Civil War, a fact widely hailed in 2009 as heralding a relatively good midterm for Obama.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
Poor Dede….
The Democrat, Owens, won running against a Conservative, Hoffman. The Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, considered a shoo-in when she was selected, was abandoned by the Party. With some of them actively endorsing Hoffman. Owens was re-elected in 2010 but still hasn’t achieved a majority. Most interesting thing I find in the 23rd CD was that Doug Hoffman – the Tea Party candidate running on the Conservative ticket – got 46% of the vote in 2009 and 6% in 2010.
It’s hard to tell if parts of the 23rd have every gone Democratic. It’s usually phrased as “have elected Republicans since the 1850s…” There were no Republicans to vote for earlier than that. Earlier it was a Whig stronghold.
joe Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Morris Brown thinks this anti-incumbency sentiment will help, the GOP incumbents keep the House.
Peter Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Doesn’t he realize he’ll likely lose his Medicare benefits if the GOP wins?
Alon Levy Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
He won’t, the GOP is only going to eliminate Medicare for younger people. If I’m not mistaken, the Ryan plan’s cutoff is 55 as of today.
Peter Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
Well, being stuck on a GOP-backed voucher plan is close enough to losing Medicare benefits for me…
joe Reply:
September 17th, 2011 at 11:38 pm
Ryan’s Plan isn’t the worse case or for medicare. Every year the stakes and demands increase. If they win, in 2012, medicare is toast.
I’m old enough to recall Obama-care is Bob Dole’s market-based health plan. That the GOP platform of the 50′s is to liberal for the 2010′s Dems.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
The Democrat was pro-marriage-equality too which doesn’t go over well with the orthodox of any faith you might find in the 9th CD. So the Congressional election was decided on issues that Congress doesn’t have any say over….
Russian Railways polishing tender for Moscow – St. Petersburg HSR link
There are quite a few things due on Oct. 14th per the Transportation trailer bill. These were the “strings” legislators put on the money for HSR. From the bill:
SEC. 8. Section 38 of Chapter 6 of the Statutes of 2011 is amended to
read:
Sec. 38. Of the amounts appropriated in Items 2665-004-6043, 2665-304-0890, 2665-304-6043, 2665-305-0890, and 2665-305-6043 of Section 2.00 of the Budget Act of 2011,
50 percent of the total amount shall be available for expenditure only after the submittal of a report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and a 60-day review period, or not sooner than whatever lesser time the Chairperson of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, or his or her designee, may determine.
The High-Speed Rail Authority shall have discretion concerning how the 50 percent in restricted expenditures is allocated among the five items of appropriation listed above.
The authority shall submit the report no later than October 14, 2011.
The report shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, all of the following:
(a) A complete legal analysis of the revenue guarantee or other
mechanisms to reduce the operator’s risk that the authority indicates it would
provide to the operator. To mitigate risk, the authority shall provide an
analysis of the revenue contribution to the project from the private operator
with and without a revenue guarantee or other mechanism to reduce the
operator’s risk. The authority shall discuss alternative financing approaches
to make up for any lost revenue in the case of no revenue guarantee or other
mechanisms to reduce the operator’s risk.
(b) A financial plan update with alternative funding scenarios. To mitigate
risk, the authority shall report on alternative funding options if no significant
federal funds are received and no revenue guarantee or other mechanisms
to reduce the operator’s risk are allowable. The plan shall also include
construction alternatives for a constrained funding environment, including
what investments would be made and construction completed if the nonbond
resources only equal bond funding.
(c) A public outreach plan for the Bakersfield to Los Angeles segment.
(d) A formal response and full analysis of the April 18, 2011, joint
statement on California high-speed rail by congressional and state officials.
(e) A formal response and full analysis of the issues raised in the May 10, 2011, report by the Legislative Analyst entitled “High-Speed Rail Is at a Critical Juncture.”
The entire bill can be found here: http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_115&sess=CUR&house=B&author=committee_on_budget
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 10:40 pm
What does Oct 14th and the California legislature have to do with the President’s proposal? I’m sure there’s a point lurking in there somewhere.
joe Reply:
September 17th, 2011 at 11:48 pm
La Hood and Brown discussed HSR recently. They are serious about moving forward.
CA is not going to let a 10/14 deadline halt HSR and forego billions in construction and job creation.
Look, I love sitting at Palo Alto’s Town and Country shopping center or California St and sip a coffee and meet my wife. It’s like a happy little world totally unlike what I see and feel in Gilroy and elsewhere win CA.
White males over 25 with a college education have a 4.5% unemployment rate. Palo Alto is doing fine.
CV has 20% unemployment. CA overall has 12%.
Get real.
Our Sate was built because of intersate commerce. We need to improve our total intersate system. Everytime you see a truck hauling produce there is $ 25,000 worth of commerce heading out of the state. Half of that $ 25,000 goes to labor ( Existing Jobs ) . Look out your window at any truck thats what pays the bills. One rail car full of people if there is a 100 seats x $ 35.00 a ticket = $ 3500.00 per car that doen’t make since when the same amount of space can make $ 25,000.
We need to spend the money on innerstate travel that helps us all in general. We have a system called Amtrak improve that route over the grapevine.
HSR does not serve the needs of all Californians.
Ask youself do we need fix what we have already?
Water Storage
New Electricity sources
More Teachers
More Police and Jails
More and Improved Highways.
We all had decent jobs 5 years ago where did they go? We need our old jobs back. We were doing great building new schools. Building houses. Building Hosiptals. Thats what we need.
How many of you think your going to get a job for HSR??
How can HSR really benifit Californians in the long run ?? Will is improve our property values. Will it really improve your life.
People argue that our early pioneers had a vision building highways, dam, bridges etc.
HSR want pencil out ever. A new freeway express could and would be a lot cheaper
joe Reply:
September 17th, 2011 at 11:34 pm
I disagree with the false choice – More Police or HSR.
When CA’s ride HSR to LA, they will not use “The 5″ or “The 99″ so viola, more room for those precious trucks.
Certainly no more Jails and if we did build or expand, not in Kings County – there’s valuable farmland there.
Aside from the question of how much of it Obama can get passed, there’s the problem of HSR projects elsewhere. It’s good politics to spread the money around, and I’m sure that projects in various places would get some of it. So I figure that CA would likely get $1 or $2 billion. That may not be enough to go all the way to Sylmar, but it should be enough to get to Palmdale.
VBobier Reply:
September 17th, 2011 at 10:07 pm
How much?
1. House GOP Rejects Middle Class Tax Cuts
2. After Claiming To Support Infrastructure Investments, House GOP Blocks Infrastructure Investment Plan
So I’d say None, but then they are the party of NO, so It doesn’t surprise Me at all, As the GOP in one way or another has done this from Day 1 when the president was sworn in, either in the Senate by filibustering bills or after Nov 2010 in the House, Remember He’s only the President folks, Not Congress, He bent over backwards to try and work with the GOP and did His job, As that is what Government is about the art of compromise, The Repubs in the House didn’t even appoint anyone to the conference committee that exists to iron out differences in bills with the Senate so that a unified bill can be voted on by both the house and senate and then sent on to the White House to be signed into law or to be vetoed by the President of the United States, The Senate of course did appoint members to the committee. It’s better to get some of what one wants rather than all of nothing. So people don’t blame President Obama for the Economy and for heavens sake, Support Your local Democratic Congressional/Senatorial Candidates or Your Elected Democratic Congress-person/Senator, a sit-down-strike will only help the far right terroristic loonies win, We don’t need that again. I for one will be glad when the Nov 2012 election is over as then If the results go the way I’d like and that California and the Nation needs, My anxiety will go down.