Will the State Legislature Abandon California’s Future?
In the 1930s, California legislators of both parties came together to work to end the Depression by putting people back to work building infrastructure that provided lasting value. They weren’t cowed into submission by costs or financial concerns. They did what was necessary and what was right to solve the crisis and build a better future by building bridges and dams and canals across the state.
A generation later, legislators of both parties did it again. This time the economy was booming and money was no problem, but still our leaders recognized that the California Aqueduct, the freeways, and schools and universities were essential to current and future prosperity.
We’re living on the benefits of those investments. But it is time to make new ones, for a new century, to face new challenges, and get us out of a new crisis. Sadly, the present leadership in the legislature – especially the Senate – appears to want to reject the proven path California took in the 20th century. Rather than spend money to create jobs and lasting economic value through new infrastructure, several Senate Democrats are now sounding just like right-wing Republicans in their attacks on the high speed rail project:
“The Field Poll confirmed what I already had come to believe: The public patience for this project is about exhausted,” said state Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee.
DeSaulnier said he has long supported the bullet train service as a way to fight congestion and greenhouse gases.
But he said Tuesday that he could turn against the project unless the California High Speed Rail Authority soon can answer questions about spiraling costs and uncertainty over federal and private funding for the project.
“I think it’s time to fish or cut bait with this project,” he said. “It may be too late.”
DeSaulnier, who I have had a lot of respect for, is clearly out to lunch on this one. He’s going to let one poll that asked a limited question about HSR and therefore isn’t actually a good guide to public opinion on the subject convince him to give up on building California’s future?
That’s an absurd attitude to take. It’s defeatist. And many of the infrastructure projects California now enjoys faced similar problems. After voters approved the Golden Gate Bridge bonds in November 1930, the financial crisis nearly made it impossible to sell the bonds. Ultimately the federal government worked out a deal to help back the bonds, and construction got under way by 1933, with the project completed by 1937. California didn’t quit when the project got difficult. They worked hard to find solutions and got it done.
DeSaulnier, by contrast, appears ready to just give up. It makes no sense.
Especially when so much of California’s hopes at economic recovery are riding on this project. The Central Valley initial construction segment could create over 10,000 construction jobs in the coming years. There is nothing else on the horizon to produce nearly that many jobs in this state, especially in one of the parts of the state where unemployment is the highest. DeSaulnier is reckless to just toss those jobs to the wind.
Particularly since California isn’t actually risking anything by moving ahead with that segment. Prop 1A is quite clear that $9 billion in bonds are all that are authorized, and can only be spent on a 1:1 match with federal funds. If no more federal funds come, then no more state money is spent. The worst possible outcome is a bunch of people are paid good money to build unfinished rail infrastructure in the Valley and we call it a day. Even that would be a big stimulus for the Valley and the state.
And yet we know that outcome isn’t very likely. The federal funding picture isn’t very bright right now, but that is likely to change in the next few years. If not, again, the state isn’t on the hook for anything else, so there’s no risk but lots of potential rewards.
California’s present crisis is the product of legislators who weren’t willing any longer to do what it took to produce a stable, lasting prosperity. Rather than take their cues from Republicans and Democrats of the ’30s, the ’50s, and the ’60s, they began to simply hide from their obligations and responsibilities. The state’s education system is in crisis, unemployment is sky-high, poverty is rising, and because legislators wouldn’t do enough to reduce dependence on oil, the state is in a lasting economic slump.
High speed rail is one way to help get out of it, by following a proven path of using infrastructure to provide short-term stimulus and long-term value. Democrats in Sacramento should know as well as anyone the need to do this and benefits it brings. I am pretty damn sure Mark DeSaulnier knows better than to just give up on California’s future. And yet he might just do it all because one of unfavorable poll? That’s a pretty damning indictment of the state legislature’s ability and willingness to do what it takes to fix California.
The worst arguments for this project are (1) that it will reduce traffic and (2) that it will create jobs. You focus way too much on #2. There are many other projects we could build or investments we could make to create jobs.
Pecos Reply:
December 7th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
You’re right about #1. Less cars reduces traffic. This just creates a much more convenient and efficient for people to move around the state. Do we need a better argument? It will create a lot of jobs though.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 6:34 am
There are many good arguments. IMO, and I’ve voiced often enough, these blog posts focus too much on one perspective and ignore the rest. IMO, each instance a debate surfaces, each argument needs to be cited…. just for listing and not forgetting. Vetting each argument each time is not necessary.
Perhaps a paragraph at the end of each blog post – as appropriate – provide a disclaimer that there are additional other supporting arguments.
joe Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 7:48 am
I propose the IEEE format.
http://www.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs_iportals/iportals/publications/authors/transjnl/stylemanual.pdf
Or maybe that’s asking too much. HSR is NOT going to win every poll.
We have to hammer at do nothing politicians who would cowardly support everything in the general but abandon the current project under attack because wasn’t DONE RIGHT.
VBobier Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 9:59 am
Especially a rigged poll.
Derek Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 7:54 am
“Less cars reduces traffic.”
No, it doesn’t. Every time you take a car off the road, it makes room for another car to take its place.
Pecos Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 9:44 am
What I really mean is, more efficient public transportation might hopefully equal fewer cars on the road. I’ll admit though that my optimism is a bit naive at times. I think HSR will reduce traffic about as much as planes do.
Derek Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 11:38 am
“Two University of Toronto professors have added to the body of evidence showing that highway and road expansion increases traffic by increasing demand. On the flip side, they show that transit expansion doesn’t help cure congestion either.” http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/05/31/study-building-roads-to-cure-congestion-is-an-exercise-in-futility/
Alon Levy Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
On the other hand, Todd Litman at VTPI finds the opposite conclusion regarding transit.
Derek Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
In the short term or the long term?
Alon Levy Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
He doesn’t say, but his methodology compares different metro areas, so it’s both.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Automobile congestion isn’t a problem on the subway.
Derek Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Turning all roads into subways in order to cure automobile congestion doesn’t sound very practical.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Whoever talked about turning all roads into subways?
Derek Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
How else could subways cure automobile congestion?
Alon Levy Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
What I’m getting at is that you’ve turned “restrain traffic, build subways where there’s demand, and demolish roads that interfere with urbanity too much” into “turn all roads into subways.”
Derek Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
No, I haven’t.
Nathanael Reply:
December 12th, 2011 at 7:39 pm
Yes, you have. Try reading what you wrote; it’s pretty clear.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
Depends on how you want to look at the problem.
If the problem is “how do I get from A to B” a subway can solve it.
If the problem is “how do I drive from A to B” no amount of subway construction solves your problem.
People on the subway ( or the ferry or the funicular or the Roosevelt Island “tram”, Venetian gondolas etc, ) are blissfully unencumbered by automobile congestion.
Eric Fredericks Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 9:17 am
HSR is not like traditional transit.
thatbruce Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 10:26 am
Ah, I get it. We need to remove the cars and the road they are parked on!
Derek Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 11:39 am
That isn’t necessary. Here’s how to PERMANENTLY cure traffic congestion, at the lowest cost to taxpayers: http://www.grist.org/article/Fighting-congestion-RAND-style/
Alon Levy Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
It is necessary if you care about air quality, global coastlines, and accidents and not just congestion.
Derek Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
While true in theory, how do you propose we “remove the cars and the road they are parked on”?
Alon Levy Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Demolitions. What was done with the West Side Highway and the Embarcadero and what should have been done with the Central Artery in lieu of the Big Dig.
Nathanael Reply:
December 12th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Most certainly; it’s not like the Central Artery was going from anywhere to anywhere. Seriously, apart from commuters (who should be in trains) there isn’t enough traffic north of Boston to justify an expressway at *all*.
There are some places where expressways probably should exist (and should bypass around cities). The Central Artery in Boston goes from the side of Boston with the entire continental population on it… to the other side.
thatbruce Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 11:03 am
First, recalibrate your sarcasm detectors. Then, set some nice tonka-like yellow-painted grinding machines to pulverize and let them loose on some roadways.
Mike Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Ah, another Martin Wachs joint. I love the guy to pieces, but he has made a career out of restating analytical conclusions that have been known for ages, while never addressing the actual question: namely, how, in the real world, do you get these ideas into practice?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Toll booths and parking meters?
Mike Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
Sorry, I should have specified that by “in the real world” I meant the world in which spineless public officials “govern” based on their worst fears about the potential negative reactions of the poorly informed members of the public.
VBobier Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
And that’s what the latest Business plan looks like to Me, the Worst Case Scenario for Funding and only the Worst, It should have been split into two sections one like the current one and one that’s a lot more optimistic instead of being so danged pessimistic.
brandon from San Diego Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 11:39 am
What HSR does, or many other transportation expansion projects, is that they provide more capacity and enable higher flow or throughput. There is modal shifting among users in a corridor, but, expansion allows people that ordinarily stay at home to get out at different times, and allow for appropriate capacity for additional and expected populations gains.
Expansion projects only alleviate congestion for a short period of time. In that time, the traveling market is figuring things out and learning where and when available capacity exists.
Do nothing, and people stay home and live unhappy lives.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Cela est bien dit, répondit Candide, mais il faut cultiver notre jardin.
VBobier Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
I do that most of the time, Stay home and do very little, prisoner in My own body and not by choice, I’m lucky to have an income at least, do I wish It were bigger? Yes, then I could at least effect the local economy better.
Tony d. Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 2:28 am
Making improvements to regional rail will REALLY reduce traffic and create jobs to. I’m now 100% completely done with this project (thought I’d never say that).
joe Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 7:16 am
“I’m now 100% completely done with this project (thought I’d never say that).”
How many times to you say this before you accept you’ve said it?
NIMBY PAMPA refuses to have grade separation construction and trains running 100MPH+ because it disturbs their villages. Building up local rail does not releive any of these problems. Oh and go find the funding.
Eric Fredericks Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 9:20 am
Why can’t you have both? HSR can help enhance regional rail and buses. HSR stations are like placing mini-airport terminals in more transit-friendly locations. Riders should be able to transfer seamlessly between systems. Why not aim for that vision too?
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 5:24 am
DeSaulnier I think is more frustrated that the MTC up and left for San Francisco after his efforts to contrary and he thinks those SF people are just trying to play the East Bay for suckers again. This is all for show….
Hence, arguments about traffic or jobs won’t work anyway. What will work is Dan Richard saying that their plan won’t affect BART’s ability to conquer Stockton….
David Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 11:58 am
Beyond the questions on the wisdom of the investment that everyone else was asking in regards to the MTC move,I don’t really understand his opposition, it isn’t even in his District. As a Contra Costa resident, I don’t think he should be taking sides.
joe Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 7:04 am
Donk;
Infrastructure is critical for job creation. Construction in a deep recession is cost effective and creates jobs.
These are two good reasons to support HSR.
There are many other investments we could ALSO do to create jobs. Sadly you offer no alternatives or suggestions or funding sources like ARRA or Prop1A.
Donk Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 9:33 am
Ok…if we are content to “call it a day” if HSR never makes it past Bako or Chowchilla, here are two alternatives I would prefer:
1. Spend job creating construction funds on local transportation projects
2. Spend job creating funds on the federal SBIR programs
I still wholly support HSR in CA. I just would not support a truncated version of it for the sake of adding jobs. Like Richard said, we can also build concrete posts in the middle of the desert to create jobs.
Max Wyss Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 9:38 am
However, there is a big difference between nowadays and the 1930s, when it comes to construction. Nowadays a project of a given size will create way fewer construction jobs than it did in the 1930, because of way less manual labor. And it will required mainly well trained workers, whereas in the 1930 most workers could be untrained (and then trained on the job within a day (how to operate a pickaxe, a shovel and a wheelbarow)).
But nevertheless, infrastructure projects DO create jobs. One issue is however, the whole planning phase being so long (and artificially extended by NIMBYs etc.) it may be that the jobs will be created too late.
Nathanael Reply:
December 12th, 2011 at 8:17 pm
There is no “too late”. Given the “austerity” lunacy of every government in the EU, and of every Republican in the US, and of some of the Democrats in the US, *this recession is going to continue indefinitely*.
Sorry to those who thought otherwise.
You’re in Switzerland, right? Switzerland’s government appears to actually understand Keynesianism, so you may be OK, apart from the fact that Europe is falling apart around you.
Actually, Europe may start to improve in 2014, after the German elections eliminate the Christian Democratic Union as a political party.
Howard Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 9:49 am
Additional funding for CHSR could come from a development impact fee, an oil drilling severance tax and a pollution tax. A California High Speed Train impact fee could be charged to developers based on a nexus study without the 2/3 vote to raise taxes, just like a local government transit impact fee. An state initiative could be passed to raise an oil drilling severance tax and a pollution tax (on regulated monitored pollutants). Local support for these two taxes could be increased by giving a percentage of the new revenue to local transit districts for CHST “feeder” transit improvements. Why not build both?
If in 2030 I have to take a fucking plane to get from LA to SF in under 6 hours, I’m leaving this goddamn state and taking my skills with me.
synonymouse Reply:
December 7th, 2011 at 11:45 pm
Believe it, you’ll have a lot more substantive reasons to leave the state than unhappiness at the airport by 2030.
VBobier Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 10:03 am
And airports won’t be expanded, too expensive and too much opposition to expansion.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 6:35 am
I hate to tell you, but SF is still in California.
This blog is incredible. Ignore absolutely all data on cost (several multiples of what voters were told), ridership (fictional, as recognized by every study but the CHSRA’s), impact on congestion (minor), funding availability (nil) and public support (dropping rapidly). Spin every new development, whether it be a mildly critical comment from a lawmaker or a damning poll from the most reputable public opinion outfit in the state, to a ludicrous degree in order to support HSR at all costs. I think many commenters here operate on logic, though the blog itself does not appear to.
Have you no concern for honesty in government? Voters were sold a project that differed radically from what is now proposed, likely with the full knowledge of those doing the telling.
PS: Citing your previous posts as evidence to support your own assertions is not a means to be seen as credible.
Donk Reply:
December 7th, 2011 at 11:11 pm
“…likely with the full knowledge of those doing the telling.”
You are giving them too much credit.
Nathanael Reply:
December 12th, 2011 at 8:15 pm
Actually, the dishonesty is from those Kevin is listening to. Ridership projections were validated by indepedent studies, which Robert has cited. “Impact on congestion” — it lets people AVOID congestion, it doesn’t remove it from the airports. Funding is ahead of where it was when the voters voted. Public support is pretty much constant, if you don’t look at dishonest push polls. Cost is pretty much the same — a rather nasty hack job by Republican Congressmen required the CHSRA to express the cost in fictional “year of expenditure” dollars based on fictional high inflation rates, but that’s not real.
P.S. Citing discredited bullshit is not a means to be seen as credible.
Neville Snark Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 2:28 am
It is more incredible to characterize this blog as incredible. Despite the surrounding complexity, the choice is very simple: press ahead, or give in? Of course Synomymouse etc are correct, gov’t contracts and the unions etc represent corruption. But corruption is endemic to all walks of life. And it is more or less the same in other countries; costs rise. So what? You have to fight hard against corruption etc, but ultimately you’ve got to play the hand you’re dealt. The alternative is to throw in the towel, to say in effect that we are incapable of what they’ve built in Spain, France, Germany etc. Public Support? You know and everyone who reads this blog knows that the average voter is a fear-ridden ignoramus. (Just kidding!). But still: you can’t make policy based upon the highly changeable opinions formed by people who have thought about this very complex issue for two seconds in six months (read the comments section any HSR-related article in the SF Gate). Again: Do you really want to give up, consigning California to a future of nothing but airport-travel and freeway gridlock, or press on, despite the fact that costs balloon unnecessarily and the routes chosen are not optimal. You choose the former, don’t you?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 3:29 am
“Despite the surrounding complexity, the choice is very simple: press ahead, or give in?”
“Again: Do you really want to give up, consigning California to a future of nothing but airport-travel and freeway gridlock, or press on, despite the fact that costs balloon unnecessarily and the routes chosen are not optimal?”
Tough choices, but that is basically what we face. I certainly hate this selection, but it sounds better than what I was able to get where I live, in which we got a highway anyway despite everything I could muster as an alternative argument.
And in all honesty is all cars, all the time, forever, something we can live with?
At that, how much corruption do you think is in the highway system as a whole, in all the states? Bet it’s puny compared to what some are wailing about here (though I do wish somebody would have the backbone to fire PB and steal some young, ambitious engineers from Caltran and do the whole works in-house).
Nathanael Reply:
December 12th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Highway-industry corruption is terrible. It depends on location, obviously; in Vermont, not bad, in Chicago, dreadful.
Really, if y’all can convince California to become a colony of Vermont, you might get better results. ;-) Otherwise, deal with the political reality as you find it.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 12th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
Well paved two lane roads that are plowed promptly to the far reaches of Vermont where there’s 5 or 6 people per square mile may be the acme of uncorrupted efficient government. That doesn’t mean someone, mostly the people who choose to live out in the middle of nowhere, aren’t benefiting unfairly.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
The point is that different countries have different costs, and different propensities for cost escalation. What you’re saying is, “You can never trust the numbers put up by any government, but the project is priceless and therefore it must be built.” And I don’t believe that; I look at LGV construction projects and see them completed on-budget, which together with similar examples of competence on the local level leading to much more trust in institutions in France than in the US. To say nothing of Switzerland and other countries where this trustworthiness extends to general government policy…
Neville Snark Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Of course, you’re right to call me on cost escalation; it isn’t as bad in some countries, eg France and especially Switzerland as you point out. But I didn’t say that one can not trust any numbers put out by governments; it’s not a case of all or nothing. The degree of credibility of such numbers varies. But the real issue is that in fact we are confronted with a choice, where neither of the options is dreamed up by a team of idealists. One unsatisfactory choice vs another. I say keep on with the project, fighting for reason where we can.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
Indeed.
One may choose to shower tens of billions of dollars upon the heads of those who commit deliberate and systematic fraud against the public interest.
Or one may choose to prosecute them, and find something better to do with the money, or find more honest and professional people to undertake an infinitely better version of the same undertaking.
Joe Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 7:59 pm
Jon Corzine loses over a billion in customer assets and we drop 7.77 trillion in money to investment banks and Richard demands transportation planners and management be jailed for BART and blowing off his awesome transit plans.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
Wars: also bad.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
For all of my ARC hatred, I think it would’ve been better for Jersey if Corzine had won. The latest revelations don’t change that. I already knew he was a finance person, and judging by the attack ads on Christie’s weight, I already knew he was an asshole. He’s still better than the little bully who replaced him.
Nathanael Reply:
December 12th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
I know what you mean. In the Democratic Party, we have crooks, thieves, know-nothings and right-wing assholes.
In the Republican Party, we have fascists and lunatics — and fascist lunatics. Nobody should *ever* vote Republican at the state or national level, ever.
We really need to change our political system so that the Republican Party can be eliminated from the face of the Earth, and so that real alternatives to the Democratic Party will be viable.
There is something similar going on with most major projects in California. You can support the people who have a half-assed plan which will be overpriced and involve some corruption, or you can support the lunatics who will make everyone suffer forever. The choice is clear, in the short term.
Richard is setting up a completely false choice. There is no “find something better to do with the money”, and there is no “find more honest or professional people”, and the problem starts at the California Legislature. If you really want to make it POSSIBLE to do either of those things, you have to completely change the way the legislature operates, starting with finding politicians with the guts to at least *try* to repeal the 2/3 rules. And we can’t afford to wait until then; we need to get started on HSR in California well before the entire California political system can be reformed.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
To be honest, I’m reminded by the various justification for the Iraq War. Yes, the justifications shifted around, and Saddam isn’t really trying to acquire nuclear weapons, but some of the things Bush said were kind of sort of true, so invading Iraq was the right thing to do.
Rick Rong Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
Seriously?
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 6:37 am
The cost of doing nothing is not nothing. The alternatives are actually much more expensive. Further, the poll was a lie.
joe Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 7:20 am
The Poll was NOT an election.
A Politician following that poll and giving up on HSR would still face , discontent over unemployment, congestion, anti-spending sentiments and an accusation they are doing nothing to fix the problem.
ComradeFrana Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 9:38 am
“The alternatives are actually much more expensive.”
At least according to the people who are planning the system.
VBobier Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 10:09 am
Then You favor expanding airports? Local Opposition would kill any airport expansion of LAX to add more runways, just adding two would double the size of LAX, No Politician in LA would do this, It would be suicide, voters would sign recall petitions, so airport expansion is DEAD…
thatbruce Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 10:34 am
As an aside, LAX has been long-term capacity capped at 153 gates. Once the current round of construction is done and the airport reaches the volume trigger, gates will be closed until that figure is reached. There isn’t going to be any physical expansion of LAX, but LAWA might actually start putting significant money into expanding capacity at ONT once LAX is full, much to the City of Ontario’s delight.
VBobier Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 6:12 pm
That airport down in Ontario is not in the best place really, winds come off of the high desert and planes start trying to land sideways, but their stuck with It and ONT has capacity to spare currently. It’s too bad that HSR will never get to LAX though, as that sounds like a better tie in than Union Station to Me, as everyone and their Uncle knows where the LAXative is at. ;)
Nathanael Reply:
December 12th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
Too hard to barrel through that much of Los Angeles City. Too much tunnelling below the water level. But it would be theoretically possible — and Union Station is on the way to the airport from points north.
StevieB Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 10:36 am
SFO will have demand exceed capacity by 2035. The hope is that airlines will voluntarily transfer flights to Oakland and San Jose. Plans to raise fees to encourage the airlines to remove domestic flights will certainly increase the airfare from LAX to SFO limiting the argument that flights to the bay area are inexpensive and convenient.
Peter Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 10:55 am
“limiting the argument that flights to the bay area are inexpensive and convenient.”
Increasing fuel prices will take care of that argument well before then.
StevieB Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 11:13 am
Conservatives are convinced that increased fuel economies will negate increased fuel prices. Demand management at SFO is inevitable and increased fees through congestion pricing is the available method.
Peter Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Their convictions aren’t going to help when their predictions fail to materialize.
VBobier Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Their also convinced that the tooth fairy is real too I’ll bet.
Nathanael Reply:
December 12th, 2011 at 7:59 pm
Actually, the majority of American “conservatives” now believe that the rapture will come and taken them away sometime soon.
It’s important to know the exact nature of their delusional beliefs.
ComradeFrana Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 5:05 am
I’m just saying that CHSRA has a major incentive to make alternatives to HSR look bad and make their scheme even after large cost overruns look better in comparison.
Derek Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 11:55 am
“several multiples of what voters were told”
Exactly how many multiples? Be sure to convert the dollar figures to common constant year dollars before calculating your answer.
peninsula Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
Voters were told 33 Billion. Period.
Derek Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 10:45 pm
That isn’t enough information. $33 billion in 1908 dollars is VERY different from $33 billion in 2008 dollars, for instance.
Ben Pease Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
It’s also inflammable. And flammable. And credible.
Nathanael Reply:
December 12th, 2011 at 8:09 pm
You’re an incredible example of listening to false propaganda. The ridership estimates were verified by an independent study, the cost numbers haven’t changed much (the “change” is a shift from constant dollars to year-of-expenditure dollars based on fake inflation estimates, which is a dishonest change), etc. Check your facts.
“But he said Tuesday that he could turn against the project unless the California High Speed Rail Authority soon can answer questions about spiraling costs and uncertainty over federal and private funding for the project
I wouldn’t necessarily call this statement defeatist. While it is true that the current budgetary problems and the rise of a well organized NIMBY movement has put a dent in the popularity of the high speed rail in CA, I reckon it is the CHSRA’s handling of the whole situation that is / has done the most damage. Politically driven routes, concrete viaducts galore, unreasonable ridership forecasts (and more) are not a way to win over the birthplace of mass automobile culture. Even as a diehard train enthusiast who whole hardheadedly supports high speed rail in CA, if the plans are not revised soon following best industry practices for a reasonable cost, then scrap the whole thing and start again.
Nathanael Reply:
December 12th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
Thankfully, the ridership forecasts are reasonable, the concrete viaducts are being minimized, and the routes are being driven by technical considerations. So you seem to have been misled.
Why don’t you complain about the real problems: stations designed like airports, outrageous attempts to avoid touching the holy soil of BART…
This post is so ridiculous that I am ashamed I was a yellow dog Democrat until the last couple years. I was voting for this kind of drivel?
The WSJ is running an editorial opining that both New York and California have in effect been taken over, conquered, by their public employee unions. That is quite on target.
If you want to save UC as a public institution first off fire all the chancellors and hire new ones at 1/3 the salary.
In the case of the prison guards cut their vacation to 5 weeks from 8 weeks effective immediately under a declaration of economic emergency. If they don’t like it they can quit.
It is not California’s future that is endangered by adjusting hsr plans, but the economic future of some Palmdale real estate developers. Good.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 3:22 am
“The WSJ is running an editorial opining that both New York and California have in effect been taken over, conquered, by their public employee unions. That is quite on target.”
Hmm–unstated is how the “banksters” (and our old favorite villain, “big oil,” and another current favorite, the Koch brothers) have taken over the country.
I would say the WSJ–and sadly, Synonymouse–are making incomplete statements, although Syn did mention Palmdale real estate developers, who of course would need to deal with “banksters.”
Wow, talk about an unholy alliance!
Nathanael Reply:
December 12th, 2011 at 7:55 pm
You shouldn’t be reading the WSJ editorial page. They’ve been making up complete bullshit since at least the 1980s, when I made a habit of checking their “facts” (which were usually outright lies).
Stop reading that shit, syn. Try the Financial Times if you want to read a good financial newspaper.
Nathanael Reply:
December 12th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
Have to agree about sacking the chancellors, of course… but remember, they ain’t the ones in the public employees unions. They’re management.
The CHSR scenario is nothing typically American.
- First, you have a project meant to solve a known problem (like mobility, unemployment, etc…). Public reception is rather positive.
- Then, the project runs into complications and the public is more and more confused about it.
- The original problem is gradually forgotten.
- People now perceive the solution as being THE problem.
- Final scene: the project is dead.
neville snark Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 6:27 am
… and Maria Callas sings.
Andre Peretti Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 7:56 am
while lighting fades to black…
Neville Snark Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
Medea, Medea.
Two major problems here are (first), very well organized and quite unscrupulous anti-rail crowd; Boondoggle, CC-HSR, CARRD, Marten Engle, Morris Brown, Mike Brown out there spreading their anti-rail filth and lies every chance they get. Granted, criticisms of many aspects of the HSR project are warranted. However, there appears to be no organized efforts to counter the fear-mongering misinformation put out by the anti-rail crowd, which I have said a number of times before.
Second are the CHSRA itself and their consultants, who have absolutely no idea of cost containment for the project. For example; some 6+ miles of grandiose viaducts and the associated station in San Jose, a 2-3 mile, $ 1,9 billion, single track tunnel through Millbrae station are two glaring examples, it goes on and on throughout the state.
I recall a reply/posting (to a thread in this blog) by Robert, a month or two ago, indicating that waste and inefficiencies may be ok. Well Robert, why do you think our public transit is so f**ked up? Especially here in the Bay Area, where we have no less than 2 dozen transit agencies, each with their own management/staff, not so great schedule coordination, each with their own fare system… As transit users cross county/city jurisdictional boundaries they have to endure additional fares/expense. Oh, I forgot we have Clipper!!!!, MTC’s $$hundreds of millions$$, 15+ years in the making, ‘solution’ to the two dozen unique fare structures here in the Bay a Area. Clipper does absolutely nothing to reduce the (fare) cost to the transit customer. Sure, there are some multiple system fare arrangements, but they are far too ineffectual to encourage more transit usage.
Nathanael Reply:
December 12th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
There’s waste and inefficiency, which are OK as long as the project gets built and works.. and then there’s TERRIBLE DESIGN, which isn’t OK.
The Milbrae business is merely waste, albeit on a scale large enough that it threatens the project and should be fixed. The San Jose southside bridge business — which would actually slow the trains down! — is TERRIBLE DESIGN.
Will Sen. Mark DeSaulnier actually vote against funding the Initial Construction Segment in January? A third of his total campaign contributions have come from trade unions who remain highly supportive of funding construction immediately. A negative vote would be against his best interests.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
DeSaulnier apparently has finally — finally — worked out that MTC head Steve “inexplicably not yet indicted” Heminger — he of the $5 billion dollar Bay Bridge cost overrun, he who treats the Bay Area state toll bridge tolls as his personal millions-a-day slush fund to reward his special friends, he of the HSR-goes-via-Los-Banos-in-order-to-gift-10-billion-to-PBQDs-BART-extension MTC 1999 about-turn, he of the immensely shady recent real estate scam — needs to be fucked with and ideally cut off at the knees.
You have my best wishes in this fine endeavour, state senator.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
No, because if he wants to kill the project he just never calls it up for a vote. That’s the trump card the Legislature has.
DeSaulnier’s actions are akin to requesting the Authority and the Board to “kiss the ring”. The irony is, and I don’t get why Robert’s posts don’t reflect this yet, the Authority wants to act in harmony with other transit agencies in the State (i.e. BART).
The business plan “draft” bends over backwards to limit the impact on BART building extensions to Timbuktu, and beyond.
So other than the fact that Robert’s buddy Eric Thronson now works for the Transportation Committee, I don’t see any reason for melancholy… unless that’s your natural, misanthropic state…(cough)…(cough)
Mike Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
I don’t believe that DeSaulnier’s Transportation & Housing committee has any jurisdiction over whether HSR goes forward; i.e., there is nothing that he needs to bring up for a vote. All it needs is the consent of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (for release of the remainder of this fiscal year’s Authority budget) and for the construction appropriation to be included in next year’s budget act. Desaulnier serves on both of those committees, but he’s chair of neither and so doesn’t get to decide what comes up for a vote.
DeSaulnier is in my District, so I’m going to write him a letter. Any suggestions on what to cover?
synonymouse Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
@ David
Yeah, define exactly what constitutes the territorial boundaries of the BART octopus. And put some non-negotiable constraints on its imperial ambitions. Unless you want to ride aluminum beer can cars to Stockton and Sac sans toilets.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
First Stockton, then the world.
David Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
This is a start.
http://laughingsquid.com/wp-content/uploads/BARTDiagramatic.jpg
Alon Levy Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Uh… can someone explain all the station named in Santa Clara County?
Jon Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
The orange line has (mostly) been built already as VTA light rail. The dark blue line seems to cut across to the Foothill Expressway and follow that to I-280, from where it follows an existing freight ROW.
The whole map is pure fantasy, but it’s no doubt causing synonymouse to experience spasms of rage, so it does serve some purpose in life.
David Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
Just a little joke. It’s a map of what BART might have been if the original 1957 plan was
followed.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
It’s just some guy drawing lines, not even lines on a map.
http://www.jakecoolidgecartography.com/bart-imaginary-diagram/
“Based, in part, on the original Bay Area Rapid Transit plan published in 1956″.
Here’s the 1956 purely speculative lines-on-map effort.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
The newer one can’t be a BART map, it apparently has local and express service.
David Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 8:26 pm
One rail to ring the Bay, one rail to move them, one rail to go under the Bay and in the tunnel bind them.
Nathanael Reply:
December 12th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
David, tell Mr. De Saulnier that we need high speed rail from LA, to the Central Valley, to Sacramento and San Francisco, and that honestly we’re so overdue for it that it’s OK if it’s not the best possible plan; we can’t afford to wait.
The House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee will be holding a hearing next week on CA’s high speed rail investment.
“California’s High-Speed Rail Plan: Skyrocketing Costs & Project Concerns”
http://transportation.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=1475
Nathanael Reply:
December 12th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
More bullshit grandstanding from House Republicans, a.k.a. certified grade A lunatics.
If California Legislature is ready to support a $98 billion program, I will call them out on not supporting anything that costs less and would benefit Californians so much more. If you haven’t noticed yet, my name links to my blog on the US health care system. I have been observing how Vermont passes a single payer health-care bill this year that will cut the cost of health care in half.
I think if you really want to free up some of our state funds, you need to implement a single payer health-care system first. Internationally they have been proven to increase the quality of health care while cutting the cost in half and I think we have more Californians supporting a complete health care overhaul for the same price tag than a HSR system. Not to mention that the proposed single payer bill, SB810 which has been halted in the Assembly, would cost far less with a much bigger positive impact on California society than any other possible program for the same price tag.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Those pesky Vermonters. Last I read they are busy building 100 megabit fiber optic to rural homes cheaper than it costs to build conventional cable in suburbia.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
And electing socialists to Congress while New York has a moderate Republican Governor.
Joseph E Reply:
December 11th, 2011 at 8:27 am
California has only committed $10 billion in bonds (or about $15 billion over the next 20 years) for HSR. Healthcare in California costs over $280 billion per year (about 17% of our 1.9 trillion GDP). You think you can make any difference in Healthcare for less than $1 billion a year?
1 billion a year could be very helpful to local transit projects. It could be revolutionary for bike and pedestrian infrastructure. But healthcare would hardly notice an extra billion from the state.
Nathanael Reply:
December 12th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
True. It is also true that a single-payer system would cut the cost of healthcare in California by at least 50% (it would pay for itself), so it’s not as if it actually costs money at all, net.
You can’t compare that to a transportation project which actually does cost money.
That being said I think the best way to reduce traffic is to create communities that have things in a walkable distance. In Europe I would walk to the grocery store, I also used to walk to the dentist and to work.
To all people living in San Diego County. I have visited the Del Mar County Fair for the first time this year and I thought to myself “Geez. If they only had a good commuter rail connection to the fair grounds, 90% of the traffic wouldn’t even be there.”
Instead we continue to put our money into the car thanks to the oil and car industry, building even bigger and uglier parking lots, wider and louder highways while the average Californian is fooled into believing that CHSR is always super expensive and takes a long time.
800 miles in 20 years? is this a one-man project or something?
synonymouse Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
Think about how much of the US economy revolves around the internal combustion automobile and truck. That’s why it won’t go down without a struggle until the bitter end.
Why do you think Detroit has traditionally opposed the electric automobile, problems with adequate batteries notwithstanding. Because they will last for decades and most all of the repairs will be possible for dyi, unlike the incredibly complicated, smogged out gasoline engines of today. Replace some bearings and pull out the motors to have them rewound, replace some computer modules. No hot grease and grime and fuel all over the place
Especially in California with no salt on the roads. There are all kinds of 20 year old cars out there with perfectly good bodies but the engines and, in particular, the automatic transmissions are shot and too expensive to replace. No so with electric cars, anathema to the auto industry.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
Don’t forget Detroiit’s suppression 100mpg carburetors!
synonymouse Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
heh, heh, heh
synonymouse Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
rodents rule:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21256-rats-free-each-other-from-traps-then-share-chocolate.html
Nathanael Reply:
December 12th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Rats are smart, sociable creatures. In some ways, smarter than the average human.
Nathanael Reply:
December 12th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Really, Detroit opposed the electric automobile due to *habit* and corporate-think, classic bureaucratic diseases.
The oil companies, on the other hand, were rather more aggressive at suppressing their direct competition, buying up and sitting on patents (for example) in order to prevent electric cars from getting to market.
Joe Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Zoning. walkable neighborhoods require zoning that allows small storefronts and doesn’t require building new parking.
Walmart. They are the winner in the current system. They are active in local referendums and politics. IMHO they oppose changes that put their autobased big box shooping at a disadvantage.
synonymouse Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
Shopping centers appeared in the early fifties well before Walmart’s rise.
I think supermarkets were among the first to add bigger parking lots.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 8th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
Yes, but:
1. Shopping malls were unprofitable and very few were built until Congress passed accelerated depreciation, which encourages greenfield development since it effectively front-loads the tax breaks for depreciation expenses.
2. The original shopping malls operated on the principle of multiple anchor department stores driving business to smaller stores. Today’s malls still work like that. Big box stores are different – they concentrate all business in just one enormous store.
synonymouse Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 10:25 am
I suggest the secret of Walmart’s success is that they moved into a vacuum created by the disappearance of outfits like Woolworth’s. Most marketing in the US now is toward the affluent(see Whole Foods,etc.)with Walmart providing low price stores in rural areas that would not be there if not for the huge size and resources of the chain.
Now the non-union issue and selling junk from China is another storu – they are all doing that.
The real killer of small business is Home Depot and Lowes. The local lumberyards weren’t already disappearing, unlike ordinary businesses such as bakeries. We used to have 3 bakeries downtown here – now we have none. Rents too high.
To be quite blunt, the current political situation, with the brainless and the spineless abdicating all responsibility for competent government (but happy to establish giant “security” bureaucracies to harass and hurt people), is unsustainable.
(To be clear, there are politicians who are not brainless and spineless, but they’re grossly outnumbered.)
This is non-viable in the medium run. Failure to perform the basic tasks of government leads to the government being removed one way or another. We need to get politicians into power who are willing to perform the basic duties of government, and we need to do it peacefully before it happens violently. (The most basic duties: feed everyone and provide everyone with jobs. This has been known since ancient Egypt.)