Fitch Concludes High Speed Rail “Will Proceed”
One of the common criticisms of the high speed rail project is that private investors aren’t interested in the project. There’s no real evidence backing that claim, but it gets shared anyway. Today that argument was dealt another blow when Fitch Ratings concluded “high speed rail networks will proceed”:
Fitch believes that U.S. high speed rail (HSR) networks and other regional rail solutions are likely to proceed despite the difficulties faced by proposed projects in California and Florida. We expect, over time, options such as HSR to become a necessary part of the modern transportation network. However, financing and implementation measures should reflect the size and scope of such undertakings.
Societal and practical factors are creating incentive for HSR networks. Ideas around driving less have entered the mainstream and are sometimes at odds with basic transportation needs. State and federal spending on transportation has not kept up with needs, while interstates (particularly in land-constrained regions) have seen an increase in congestion that requires expensive highway expansions.
Over the short term, the HSR project in California is likely to struggle under the weight of state cuts and a voting public that will continue to feel the effects of the economic downturn, as did Florida. We believe that good ideas are being proposed in many parts of the country, but they will face significant difficulties absent thoughtful long-term planning and recognition of the true life cycle costs of these projects.
Breaking HSR projects into smaller subprojects will increase the likelihood that they are completed on time and within budget constraints. Plans need to include subsidies that run beyond the startup phase, as these projects are rarely (if ever) profitable from their origins. Clear funding from the federal and state levels is necessary given their regional scope. We believe that bipartisan support is critical, since the lengthy implementation periods and funding needs will cross multiple election cycles.
Over the short term, securing the considerable political and public support for HSR and other rail solutions is much more important than beginning the work on them.
One wonders if members of the California State Legislature are reading this. They ought to. Fitch isn’t going to just make this up as a favor to Jerry Brown. Fitch’s analysis is that high speed rail has a bright future for fundamental reasons, implying that it will potentially represent a good investment – but only if governments provide long-term, sustained political support.
Fitch is also calling out legislators, indicating that their focus on the project’s details is missing the point. What’s needed from the legislature isn’t nitpicking but a strong, lasting political commitment to solving any problems with the project so that it can move forward. State Senators like Joe Simitian and Alan Lowenthal, of course, have shown no interest in solutions and are spending their time working to undermine the project even though each of them are termed out of the legislature at the end of this year.
Governor Jerry Brown, at least, understands the need to continue moving forward on high speed rail:
“We’re pushing forward,” Brown said. “We’re going to build, but we’re not going to be stupid … We’re going to be very careful and build incrementally as we go.”
He said, “A lot of people want to turn off the lights. I’m not one of them. We’re going to build, we’re going to invest, and California is going to stay up among the great states and the great political jurisdictions of the world.”
Fitch gets it. Governor Brown gets it. President Obama gets it. Let’s hope the legislature gets it too, rather than following Scott Walker down the path of ruin.
Really, Robert? The people that gave AAA to sub prime mortgages? I think you’ll find upon further research that Fitch’s concern is with the creditworthiness of public agencies that issue bonds for HSR construction, such as California. This is a far cry from private equity investment that was promised at the time of the ballot. Category error, I fear.
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 12:43 pm
Actually, I believe Fitch is the only ratings agency which DIDN’T give AAA to subprime mortgages.
They don’t rate mortgages, IIRC.
Fitch is the only ratings agency I pay attention to, as an investor, because they have the sense to *not rate things they don’t understand*. Moody’s and S&P will give a rating to a cow if you pay them to.
Did you even read the Fitch report?
In other words, investors cannot expect to make money on the operations. Now selling the bonds, yes, lots of money to be made there. That is how Fitch makes their money, btw.
Derek Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 6:32 am
It’s not unusual for a business to be unprofitable for the first year or three.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 6:39 am
Yes, but it is unusual for a business to be unprofitable indefinately as will be the case with HSR.
Peter Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 7:59 am
What HSR operation is indefinitely unprofitable?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 8:30 am
You were saying?
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 4:33 pm
You clowns and your “operating profit”.
Now tell me how the debt service is going. Nevermind. You don’t want to take about that reality.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
About as well as they do for toll roads.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 11:12 pm
The debt is serviced by infrastructure building companies. The companies that run the trains pay tolls to the infrastructure building companies.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 6:41 am
Highways don’t make money; indeed, they cost at least twice what we pay in true user fees. That fact seems to be persistently swept under the rug by rail critics.
I still say we would see some very interesting changes if the road subsidies went away.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 7:11 am
As I said before, without highways your life would come to a halt. Without HSR it just takes you longer to get from point A to point B should you not choose or be able to fly/drive, because there is still rail. I might like to get to New York faster on a plane, it doesn’t mean I have to demand a supersonic aircraft.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 9:57 am
No, you wouldn’t demand demand a supersonic aircraft, and I wouldn’t demand one either. In rail service, operations with regularity and decent speeds are OK with me as well; in fact, I enjoy (relatively) slower rides in pretty country, sometimes with steam locomotives pulling cars that have windows that open to let in the sound.
Unfortunately, neither you nor I may represent the bulk of the population in regard to rail. If you are going to be competitive against both highway and air services that have had a huge head start due to all the government support that has been lavished upon those modes, then you need more speed. How much more may be open to question (highway average speeds in reality are much lower than the posted speed limit; that is part of how even Amtrak can get the traffic it does in the NEC with a “high-speed” train that averages only, what, 79 mph? That’s not that fast in the rest of the world.
In any event, though, between curves in legacy railroads that date to construction with mules and scrapers, freight traffic, ownership issues (think UP), and other things, you will still need at least some new construction. It makes sense to go with the best you can grab in that case. Now, whether the plans that have been offered are the best that can be done may be questioned, but that doesn’t change what we will eventually need to do.
Oh, you are right about the need for highway service, too. Just remember, though, that transportation is currently something like 99% oil-dependent (electric railroads and transit services are the only exceptions), and the great bulk of that is motor fuel. I suggest you look into your own history, at the effects of two oil embargoes, and a recent runup in oil prices a few years ago (from which we still haven’t really recovered) to see that we do need HSR–and all that local rail and trolley stuff, too, otherwise we eventually go back to horse and buggy days.
Do you have any idea of what travel was like in stagecoach and buggy days? Do you know just how slow it was, and expensive? Really?
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 4:34 pm
If you can only afford to ride the train, then why should I have to pay so you can ride faster if you aren’t willing to pay so I can fly faster?
jimsf Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 5:00 pm
why am I paying for shit you use that I don’t agree with?
jimsf Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 5:00 pm
because that’s how things work here.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 6:23 am
Its not about paying for shit I don’t agree with, its about paying for shit I don’t use. Big difference. You realize there is rail available today for the transport of humans right?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 6:35 am
SR, you don’t know how many people use just that argument to say “no” to rail in any way, shape, or form, and to use those arguments to get rid of what we do have.
You’re not likely to know this–not many outside of those who follow rail developments would–but there are people who hate the idea of rail service so much, they have actually taken steps (unsuccessful so far) to outlaw rail development, even studies, in Cincinnati, Oh.:
http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_cin_2011-11a.htm
http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog2011q3.htm#CIN_20110907
I’ve mentioned being called a Communist for being a rail backer; that’s true, it’s happened to me. Others here have observed similar attitudes in California from some people. I think you would agree there was and is no need for that
Keeping an eye on the opposition:
http://www.gocoast.org/
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 6:51 am
I would argue that electrification, filling of gaps (like LA to the central valley) and upgrades to existing routes and addition of express service would be money better spent. HSR isn’t competing with air (as I’ve pointed out, most of the passengers are not point to point – they are connecting). HSR is competing with the car. It doesn’t have to go 200 mph to beat a car. It can do that at 90mph with fewer stops.
I think a better comparison of my view on this (from an aviation perspective) would be the sonic cruiser proposed by Boeing. Sure, it would have been nice to go faster, but in the end it was a better decision to build the 787 because of its long term wider use even though it’s no faster than existing aircraft.
We still need rail, we just need to make it appealing again for people, but thats not a technology issue. Its a service issue. One could argue the airlines have a similar problem.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 9:14 am
It can do that at 90mph with fewer stops
No it can’t. There I’ve made a unsubstantiated claim too.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 10:57 am
A 90 mph train running from LA to San Francisco non-stop will beat a car. You going to argue that is not true or are you assuming that everyone has a Porsche? Not even sure a Porsche could do it based on fuel stops alone.
Ignorance is bliss for you isn’t it?
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 12:49 pm
I don’t use your airline system. Let’s stop paying for it. Sell all airports off so that city taxes don’t go to support them. Make all airports pay property taxes. Eliminate Chapter 11 Bankruptcy for airlines (a hidden subsidy). Eliminate subsidies to Boeing for manufacturing in the US. Make airports pay for easements over every house they fly low over. Eliminate the TSA and force airlines to pay for it themselves. Eliminate federal Air Marshalls and force airlines to pay for those themselves. Eliminate federal air traffic control and force airlines to pay for that themselves, directly.
Oh, I could go on. But I don’t really want to destroy the airline system. I’m just pointing out that this “I don’t want to pay for it if I don’t use it” stuff is purest, unadulterated bullshit. If you want a country which works that way, try Somalia.
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 12:51 pm
“HSR isn’t competing with air (as I’ve pointed out, most of the passengers are not point to point – they are connecting)”
What you’ve pointed out — people don’t fly point-to-point on “short” air routes — is *precisely the same* as saying that short-haul air is uneconomical. You really have to start reading your own statements.
Short-haul airline flights are “loss leaders” to get more people on the profitable long hauls. The airlines would, on the whole, be perfectly happy to replace them with trains, or buses, or taxis, if that would get the people to the long haul flights.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 12:55 pm
“Eliminate the TSA”
And thus people would actually go back to flying in droves.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 7:57 pm
@ Nathaniel: City taxes dont’ suport airports. Moving on.
What you’ve pointed out — people don’t fly point-to-point on “short” air routes — is *precisely the same* as saying that short-haul air is uneconomical. You really have to start reading your own statements.
Short-haul airline flights are “loss leaders” to get more people on the profitable long hauls. The airlines would, on the whole, be perfectly happy to replace them with trains, or buses, or taxis, if that would get the people to the long haul flights.
*************
Wrong, yet again.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 7:59 pm
@Nathaniel: When you buy an airline ticket, there is a security fee that pays for the TSA, Air Marshals. You also pay a 10% sales tax that pays for the operation of the FAA. If you dont’ fly, then you don’t pay these taxes and fees. Stop being so dense.
Nathanael Reply:
January 16th, 2012 at 1:21 pm
City taxes have paid for *many* airports in the past. And in fact, my local airport was paid for by municipal taxes (technically not ‘city’ but ‘county’), as was its expansion a decade back.
So yeah, you’re just wrong, city taxes support airports.
In a number of places they’re cross-funded by seaports, which generally do pay for themselves these days (though they didn’t always…)
I do know about the current fees. They’re actually very new. They’ll probably kill the US airline industry, just as the ticket taxes killed the first generation railroad industry. Should be fun to watch.
Alon does have a point that removing the TSA would increase airline traffic. :-)
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 6:03 pm
I am surprised at this coming from an aviation guy, who no doubt has forgotten more about air transport than I’ve ever learned. You ought to know you are flying as fast as you can now. Jets currently fly at high subsonic speeds, just below what used to be called the “sound barrier.” That’s been essentially the service speed of airliners since 707 and Comet days. Supersonic flight has turned out not to be economically viable, at least in commercial service. Suborbital hyperflight is still in the future, and I would suspect be as economically unviable as supersonic was–and its operating environment can only be described as extremely challenging for regular service. Short flights (typically in the 300-to-500 mile range) tend to be very uneconomic due to the fuel consumption of getting into the air and the short time at optimal altitude and speed. Turboprops are sometimes a better fit for such service, but they also have speed limits due to the inherent difficulties with propellers as the tips approach sonic speeds. (Yes, I know about GE looking at a new propeller design years ago that had curved blades, each one looking like a sharply curved scimitar, but for a variety of reasons, they didn’t pursue the concept too far.)
Besides, air service is 100% oil dependent. If you think a whole lot of people won’t be driving because of the price of motor fuel–and I think we are coming to that before anybody realizes it–they likely won’t be flying, either.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 7:23 pm
Just for fun. . .
Anyone who has been reading here any length of time knows I’m a fan of traditional railroading with steam locomotives. Now, one of the advantages of steam propulsion is that it can burn about anything. Diets for locomotives have included assorted woods, hard and soft coal, coke, various oils (most commonly residuals or Bunker C), briquettes, bagasse (refuse from the processing of sugar cane), peat, lignite or “brown coal,” and even bottled gas. (This last one was an experiment in a locomotive at Northwestern Steel & Wire in Sterling, Ill., a steel plant that used several steam shunting engines into the 1980s.) The Grand Canyon Scenic Railroad today uses the proverbial “green” fuel of used cooking oil when it runs steam from its Amtrak connection at Williams, Az. to the South Rim of the Canyon.
Could steam power, with its ability to run on a variety of fuels, and its history of locomotion in ships, on rails, and on roads, be adapted to aircraft?
Actually, it’s been done:
http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/TRANSPORT/steamplane/steamplane.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPEv_M7p4fA
Seems like the late John Hartford’s “Steam Powered Aereoplane” wasn’t so far fetched as some of us may have thought. . .:-)
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 7:24 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN0iOkMNZqQ
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 7:46 pm
Oh, DP, you might want to take a gander at the Iowa Traction Railroad. 90 year old electric locomotives, still in regular freight operation.
VBobier Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 7:55 pm
The C&O Allegheny 2-6-6-6 locos rule! But then their supposed to have made between 7500-8000hp in their day & sad to say their are only 2 left, one in almost pristine condition(still dripped some oil I read) & one that without extensive rebuilding would never run again I’ve read, but they were used on long & very heavy coal drags of I think 15,000 Tons instead of Passenger Service or Regular Freight Service. Oh & Yes I like the SP 4-8-8-2 Cab Forward, the UP 4-12-2 Union Pacific type, the UP 4-6-6-4 Challenger & yep the UP 4-8-8-4 Big Boy locos too…
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 8:06 pm
Oh, indeed, I’ve known about it for some time–and thanks for the reference anyway. Bet some more recent posters aren’t familiar with it at all. Got sold recently; you might be interested in this bit on the sale from Railway Preservation News:
http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=32649
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 6:25 am
Enough with the “short flights are uneconomical”. Its isn’t a true statement.
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 12:44 pm
Short flights are uneconomical. It’s a true statement. Enough with your Drunken Unreality.
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 12:52 pm
As noted above, you have actually acknowledged the underlying data which shows that short-haul flights are uneconomical. They’re only used to move passengers to the long-haul flights.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 8:03 pm
Air Service is demand driven. If there is service, then it is commensurate with that demand.
If a route is not economical, then it doesn’t exist.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 16th, 2012 at 11:50 am
As noted above, you have actually acknowledged the underlying data which shows that short-haul flights are uneconomical. They’re only used to move passengers to the long-haul flights.
*********
Over half of Southwest Airlines flights are short haul. You really going to hang on to that bullshit?
BTW… At lease three new short haul Intra-California flight routes to will be announced this week to what have been borderline markets for abotu 5 years now. The kinds of point-to-point markets you claim are “uneconomical”.
Come back to me when you want to talk about credibility. Otherwise shut the hell up.
Nathanael Reply:
January 16th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
So now you’re denying your earlier claim and saying that short-haul flights *are* driven by point-to-point demand? Just trying to get clarification here. You’re really hurting your own credibility.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 4:56 pm
@Nathanael: Still wanna hang on to your bogus claims about uneconomic short haul point-to-point flights?
http://splash.alaskasworld.com/Newsroom/ASNews/ASstories/AS_20120118_045431.asp
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 12:44 pm
Bullshit. Alon would do fine without highways. “Speak for yourself”, as the saying goes.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 8:03 pm
The petulant child who’s parents never told him no rides again.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 12:54 pm
The world needs some roads, and some railroads. It would do fine without HSR, and without multi-laners or expressways, to say nothing of airports. Commerce flowed fine on the 2-lane US Highway network, just as travel does fine now without decent intercity rail. (And no, 90 mph doesn’t cut it – because of the mountains, the cost of reliable 90 mph rail is not much lower than that of 220 mph rail.)
Drunk Engineer Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 10:33 am
This is moving the goalposts. Prop 1A allowed for no subsidies, which Fitch is saying will be required for perhaps a long time.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
This ^
Saying something will proceed and saying something will be successful are two different things.
Just shows the ignorance of some I suppose. Can’t wait for that first project credit rating. Now that will be an educational day.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 6:50 am
Depends on how you define “success.” The last time I checked, schools, police departments, the road system, park services, most hospitals, public libraries, and the military didn’t make profits directly on operations. This isn’t to say they don’t have to meet budgetary constraints, but I don’t see where anybody (who is sane) says we should actually get rid of any of these things.
In short, they provide benefits that aren’t measured in dollars and cents.
The most interesting part of the Fitch Ratings group’s outlook:
“Societal and PRACTICAL [my emphasis] factors are creating incentive for HSR networks. Ideas around driving less have entered the mainstream and are sometimes at odds with basic transportation needs. State and federal spending on transportation has not kept up with needs, while interstates (particularly in land-constrained regions) have seen an increase in congestion that requires EXPENSIVE [my emphasis] highway expansions.
“Over the short term, the HSR project in California is likely to struggle under the weight of state cuts and a voting public that will continue to feel the effects of the economic downturn, as did Florida. We believe that good ideas are being proposed in many parts of the country, but they will face significant difficulties absent thoughtful long-term planning and recognition of the true life cycle costs of these projects.”
No arguments from me on these points–now, if Clem, Alon, and perhaps Richard and Robert and myself could get our mitts on the CHSRA. . .
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 7:16 am
Schools are a success? I guess it really does matter how you define success.
DingDong Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 10:41 am
I don’t understand your point. Should we stop having taxpayer-funded schools?
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Consider the results.
Peter Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 4:58 pm
So, in other words, yes, we should stop having taxpayer-funded schools. Great idea, let’s simply have people pay whatever they can personally afford for their children’s elementary and high school education.
StevieB Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 10:02 pm
I think Ron Paul has already proposed exactly that. It is free enterprise at its heart.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 6:58 am
No, I think you find a better way to go about it because the public school system as it stands is an abject failure. People should be allowed to opt out. For example, if you want to send your kid to a private accredited school, then you should get that money back – not the full tuition of the private school, just the equivalent of what you pay in taxes to support the public school. If people don’t have kids they shouldn’t have to pay taxes on schools they don’t use. All the additional money generated from taxpayers that don’t use the schools does is grow the administrative bureaucracy, it doesn’t net better teachers. The State (Fed) should be in the business of accrediting schools, not running them into the ground like they are now.
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 12:55 pm
We’d end up with a lot of uneducated kids. You don’t understand school funding at all, do you?
I don’t think the public school system is well run, but your proposals would only make it *worse*. You don’t really understand school funding. But that’s a topic for another blog.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 8:04 pm
Kids like you?
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 8:34 pm
And yes, I do understand school funding. I also understand there is no competition because at its core, the public school system is based on manufactured “fairness”. This “fairness” lowers the bar and has led to failure.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 9:27 pm
Where’s the competition in Great Neck, again?
Peter Reply:
January 16th, 2012 at 12:24 pm
“This “fairness” lowers the bar and has led to failure.”
Not for kids who are underprivileged. How great do you think their education would be without your so-called “manufactured fairness”?
Nathanael Reply:
January 16th, 2012 at 12:47 pm
Drunken Unreality has been listening to right-wing nonsense again.
Problems with the public school system *include, but are not limited to*:
1 — local school boards filled with agenda-driven people, where education is not on their agenda (the creationists being the worst but not the only example)
2 — property tax funding leading to ‘poor’ districts having basically no ability to hire good teachers of provide them with good materials while ‘rich’ districts can
3 — administrators who are every bit as careerist and uninterested in education as your average corporate executive
4 — faddists who push unproven education “reform” ideas (which are often, in fact, shown to be *counterproductive*) — these people control most Departments of Education at universities, just to make the problem worse
5 — a system of social promotion where everyone involved (except next year’s teacher) has their lives made easier if students are passed out when they should have failed
6 — a system where *absolutely nobody* listens to the students, who are the only people who can reliably tell whether their teachers are teaching them anything, or what they are learning (note that practically nobody puts themselves in the position of students by observing classes, either)
Half these problems happen in private schools too. They’re less likely to have bad boards (but it does happen), and they don’t have the property tax funding problem (but Drunken Unreality proposes to GIVE them that problem with a voucher system).
Alon Levy Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 1:04 pm
I encourage you to go to Scarsdale, Dobbs Ferry, Great Neck, Greenwich, Stamford, and Westfield and explain this to people there.
J. Wong Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 9:25 pm
“If people don’t have kids they shouldn’t have to pay taxes on schools they don’t use.”
As if they don’t benefit from educating other people’s kids. Don’t you understand what a public benefit is? Actually, why am I asking obviously you don’t.
Nathanael Reply:
January 16th, 2012 at 1:23 pm
Clearly the existing school system is not sufficient, as he does not understand the concept of a “public benefit”, and yet we presume he graduated from the existing school system….
…we would all benefit if people came out of the school system knowing more than S. R. That’s a public benefit.
Peter Reply:
January 16th, 2012 at 12:21 pm
So, if I have no kids of school-age (or none at all), I should get all my money back by opting out?
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 12:54 pm
The result is that most 18-year-olds can read and do basic algebra. This is very valuable.
Go research what the state of knowledge actually was before the public school system. You have a stupid, idealized idea of what it was. It was appalling. The literacy rate was very, very low.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 8:07 pm
The result is that most 18-year-olds can read and do basic algebra. This is very valuable.
***********
Most 13 year olds should be able to do basic Algebra. Most 18 year olds should be able to do basic calculus.
Go research what the state of knowledge actually was before the public school system. You have a stupid, idealized idea of what it was. It was appalling. The literacy rate was very, very low.
**********
So mediocrity as a substitute is better?
Alon Levy Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 8:34 pm
There are countries where most 18-year-olds can in fact do basic calculus, though “most” should be interpreted literally as “more than 50%” rather than as “almost everyone.” That’s with much more government involvement in education than in the US – for one, in most places, school funding is either on the national level or on the regional level, rather than on the school district level.
And this is a modern development. Before the public school system, most people left school at age 11 or 14 to work in the mines and factories and farms and never learned basic algebra. While most people were literate, not everyone was.
Nathanael Reply:
January 16th, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Let me put it quite bluntly: mediocre is better than terrible. Do you disagree? If you think terrible is better than mediocre, you’re weird!
The problem with your ideas is that *privatization proposals mean going back to something we already tried, which was worse* than the “mediocre” we have now.
Propose something which is actually better, instead. If this were a blog on education reform, I could give you lots of good ideas.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 8:31 pm
Just so you understand, the bar you have set in your comment is so low it is laughable. That is the very problem with public education.
Nathanael Reply:
January 16th, 2012 at 12:28 pm
So rather than have a low bar, you prefer to go back to having nothing work at all.
I present a fact: The public school system is better than what we had before it (namely, private school systems).
You can propose an *improvement* to the public school system, and I’d gladly listen to it. For instance, as Alon says, in many countries most 18-year-olds can do calculus. Those are countries with nationally run, centralized, fully government funded school systems — so I’d fully support the abolition of local school boards in favor of a central Board of Regents, just on the grounds that it seems to work better.
But you haven’t proposed anything like that. You’ve proposed going back to something which we tried, *and which was actually worse*.
People really need to stop overstating the benefits of HSR and the falsely claimed impacts it will have on other forms of travel. It really is getting old.
HSTSheldon Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 7:29 am
Is it not a fact that HSR uses electricity? In my world, that is a very large benefit. All the other benefits are bonus. By the way, I am a huge proponent of general railway electrification. It means just that much less dependence on fossil fuels for which future supply can at best be described as tenuous.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 7:20 pm
Congrats to your world. The rest of us live in the real world where there are real, not manufactured problems.
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Oh! So you’re a peak oil denier and a global warming denier, too?
“Drunken Unreality” is a very good sobriquet for you. Keep drinking, you’ll need it to maintain your delusions!
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat
Donk Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 9:52 am
Just curious – instead of constantly bitching about everyone and everything around here, what do you support? Your bitching is getting old. How about some solutions?
Peter Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 12:42 pm
He’s just a highly skilled troll who happens to have aviation expertise. Note that most non-aviation comments he makes are assembled from libertarian talking points or criticizing some cherry-picked irrelevancy from someone else’s comment. Like his comment above about schools.
StevieB Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
The original statement about overstating benefits and false impacts is vague and without a concrete example is meaningless. I would not characterize contumaciousness as expertise.
Peter Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 4:59 pm
True. He has aviation expertise (although never backed up by any source he points to), but that’s about it. Everything else is just libertarian crap.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 7:19 pm
Add you to the list of peopel who don’t know what they are talking about.
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Peter certainly knows what he’s talking about when it comes to you.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 8:29 pm
Peter knows about as much as you do about me. That would be nothing.
Joey Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 8:35 pm
Then perhaps you should explain rather than just calling other people stupid.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
You seem to be implying that he actually points to a source, but that the source says other things. This is not the case.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 7:18 pm
Well Dork, there isn’t a problem to resolve. That’s the whoel point. The entire “problem” that HSR is supposed to solve doesn’t exist. It therefore doesn’t require a solution.
StevieB Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 3:40 am
What evidence do you have that in 25 years the population of California will not increase and that there will be no need for an increase in transportation given both have been increasing for the last 160 years.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 7:00 am
Do you have rail? Find a way to make it more reliable.
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 12:57 pm
Build dedicated passenger tracks. Like, you know, CAHSR….
Alon Levy Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Not possible on existing alignments. If you want even half-decent rail from SoCal to NorCal, it has to involve a greenfield route from LA to Bakersfield, and another greenfield route over the Altamont Pass (or Pacheco, as a second best option). Most of the absolutely necessary cost of the project is those two components, plus connections to the existing system. Strip away the intergalactic spaceports and the cost becomes dominated by the mountain crossings.
ComradeFrana Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 5:52 am
The problem are suboptimal transportation options between substantial amount of origin-destination pairs.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 7:03 am
So make the existing system optimal. You can do that without spending $100 billion.
BTW… Its funny no one considers what a financial disaster existing intra-cal rail will become given the proposed alignment of HSR… But hey, two financial train wrecks will be better than one.
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 12:58 pm
“You can do that without spending $100 billion.”
No, you can’t. Over $51 billion to purchase Union Pacific, probably $50 billion more in upgrades after doing so.
To be fair, the price does seem to come in at about the same level.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 8:08 pm
You must have been bored.
Nathanael Reply:
January 16th, 2012 at 12:32 pm
I only post on blogs when I’m bored, have insomnia, or am avoiding work. Surely the same is tre of you?
Joey Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 8:25 pm
You can build full HSR without spending $100 billion.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 8:28 pm
We already know that’s a completely false statement.
Joey Reply:
January 16th, 2012 at 4:10 pm
Since the laws of physics are the same in California as elsewhere, there’s no reason why construction costs should be >150% higher in California then the rest of the world. If you take utter incompetence on the part of those planning the project as a given, then I suppose you’re correct. If you instead assume that it is possible to do things reasonably, you come to a different conclusion.
Donk Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 9:20 am
There isn’t a problem? I live in LA and have to travel to both the Bay Area and San Diego often for business. There is a problem. HSR is clearly the solution to that problem, at least for me. It would allow me to work on my laptop while traveling. You can’t do that on a plane or a car. It is simply much more productive and convenient. I would travel more if this solution was available.
Saying there is not a problem makes you sound like a fool.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 7:56 pm
Wait, I’ve met people like him before:
http://youtu.be/Gjh-nFCfp2s?t=45s
IMHO, I believe Fitch, Feinstein and Brown are still saying yes to HSR, but HSR done right! That means starting at the revenue/passenger generating endpoints and filling in the rest later. Sounds good to me!
Alan Kandel Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 11:50 am
Building the endpoints first does nothing to incentivize the building of the main trunk. The whole point of building the Central Valley section first in my opinion is to prove the system’s efficacy. (It would as well serve as a reasonably good job generator and help give the Valley a much-needed economic shot-in-the-arm).
If people can experience high-speed train travel first-hand, then support and financing for extensions will likely follow. This is why I would favor building a shorter route in the Central Valley, preferably in the median of and/or alongside a highway; short enough to permit the installation of overhead electrical catenary and the procurement of corresponding electrically powered high-speed-rail-ready locomotives and rolling stock, and long enough to reach 220 mph speeds. The reason I prefer building alongside and/or in highway median areas should be obvious. The presumption is when people traveling in their cars witness a high-speed train zipping past them in their at-best medium-speed automobile (traveling in the same direction along the same corridor), this approach allows the automotive set (occupants) to understand the benefit and value high-speed trains offer.
I agree that HSR should be done right. It’s imperative!
Tony d. Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Repectfully disagree. I believe that by upgrading the endpoints into regional electrified rail, there’s a better chance of later connecting the two via a true HSR line in the Central Valley. By building just the infrastructure in the Central Valley first (no electrification, no high-speed EMU service ), we run the risk of just getting a glorified Amtrak line from Fresno to Bakersfield.
StevieB Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 12:47 pm
The incoming Authority Chairman Dan Richards says he was skeptical of starting in the Central Valley when he joined the board but is now convinced that it is the place to start. He is the voice of the Governor having been hand picked for the job.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 1:42 pm
Yes just like the Pennsylvania Railroad extended electrification to New York once they reached Trenton and to Washington once they reached Wilmington. The New Haven was almost as fast with their electrification once they reached New Haven.
jim Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 5:21 pm
The problem is that the money available won’t stretch to providing “a high-speed train zipping past them in their at-best medium-speed automobile (traveling in the same direction along the same corridor)”. The ICS wasn’t going to actually run trains. Neither end-point will run actual high-speed trains. If the Caltrain corridor is upgraded, then Caltrain runs more trains, but there won’t be any high speed trains competing with it. If there’s a high speed corridor built between LAUS and Sylmar, there’s no trains run along it, because they couldn’t compete with (subsidized) Metrolink. If the money goes to building Bakersfield-Palmdale, the only difference compared with the ICS is that there’s a more attractive residual: there’s still no actual high speed trains run.
Our expectations are still anchored by the 2008/9 Business Plans. We still think of $6B as a lot of money. But it’s not. It’s maybe 6% of the total cost of Phase 1. It’s a trivial amount. And spending it will create a trivial accomplishment.
VBobier Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 8:27 pm
Yeah, NASA has probably had more Billions of Dollars spent on it in the last 10-20 years than HSR, yet some will object to this amount or that amount for HSR, yes I do like NASA & space in general as well as trains, variety is good, being different is not a bad thing, although some still have the idea that different is bad & that it must be fought tooth & nail. Stupid, thoughtless people really, never looking ahead, just to their rears.
synonymouse Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 10:35 pm
If the CHSRA were NASA they would go to Mars via Saturn and Jupiter.
VBobier Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 1:43 am
Nope, Shows Yer ignorance of orbital dynamics, as that would be the long way home for Ya Synonymouse.
synonymouse Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 11:30 am
So the CHSRA would go into repeated close orbits around Fresno and then be flung over the Tehachapis to Palmdale? That does have the PB ring to it.
At least my home is Mars, not Uranus. Sorry for the poor taste; just couldn’t resist.
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 12:59 pm
NASA has been known to go to Mars via Saturn and Jupiter. Orbits are funny things.
Beta Magellan Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 1:23 pm
No, they haven’t—they typically go to Mars using a simple, low-energy Hohmann transfer orbit—going to Jupiter and Saturn would imply that they would launch a probe at a much higher velocity than is necessary, then using the gravity of Jupiter and Saturn to slow it so it could fall into a Martian orbit. That’s a poor strategy—it’s better to send a large payload using as low-energy an orbit as possible, and I seriously doubt there’d be any time savings from Jupiter and Saturn anyway. NASA may make dumb mistakes, but since any given probe puts a lot of money, careers and egos on the line their unmanned mission planning is usually pretty sound (and heavily vetted, subject to committee after committee of review and for a couple of programs competition between different mission teams).
The Japanese Nozomi probe (not to be confused with the Nozomi train) used Earth gravity assists to try to get to Mars, but was killed off by electrical failures. Most 1970s plans for manned Mars missions would have used Venus gravity assists to shorten the trip, but these were mostly about getting Americans to Mars rather than getting them to do anything useful while there—most current speculative plans either use Hohmann transfers or as-of-yet-untested propulsion systems. Venus and Earth are useful for getting probes Jupiter, Saturn and Mercury, and Jupiter’s useful for getting probes further out of the solar system, outside the plane of the ecliptic, or just out of the solar system altogether; I think Mars itself isn’t massive enough to be of much use for gravity assists, though the Dawn probe used it to get to the asteroid Vesta.
Nathanael Reply:
January 16th, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Thanks for the correction. I believe I was thinking of using Venus to get to Mars.
joe Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 9:04 pm
Jupiter and Saturn are too far Mars and Earth.
Orbits to scale
http://www.astronomynotes.com/chapter1/s2.htm
http://www.astronomynotes.com/chapter1/orbits.gif
The Sacramento Bee has a new editorial that says that Gov. Brown has one last chance to save CHSR. So it looks like the Sac Bee supports Browns reorganization of CHSR; therefore, it still supports CHSR.
http://m.sacbee.com/sacramento/db_39830/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=4dpEJfax&detailindex=0&pn=0&ps=2&full=true#display
synonymouse Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 12:15 pm
A high school journalism student could have written a better editorial. More of the same stay the course crap.
The big question remains why are the deep pockets conservatives not coming up with the relative chump change to put a re-vote on the ballot. Perhaps they are convinced that Brown will be forced to relent to the growing political pressure to send the whole thing back to the electorate rather than risk a scandal that will run out for years.
Tony d. Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 12:25 pm
For once can you just stay quiet! We get it; for you and others on the peninsula its NO RAIL whatsoever! That includes an upgraded Caltrain as well. I think most Californians like myself have come to the realization that HSR needs to be done right, not done at all. The hell with you NIMBYS!
synonymouse Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 12:33 pm
The Tejon Ranch mob are the biggest NIMBY’s in California. Why are you protecting and exempting them when what they are demanding is blatantly unconstitional?
Tony d. Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
The hell with them to then!
synonymouse Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 12:51 pm
I have always supported upgrading Caltrain. I was sore pissed when the TBT tunnel was torpedoed in 1991. Caltrains’ sworn enemies are many and powerful: BART, MTC, Heminger, Kopp, Diridon, Willie Brown. They are all linked to the Pelosi machine, which means Moonbeam is in on it too. Sorry, amongst other motives, they don’t want BART to look bad by being compared to modern non-Bechtel eccentritech, so no Caltrain. The Bechtel curse is still alive and well in the Bay Area.
The only hope for hsr is opting for the most efficient and cheapest alternatives. The CHSRA has managed to do the exact opposite. Out of gentility Van Ark will never cop to it but assuredly that is a main factor in his giving up on obviously something he wanted to do very strongly. The saddest is that the pols are too stupid and uninformed to get the picture.
synonymouse Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 5:47 pm
missed a whole damn syllable in unconstitutional. no wonder it looks wrong.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 6:04 pm
Don’t you wish we had an edit function?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 12:43 pm
Tony, I think the answer–perhaps part of the answer–to Synonymouse’s question comes from Fitch:
“Societal and PRACTICAL [my emphasis] factors are creating incentive for HSR networks. Ideas around driving less have entered the mainstream and are sometimes at odds with basic transportation needs.”
Translation: Even the conservatives, and by this I mean the “real” conservatives, see we will need this.
Recall that the late Paul Weyrich and William Linde were and are rail supporters. They were the founders of the Free Congress Foundation. Their conservative credentials are impeccable. They were, and Linde is not, the bitter, blow-hard, stupid, sour, angry type of conservative that seems to make up so much of the TEA Party. I know; I had the chance to speak, very, very briefly, with Mr. Weyrich, and I read a lot of what he had to say about rail transit. He saw a lot of things the way I did, and do.
One of the interesting things he saw about transit and rail travel was that it let you meet other people, let you meet others who were your neighbors on the trip. What’s so interesting about that, is that it is often an argument made by “liberal” people who say we need a stronger “community.”
There’s much to be said for that. Who among us would want to rob his neighbor–his friend?
Maybe “liberal” and “conservative” aren’t quite the right words to describe us; I would say we are Americans.
Conservative, in its classical definition, means to keep the best of the past; conservative also means “cautious,” “careful;” it means being a good steward of what you have. Can we say most of those who’ve been trying to pass themselves off as “conservative” are really like that?
synonymouse Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 1:11 pm
I remain convinced that if the CHSRA finds another CEO who is competent, and not a hopeless hack ala Heminger, that individual will come to the same fate as Van Ark. They will eventually and inevitably realize that the general lines of the TRAC-Tormach scheme is the best approach, and even then it will be borderline and require subsidy. Unmitigated and stay the course porkfest Stilt-A-Rail is a certain disaster.
paul dyson Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 6:12 pm
I think that competent engineers probably have already reached the conclusion that a route serving the Antelope and San Joaquin Valley cities is incompatible with a 2hr 40 min schedule without kw guzzling high speeds and uber engineering. I for one would be content with a slower, greener service that operated over the currently planned route, e.g. about 3hr 15 end to end but that is a purely personal, and I realise that for some it would be uncompetitive. But it should be a lot cheaper to construct and operate. I’d be interested in others’ opinions on this, I think it’s an issue that has been overlooked.
jim Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 6:25 pm
I tend to agree, but recognize that a 3:15 nonstop implies a 3:45 semi-express and something over 4:20 all stops which has an effect on ridership. Which in turn means that either fares have to be higher (premium-branded a la Acela) or the service will need to be subsidized. Both have political effects.
And it’s questionable how much cheaper it would be to construct (cheaper to operate, though, undoubtedly). The mountains are costly.
synonymouse Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 6:36 pm
Just take the Chandlers to task and to court if need be. What a bunch of castrati be the CHSRA, except when it comes to harassing farmers and homeowners. But don’t even think about treading on our landed nobility.
If you don’t have the nerve for Tejon fuggedaboutit.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 6:55 pm
And you have a list of 200 Communists in the State Department too. Which homeowners or frarmers have they been harassing?
synonymouse Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 10:26 pm
the threat of seizure thru eminent domain. But for the Lords of Tejon not to worry.
Could it be the monied teabaggers are laying off because they don’t want to take Brown off the hook of his own making. Maybe they see hsr not as his legacy but his albatross.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 7:58 am
Paul, it’s the BART-Metrolink paradox.
Operationally, BART won’t get to San Jose faster than Metrolink gets to Anaheim. But BART can also go under the Bay (and avoid the bridge) under the Caldecott Tunel, and yes, go to SFO. The non-uber engineered system would work fine for most people…but the highest value passengers wouldn’t see a reason to switch initially, and that would starve the system of half of its revenue or more.
O/T here with some new info about Florida Tea Party govenor Rick Scott and HSR here. Seems he tried to get La Hood to accept a deal that would have brought HSR to FL if La Hood would have guaranteed federal money (maybe $100 million if I remember right. This was approved later anyways…) for port dredging in FL that Scott really wanted. So it appears Scott didn’t make his decision based purely on ideology but on how negotiations went. La Hood should have accepted it IMHO – why didn’t the administration make a deal, if they really thought FL HSR was that important to their cause of building/supporting HSR nationally? Here is a link to this news from The Hill Blog: http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/railroads/203887-report-fla-gov-rick-scott-considered-accepting-obama-administration-rail-money
aw Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 6:47 pm
I personally would prefer that each project would be funded on its own merits. I think the FRA’s allocation of the ARRA money was done pretty well considering the constraints they were working under. Florida already had the money granted to them, they just needed to follow through.
If the port dredging project made sense in competition with the other projects it was up against, sure, fund it too.
VBobier Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 7:31 pm
Agreed, the DOT should give the other side something in exchange for HSR support…
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
LaHood did the right thing. Submitting to blackmail is never the right thing to do. And the port dredging was an outright waste of money (Florida ports are going to become nonviable pretty damn soon).
California is broke. Instead of spending money on a high speed rail project (that will only enrich an elite group of corrupt investers and union thugs who line the pockets of Jerry brown et al,) spend the money on paying off the debt or lowering our taxes, instead of increasing them. Bottom line the last thing California should be spending tax payers dollors on is a worthless high speed rail system no one wants or needs.
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Bullshit. California is not “broke”. Learn some Keynesian economics please. I realize most people don’t understand it…
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 8:10 pm
Another Keynesian. Jesus Christ.
You’re a nice example of whats wrong with public education.
Nathanael Reply:
January 16th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
I realize most people don’t understand Keynesian economics. I’m not surprised that someone with as many bad ideas in their head as you doesn’t understand it.
Try reading the _General Theory_. If you don’t have time, read Krugman’s blog for about six months. And of course, this wasn’t taught in public school — they barely teach any economics there, and what they do teach is neoclassical (aka worthless).
Heck, it wasn’t even taught at the extremely elite private college I went to (though in addition to iffy courses in basic macro and basic micro I did get a very nice course in economic game theory and experimental economics).
Who cares whether CA HSR willl/will not be “profitable”! The construction of the HST lie between SF and LA is necessary state infrastructure. It is the responsibility of public governments to finance infrastructure – airports, harbors, dams, aquaducts, reservoirs, roads, bridges etc. for the benefit of society. The people of California have voted to add HSR as part of the state’s transportation infrastructure. Given the projected increase in the state’s population it makes sense to invest in alternative forms of inter-city transportation. Widening freeways and adding runways and terminals is estimated to be more expensive than HSR. Brown is determined to see this project succeed.
jim Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Who cares whether CA HSR willl/will not be “profitable”!
The people who wrote Prop 1A.
synonymouse Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 5:39 pm
Forget about Desert Express and skewing hsr way to the East. Supercilious, air-headed, shortsighted move:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/casino-plans-sprout-us-states-seek-revenue-15361790#.TxIsCYGwXSk
When the nanny-nellie Moonbeam is history the Golden State will legalize too. Before hsr turns a revenue wheel, it should not surprise me.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 14th, 2012 at 6:11 pm
and what happens once all the bond money is spent? The legislature is going to hold it’s breath until it turns blue? Refuse to eat it’s peas?…
jim Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 6:41 am
I’ve never been able to get a straight answer to the question: “What happens to the Prop 1A restrictions after the money’s spent?” What prevents someone building an additional station? What enforces the haul times? What prevents the fares being subsidized? Since now there’s a good chance the money will all be spent before actual high speed service begins, are the haul times, particularly the infamous 2:38, a dead letter? Could even service on the initial operating segment be subsidized? For that matter, once the money is spent, is there actually a distinction between Phase 1 and Phase 2? If building the IOS between Sylmar and Merced absorbs all the Prop 1A money, could the IOS be extended to Sacramento before being extended to San Francisco?
But right now the money hasn’t all been spent. Right now, none of it has been spent. And in order for it to be released, the Authority has to convince the legislature that it’s making a good faith effort to live within the Prop. 1A restrictions: in particular that what it’s planning won’t require subsidy.
Good Riddance to bad rubbish, in this case for HSR, that’s Joe Simitian and Alan Lowenthal…
I wish them well in their next endeavors as long as they stay away from HSR, Far away.
StevieB Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 2:17 am
Alan Lowenthal is expected to run for the U.S. House of Representatives. If elected he can be expected to oppose HSR from Washington D.C.
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 1:02 pm
I somehow suspect that he hasn’t made himself particularly attractive as a House candidate. Do we know who’s going to be running against him?
joe Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 9:11 pm
It’s too early to assess his fund raising but *if* he becomes a junior representative he’ll have to cooperate to get good assignments and that means working with pro-HSR Nancy Pelosi.
I don’t want to hear anyone touting Spain anymore:
Despite assurances from the Spanish government that the long-distance AVE trains operate without a public subsidy, academics and analysts don’t believe that even the busiest high-speed route — between Madrid and Barcelona — musters enough riders to cover its operating costs, much less the billions of euros invested to build the infrastructure over the past 20 years.
Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/01/14/2681852_p2/spanish-lessons-what-california.html#storylink=cpy
Jack Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 8:28 am
FTFA
“There is no question whether it can cover its costs. It cannot,” Bel said. “It actually has not recovered one single euro from the infrastructure investment. The government claims they are recovering the operating costs, but the numbers are not clear.”
No data, no source, one professor who is accusing the Spanish Gov’t of lying.
Why are trains required to recover there construction expenses AND create an operating profit? That’ ridiculous…
You know what I don’t want to hear anymore, your incessant negativity without any solutions. You just constantly hate and it’s so tiring. I hope in whatever your chosen employment happens to be you don’t just whine to your boss like you do on here…
Solutions sir, What is your solution to the current state of travel between LA-Fresno-SF?
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 11:05 am
Given there is about zero demand from LAX to FAT and from FAT to SFO the solution is to do nothing. There is already high speed transport from LAX to SFO. If you can’t afford it, there is a train from LA to SF.
You already have a train and if we’re building HSR because of Fresno (and the rest of the central valley) then this is the biggest fucking waste of money in the history of mankind.
Jack Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 11:23 am
Creating Jobs, investing in infrastructure, building something of real value, catching up with the rest of the world…
All a big waste of money.
Once again, supporters are offering a real solution. We proposed and voted to enact job creation, infrastructure investment and moving towards the future.
You propose… nothing, just complaints.
How would you solve high unemployment, how would you improve our crumbling infrastructure, how would you move towards the future?
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Drunken Unreality is living in a fantasy world. In his fantasy world, perhaps we don’t need to build infrastructure (except highways), we will always have limitless cheap oil, and jobs are created by CEOs of large corporations, and only by CEOs of large corporations. We are in the real world, but attempting to convince him of reality is fruitless.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 11:15 am
Why are trains required to recover there construction expenses AND create an operating profit? That’ ridiculous…
************
Because without profit it becomes a burden rather than a benefit to society. Its really a quite simple formula. I know your profs ignore this becaue they’ve never been in the real world, but that is the reality. Why do you suppose out roads in many areas are failing? It’s because the greatest generation built them and all the baby boomers did was use them without putting aside money for a rainy day.
Well, it’s raining isn’t it? How does the infrastructure checkbook look today? Like shit right?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 11:22 am
Only if you suppose that there is no such thing as an external public good or external public cost which can be imputed to the system.
Clem Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 11:44 am
Hey, if it’s not in the business plan, it doesn’t exist, period. Just look at the business plans for the 101/85 interchange. Or the 237/880 interchange. Or the 101 auxiliary lanes. Or the 4th bore of the Caldecott. If you put on your green eyeshade, sharpen your pencil, and take a cold hard look at each and every one of those business plans, … The reality is sobering, ain’t it?
Jack Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 11:26 am
It looks like that because we want something (roads) but we don’t want to pay for them, and/or are satisfied with low quality infrastructure (low gas taxes).
That’s what HSR supporters are working to change. High quality infrastructure, that foreign nations have enjoyed for years (Japan/Spain).
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 9:27 am
This would be the same Madrid-Barcelona route that has a 20% profit margin even after paying for all maintenance work, yes?
Spanish Lessons: What California can learn from Spain’s high-speed rail
Link: http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/01/14/2681852_p2/spanish-lessons-what-california.html#storylink=cpy
If there ever was an article that fully exposes the outright lie about profitability and no subsidies will be needed, that has been repeated so many times from the Authority and even in testimony from vanArk before a congressional committee, this is that article.
Economists and engineers acknowledge that the system is well engineered, well built and state of the art and that the service is top notch, comfortable, safe and punctual.
Despite assurances from the Spanish government that the long-distance AVE trains operate without a public subsidy, academics and analysts don’t believe that even the busiest high-speed route — between Madrid and Barcelona — musters enough riders to cover its operating costs, much less the billions of euros invested to build the infrastructure over the past 20 years
And those here who continue to support the project, don’t be challenging what is written here with, “well you can’t believe anything from the Reason report or other sources, because they are puppets of the oil industry etc., please read the source of this report:
This special project is the result of a partnership among California news organizations following the state’s high-speed rail program, including The Fresno Bee, The Bakersfield Californian, California Watch, The Sacramento Bee, The Orange County Register, the San Francisco Chronicle, The (Riverside) Press-Enterprise, U-T San Diego, KQED, the Merced Sun-Star, The Tribune of San Luis Obispo and The Modesto Bee.
Clem Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 9:01 am
Has any freeway investment made in California over the past quarter century recovered one single dollar from the infrastructure investment? California spends nearly 20 billion dollars every year on roads. Where is the business plan, where are the profits, and how could this fraud be perpetrated without arousing the ire of our local libertarian brigade?
joe Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 10:09 am
Clem;
What evidence do these academic experts offer that disproves the Spanish government’s claim HSR operates under fare cost recovery? From my read, the academics doubt the claim but they don’t refute it with fact. The anacedotal story doesn’t prove anything but the skeptics concede the service is well run and liked by the Spanish.
Clem Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 11:38 am
Agree 100%
ComradeFrana Reply:
January 16th, 2012 at 1:49 am
Because without freeways “our lives would come to a halt” or something like that….
joe Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 10:05 am
Morris proves himself wrong since the same “experts” concede:
Spain is in a very deep, real-estate-bust induced recession. They are stuck on the EURO and cannot use monitory policy to fix their economic trade imbalance so it’s austerity and cuts which reduce demand, reduce travel.
synonymouse Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 11:21 am
“a very deep, real-estate-bust induced recession”? And what do you think California is suffering?
I am looking at the Sheehan article on Spain in the SF Chron. It features side by side maps of the Spanish hsr network and Stilt-A-Rail. What stands out immediately on the CHSRA route map are the two doglegs, one huge and one moderate. That would be the Tehachapi Detour and the other Pacheco. The Spanish map is nothing but straight lines. What a farce.
The Sheehan piece makes oblique references to politics and nationalism having influenced destination and route selection. Partly this comes down to influence peddling, which we see so grotesquely in play in California. But very little nationalism here – otherwise we would see Sac in the initial plan. Here mostly influence peddling and welfare pandering.
And at the conclusion of the column a Spanish railway functionary is quoted panning the nowhere to nowhere startup for the San Joaquin Valley as illogical and ill-advised. Of course Van Ark was thoroughly aware of the shortcomings but had to wake up the Directors. He succeeded.
In another section of the Chron an editorial ran extolling to the heavens the glories of the BART conquest of San Jose. This paper is a slavish Pelosi machine mouthpiece. You guys keep on underestimating BART, which is in direct competition with hsr and will steal its lunch money at the first opportunity. Caltrain is already a goner.
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 1:06 pm
California’s in much better condition than Spain, because California (a) isn’t stuck on the Euro, and (b) has the clout to print its own money, and (c) Spain’s unemployment rate is 25%.
25%.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 8:28 pm
California doesn’t in fact print its own money. The reasons it’s doing better than Spain:
- The US has much more vigorous interregional transfer programs than the EU, with a stimulus that affected all regions, without demands that Florida and Nevada engage in more austerity than everyone else.
- The US is internally more mobile so that people can move from depressed states to booming states; Florida’s population growth still beats the national average, but by much less than it did in 2005.
As our Lord, Teacher, and Rabbi Paul Krugman says, if you have a single currency like a country, you’d better also have a country.
joe Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 9:22 pm
Krugman’s not an oracle but he does point to data that show countries that control their currency still can borrow at low rates; i.e. they are low risk. These nations have fiscal flexibility to print money.
You are mistaken about currency, Spain can’t print money but CA is the US and our dollar, like the Pound is independent of the Euro.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 9:26 pm
No, I’m not mistaken about currency. The US can print money; California can’t, which is why it has higher bond rates than the US. Krugman’s point about internal mobility is an explanation for why the Euro fails whereas the dollar, a unified currency for a region about as large as the EU, succeeds.
joe Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 9:51 pm
Yes, I stand corrected that CA, cannot print money but the US can while Spain cannot and that’s a major financial difference.
FWIW
As of Sept 2011:
California is offering individual investors a 3.17 percent yield on 10-year debt, according to the Treasurer Bill Lockyer. The largest portion of the deal, $350 million due in September 2041, has a yield of 4.8 percent, 114 basis points above a 30- year index of top-rated tax-exempt bonds.
Nathanael Reply:
January 16th, 2012 at 12:40 pm
In particular, if Spain did start printing its own money (and as a sovereign, it *could* leave the euro) it would lose access to its main trading partners, at least temporarily. So it’s in a very bad position.
Nathanael Reply:
January 16th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
“California doesn’t in fact print its own money. ”
True, but it’s proven that it can. Not *legally*, which is why it would require some fancy footwork (creating a state-owned “Bank of California” like the “Bank of North Dakota” would be sufficient, ass the Bank of California could then issue banknotes). But *practically*, if California issues money, people will take it.
Remember the, what were they called, “IOUs”? The fact that they were (a) accepted, and (b) traded at face value instantly — these prove that California is quite capable of getting its money accepted.
Beta Magellan Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 10:42 am
People generally shouldn’t quote academics, only their work (the IPCC-Himalayan glacier fiasco was ultimately sourced to an interview in which a scientist mentioned an unpublished estimate of when they would disappear), so it’s good to go back and see a published and peer-reviewed article or two, which, in in the case of Dr. Bel and AVE, can be found here (en español only, though I haven’t done much googling):
http://www.revecap.com/revista/numeros/55/pdf/albalate_bel.pdf
Although my Spanish is far from great, the main point I got from the paper was not that HSR in general is bad, but that in Spain the decision of which line to build was based more on the political goal of uniting provincial capitals, not on maximizing ridership. I don’t think this should necessarily be much of a surprise—it’s consistent with Alon’s observation in the comments at Systemic Failure that while Spain has low construction costs, it uses them to build marginal lines. I’d say California could always use another warning about designing HSR routes to satisfy political wants rather than ridership and revenue needs, especially since it isn’t going to see Spanish-level capital costs and competence.
That said, there are a couple of things a bit off about the paper—I’ve never heard the claim that ICE was meant to connect ports and industrial zones, though that could just be ignorance on my part. She also faults the AVE for not paying more attention to freight, which is a fairly narrow niche market, and for using foreign HSR technology instead of developing it at home, which is an odd take for a paper whose main critique of the AVE has been that it has been developed too nationalistically.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 11:06 am
And quoting a government that doesn’t want a project to blow up in their face should be quoted?
What a walking contradiction you are.
Beta Magellan Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 11:29 am
Where did I write anything implying statements from CHSRA (or AVE, or Madrid Metro) should be given benefit of the doubt?
joe Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Spain’s a complicated place. Using HSR for uniting provinces makes sense considering a civil war and language and cultural differences. I can see criticism of that goal equally driven by opposing political objectives; greater regional autonomy.
The state has a responsibility to be more than a for-profit-business. Common good.
Nathanael Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 1:05 pm
As Paulus Magnus noted above, Madrid-Barcelona covers its operating costs easily, and the academic is blowing smoke.
The Wall Street Journal is running a very harsh hit piece on Buffalo as the poster boy of stimulus spending gone bad.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204409004577156603296740624.html
Unfortunately they cite light rail in Buffalo as an infrastructure mistake, which I have to assume results from a combination of legacy highway lobby anti-rail mindset and probably bloated contracts, which we know are a problem everywhere.
But the thrust is clear and so is the analogy to California. New York is similarly controlled by a political machine that has imposed a policy of high taxes, generous welfare, and over the top union contracts. Sounds familiar, except with the difference that the California political machine benefits from superb media spinmeistering that actually has the masses believing that Jerry is a good governor.
He’s just as bad as Schwarzie; we would have been better off with Mega-Meg. There is no long term policy to his budgeting – he just whimsically and arbitrarily cuts here and spends there – chop kindergarten but bankroll nowhere to nowhere. He is furthering the notion, probably the fantasy, you can raise taxes and cut at the same time. But his union backers want more welfare spending, not less. Cure a compulsive gambler by giving him some more money? Meg would have immediately focused on the public employee union issue, wouldhave forced a revision of Stilit-A-Rail and would have flushed out the Peripheral Canal. Don’t worry, Jerry favors it too. He’s just being duplicitous.
The Sac bean counters are worried about how the rich will react to being taxed by Jerry and how much revenue they can actually garnish. But they are ignoring the big picture of long term decline, which is clearly the historical pattern in Buffalo.
BTW, if they lock onto nowhere to nowhere, it should be Fresno north, so as to better enable an epiphany to Tejon down the road.