Business Plan Reaction Roundup
Overall I think the reaction to the 2012 Business Plan has been positive. The Authority’s decision to go not just for honesty, but for a thorough and extremely detailed plan that relies on overly conservative projections that nevertheless show the system will be profitable, appears to have scored it a political victory. Of course, we’ll see what happens in the coming weeks and months, but initial indications are positive.
Longtime HSR advocates have been uniformly positive and supportive of the new business plan, and that alone is a good sign – as long as supporters remain supportive, the project is in good shape. When longtime supporters turn against the project, that’s when we’ve got a real problem.
But it’s also good to see that even anti-HSR voices like Senator Alan Lowenthal are saying nice things about the business plan, as David Siders reports for the Sacramento Bee:
Sen. Alan Lowenthal, the Long Beach Democrat who chairs the Senate select committee on high-speed rail, said the regional approach is a “major step forward” for the agency.
“I think up until now we’ve been on kind of a collision course, the Legislature and the High-Speed Rail Authority, because I don’t think the High-Speed Rail Authority felt any reason to have to respond to any of our issues unless they were forced to do it,” Lowenthal said. “At least now I think there’s an attitude of trying to work with us. We will see what that translates into, but I think it’s a great first step.”
Of course, his spin is absurd – Sen. Lowenthal does not speak for the legislature as a whole, which was on no such “collision course.” And the business plan wasn’t written to satisfy him. But clearly Lowenthal has been quieted – if for the moment.
The same story shows support from Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg:
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said in a prepared statement that while the revised business plan “may bring some sticker shock,” it is a “tough and honest assessment of the challenges ahead if we are to build a functioning high-speed rail system in California.”
This too could be stronger, but the key is that Steinberg had nothing to really attack here.
Some Republicans are trying to use the new business plan to try and attack the project as a whole:
Meanwhile, Sen. Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, said he plans to introduce legislation that would ask California voters to reconsider the $9 billion bond measure.
“The voters were deceived in the original go-around with highly optimistic ridership and cost numbers that have not been borne out,” LaMalfa said, adding that larger figures “should have been in front of the voters to begin with so they would have the truth.”
Whatever. This has no chance of making it out of the legislature. It’s an empty threat that LaMalfa’s own party doesn’t even support. Senator Bob Huff, the incoming GOP leader in the Senate, issued this statement:
Improved transportation infrastructure is critical to our state’s future. Every demographic model shows the state’s population continuing to grow, with no parallel investment to accommodate that growth in our transportation systems. High-Speed Rail is poised to fill a significant part of this need, but we must proceed with a good business plan built of accurate data and assumptions. This draft business plan appears to be a positive step in that direction to help frame the larger discussion about High-Speed Rail viability.
Huff is far from the only Sacramento Republican who supports the project, further indication that the project still has a bright future.
Even Dan Walters, the Sacramento Bee columnist who strangely opposes efforts to build 21st century infrastructure (even has he properly rails against the state’s archaic and obsolete constitutional structure), was forced to acknowledge the business plan had been well-received:
Will it all come to pass?
The plan doesn’t promise success, and it also doesn’t over-commit the state. Its numbers seem to be much more realistic, and it appears to quiet at least some of the local opposition, especially on the San Francisco Peninsula.
So we’ll see.
That’s as grudging an admission of a job well done as we’re likely to see from Dan Walters, so I’ll take it.
Some other reaction:
David Siders, CHSRA Board President Tom Umberg, and HSR critic Elizabeth Alexis were on Warren Olney’s Which Way LA? show yesterday to discuss the business plan; it’s worth a listen.
Californians For High Speed Rail executive director Daniel Krause was on KPCC yesterday to offer his reaction, pointing out that the $98 billion high-ed cost estimate is the product of the extremely conservative assumptions the business plan made:
Daniel Krause, executive director of grassroots organization Californians for High Speed Rail, said that the projection is unrealistic. “We’re concerned that the skeptics up in the state Legislature have, essentially, browbeaten them into being so conservative that they’re blowing the number up to a much higher level than we were anticipating,” Krause said….
“No money, no jobs being created in the economy if we decided not to move forward,” Krause said. “We can’t afford not to move forward right now.”
Krause went on to say that the indirect cost to society, relating to health and safety, would lessen substantially.
Lots of websites and blogs have weighed in, and many more will do so in the coming days and weeks. I particularly liked what Treehugger had to say:
“The plan also says the system would be profitable even at the lowest ridership estimates and would not require public operating subsidies”.
Wait, this whole thing would work? And work well? As in, after the initial investment, the entire system would pay for itself and then provide a much-desired, low-carbon transportation alternative to the people of California? Then how come the stories, like this one from the AP, are leading with how expensive it would be, and burying the fact that this is a cash-positive investment for taxpayers?
Because that’s just no fun. The collapse of Solyndra made green-bashing something of a fad for the news media, and sent them rushing to find more ‘scandals’ — even though, to this day, there’s still no evidence of any illegal activity in the Solyndra affair at all. And so we get efforts like this and this, that try to paint the CA rail plan as a boondoggle — when the findings of the actual report they’re citing reveal it’s anything but.
Yes, CA high speed rail may be more expensive then originally accounted for. But it’s still been found to be a really sound investment — and don’t forget, there are tons of saved costs that this plan doesn’t account for. The reduced traffic congestion and the lowered health costs from less air pollution spring to mind. High speed rail is still a great idea — let’s not allow sensationalistic detractors to spin the narrative away from the facts.
They’re making an excellent reminder that much of the opposition to high speed rail is driven by right-wing ideology and hostility to actually doing something to create jobs and help the environment.
Overall, the 2012 Business Plan has not only given the high speed rail project a new lease on life – it has shown the path to getting the system built and consolidated support behind it. So far, so good. But as we know, the battle continues. And given the phased construction approach, even the first trains running on the Initial Operating Segment won’t be cause for rest. But I remain confident about this project and its future.
Got any other reactions that are worth discussing? Share them in the comments!
Can we build the IOS, then the segment to Palmdale, and then use the new ACE train tracks from the SF bay area.
Assuming the reaction was as positive as you said, I’m pretty dismayed. It shows a (admittedly not-so-shocking) lack of knowledge from Californian lawmakers and Very Special People—the fact that this project’s per-mile cost (even without inflation) outweighs peer systems around the globe is a disgrace, and that no one wants to force the authority towards a more cost-effective, less time-consuming path is extremely disappointing (though again not unexpected).
Although California’s HSR project might play well in California, the cost and timeframe for completion of this project basically dooms rail advocates in the rest of United States to a generation’s worth of failed arguments.
I’m basically getting the same feeling that I did when Sunrail survived the death of Florida’s intercity rail program—the least worthy, most corruptly-planned, aspect of the project survived while the best designed, most-useful and groundbreaking parts of the program were killed due to rank stupidity on the part of Florida’s greasy-palmed GOP establishment. At least the Florida debacle has the Tea Party’s name on it—that this is being done in the name of worthy causes like sustainability and stimulus is really sickening.
JJJ Reply:
November 2nd, 2011 at 10:34 pm
“Although California’s HSR project might play well in California, the cost and timeframe for completion of this project basically dooms rail advocates in the rest of United States to a generation’s worth of failed arguments.”
I agree. Now every rail-opponent in the country can and will respond to any proposal like this:
“Sure they claim it will cost XX, but just look at California, the price will obviously triple”
This isnt necessary true. But it will be brought up, over and over and over again.
joe Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 6:54 pm
Spin doesn’t matter. They stopped spinning and now outright lie and fabricate.
The GOP Base denies Obama is a US Citizen and is ineligible to be President.
The GOP base denies climate warming.
The GOP Base is circulating a news item that the EPA is regulating dust – not such law exists.
Don’t based decisions on what “they” will say – ‘they will say” whatever they want and make up whatever facts they wish.
This is why projects like this end up in the scrap heap. Piss poor management and decision making. High-speed rail is needed, but we need a 100% change in how this is being managed. Hey Clem, would you be willing to do the same cost analysis for the rest of the route? I thoroughly enjoyed the Penninsula section you did on your blog. If we can find what stuff we do not need in the system.
I think we are now in a fight to keep the project alive or let it die. I think the issue will be focusing people’s attention on the bad management and decision making which led to cost estimate increases.
thatbruce Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 11:03 am
The phrase you’re looking for is ‘Industry Capture’.
I am shocked that the press so far has accepted that this might actually be profitable. I didn’t listen to the Which Way LA bit, but I am assuming that Elizabeth is going to go after the credibility of the operating profit numbers.
JJJ Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 12:01 am
Well, if you’re going to accept one set of numbers from the report (costs) then you have to either accept the other numbers, or throw it all away. You can’t selectively cite.
IE: if someone says: It will cost $98b (as the report says) but ridership will be 50% lower…
Why not just say “Ridership will be what the report says, but costs with be 50% lower”
It’s just as valid. Or not valid.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 12:26 am
No need, I’ve just done it myself. HSR all over the world is always profitable including depreciation and almost always profitable including interest; the business plan excludes both, in order to make the capital costs look less grinding. It’s the accounting of the bond-financed highway builder rather than that of the businessperson or the investor. It just looks good to Treehugger et al because they’re used to the finances of transit agencies, which lose money even excluding dep and int.
Derek Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 6:51 am
The trainsets are a relatively small cost, so depreciation will be very little in comparison to the construction costs. Interest isn’t an operating cost, so it doesn’t affect operating profits.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 2:03 pm
Trackwork depreciates as well. So do the viaducts and tunnels, albeit on a much longer schedule (p. 126).
My reaction hasn’t been positive. As a non-Californian American, I thought the “phased approach” was: California builds its system and gets out of the way. Then Texas gets to build its system, then the Southeast, then the Midwest, etc. In a few decades, we’ll have a complete national system. So now California wants to take the next 3 decades for its system. The Midwest will get its system around the year 3000.
Just go ahead and build the dang thing! I don’t see much utility in partial sections that don’t make the complete trip from the Bay Area to the LA basin. I like the Central Valley, but the big revenue stream for high speed rail in California is going to be grabbing a big share of the Bay Area – Southern California travel market. There’s no half way. The existing routes between the coasts and the valley are circuitous, and have little spare capacity. For the cost of upgrading them, it’s better to just build new.
I’m not particularly bothered by $100 Billion. If the US were to spend $10 Billion/yr on real high speed rail, it could complete the California system in a decade, then move on to the next project. It really makes no sense for ten projects around the country to be all moving forward at a snails pace, each with a little non-viable demonstration segment gathering rust and ridicule. From a national perspective, it’s preferable to get California up-and-running quickly.
Alan Lowenthal is just starry-eyed because he thinks he can take credit for the changes in the Business Plan. It is sort of like when you resubmit a manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal and you have to address the reviewer comments. For the most clueless reviewers, you just need to make some superficial changes and pretend that they were his/her idea. When they re-review the manuscript, they will say “ah shucks” and accept your paper.
Check out the thorough analysis at The Transport Politic
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/
Off-topic: the business plan has this tidbit by the director of SFO saying he supports HSR because it’ll give SFO a connection, just like Tokyo, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Zurich, and Frankfurt. For the record, the first two have no HSR but just an express rapid transit line going to downtown, and the third has an embarrassingly low-ridership demonstration maglev line that only goes about two thirds of the way to downtown. SFO already has what those cities have in the form of BART. It’s actually faster to get from SFO to Market Street on BART than to get from Narita to Marunouchi*/Shinjuku.
*Tokyo Station
Donk Reply:
November 2nd, 2011 at 11:26 pm
They also had a stat that 1/4 flights between LAX and SFO are over 1 hour late, and that HSR could take the load off of SFO and increase on-time performance. I hate flying into SFO because of the delays, but 1/4 sounds a bit high to me. This is probably true during the winter, when local CA flights are given lower priority over longer distance flights, but not really during the summer.
StevieB Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 12:04 am
Ray Lahood endorsed the plan as a way to build for future transportation needs.
It also would help LAX and SFO.
Matt in SF Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 5:33 pm
I believe the main reason why SFO has really poor on-time stats is that in low visibility conditions planes are not allowed to land simultaneously on the two parallel landing strips, dramatically reducing the number of planes that can land per hour. Due to the microclimate, low visibility is pretty common, so just having an overcast day can lead to major delays. I don’t know the numbers but I would believe that figure, and it would be a year-round condition, not just a seasonal thing.
Can someone check my really quick math? I’ve left my financial calculator across the country.
From what I can gather, the original amount presented was $32bn in 2008 dollars, correct?
With 3% inflation, that is $67bn in 2033 dollars. I think.
So costs have risen from $67 to $98. So less than doubled.
But we have places like the Mercury Times claiming that the cost has indeed tripled.
http://www.mercurynews.com/california-high-speed-rail/ci_19236454
So, am i totally off, or is the Mercury totally off?
Alon Levy Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 12:45 am
The business plan has numbers in both 2010 dollars and YOE dollars. The $98b YOE figure corresponds to $65b in 2010. The reason the difference is smaller than in your calculation is that some construction will be done long before 2033. The quick-and-dirty way to do it is to escalate to the midpoint of construction, say 2023, in which case $65b in 2010 works out to $95b, very close to the actual predicted $98b.
thatbruce Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 11:42 am
Looking at it another way, the California DoT’s budget for 2009-10 has items totaling over $7 billion a year for transportation capital (highways) in 2010 dollars. That’s $140 billion over 20 years in 2010 dollars, or $213 billion in 2030 dollars, assuming an inflation rate of 3% per year as mentioned in the Which Way LA segment.
Where are we going to get $213 billion from? It’s too much! We must abandon all hope of ever constructing roads again!
. Putting it into perspective, that’s nearly $5 billion per year in YOE dollars. Freeway expenditure per year in California is on the order of $7 billion , with $1.4 billion per year for highway operations and maintenance.
thatbruce Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 11:43 am
ugh… ignore the last paragraph, it was an early draft and I didn’t clean up the comment box.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 2:06 pm
I don’t want to come off as defending road construction, but the $140 billion for roads goes to a lot more than just intercity travel. It goes to freight trucks and urban freeways as well; in fact, judging by the costs of the various highway widenings in the LA Basin, I’d guess that the bulk of the cost goes to urban freeways, and the amount spent on e.g. widening SR 99 is much lower than the budget for CAHSR.
Caelestor Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 12:46 am
The Mercury Times are wrong as they usually are, but their conclusions, which I disagree with, make sense from a certain point of view (i.e. they can be shoehorned to fit the needs of project critics). Hence, you can already see the ramifications of the report setting in.
It’s going to be a long month for CAHSR.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 1:13 am
I suspect it could be a very short month instead.
joe Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 6:48 pm
Anyone who follows the Mercrynews knows three things.
1. Their go-to reporter for HSR is Mike Rosenberg.
2. His articles are embarrassingly slanted against HSR.
3. If you understand he regularly appears in their San Mateo paper, and if you understand he doesn’t like HSR, then it’s pretty easy to understand “a certain point of view”.
But that’s unfair of me to accuse someone who is chronically wrong of being biased. He could be incompetent.
Tony d. Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 8:40 am
Its because Mike Rosenberg wrote the article, and he’s doing everything in his power to keep HSR off the peninsula. He’s pretty pathetic if you ask me.
synonymouse Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 10:33 am
The Mercury News has been gung-ho for hsr as far as I recall. A Wunderman mouthpiece.
If you haven’t noticed the whole world seems to have taken on a theme of uncertainty and inertia, in every domain. Jerry Brown, like Papandreou, has become the poster boy of this mixed-message confusion. We would have been better with Mega-Meg, who is probably a jerk but decisive. She certainly seems to be making the right moves at HP.
Silicon Valley is losing and gaining jobs at the same time. A good part of the growth is centered on the homeground of your reviled NIMBY’S. Loathing berms must have an upside.
I have to admit that I do not read all comments now as I have grown tired of some posters so this may have been covered.
Looking at the capital cost summary, it is clear to me that we are looking at a Merced to Palmdale build first. Does that not give us a LA and possibly Las Vegas connection? Am I worried about costs? You bet!! Everyone should be concerned about the costs but HSR must be built and must be done right so take time in planning and do it right!
For the record, I am over 65 and will not ride the HSR but that does not mean I am not concerned about the future.
Peter Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 10:23 am
They’re looking at simultaneously extending north to San Jose and south to the “a station in the San Fernando Valley.”
Apparently, this costs about the same.
Peter Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 10:29 am
As in, the extension to San Jose costs nearly the same as the extension to the San Fernando Valley.
The latter can only mean that they’re planning on building a Tejon alignment, me thinketh.
synonymouse Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 10:44 am
If the CHSRA can muster up any smarts at all, they would be immediately putting together a complete the link scheme as a fallback. You should be able to get some Republicans on board with this as the need is clear.
They should have put Tejon on the agenda on Tuesday last.
StevieB Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 8:01 pm
Roelof van Ark spoke on Tejon during the Chief Executive Officer’s Report today.
DanM Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 9:20 pm
I’m interested.
Can you post a summary of what was said and/or a link to something?
Tony d. Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 10:35 am
Looking at simultaneous building BOTH SJ to Sylmar? Where’s that info?
Donk Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 10:56 am
If you really think about it, it would make more sense to build to Sylmar and then to LAUS before working on San Jose. I haven’t crunched the numbers, but it seems like the investment in getting to LAUS would have more bang for the buck than building the second mountain pass to San Jose. The LA area has 13M people for crying out loud.
synonymouse Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 11:01 am
correct
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Caltrain carries roughly the same amount of passengers as all of Metrolinlk. Upgrading which corridor gives more passengers a better ride?
synonymouse Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Caltrain does not have a chance with MTC, abject BART stooge, in the picture.
StevieB Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 8:08 pm
Caltrain will be revisited in 2026 after San Jose is connected to the San Fernando valley.
Peter Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 11:19 am
It’s in “Agenda Item 4 Selection of Usable Segments”
After thinking about it, this doesn’t commit them to build both at the same time, but more likely means that either IOS is an option for construction first.
Off topic, but maybe not given a common theme of the blog: The Wall Street Journal is reporting that traders are expecting oil prices to push past $100/bbl very soon.
RisenMessiah Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 1:56 pm
That’s not surprising given that when ever the European Debt Crisis ends, major investors are going to cash out of the dollar and start buying commodities and stocks again.
StevieB Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 2:59 pm
The Energy Information Administration predicts world oil prices that rise to $125 per barrel (real 2009 dollars) by 2035. The level of confidence in the numbers decrease as the distance in the future increases but oil consumption will increase in the next 25 years and unless there is a comparable increase in oil production the price is more likely to increase than decrease. Slow steady increase in the price of oil is probable for the foreseeable future.
StevieB Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 3:11 pm
$125 per barrel by 2035 is the reference case which represents the EIA current best judgement and includes the prospect of OPEC increasing production to maintain a 42% share of world oil production. The low case is $50 per barrel if the world goes into a depression reducing demand and the OPEC countries flood the market with cheap oil. The high case is $200 per barrel if oil demand greatly increases because of higher economic growth and the OPEC countries limit the production of oil.
trentbridge Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 6:18 pm
There’s enough oil in Canda, US shale production, Gulf of Mexico, and offshore Brazil etc. to make OPEC irrelevant to the US oil market. Compare WTI to Brent crude now. It may be that peak US gasoline consuption was 2007 as more efficient/hybrid/electric cars appear on the road. What I’m saying is that predictions of higher prices for oil are far from certain. Certainly $80/brl oil makes it easier to justify offshore drilling in deeper waters as the costs are higher than mature onshore fields.
StevieB Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 8:27 pm
A world price average of $100 per barrel this year is expected. A price increase to $125 over 25 years is only 25% and is much less than the price has increased in the last 10 years. I think a 25% increase is going to be too low.
joe Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 6:39 pm
$125 a barrel is a pipe dream. Google images for “oil demand”, look at the results. You’ll see nearly exponential growth in the current decade. How can the world meet this demand growth?
OPEC reserves and capacity are not audited. They provide estimates on reserves and capacity. Availability estimates are based on those data being accurate. There are incentives for Arabia to overstate their production capacity – it allows them to control prices and production by other exporters by the treat of Arabia pumping and dropping prices.
Oil is food. We depend on oil to produce fertilizer, plant and harest crops and deliver crops to market.
They wouldn’t lie about oil, something so obvious and so important. Yes and we just bailed out the entire banking sector for 700+B .
StevieB Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 8:20 pm
In the IEO2011 Reference case, world oil prices continue increasing, to $108 per barrel in 2020 and $125 per barrel in 2035. The reasoning is provided in the EIA INTERNATIONAL ENERGY OUTLOOK 2011
Ok so what does this business plan mean in practical terms? The next major step is that the legislature has to approve releasing bond money to start construction by some time in 2012. It now appears that Jerry Brown and Alan Lowenthal are on board. So to me this indicates that we are in better shape now than we were 2 days ago, regardless of the cost increase. Nobody seems to think that a ballot measure to repeal prop 1A can happen.
Regarding the cost increases, it seems that the cost of the ICS is reasonable. The obvious next step is to value-engineer the subsequent steps, starting with the Bako-San Fernando Valley.
Tony d. Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Or Bako-San Jose.
Joey Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Possibly, but if you can get to LAUS, you’ve unlocked a very large ridership base, much larger than San José.
Tony D. Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 5:45 pm
True, but San Jose is also San Francisco, Oakland and everything in between. Whether the ridership base is 7 million or 13 million probably doesn’t matter in terms of filling trains.
joe Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Let us wait and see which segment adds the fewest requirements and gets built first.
San Jose already connects to SF and, via BART-sicle, the east bay. Then the Valley Girls will probably ride HSR.
Valley Girls of San Fernando Want Rail.
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/11/01/is-americas-automotive-love-affair-over-w-poll/
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 8:47 pm
Somewhat connected, originally linked in the comments, check out this ad for an automotive video game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YyT3SQez2o
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Stunning.
Can you even read a map?
Tony d. Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 7:23 pm
Yes, can you? SJ-SF via blended HSR/Caltrain and SJ-OAK/East Bay via Amtrak CC and future BART. Again, San Jose is SF, OAK and everything in between. Any more questions smart guy?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 7:30 pm
Saying San Jose is good enough is like saying Trenton is close enough to New York for Acela. Or Baltimore is close enough to Washington DC. And San Jose is never going to be Trenton much less Baltimore.
Joey Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 7:52 pm
Sorry, but SJ Diridon is never going to parallel LAUS as far as ridership is concerned. Take a look at the existing numbers sometime.
J. Wong Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 8:06 pm
“Yes, can you? SJ-SF via blended HSR/Caltrain and SJ-OAK/East Bay via Amtrak CC and future BART. Again, San Jose is SF, OAK and everything in between.”
Not really. As a temporary measure, yes, I could see it. I would take Caltrain to SJ to catch HSR to LA, but most people won’t. And the East Bay is totally not served. Amtrak CC to San Jose is only for diehards.
Clem Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 8:48 pm
And all that explains why the IOS will probably go South, not North. The two options are being kept on equal footing for political reasons.
Donk Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 9:27 pm
Agreed. I don’t see how you can’t make the argument that the most critical link in the system is the Bako-LA gap.
J. Wong Reply:
November 4th, 2011 at 8:49 am
Yup, and I for one would take the San Joaquin from SF (bus to Emeryville) to where ever in the CV I could transfer to the HSR (Merced?) to get to L.A. (5 or 6 hours?)
Donk Reply:
November 4th, 2011 at 9:35 am
Also, people in LA, at least the ones who can afford HSR, do not ride buses. They will not take the bus from wherever they are in LA/OC to Bako to catch a train. They would rather drive to Bako, just like they would drive to Victorville. But if you have already driven to Bako, you may as well keep on going to Fresno or the Bay Area. Many people in LA would be ok with taking the San Joaquin train from Merced to the Bay Area.
Just read this it will put everything in perspective.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-high-speed-rail-20111101,0,1124440.story
Noam Chompsky, addressing the Occupy movement in Boston –
http://www.alternet.org/story/152933/noam_chomsky_speaks_to_occupy%3A_if_we_want_a_chance_at_a_decent_future%2C_the_mov?page=entire
There are other things going on like that. In fact, some of them were major. Not long ago, Obama took over the auto industry. It’s basically owned by the public. There were a number of things that could have been done. One was what was done. It could be reconstituted so it could be handed back to the ownership, or very similar ownership and continue on its traditional path. The other possibility was they could have handed it over to the workforce and turned it into worker-owned, worker-managed major industrial system that’s a major part of the economy and have it produce things that people need. And there’s a lot that we need. We all know or should know that the US is extremely backward globally in high-speed transportation. That’s very serious. It affects people’s lives and it affects the economy. It’s a very serious business.
I have a personal story. I happened to be giving talks in France a couple months ago and ended up in southern France and had to take a train from Avignon in southern France to the airport in Paris and it took two hours. That’s the same distance as Washington to Boston. It’s a scandal. It could be done; we have the capacity to do it, like a skilled workforce. It would have taken a little popular support. That could have been a major change in the economy. Just to make it more surreal, while this option was being avoided, the Obama administration was sending its transportation secretary to Spain to get contracts for developing high-speed rails for the United States. This could have been done right in the Rust Belt, which is being closed down. There’s no economic reason this can’t happen. These are class reasons and the lack of political mobilization. proved himself to a communist train-lover:
There are other things going on like that. In fact, some of them were major. Not long ago, Obama took over the auto industry. It’s basically owned by the public. There were a number of things that could have been done. One was what was done. It could be reconstituted so it could be handed back to the ownership, or very similar ownership and continue on its traditional path. The other possibility was they could have handed it over to the workforce and turned it into worker-owned, worker-managed major industrial system that’s a major part of the economy and have it produce things that people need. And there’s a lot that we need. We all know or should know that the US is extremely backward globally in high-speed transportation. That’s very serious. It affects people’s lives and it affects the economy. It’s a very serious business.
I have a personal story. I happened to be giving talks in France a couple months ago and ended up in southern France and had to take a train from Avignon in southern France to the airport in Paris and it took two hours. That’s the same distance as Washington to Boston. It’s a scandal. It could be done; we have the capacity to do it, like a skilled workforce. It would have taken a little popular support. That could have been a major change in the economy. Just to make it more surreal, while this option was being avoided, the Obama administration was sending its transportation secretary to Spain to get contracts for developing high-speed rails for the United States. This could have been done right in the Rust Belt, which is being closed down. There’s no economic reason this can’t happen. These are class reasons and the lack of political mobilization.
Federal government spending won’t be “stimulus” gold-plate blowout:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/03/senate-to-block-competing-infrastructure-plans/?test=latestnews
PB-CHSRA will be forced to revise and rethink, a very good thing.
Off topic, but perhaps of interest to Eastern readers, and a follow-up to material by Alon Levy and myself on an attack on a heritage railroad in New York:
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/a … -Railroad/
http://nextstoptupperlake.org/
Alon Levy (in his Pedestrian Observations blog) was of the opinion that this was something of a scam. Looks like someone at Next Stop Tupper Lake thinks the same way:
http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.co … l?nav=5041
If this is true, it suggests, among other things, some pretty stupid ideas from the naturalist crowd. Who says wolves and trains don’t get along? Wildlife in general is less impacted by a railroad than just about anything else.
I seem to recall a Welsh narrow-gauge road once had an advertisement for their line, with copy along the lines of “If God meant for people to see (wilderness area, don’t recall the name, it’s been decades since I’ve seen the ad), He would have given them flanged wheels.”
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 8:25 pm
Weird, the first link is showing up dead, but it still shows up live where I first saw it at Railway Preservation News; oh well, the others have more info anyway. . .
swing hanger Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 8:31 pm
“If God had meant us to climb Snowdon(ia) he would have given us flanged wheels and a chimney.” is the quote.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Thanks, I’m glad I’m not the only one to recall the ad!
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 8:56 pm
I have to ask, how did you recall the ad so well? I did some looking up on it, and the thing is like 40 years old!
swing hanger Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 10:07 pm
Sorry, not a recall, but the result of googling…However, a familiarity with railways and geography in Britain helped (am a big fan of the GWR and LMS).
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 9:33 pm
…but it doesn’t rhyme with anthracite….
Each passing look
At nook or brook
Unfolds a flying picture book
Of landscape bright or mountain height
Beside the road of anthracite
swing hanger Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 10:10 pm
ah, DL&W…
Says Phoebe Snow
about to go
upon a trip to Buffalo
“My gown stays white
from morn till night
Upon the Road of Anthracite”
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 10:28 pm
may run again someday. A bit over half a billion to rebuild it between Port Morris and Scranton. Though Binghamton to Buffalo may never get rebuilt.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 10:38 pm
As it used to be:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiN_qFWo70
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgd_SUCBDNs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrOHCwodHu4&feature=related
Beta Magellan Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 9:44 pm
It’s also worth noting that for a long time the railroads were America’s main way of accessing the wilderness—I took a fascinating class in college that looked at the history of American infrastructure and architecture (and not necessarily fine architecture, but stuff like hospitals and pattern-book houses) from a more art-historical perspective, and the the discussion about how technology allowed Americans to access the wilderness was really fascinating.
The only person I know who’d regularly ride a long-distance Amtrak train—the Empire Builder—had a summer job at Glacier National Park, so to some extent that heritage continues today. Although I have my issues with the long-distance routes, heritage lines like the one in upstate New York are great ways to connect with both nature and history.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 10:27 pm
I’ve had material on this fellow up in the past, but now seems like a good idea to recall this environmentalist and historian and his books on railroads, the national parks, and how they can help preserve nature while providing access to it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Runte
http://www.amazon.com/Trains-Discovery-Western-Railroads-National/dp/1570982317
http://www.amazon.com/Allies-Earth-Railroads-Soul-Preservation/dp/1931112525
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 10:30 pm
Some more material by Runte:
http://www.seattlepi.com/ae/books/article/Trains-make-America-s-beauty-ours-1206373.php?source=rss
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003021861_alrunte30.html