OT

Apparently the Authority won’t be selecting a new PR firm
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/assets/0/152/232/323/5a52c5cf-3e11-46f0-801f-d87350aa72e5.pdf

Fewer still on board with bullet train

Here is a much more realistic editorial:

http://www.desertdispatch.com/opinion/billion-12090-vote-project.html

“Last week was a bad week for California’s touted high-speed rail project. That made it a good week for Californians, particularly for taxpayers.”

“The Legislature should put this matter back on the ballot, where voters assuredly would kill it.”

The current hand-ringing about CHSRA and the project in general is a classic case of the voting public getting nervous over a project that was approved in 2008 and it will be nearly four years before the first shovel of dirt is dug. When voters approve a bond they want to see the fruits of their commitment. CHSRA needs to move on that first portion of the project. Once the public sees something productive happen (not spending millions on a PR firm) then many of the qualms about the project will dissipate. The last three plus years have given the “nervous nellies” too much time to fret and stew. It is time to get the environmental reviews completed, perform the engineering and put people to work.

OT : commercial start for the new Rhin-Rhone TGV line yesterday.
Although it is the first region-to-region HSL in France, it will most probably be a success ; there are already 500 000 booked trips.
For those of you who are interested in technical and construction details, this line’s RFF site is a mine :
Go to http://www.lgvrhinrhone.com, click on “enter”, then click on “La branche Est”, then click on “videos”, then, bottom right “toutes les videos”, and Ali Baba’s cavern opens! I particularly recommend the “les équipements ferroviaires” video ; ok, it’s in French, but you can clearly follow the unfolding of operations ; every step is showed, it’s wonderful.

In the politically motivated landscape that is the current politics of this nation, where we have been driven to an ultimate dichotomy between any given question, where anything can be answered with a simple yes or no (that is either something will happen with great success or will fail miserably, for example); has anyone discussed or even attempted to find a middle ground for high speed rail in California. For the past 30 or so years, California has been on a collision course with high speed rail and has yet to find the wherewithal or political (or financial courage, given our current monetary problems) to move any version of this project forward. The question is not whether we should build a rapid statewide electrically powered transit system, but how and when this should be completed. As a transit activist, even one who has adamantly disagreed with the choices made by the CAHSR authority (Pacheco v. Altamont, Tejon v. Tehachapi, stilt-a-rail BART engineering v. sensible at grade options), is the endless fragmentation of rail supporters a healthy and politically advantageous strategy against all who assail progress (NIMBYs, Oil Lobbyists, old people who are Luddites, etc.). Thankfully blogs like this exist for public discussion about a project to change the future of California; but while the Robert Cruickshank’s of the world may remain completely optimistic about this future progress (making some of us wonder if he is just an official PR mouthpiece of the authority itself), his continuous coverage can hopefully inspire this essential piece of the democratic process, vigorous public debate, and keep the ball rolling a hopefully worthwhile project. It is not a question of whether California (or the United States in general) will join the modern world, but when, and I can only hope that it will happen soon enough so I can enjoy it while still being a young man.

Off topic, I’m afraid, but fun for us of the old steam persuasion (including Synonomouse, Spokker, and no doubt others on both sides of the fence)–and just too enjoyable not to share–a couple of steam excursion public relation films from the former steam program of Norfolk Southern Railway:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPOz_i38GQA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeuPEE-Meso

Sometimes we have to step back, look back, take a deep breath, and look and step forward again. . .

Although Robert is quick to use the “it’s a choice, not a referendum” framework that Obama will cling to in 2012, CAHSR is really a struggle about labor v. capital.

Not in an absolute sense, but as way to see that we have expended considerable effort and money over the last few decades to enhance the power of capital in our society. Most of it has come at the expense of the value of labor in that same economy. That’s played out inordinately well in part because of demographics, but all good things come to an end.

Thus, it’s crucial to note that the pendulum is swinging back to labor’s favor for numerous reasons (most notably because of … demographics). HSR is an important tool to increase the mobility of the nation’s workforce and thus, become more efficient and prosperous in terms of production.

That’s the linkage that no one from the White House down has made clear and will have to succeed in the battle of ideas .

(Oh, and the fact that the GOP continues to fawn over a huge, transnational pipeline that will create “jobs” despite refusing to invest a dime in passenger rail….)

California High-Speed Rail – Conspicuous Conservation?

[...] 57 percent of Prius buyers say their main reason for buying one is that “it says something about me.” Most, they found, maybe not surprisingly, are Democrats.

Is the bullet train a socialized version of the kind of conspicuous conservation that the Sextons write about? Is it also what creates so much resistance from the political right?

[...]

But California is not Europe, where cities and towns are more densely populated, where there’s more public transportation and where those cities have grown around public transportation corridors for the better part of a century and a half. Most travelers arriving by train at Los Angeles’ Union Station will still have to drive for an hour, and often more, to get to their ultimate destination.

In Europe, fuel taxes have long been higher than they are in this country; city parking is scarcer and negotiating city streets slower and more difficult. Compared to Paris, London or Brussels, driving in Los Angles is a dream.

“Most travelers arriving by train at Los Angeles’ Union Station will still have to drive for an hour, and often more, to get to their ultimate destination.”

Most travelers arriving by airplane at LAX will still have to drive for an hour, and often more, to get to their ultimate destination. So that’s not really an argument against HSR. And driving is a “dream” in Los Angeles? It’s often not driving but parking when you’re stuck in traffic. That doesn’t qualify as a dream in my book.

Wider benefits of high-speed rail confirmed in new studies
The carbon footprint of high-speed rail can be up to 14 times less carbon intensive than car travel and up to 15 times less than aviation, even when measured over the full life-cycle of planning, construction, and operation

High-speed rail could draw O.C. funding

As the price tag to build high-speed rail in California has more than doubled to $98 billion, officials are concerned that the project’s financing plan could possibly take away public funds from Orange County highway and transit projects.

On Monday, the board of the Orange County Transportation Authority unanimously approved sending a letter to the California High Speed Rail Authority detailing their concerns with funding and ridership projections from the latest business plan released on Nov. 1.

“The plan relies heavily on scarce public funds on the front end of the project and will place the CHSRA in direct competition with existing rail service providers … This is a great concern to OCTA as it will directly impact existing and future planned programs,” the OCTA board states in the letter.

Here is testimony from Assemblywoman Diane Harkey to the OCTA. Right on point.

———-

Testimony delivered to OCTA December 12, 2011
Diane L. Harkey, Assembly Member 73rd AD
OCTA Chair and Board Members:
Madam Chair and Board members, thank you for your time. As you know, I have been tracking this project for 3 years from the state’s perspective. I have recommended that we pull the plug on funding based on reporting delays and the lack of accurate information with regard to: ridership, funding, route, risk analysis and compliance with underlying 2008 legislation, AB 3034 and Proposition 1A.
The Legislature and people of California were told there would be no state subsidy and the riders would pay for the system.
We finally have a more realistic draft business plan albeit with huge deficiencies, many of which I and my colleagues have addressed, the 2 letters, signed by Senators and Assembly members, included in the booklet provided.
The Authority is taking the position that the plan is honest and so we should just move along. That is like one spouse telling his marriage partner that he or she has been cheating for years, but we just need to get over it. In both instances there are fundamental problems to be addressed that may and should end the relationship. I know the OCTA is on record as supporting HSR but the project has changed and requires new analysis.
Allow me to briefly summarize the plan:
We said we wouldn’t need a r subsidy, so we don’t.  Oops – we forgot to tell you there would be sunk construction costs in the hundreds of billions and we may need a credit line for cash flow needs.
We hope the Federal government will give us $60-80 billion for Phase 1. Qualified Tax Credit Bonds will not be available, but if they were, we could leverage the $9 billion HSR bonds by more than three times what the state could borrow independently, or repay debt with more debt.
We said we are not going to have lost revenues but, if we did, then we reduce the scope or increase government funds (i.e., build something somewhere and use up all the money we can as quickly as possible).
We have $6 billion to begin construction in the Central Valley, but it won’t really become useful or high speed until we build an “Initial Operating Section” for which we have no funding.
Even if we get no more money we can attach the ICS to the Amtrak or freight line. It won’t be electrified or high speed under California’s definition, but it works for the FRA.

The reason the plan is so vague, and the LAO does not believe it complies with the bond or legislation, is due to the fundamental flaw in this relationship. The ridership study, from which all else flows, is totally unreliable.

For instance:
The LAO raised concerns about the comparison of $99 billion cost of building high-speed rail with the $170 billion cost of building highways and airports with equivalent capacity.
Using data from the business plan to calculate ridership equates to 116.5 million riders per year. But the plan only forecasts 40 million riders per year by 2060.
Hence a more accurate dollar amount for 40 million riders that would not have access to high speed rail is about $58 billion not $170 billion.

The study also ignores a September, 2011 Regional Airport System Planning Analysis that reported roughly 115 million more could be served with minimal delays, with no additional infrastructure.

The ridership study also uses “equivalent capacity” using a maximized train operation assumption from the 2005 EIR/EIS, not a projected ridership basis that all transportation projects use world-wide.

I understand that your job is to procure much needed transportation funding for Orange County. If this plan is funded there will be little to no extra state transportation dollars for OC or other counties. We are maxed out in bonding capacity as evidenced by our credit rating and the fact that we had to promise “trigger cuts” to obtain our RANS for short-term cash flow needs.

I have reviewed the OCTA draft letter requesting a change in the plan from beginning in the Central Valley to using the funds available for the “book-ends” that have higher initial ridership.

According to Ray LaHood, fed funds are going to the Central Valley because that is what the stakeholders want. I’m not sure who the stakeholders are (other that the Fresno politicians, HSR lobbyists) but obviously the plan can be changed. I also know that Mr. Amante will be testifying in Washington DC this week.

If you succeed, you will have accomplished not beginning a train to nowhere. But I do fear that quickly we will be back to high speed spending on a project for which there is no proven need, and will continue to saddle our state with debt and taxes into perpetuity. This project could be Solyndra on steroids.

So I would ask that you also include a request for a new and independent ridership study prior to ROW funding, or moving forward in any way with an initial construction section or any improvements other than those to existing rail lines.

In the notebook you will find reports and important site references to polling, testimony and video viewing of hearings. I have also included a power point on state finances I presented to my constituents. I hope you will access some or all of the sites noted for additional information. I thank you for your time.

Dan Walters: Legal traps could stop California’s high-speed rail project

To make the project more palatable to voters, the Legislature included restrictions and guarantees in the 2008 bond ballot measure, such as a ban on operating subsidies and requirements that financing be lined up and environmental clearances obtained before construction begins.

The ballot measure’s fine print is now fodder for lawsuits and criticism from the Legislature’s budget analyst.

[...]

Dan Richard, a member of the CHSRA, said that the legal objections are invalid, but as they proliferate, they may prove that a ballot measure written to ease construction of the bullet train actually made it impossible to build.

The Unprofitable Skies

For travelers facing down another holiday season of crowded flights, American Airlines’ filing for bankruptcy protection may be more bad news. The company’s employees and pensioners are already bracing for job and benefit cuts. Yet the pain brought on by a big bankruptcy is unlikely to transform the industry into a profitable one.

Almost all the nation’s big airlines have steered a course into Chapter 11 over the last decade [...] Using bankruptcy to lift these obligations — as many carriers have — has not made the industry more profitable in the long run. While the nation’s carriers made $4 billion last year, that is not the norm. American alone lost $10 billion in the last 10 years. Severin Borenstein of the University of California, Berkeley, estimates that airlines lost $54 billion from 2000 to 2009 on their domestic routes. In the 33 years since the deregulation of the industry in 1978, they reported negative net income in 23 years.

Bakersfield council to consider resolution to oppose bullet train

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/12/bakersfield-council-to-consider-resolution-to-oppose-bullet-train.html

This is why democracy will never work; you can’t deal with people who disagrees with you anymore in this polarized world.

The Chinese are way better off in a single-party rule rubber stamp state; get the shit done with no opposition. No wonder why they’re kicking our asses!

Sobering Reality Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 5:24 pm So, you make a choice to move somewhere you don’t like then you whine about it.You understand of course how pathetic that is right?

Who said I was whining about it? I grew up out here and new exactly what to expect. I’m here temporarily for a specific reason. That doesn’t preclude me from make the observation as it pertains to the big picture. The point being made by both Adiron and I, as you damn will know, is that there is both a lack of information and viewpoints, and a lack of transportation in some places. So to quote a line from an old John Waters film, “don’t act ignorant Tracy Turnblad”

Why in hell is it always the anti everything folks who who constantly fall back on points and arguments that are disengenuous?