Governor Jerry Brown Backs High Speed Rail In State of the State Speech
Governor Jerry Brown delivered his State of the State of the address in Sacramento today, and it included a strong defense of the state’s high speed rail project.
But just as important was the context. Governor Brown rejects the argument from “the declinists” – people who believe that California is in decline and the state can’t do anything great again, that all California can do is lower its horizons and suffer:
Contrary to those declinists, who sing of Texas and bemoan our woes, California is still the land of dreams—as well as the Dream Act. It’s the place where Apple, Intel, Hewlett-Packard, Oracle, QUALCOMM, Twitter, Facebook and countless other creative companies all began. It’s home to more Nobel Laureates and venture capital investment than any other state. In 2010, California received 48% of U.S. venture capital investments. In the first three months of last year it rose even higher—to 52%. That is more than four times greater that the next recipient, Massachusetts. As for new patents, California inventors were awarded almost four times as many as inventors from the next state, New York.
California has problems but rumors of its demise are greatly exaggerated.
Governor Brown’s core belief is that California is a great place, but for that to be sustained the state has to continue innovating and building. Prosperity and the California Dream cannot be continued by complacency or an unwillingness to act. It’s important that he delivered that message directly to the state legislature, where some Democrats are giving in to fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Rather than leading, some Senate Democrats would rather turn into right-wing Republicans and refuse to invest in the state’s future. And that’s especially true of high speed rail.
Brown devoted a lot of his speech to the project. Here’s what he had to say:
Just as bold is our plan to build a high-speed rail system, connecting the Northern and Southern parts of our state. This is not a new idea. As governor the last time, I signed legislation to study the concept. Now thirty years later, we are within weeks of a revised business plan that will enable us to begin initial construction before the year is out.
President Obama strongly supports the project and has provided the majority of funds for this first phase. It is now your decision to evaluate the plan and decide what action to take. Without any hesitation, I urge your approval.
If you believe that California will continue to grow, as I do, and that millions more people will be living in our state, this is a wise investment. Building new runways and expanding our airports and highways is the only alternative. That is not cheaper and will face even more political opposition.
Those who believe that California is in decline will naturally shrink back from such a strenuous undertaking. I understand that feeling but I don’t share it, because I know this state and the spirit of the people who choose to live here. California is still the Gold Mountain that Chinese immigrants in 1848 came across the Pacific to find. The wealth is different, derived as it is, not from mining the Sierras but from the creative imagination of those who invent and build and generate the ideas that drive our economy forward.
Critics of the high-speed rail project abound as they often do when something of this magnitude is proposed. During the 1930’s, The Central Valley Water Project was called a “fantastic dream” that “will not work.” The Master Plan for the Interstate Highway System in 1939 was derided as “new Deal jitterbug economics.” In 1966, then Mayor Johnson of Berkeley called BART a “billion dollar potential fiasco.” Similarly, the Panama Canal was for years thought to be impractical and Benjamin Disraeli himself said of the Suez Canal: “totally impossible to be carried out.” The critics were wrong then and they’re wrong now.
This is a strong and ringing endorsement of the HSR project from the governor, and I especially like how he framed it as part of a vision for California being a place that builds and innovates. California is a place that solves problems, rather than hide from them.
Senate Democrats need to hear this message loudly and clearly. There’s too much talk from Senators DeSaulnier, Lowenthal and Simitian about quitting on high speed rail. Rather than find solutions to get high speed rail construction started in 2012, these Senators appear more interested in embracing a politics of decline and failure.
President Obama and Congressional Democrats understand the importance of investing in our future by building high speed rail. So too do Assembly Democrats. Many State Senate Democrats understand it too. So why would these three Senators – including Alan Lowenthal, who wants to go to Congress – join in a right-wing attack on not just high speed rail, but on President Obama’s agenda?
Californians expect their legislators to solve problems and help the state grow, innovate, and lead. They don’t expect their legislators to run in fear from tackling the issues voters elected them to solve. Let’s hope that Senate Democrats join their fellow Democrats, including Governor Brown, in building a better future for California, rather than joining right-wing extremists like Jeff Denham and Scott Walker by attacking the project and denying its funding.
UPDATE: Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, via his spokeswoman Alicia Trost on Twitter, had this to say about HSR just now:
We have an obligation to balance the budget and build the economy. HSR is an important part of that 2nd obligation.
Let’s hope he brings the three wayward Senate Democrats back into the fold.
The 3 minutes of this State of the State address devoted to HSR, can be viewed at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfthawZr3Ms
Here is a response from Diane Harkey to Brown’s speech:
———
SACRAMENTO – Assemblywoman Diane Harkey (R-Dana Point) responded today to Governor Brown’s State of the State address by saying she is encouraged by his commitment to work with the Legislature on critical issues, but is equally concerned that the Governor’s support for spending and investing with taxpayer dollars that we don’t have, moves the state in the wrong direction.
“The speech was vintage Jerry, filled with humor and witticisms but with the same mantra, invest, spend and tax, at a time when millions are out of work and the state will be facing trigger cuts and deficits for years to come. Growing state government and adding to our debt to do so, is not the way to reduce California’s mountain of debt or increase employment.”
“This is not the 1960’s, when we had the ability to designate specific funding sources to build water and freeway infrastructure. We are broke and for the Governor to insist on dreaming big by spending untold billions on a high speed rail network, in a location where there is no ridership, or potential for continued funding, just does not fit with reality. And right now our citizens are dealing with financial reality and we should be too.”
“If job creation and debt reduction truly are priorities, the Legislature would be wise to rethink the project and use existing funding to maintain and repair existing infrastructure,” Harkey added.
———
Pretty amazing that Brown doesn’t even seem to know how much of state funds are being invested in the ICS as he said $2 billions of state funds.
Obviously not at all on top of what is going on here, just continuing to blow the same smoke our way. His statement on cost of new highways and airports also wrong. Such a Governor. Same old “moonbeam”.
Derek Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 12:35 pm
“Assemblywoman Diane Harkey…is equally concerned that the Governor’s support for spending and investing with taxpayer dollars that we don’t have…”
If we decide we can’t afford to invest in the future because we’re broke, then we’ll stay broke.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 7:39 pm
I’m sure you’d spend money you don’t have in your personal life under the assumption that if you don’t you’ll stay broke.
Or is it just when it’s other peoples money that it’s okay?
Matthew B Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 7:38 am
Entrepreneurs typically either take on debt or transfer partial ownership of their company to angel investors to start a business. Established companies issue bonds and equity to achieve efficiencies, takeovers, etc. Governments issue bonds to pay for infrastructure that has a positive payout to the overall economy, but that is inappropriate to expect private industry to provide because most of the positive effects are absorbed by entities other than the owner of the infrastructure. California isn’t broke. It is one of the largest economies in the world, in absolute terms, and especially per capita. When a project comes along that has a high net benefit to the state economy, environmental benefits, and that creates jobs in areas of high unemployment, that’s a good use of our available funds. I think we should find a way of building HSR for less than 92 billion, but it’s disingenuous to imply that California doesn’t have the ability to build a HSR system in principle.
Pete Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 12:41 pm
“The speech was vintage Jerry, filled with humor and witticisms but with the same mantra, invest, spend and tax, at a time when millions are out of work and the state will be facing trigger cuts and deficits for years to come. Growing state government and adding to our debt to do so, is not the way to reduce California’s mountain of debt or increase employment.”
It’s because that millions are out of work, that we have to invest to create more jobs for them. Either we spend to create jobs and spurred DEMANDS in the economy or continue on what we’ve been doing (As you can tell, it not going so great). So when a company want to expand, what do they do? They borrow and spend. It’s no different on a state level. A very big portion of my economy is built on consumer spending. If there is NO job then there is NO consumer spending and ultimately NO economy. All that government can do is kick this DEMAND up again by spending.
Walter Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 1:08 pm
“Tax” and “spend” have always been words for the GOP to attack Democratic notions of political economy. It’s crazy that “invest” is now also a profanity in Republican Newspeak.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 1:40 pm
Tax and spend Democrats? Compared to the borrow and spend Republicans? You’ll notice that after the Bush Administration they no longer go on and on and on about tax and spend Democrats.
Matthew B Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 7:39 am
You can spend, so long as what you invest in ends up exploding in another country. Durable infrastructure is not an appropriate use of government funds.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 3:13 pm
They spent lots of money on schools, hospitals, power plants, waterworks etc. Just not in the US.
Nathanael Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 5:43 pm
“Science” is now a profanity in Republican Newspeak, too. It’s really quite astounding the depths to which the “Repugnant Ones” have sunk.
GoGregorio Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 10:20 am
You don’t save your way out of financial catastrophe. You can’t make things better by doing less. When a business is failing, you don’t double down on the same strategy and try to save your way out; you have to take new risks and make choices you wouldn’t normally make. So says my dad, a small business owner with an economics degree.
So California can’t save its way out of financial difficulty. Austerity doesn’t stimulate the economy. You have to take risks. You HAVE to invest. I don’t see why invest should be a bad word. Maybe some people take issue with this particular investment, and I get that, but investment is still necessary.
Well, that speech really makes it sound like Brown is committed to the as-planned Central Valley ICS. There’s still a chance for a lawsuit to muck it up, but, barring that, it looks like this is a done deal.
Anyone expect that Brown will in any way deviate from the Business Plan? Will he work out a deal that allows some “bookend” construction in addition to the CV ICS?
Jon Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 1:20 pm
Unlikely. If we’re going to start in the CV we need to to get it connected to a major population center ASAP. It will be embarrassing if the tracks just sit and deprecate; at the very least, construction on a connecting section will need to commenced before the ICS is completed. Expect Bakersfield to LA or Merced to San Jose to be fast-tracked as the next section to start construction.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 4:02 pm
I think there’s another way:
If you spin off the San Joaquins to joint powers authority you could allow them to buy new Cascades like DMUs on the existing track between Fresno and Bakersfield. Then, if you connect that long stretch with the new Frenso station, and build the wye and the hybrid up to Merced (and another side track to Castle) you get revenue service…but you also get time for Metro and MTC/BART to claw for more urban transit dollars.
Then you run the IOS for HSR as Merced to Palmdale in the meanwhile. BART ensures the ACE connects to Merced and Metrolink to Palmdale.
Jon Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 4:38 pm
Yeah, you could run through service from Oakland to Bakersfield using the new ICS tracks and new equipment. But why bother? With the ICS as planned, everyone from Fresno north would have a similar journey time to before, and passengers from Bakersfield would save maybe an hour at most.
Also you’d need an FRA waiver, or else load the trains up with concrete blocks to make them FRA crashworthy, as done on the Cascades. And you’d need PTC compatible with BNSF and possibly UP. And then when they IOS proper opens up, which will hopefully be no more than a year or two after the ICS is completed, the shiny new trains you just bought would be useless, as they can’t handle a mountain crossing designed for true HSR. All sounds like too much effort for too little gain to me.
Tim Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 5:08 pm
The new Talgo’s are FRA compliant as is… add in the new EMD 125 mph diesel and now we are cooking with gas
Joey Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 6:31 pm
A LOT of gas with that heavy a locomotive…
Tim Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 11:20 pm
You mean Diesel…
Peter Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 6:06 am
Well, there are stoves than can use most any fuel: white gas, mogas, diesel, etc…
Alon Levy Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 6:32 pm
Indeed, too much gas.
thatbruce Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 12:51 pm
@Jon:
Also you’d need an FRA waiver, or else load the trains up with concrete blocks to make them FRA crashworthy, as done on the Cascades.
WP notes that the unpowered control car, one of the old EMD F40PHs, is the only Cascade vehicle requiring extra ballast in the form of concrete blocks.
And then when they IOS proper opens up, which will hopefully be no more than a year or two after the ICS is completed, the shiny new trains you just bought would be useless, as they can’t handle a mountain crossing designed for true HSR.
And… you change the motive power to something electrified which can handle it, keeping your investment in the shiny new train.
Tim Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 1:44 pm
Yup… that’s the cool thing about the Series VIII Talgos. They are low platform (sorta) and can be “upgraded” according to their website to either a high speed Talgo 250 or 350′s (150 – 220 mph). With their tilting ability and FRA compliance, while also being amazingly lightweight (17t axle load); they seem like a good idea for other routes in the state.
Peter Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 2:14 pm
“they seem like a good idea for other routes in the state.”
Revive the Spirit of California with sleeper Talgo cars.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 6:36 pm
The FRA Talgos achieve lower same speed on curves than non-tilting trains do in France. The Talgo cars themselves can take a fairly high cant deficiency, but the FRA-compliant locomotives are heavy and have high center of mass and limit cant deficiency to 6″, vs. 7″ for non-tilting TGVs on legacy lines and nearly 11″ for Pendolinos.
Also, on a more nitpicky note, the Talgos are indeed very light, but this has nothing to do with their axle load, which isn’t all that low (17 t is a maximum). They have no bogies, but instead a single axle between each pair of cars, cutting weight per meter of train length to light rail levels.
Tim Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 6:52 pm
plus their unusual short length
Alon Levy Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
No, not really. The Talgo 350 weighs 1.6 tons per meter of train length. There do not exist other high-speed trains that light – the newer Shinkansen weigh about 1.8, and the rest are all above 2. If you want trains that are lighter than the high-speed Talgos, you’ll need to go to Japanese regional trains, or some subway trains, or a few ungodly light regional trains.
Nikko P Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 11:41 am
“The FRA Talgos achieve lower same speed on curves than non-tilting trains do in France.”
I keep reading that sentence over and over and I still don’t understand. Could you clarify?
Alon Levy Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 8:59 pm
The Talgos achieve lower speeds on curves than non-tilting trains do in France.
The same bit comes from my misremembering the Talgos’ cant deficiency. The locomotives are limited to 6″, not 7″ as I’d initially thought. I’d forgotten to delete the word from the sentence.
Peter Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 9:25 am
Btw, Amtrak Cascades is NOT run with DMUs, but with Talgo unpowered cars, an FRA dino locomotive, and an FRA dino cabbage car that isn’t used for baggage (there already is a baggage car as part of the Talgo set).
I don’t think Talgo builds any DMUs, or EMUs, for that matter. They had proposed a EMU-like bi-level train, but no one expressed interest in it.
jim Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 9:56 am
Even that kludgy consist saves approximately half an hour over conventional consists.
Gag Halfrunt Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 6:14 pm
No, Talgo don’t build any EMUs apart from the Talgo 350, the Talgo 250 and the Talgo 250 Hybrid. They don’t built any DMUs either, apart from the Talgo 250 Hybrid, the TXXI and the Talgo 21.
Peter Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 5:44 am
None of those are MUs. They’re all locomotive-hauled high speed trainsets, like the TGV, ICE, Acela, etc.
Peter Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 7:09 am
Personally, I would expect Bakersfield-LA to be chosen as the IOS, as there already is Bakersfield-Bay Area train service. A two-seat ride with a transfer in Fresno (maybe even one-seat à-la TGV-Vendée) between LA and Oakland and Sacramento would do wonders for ridership.
Tony D. Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 7:42 am
I think you meant LA and San Jose and Sacramento. Oakland-bound passengers could transfer to BART in Livermore, as ACE would be upgraded between Tracy and San Jose. Besides, most folks commute to Silicon Valley from the Central Valley, not to Oakland.
Peter Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 7:52 am
No, that’s NOT what I meant. I’m assuming that BART-to-Livermore (Downtown) is decades away. Especially in light of its poor performance in BART’s main booster’s (MTC) own benefit-cost analysis, where it performed VERY poorly. And if BART is extended to Livermore via the 580 median, then there IS no transfer from HSR or ACE in Livermore.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 4:10 pm
No way
The real IOS will be Merced to Palmdale. The soft open of revneue service will be Merced to Bakersfield.
The key in understanding all this is freight oddly enough.
The long term plan (I’m betting) is that BART will Ring the Bay, but it will also serve Stockton and Tracy and create a cutoff to replace most of what ACE does. But ACE won’t go away, it’s that it will be used for Tracy to Merced commuters.
Once that’s built, then it’s all aboard to TBT. (Okay not exactly).
Down in LA, what needs to get finished at the Alameda Corridor extensions, yes extensions… And then from there HSR will be integrated into whatever Metro completes for its 30/10 vision.
Big urban transit players just don’t want their income cannibalized by HSR.
Still, I predict Amtrak Calfiornia will get spun off into JPAs and then the San Joaquin Valley one will use the ICS and then the BNSF track through the CV to get revenue service going. UP likes that idea, because it gives them a monopoly in the SJV, but it also caps traffic through Niles Canyon. Buffett, I think will sell the BNSF track because farm exports are not the reason he bought the railroad to begin with. But I bet you the CV farmers are pissed at the idea of being owned (once again) by the UP….
Tim Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 4:32 pm
The current plans for BART to Livermore (brought to you by the old folk at Keep BART on 580) include a new Greenville East stop on top of the existing ACE tracks. I assume they will then probably rip out the Vasco Road ACE station and relocate it adjacent to this terminal stop.
Peter Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 8:00 am
As an aside, has anyone ever figured out how to find ACE’s daily boardings per station? I’ve been looking, but haven’t had any success in finding this info.
Jon Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 2:42 pm
I’ve not yet seen any evidence that UP would allow ACE or anyone else to expand passenger service beyond the current six trains per day over the Altamont.
Tim Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 6:51 pm
easy… reactivate the old SP alignment
Jon Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 9:12 pm
You’d need to re-lay the track, and it wouldn’t end up any faster than the UP route. Why bother? If you’re going to build a new Altamont crossing you may as well do it properly. The old SP alignment would make a great bike path, though.
J. Wong Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Unfortunately, the “bookend” construction doesn’t get us closer to an IOS than the CV ICS. Any reasonable IOS must include the CV segment, but need not include either end of Phase 1.
There’s still a few steps in the process beyond any lawsuits, but yes, it does look like a done deal, which I support. And it I believe that the lawsuits will be unsuccessful.
Andy M. Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 3:53 am
The CV is definitely a better deal than bookends. In terms of the contribution to overall journey times, a long section of HSR is better than the far shorter section that the same money can buy in an urban environment. Take into account the space and time a HST needs to accelerate and decelarte. A couple of miles on the penisula as a standalone bit will be tremendously expensive with minimal effect (accelerating commutr trains by maybe some minutes). But with the cheaper longer section you are building momentum, 10% built, 50% built, 80% built and so it becomes more difficult for the last expensive and difficult bits to resist.
VBobier Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 7:34 pm
Agreed, Yes It is a better deal. The reason some don’t want to start in the CV is that they don’t want HSR to be built at all, the losers of 2008 are sore losers who can’t accept the fact that they lost, as then like You said It then would become more difficult not to build out the rest of the system. After the CV ICS is built, the next part should be either Bakersfield to LA or at the very least be Bakersfield to Palmdale, that’s My opinion at least on what makes sense, You build first towards the biggest market which is Los Angeles County, as that’s where a lot of passenger traffic will come from.
VBobier Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 7:37 pm
I should have said “You build first towards the biggest market after building in the least expensive area which is the CV and then You build towards the biggest market which is Los Angeles County”
Tony D. Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 7:42 pm
Not true one bit! I now support endpoints AND DO want HSR to be built. But alas, it looks like it’s going to be CV ICS or bust. If this is the case, I’m going to start lighting candles nightly and pray that the rest of the system eventually gets built in my lifetime.
VBobier Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 8:19 pm
Ok, maybe not all, the naysayers here would rather not build HSR at all, and yes It’s CV or bust as there is no wiggle room, some who think there is wiggle room to move the money are simply delusional, It’s been decided and so It shall be, come hell or high water.
jim Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 2:31 pm
One of the merits of the existing plan is that it is actually a plan. There are specific steps to be followed to get from here to there. Even if you doubt the value of getting from here to there. There are actual DEIR/Ss out on the street right now.
The problem with going off in a different direction — bookends or whatever — is that there isn’t a plan. There’s some vague gesturing. There aren’t environmental studies (that’s even true for the Peninsula: there has been no work done towards a DEIR/S for a blended system; there’s only just been a study to try to define it, a study which no-one much liked).
That’s not an insuperable problem, but the short-term risk-averse (that is to say, politicians) are going to prefer following an already defined path. If there were something real in the way — if, say, the votes really weren’t there in the legislature to appropriate the bond money — then it’d be worth throwing the dice rather than accept defeat.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 8:24 pm
That’s how it always goes with mega-projects. First eliminate all viable alternatives from consideration. Then, what’s left is a Plan full of holes, but with the good alternatives eliminated, what other “choice” is there?
synonymouse Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 8:33 pm
It is not a plan; it’s a M.O.
synonymouse Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 8:34 pm
try an M.O.
Brown has been a great governor. For someone from an older generation, he really is a forward thinker. I’m glad someone is speaking for my generation (in my mid twenties) and moving us forward. Tired of all these old people saying we can’t make any progress and we have to go back to our holes. Ironic because most of them are the ones who ran up the deficit and dug the hole to begin with. Anyways it’s great to see Brown working for the people and not the lobbyists and the wealthy who want things to stay the same so they can continue to profit.
nslander Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
You would have loved his father.
synonymouse Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 12:43 pm
Yeah, the father of the Embarcadero Freeway.
nslander Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 12:57 pm
Wah-wah
Michael Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Embarcadero Freeway was open by 1958. Pat Brown was elected to his first term in November of 1958. More fast and loose with the facts on your part.
synonymouse Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 5:11 pm
Messed up on that. Brown was indeed not yet governor at the time of the construction. He did support it, was a big freeway builder overall and was highly offended at the anti-freeway revolt of the sixties.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 7:41 pm
Maybe you just had your Browns confused. Wasn’t Willie Brown involved with the Embarcadero Freway in some way?
synonymouse Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 7:54 pm
As I recall Frank Jordan was major when Loma Prieta occurred and did not oppose the demolition of the Embarcardero Freeway. He was also supportive of the Caltrain TBT tunnel but lost the election to Willie Brown, a cog in the Burton patronage machine. Slick Willie proved to be a BART asset, along with Kopp and Heminger, and BART to SFO stole the TBT funding. Terrible decision but so San Francisco, sadly echoed later with the botched Central Subway.
Pat Brown indeed did become associated with the Embarcadero Freeway as a partisan. Fortunately his opinion in time was in the minority and the earthquake did the deed. I watched it being demolished and relished every moment. Too bad they could have done the same for the TransAmerica shaft, which had flattened some really nice gold rush era structures.
YesonHSR Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 8:57 pm
Good for the Brown and love that he blasted the negative mouths howling all the time
Revised business plan? Again? What will this entail?
Robert, I don’t think its a case of some Democrats now being against high-speed or against “progress.” like myself, many probably still favor HSR but would rather see construction begin at the endpoints versus Central Valley. Only the far right and NIMBYS are against anything, anywhere.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 1:48 pm
The 11/1 was just a draft, this doesn’t look like a major change sadly.
Mike Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Yeah, that “revised business plan” reference caught my ears too. But I think he only meant that in a few weeks the Authority will approve its new (i.e., “revised”) business plan. I dunno; maybe there will be some significant revision to the proposed new business plan, but it appears at least that the Central Valley ICS is locked-in. And if that’s a done deal, and if jon’s correct that early “bookend” construction in parallel is not going to happen, then I can’t see any other parts of the business plan that Brown is likely to mess with.
egk Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 4:02 pm
You have talked about this endlessly recently – but I can’t for the life of me actually think of “endpoint” segments you mean. SF-SJ? LA-Anaheim? LA-Sylmar? Very expensive and only marginally more useful than the current commuter rail. Surely you don’t mean SJ-Gilroy or
Bakersfield-Palmdale or Sylmar-Palmdale.
So Tony d. what endpoint segments do you think makes sense to start with? You must have an idea.
jim Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 8:41 am
My understanding of the “bookends” approach is it’s a three step process:
Step 1. Upgrade existing commuter rail
Step 2. ?????
Step 3. HSR!
Jon Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Quite. Most elected officials proposing a “bookends” approach would be happy just to leave it at Step 1.
VBobier Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Agreed, steps 2 and 3 would never see the light of day, as the ends would have what they really wanted, HSR in that case would end up being just faster light rail and gold plated at that, in short a ripoff/theft..
Wow. If you don’t go along with the HSR plan as proposed, you do not believe in innovation?
That is ridiculous! Brown said that “the first phase of the HSR being built in and of itself would be worth it even if the rest was not built…followed by “that won’t happen”.
Perhaps you should ask the folks in the Central Valley if they agree with the “worth” of a HSR segment that goes nowhere but totally changes the landscape of the Valley forever. I do believe that if Brown continues on without paying attention to the outrage of citizens/voters who feel they have been deceived, this will be drawn out in the courts for a very long time. The Draft EIR for the Fresno-Bakersfield was so very flawed– questions/concerns submitted by Valley counties and cities remain unanswered….and Brown is acting like everything is hunky-dory? If the HSR Authority were more transparent, and provided necessary information, perhaps things would be different. Instead, anyone asking questions and voicing VALID concerns are lumped in the category of “people thinking CA is in a perpetual state of decline and can’t do anything great again”? Come on ! Really?? Do any of you posters live in the Central Valley? Read the letters submitted? Have you read the comments to the HSR in response to the Draft EIR from the City of Bakersfield or the County of Kern? Wish there was a way to add an attachment to this so you could read them. Maybe you wouldn’t be so quick to judge.
J. Wong Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 3:21 pm
What exactly are the issues that the Authority is not addressing? And it is a Draft EIR not final by any means.
VBobier Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 12:43 am
If the CHSRA were more funded, they could be more transparent, as It stands there is only so much money right now, hopefully that will change soon enough.
Nathanael Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 5:38 pm
The Bakersfield and Kern comments reflect deep ignorance as well as demented fear of trains. They act as if the train is some sort of flying toxic waste dump.
They are not serious. They should not be taken seriously..
Mac Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Nathanael, you couldn’t be any more wrong. The people in Kern are far more intelligent than they are given credit for. They are in favor or HSR as a concept and future goal. They are just against THIS PLAN. It is a poor plan that is being pushed through recklessly because it has now become such a political hot button….and no one wants to lose these initial federal dollars. So the CV says a resounding NO…TIME OUT…if you want us on board….this needs to be revised. That is the RIGHT thing to do..but instead, the CV is looked at as ignorant and uninformed. The reality is quite the opposite. And to address that the Draft EIR is not final by any means……..this is an understatement. That Draft EIR was a travesty. Why should the CV think that the next version is going to be significantly better, when the HSR Authority won’t even answer any of the questions our leaders keep putting to them? An agency doesn’t need massive amounts of money to be transparent…it just needs to learn how to openly communicate..and be honest. I don’t think anyone should be surprised at the upsurging of NO CONFIDENCE voting throughout the cities and counties in the Valley. The supporters of this HSR project as currently proposed need to be honest with themselves. The plan is to build a section of track…no electrication available….no high speed train….and someday, somehow, if money can be found, link it to a major city to the north or to the south.. Could be decades. The bookend approach has more of a potential to expand the most efficient use of transportation dollars…and does not eliminate future HSR. AND we will be able to actually USE it earlier. People don’t care if they go 100-220 MPH…they just want to have a way to get fully north and south in this state without a million stops, in a reasonable amount of time. We want a better plan…
Joe Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 8:14 pm
They are against any project.
All routes require CA take land, and any project would trip the exact same objections.
THIS PLAN is not bad. That is an excuse to appear reasonable. Kings county rejected any route that runs throught kings county. Fear, hate and ignorance.
Mac Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 4:42 pm
A Plan is bad when it doesn’t have the identified funds to complete.
A High Speed Rail plan is bad when it does not link major cities.
A HSR plan is bad when it doesn’t even operate a high speed train as part of the mult-billion dollar first segment. I realize that is oversimplified….there are a million and one factors to dispute…but bottom line…..no one is facing the obvious truth. There is more interest in spending the Fed dollars……..even if the project is bad……..than identifying a better project plan.
SEND THE MONEY BACK. Sad as that it, the Feds didn’t build in any alternative as far as changing the plan to something that actually MAKES SENSE!
Unfortunately the Central Valley loses the most with the “use it or lose it” rationale of making it OK to plug along with a ridiculously flawed plan (held up by statistics that can’t hold up under scrutiny” either) . Very sad. This is being forced through in this manner, despite VERY valid concerns that SHOULD be addressed BEFOREHAND because of the fear of losing that money….who cares if it is the right plan? Well, the Central Valley certainly does! Has nothing to do with being NIMBYS…..it has to do with VALID IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS WITH THE PLAN and timeline that could be remedied if given the opportunity. The CV does not like being the guinea pig for a “lets just start it …and worry about those issues later…” sort of plan.
trentbridge Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 4:03 pm
“VALID IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS” means what exactly? That the proposed route runs too close to a school, hospital, roadway, factory? That some people object to the loss of their agricultural land? Any route, anywhere is going to create problems for certain communities and certain financial interests. Are these insurmountable problems? You tell me. What is your definition of a PROBLEM? NIMBY means “I have a problem with this construction in my neighborhood”. So NIMBY = PROBEM as far as I’m concerned.
Mac Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 4:34 pm
Definition of a problem . Read the City of Bakersfield’s Comments on the Draft EIR in October 2011…….
http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/high_speed_rail/DEIR-EIS%20Packet%20to%20HSR%2010-13-11.pdf
Nathanael Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 5:37 pm
I have, so far, seen no valid identified problems with the plan, apart from the excessively complex “airport security” station designs. You haven’t listed any.
I’ve seen an awful lot of fake problems. There is no problem, for instance, with the trains running next to Bakersfield High, but there is fearmongering about it. There is no problem with a thin slice through an almond orchard, with underpasses and compensation, but there is grandstanding about it. Et cetera.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 6:37 pm
The proposed viaducts in Fresno are overkill. It doesn’t make the line unusable, just expensive, but it’s still an identified problem.
Also, for a reason I do not quite get, there’s a short tunnel in the northernmost segment of the ICS.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 6:51 pm
Why of course it’s the Test Tunnel.
Without it, we wouldn’t know if HSR Tunnelling worked in Unique Californian Conditions.
Moreoever, we wouldn’t know if HS trains re-re-re-redesigned for Unique Californian Conditions and Proudly Made in the US of A are compatible with the Unique Challenges of the Californian Engineered Subterranean Environment.
The tunnel itself is to be formed by taking stacks of $100 bills, soaking them in an advanced epoxy to form bricks, and stacking these to form an arch over the tracks, and then filling around and above the arch to a minimum tickness of 200 feet.
Jonathan Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 7:01 pm
yes, grandstanding. But oh, if it was a _road_ going through that almond orchard, what a different story that would be. Both for the complainers, and as reported by the US media.
Sen. DeSaulnier’s comment:
“California faces critical challenges, but I share the Governor’s enthusiastic outlook in overcoming those obstacles. I look forward to working with him on the state budget, high speed rail, affordable housing, education, and other significant issues raised in today’s State of the State address,” said DeSaulnier (D-Concord). “I want to be sure that we also protect the safety net for those in need. It would be tragic to disproportionately call on the poor, hungry, and most vulnerable to balance the budget. In the months ahead, I hope that the Legislature can follow Governor Brown’s leadership and work together in bipartisan public service to meet all of these challenges. The Golden State deserves nothing less.”
http://blog.sfgate.com/incontracosta/2012/01/18/senator-desaulnier-comments-on-governor-brown%E2%80%99s-state-of-the-state-address/
I sent a letter to him in support of HSR, I sure hope he listens to the Governor and me!
VBobier Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 8:28 pm
Good Luck on that.
After Gov. Brown delivered his State of the State address today, Jan 18, 2012, there were responses from both the Republicans and Democrats.
The Republican response was pre-recorded and mentioned nothing about High Speed Rail.
The Democrat response, done live by Perez and Steinberg did have some response on High Speed rail
Here is 5 minutes of that response on YouTube
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdFLDNi4UcY
The point here is that, neither Steinberg nor Perez seem fixated on the CV IOS as the only option, but they are definitely all out that HSR be funded. Obviously there is no clear consensus at this time in the Democratic caucus on exactly what will happen with HSR, except that they are going to make something happen.
joe Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 8:07 pm
Why be fixated on 3 B in HSR funding when the Gov gives a State wide speech about all of California’s government and policy?
I thought the point was to back the Gov, not recite the HSR business plan contemporaneously.
From assemblywoman Diane Harkey’s response, from the floor after the speech:
“If he [Governor Brown] wants to use the $3BN dollars and he doesn’t want to give it back like other states have done, he needs to find a way to put it to some productive use that will work for all Californians, not merely sinking $6bn into 100 miles of track between Podunk and Near Podunk”
Why aren’t the other California assemblypersons and state senators pillorying Ms Harkey, for labelling Fresno and Bakersfield as “Podunk” and “Near Podunk”? She didn’t seem to have any other arguments for shifting funding.
synonymouse Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 8:04 pm
I find the description quite apt for the nation’s leader in auto theft.
Jack Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 8:48 pm
You know syn, I’ve lived in “podunk” all my life. Are we a sub-class, did we do something to you to earn your ire?
Maybe on your next blast through Fresno, you can get off the 99, try the 41. Take a look at riverpark and call us Podunk, or the Fresno State-Savemart-Center, then call us podunk. Take a drive through clovis and then call us Podunk.
People live here, lots of people. We pay taxes, why should we not be served?
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 9:02 pm
No, you’re not a subclass. You’re just in the middle of nowhere.
JJJ Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 11:47 pm
Middle of nowhere? So california is nowhere, because thats what theyre in the middle of.
VBobier Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 6:56 am
then Yer a snob.
Peter Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 7:15 am
And you’re quite foul-mouthed. Those comments do nothing but reinforce a stereotype in his mind.
VBobier Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 8:31 pm
I’m not foul mouthed, I could have been If I had wanted to be.
VBobier Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
It’s not the middle of nowhere, as that simply doesn’t exist, except between the ears of a closed and short sighted person.
wu ming Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 7:44 pm
there are millions of people in that “nowhere.”
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 9:08 pm
Furthermore your overall ridership on the HSR system will be negligible as it has been overstated by the CHSRA. This will lead you to further frustration once service begins as they cut the number of stops in favor of express service from LA to SF as they try to compete with a severely underestimated airline industry.
Derek Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 9:32 pm
If the train is mostly empty, it means the price is too high. That’s easy to fix.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 7:53 am
I didn’t say it will be mostly empty. I said it will bypass Fresno because there is little demand in Fresno. Try reading.
Nathanael Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 5:35 pm
You’re just wrong about demand in Fresno. I don’t know how else to say it. You’re just wrong.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 7:44 pm
You are so freaking off on this your head will explode when (if) there is ever a ridership report on this.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 8:02 am
Dropping price only creates demand for something if the demand exists in the first place. If there is no demand, it doesn’t mean the price is too high.
Derek Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 11:10 pm
Go learn how to read a “demand curve” and report back.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 10:03 am
Get beyond Econ 101 and report back.
Jonathan Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 7:04 pm
“overstated”? Is this the Elizabeth Alexis argunment again: if there’s no (or insignificant) existing, non-connecting airline passengers, then there’s no market for high-speed rail? That’s crap: the marginal cost of having a train stop at a station to pick up some passengers are _NOTHING_ compared to having an airliner make an intermediate stop for a dozen passengers.
Literally, they’re in the noise.
By Sobering Reality’s own bizarre definitions, this is an omissio of relefant fact and therefore a “lie” on his part.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 7:25 pm
Let me put it to you in simpler terms, maybe this time you’ll get it. If there was significant demand for service between Fresno and San Francisco and Fresno and Los Angeles, Southwest would be serving that market. The demand on those two routes is for connective service beyond Los Angeles and San Francisco, a roile that HSR canto fulfill for two reasons.
1. HSR does not go to LAX.
2. While it is planned to go to SFO, the connecting fare value of the fligth from FAT to SFO is and will continue to be cheaper than an HSR ticket and it will always be easier to get through secutiy in Fresno vs. San Francisco.
That is a fact.
Joe Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 7:46 pm
Opinion from a troll who thinks he knows the aviation industry.
troll says:
Cheaper flights from fresno to sfo than HSR.
Southwest would provide this cheap service but there is no demand.
Fresno has fast TSA.
Fact!
Truth of the matter is southwest wants HSR, isn’t interested in throwing MORE resources into short haul flights.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 8:13 pm
Man, you are just full of yourself and wrong on so many levels.
Just because you don’t understand something does not mean it is incorrect.
So I’ll rehash it so you undestand fully how completely wrong you are:
1. The demand from FAT to SFO is connective flow, not O&D which is what HSR will be able to capture from the airlines. It is the connective segment that is and will continue to be cheaper than HSR, as is the case in other HSR markets around the world. HSR projected fares are based on 70% of the O&D fare, not the connecting fare. If you look in every HSR market in the world, it’s the O&D flight demand that went away. Connective demand continued to grow which is why not all flights left HSR markets. Since there are no flights between FAT and LAX/SFO set up for the purpose fo capturing O&D, there are no O&D demand flights to lose. Therefore, the market will remain unchanged in terms of the FAT to LAX/SFO air service. Hence LITTLE DEMAND.
2. If there was significant demand, on the order of about 500 O&D passengers each way per day, yes, Southwest would be in the market. 50 O&D pax a day is not significant demand, it’s a freaking joke.
3. I didn’t say Fresno has fast TSA. I said it is faster than SFO and that is because there will always be fewer people using the checkpoints at FAT then there will be at SFO. The “benefit” of no security on HSR is lost as soon as you step off the train at SFO and have to stand in line with hundreds of other people (best case) when you could have been in line with 100 (worst case) in Fresno.
4. To suggest that WN wants HSR because it isn’t interested in throwing resources at short haul flights is a complete fabrication. Short haul is Southwest’s bread and butter. Of the 2,935 daily flights Southwest runs each and every day 50.4% are on routes are short haul and 10% of their entire operation overlaps CAHSR.
Moving on. Don’t bother trying to respond again.
joe Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 9:30 pm
1. “Therefore, the market will remain unchanged in terms of the FAT to LAX/SFO air service. Hence LITTLE DEMAND.” false – as silly as arguing the fairy boat service between SF and Marin predicted automobile traffic port Goldengate bridge. Studies proven statistically that connecting cities to large urban areas increases economic activity and property values.
2. Fabrication – 500 is a made up number. and also Demand isn’t fixed.
3. Any frequent flier knows this is a silly argument. Queue size and wait time F(servers and clients). Fewer servers (TSA agents) at small airports = increases probability of max wait time.
4. SW Airlines, like all the airlines, supports HSR. It’s the truth. No magic fairies pay for SW’s fuel, salaries or limited airline gate space.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 6:06 am
Joe.
1. Market demand doesn’t work that way.
2. 500 pax a day between two points each way is the threshold for WN to enter a market.
3. I am a frequent flier, I logged 100,000 miles last year doing work for airlines and airports. Over half of it was to small market airports. It is far easier to get through security at Fresno then it is at LAX or SFO. This applies nationwide.
4. You have no idea what you are talking about. Go back and tell daddy he was wrong when he told you that.
This is getting to be like amature hour.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 10:30 am
It’s true that ten years ago Southwest would have opposed HSR as an unfair competitor.
Now that the market is saturated though, they are fast encroaching on the territory of legacy airlines who couldn’t be happier at the thought of HSR taking over routes that only Southwest makes money on because it allows them to compete more easily on those routes that don’t…
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 10:46 am
Except that the market isn’t saturated and Southwest doesn’t have a short haul competition problem.
It is only on this site that the mantra of “Southwest wants HSR” is repeated (or airlines for that matter – who have been taken out of context – saying there is a “role for HSR” and “supporting HSR” are two differnet things). In fact the only airline which said it absolutely supports HSR is Air France. As you know, Air France has a massive short haul market presence in the US therby giving their support for HSR complete relvance.
I suppose if you repeat a lie enough times it becomes fact in some peoples minds.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 11:00 am
I’m not sure you have read this site long enough, then.
Obviously, if HSR existed today Southwest would have a huge loss in revenue if there was proper cost containment on the part of the train operators.
BUT
In 2020 (or 2030), Southwest has a bigger problem. It’s fuel hedge contracts are going to be priced in foreign currency, or cost them a hell of lot more money. It’s not because oil is magically going away, it’s that oil prices have to rise in order to prevent mass inflation in the US. (Not because of some tin foil conspiracy, it’s because nearly all our oil is imported, so the dollar cannot be strong and yet have oil prices rise.)
It also can’t control where people live and work. The ideal flying conditions of Southern California and environs are giving way to Baltimore and Orlando, Seattle, Denver, and other markets that are more crowded air traffic wise and harder to serve. And Southwest’s problem is that they can’t ignore these markets because then they lose Wall Street. Just ask Wal-Mart who had a similar issues recently.
Southwest could partner with a European airline, but then it has to make itself more attractive to high paying customers. That, however, then shift their focus away from volume-based profit back to the standard CASM type calculations. And again, if air travel becomes so expensive that it matches the pre-deregulation era in price then there’s no question that HSR is the only solution.
thatbruce Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 12:01 pm
@joe:
‘Sobering Reality’ is neglecting to inform you about the codesharing arrangements that some HSR operators around the world have with some airlines, which essentially means that the HSR operator sells a HSR seat at near-cost for connecting passengers traveling between points on the HSR network and the airline’s on-HSR-network hub. Not the HSR full-fare cost, but the HSR seat cost.
He is also neglecting to inform you how these codeshare arrangements have resulted in the HSR operator capturing both the majority of air O&D traffic between points serviced by HSR, AND the connective traffic for airlines that the HSR operator has codeshare arrangements with. This obviously changes the demand at non-hub airports along the HSR corridor.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 4:04 pm
@Tom. Stop trying. I mean really – “Standard CASM type calculations”. There isn’t a standard or non standard CASM type calculation. CASM is CASM. And stop regurgitating inaccurate analyst garbage.
@thatbruce: What happens in less competitive markets around the world is not relevant. This is a different operating environment entirely.
thatbruce Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 5:16 pm
@Sobering Reality:
Your response to additional data from the same sources that you previously used is to dismiss the source entirely because it came from ‘less competitive’ markets ?
Talk about moving the goalposts AND shooting off your own foot.
Joe Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 8:07 pm
Someone had a melt down. Southwest wants HSR.
Thstbruce, thanks. I am aware of the sharing and see some connection in europe invole a HSR ride. SB’s says Static demand for the CV but he/she is wrong and probsbly doesn’t know why.
I have 250k FF on united alone. SFO is fast. Multiple servers per queue lead to shorter waiting times. Standard security can be Faster there than first class at times with 1 server for that queue.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 8:07 am
@joe:
LAX to SFO carries a trip cost of $5,040 for a CASM of $0.1164. They generate an RPM Yield of$0.2943 for a break-even load factor of 39.6%. In the market they have a load factor of 71.1% for net revenues of $9,055 per flight. They have 11 weekday trips. That’s $44,165.32 a day in profit. Even if fuel doubled, which it won’t in in the immediacy, they would only have to increase their average fares to about $109 to break even. In alternate, they could shift to a 737-800 (when they have them) which has only slightly higher trip costs but roughly 25% more seats.
LAX to MDW carries a trip cost of$15,360 for a CASM of $0.0641 (I won’t use BWI further destroying your argument on long haul being more profitable). Because it’s a medium haul flight they can only generate an RPM Yield of $0.0880 requiring a break-even load factor of 72.8%. In the market they have a load factor 87.5% for net revenues of $18,469 per flight. They have only 5 weekday trips. That’s $15,545 a day in profit. If the cost of fuel doubled, this flight no longer works. They would have to increase their average ticket price to $289 from the current average of $154 or shift to a larger aircraft, but even with the larger aircraft the average fare would have to hit $229.
Short haul has higher unit costs, but they also generate higher yields. The aircraft also has a higher utilization rate which means more flights per day and more net profit, at least as far as Southwest is concerned.
Hence, the idea that Southwest wants HSR is a complete fabrication. You’re also delusional if you think getting through security at SFO is faster than Fresno.
@thatbruce: I didn’t agree with you on what was captured and what was not, I simply stated that using other country’s as a basis for what could happen here is not relevant because I’m tired of talking in circles you and a handful of your ignorant friends.
I think were done making the two of you look like amatures.
joe Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 8:42 am
It’s Karl Rove with “The Math” using 5 significant digits down to the dollar.
Isn’t SFO to LAX one of the most delayed routes? Is that in The Math?
SFO is experiencing heavy fog, please hold at LAX. Oh sorry that flight crew is now no long able to work, they would the FAA limit so you’ll need to get a new crew.
I could write seven equations and three proofs. Also a 4,432 essay.
Whatever I do starts with SouthWest Airlines supports CA HSR.
You insist HSR takes away SW most profitable routes – if true they would lobby and sue.
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/tslac/20071/tsl-20071.html#series21
SW no longer opposes HSR, they realize it’s good for their bottom line.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 6:16 pm
So your argument is that they no longer oppose HSR because they haven’t sued yet?
That’s a dumb assumption.
Jonathan Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 12:47 pm
Nice try at condescension, SR, but let’s break it down into terms that even *you* might understand.
Sobering Reality: there’s no demand
Q: how do you know there’s no demand
SR: Because Southwest doesn’t fly flights
Q: Why does Southwest not fly flights?
SR: because there’s no demand
Your reasoning is circular. Or at best, based on the assumption that Southwest will add routes to each and every destination where there is demand. Which is a totally unsupported assertion. There are lots of reasons why SouthWest might not add service between Fresno and LA, not least of which is because they can make *more* money by deploying their scarce capital resources on other, more profitable routes.
As for Sobering Reality’s other points: outside the US, airlines sell code-shared tickets on HSR to connect to flights. By SR’s own bizarre definition, that is a “lie”. Why do you feel compelled to keep lying to us, Sobering Reality?
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 6:17 pm
You’ll never get airline economics. Far too complex. for you.
Jonathan Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 6:20 pm
You can’t substantiate your claims, so you resort to insult. Nice try.
Maybe one day you’ll master modus ponens. :-)
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 8:46 pm
I’ll try to explain this to you one more time putting it inot the simplest terms possible.
There are two types of markets that are being discussed here which have demand for different reasons. One is a high density market (LAX to SFO) which exists because of high O&D demand. The other is a low density set of markets (FAT to LAX/SFO) which exists because of high connective demand at SFO and LAX. HSR will not capture connective demand, the notion that it will is a fallacy.
I’m not talking in circles, I’m explaining the behavior of the two types of markets and why they exist. Meanwhile, you are brushing over the conversation and are either being antagonistic or you’re just plain lost. I get it, you want to think that HSR will capture all of it and end flying on those routes, cure cancer and save the planet. It won’t, but you’re entitled to an opinion even if it’s wrong. You’re entitled to think that what happens abroad will happen here with regard to code shares, which by the way did not eliminate connective flow service only some O&D service. Again, you’re entitled to an opinion even if it is wrong.
Now if this is too complex for you to understand, then I would invite you to partake in less challenging conversations in the future.
Jonathan Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 8:58 pm
You are not “ex;plaining” anything; you are repeating arguments in which other people simply don’t accept your premises. Unsupported assertions don’t explain anything.
Code-sharing between airlines and HSR operators happens in several parts of the world.
“It can’t happen here’ is merely _your_ unsupported opinion.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 9:25 pm
Logical Fallacy. Look it up. You’re good at it.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 9:48 pm
More to the point Jonathan, you don’t see the flaw in your argument. HSR in Europe is heavily subsidized while air travel is heavily taxed. As a result, some air service became uncompetitive and was therefore reduced, not withdrawn, but reduced. Subsidy here is forbidden and the airlines are not heavily taxed. Therefore, the logical conclusion is not that the results will be the same, but that they will in fact not be the same.
Had you even bothered to take time to find out why Southwest sued in Texas, you’d have identified the flaw in your way of thinking.
As always, happy to educate.
joe Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 10:00 pm
How many billions did the US give the Airline industry after 9/11? Was it 11 billion? I forget.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 10:41 pm
$5 Billion for failing to protect airlines, plus $1.196 billion in loans. The loans were paid back with interest of $300 million.
What has Amtrak received since 9/11? Don’t want to talk about that do you?
The number is $13.137 Billion.
Last I heard you’re looking for what is it $60-100 billion for HSR?
Interesting.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 7:27 am
Sobering,
The airlines receive a subsidy in the form of U.S. mail carriage contracts. They also receive subsidies for the rural airport improvement program…
Now, look… I’m not going to tell HSR is going to cure cancer. What I’m going to tell you is that Southwest makes most of its decisions only on cost…given what the airline industry has done over the past fifty years, it’s basically a free rider.
It wants ridiculously low landing fees, while avoiding serving your “connective” markets. It doesn’t want to fly overseas or to Hawai’i.
The legacy airlines meanwhile serve the “connective” markets through subsidairies, who use overworked “pilots” who are paid $30,000, work like dogs, and use the most questionable equipment possible. (You can deny it, but the crashes are mounting).
It’s the Wal-Mart business model, volume, volume, volume, not…value, value, value.
I’ve been a passenger on Phoenix to LA flights that had twenty people on them. And on the same trip, had my flight delayed because another one was outright cancelled due to lack of passengers and they needed to connect.
Again, we can argue ad nauseam about the reality today in air travel. But HSR isn’t coming for another 10-20 years. What will things look like then, I wonder?
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 8:17 am
Are you suggesting the airlines should carry mail for free? Furthermore, the Post Office doesn’t receive public money so exactly how is that a subsidy? You’re just as nuts as your friend. The payment for carriage of mail is based on what is carried, not a flat fee. Even if it was public money, that’s not a subsidy. It’s payment for a service. Furthermore, would you rather the post office go back to flying its own fleet of aircraft and lose money on it like they did before the awarded the bulk of mail carriage to FEDEX?
On small market subsidy, the funds for the EAS program come from the AATF which gets its money from airline ticket taxes and aviaiton fuel taxes. Its airlines subsidizing airlines. See: Public Law 100-223.
Sorry, gonna raise the bullshit flag on you here:
The legacy airlines meanwhile serve the “connective” markets through subsidiaries, which use overworked “pilots” who are paid $30,000, work like dogs, and use the most questionable equipment possible. (You can deny it, but the crashes are mounting).
********
The last fatal crash was in a Q400 that was less than a year old. It was being flown by a pilot with a questionable safety record, however the airline could not see his questionable record because of Union rules on sharing records with previous employers. The same Unions that say those pilots are “worked like dogs”.
“Questionable Equipment” and “work like dogs”. Hyperbole much?
Oh and don’t try and tell me how Southwest makes decisions. You’re a laugh a minute.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 8:25 am
It wants ridiculously low landing fees, while avoiding serving your “connective” markets.
*******
At a given airport, every carrier pays the same fees. Southwest reduces their unit costs through high facility utilization. High utilization requires high passenger volume, small markets don’t have high enough volume – althogh in 20 years Fresno probably will be large enough for points outside of California like Denver and Vegas.
It doesn’t want to fly overseas or to Hawai’i.
****************
Really… Hmmm…
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 9:26 am
http://www.fresno.gov/DiscoverFresno/Airports/FlightSchedules/NonStopFlights.htm
joe Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 9:48 am
9/11 bail out was 15B total.
CBS sez:
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 10:02 am
Read the whole story. $5 billion was in direct payouts. The other $10 billion was approved to be issued as loans through the Air Transportation Stabilization Board (ATSB). Only $1.197 was ever issued later repaid, the government saw $300 in profit from the program.
Sources:
http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-21/us/rec.congress.airline.deal_1_airline-bailout-airline-industry-major-carriers?_s=PM:US
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2006-01-30-loan-profits_x.htm
@Tom: Incidents and Acidents involving regionals. On the rise you say???
Source: http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/index.aspx
Year: Incidents/Accidents:
1990 1
1991 3
1992 1
1993 1
1994 2
1995 1
1996 1
1997 1
1998 –
1999 –
2000 –
2001 –
2002 –
2003 2
2004 3
2005 –
2006 1
2007 –
2008 –
2009 1
2010 –
2011 –
You guys are too easy.
joe Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 10:03 am
Tom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colgan_Air_Flight_3407
The subcontractor airlines pay so little that it is very difficult for their crews to find an affordable place to sleep in high cost markets like NY/NJ area. I believe the pilot was paid under 20k / year and at that wage a pilot is going to try to nap at the lounge on a couch and not use a hotel.
SB’s Blame the Unions is silly. The pilot can be tested and trained and the airline is clearly responsible for the pilot’s training.
The airline is responsible for training and assuring their employees can fly planes. The airline procedures were inadequate and contributed to the accident. Cheap, low paying Wal-mart wages.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 10:04 am
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 9:26 am
http://www.fresno.gov/DiscoverFresno/Airports/FlightSchedules/NonStopFlights.htm
********
I’m refering to Southwest service.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 10:09 am
The subcontractor airlines pay so little that it is very difficult for their crews to find an affordable place to sleep in high cost markets like NY/NJ area. I believe the pilot was paid under 20k / year and at that wage a pilot is going to try to nap at the lounge on a couch and not use a hotel.
******************
Hyperbole. One of the pilots lived in Seattle. There’s no place cheaper to live between New York and Seattle?
Accidents involving regionals since 1990. On the rise… Not.
1990 1
1991 3
1992 1
1993 1
1994 2
1995 1
1996 1
1997 1
1998 –
1999 –
2000 –
2001 –
2002 –
2003 2
2004 3
2005 –
2006 1
2007 –
2008 –
2009 1
2010 –
2011 -
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 10:11 am
9/11 bail out was 15B total.
CBS sez:
….Congress, over the course of just two days, introduced, passed, and got presidential approval for a $15 billion bailout. Of that sum, $5 billion was earmarked for direct payments to stabilize the nation’s air transportation system.
***************
$5 billion in direct, $10 billion in loans. Only 1.196 billion in loans were issued. Govt made $300 million in profit.
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2006-01-30-loan-profits_x.htm
HSTSheldon Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 10:39 am
Sobering, even today without HSR service, smaller cities underperform in relationship to theirir travel market potential because of market leakage to regional airports within a 100 – 200 mile radius. In other words, the airlines don’t see these people until they embark at the major airport . This is theoretically part of the connecting market you talk so much about. Sure, the time sensitive business traveler will use the expensive connection but most everybody else will look around at their options. Where I live on the Florida Panhandle (Tallahassee) is a classic example. More than half of the price sensitive market does not use TLH. We drive the 165 miles to JAX or in the case of some extreme fare differences, the 265 miles to MCO or the 265 miles to TPA and to a lesser extent ATL and PFN.
If you implement HSR services, this leakage will and I stress “will” increase as it becomes ever more convenient to get to the major / low cost airport compared to driving. The main variable of concern will be the HSR ticket price which as many have alluded to should be competitive with airfare given the exposure of air to volatile and gradually increasing liquid fuel prices. As many have already pointed out, production from the easily drilled and brought to market Crude + Condensate has not risen since about 2005 and explains nicely the gradual price rise over the last 7 years, even in the midst of the most severe recession in two generations that killed quite a bit of demand.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 10:49 am
If you implement HSR services, this leakage will and I stress “will” increase as it becomes ever more convenient to get to the major / low cost airport compared to driving.
********
Why would you pay $50 to ride a train to save $20 on an airline ticket? Gimmie a break.
The main variable of concern will be the HSR ticket price which as many have alluded to should be competitive with airfare given the exposure of air to volatile and gradually increasing liquid fuel prices.
**************
As if HSR costs won’t increase.
Where I live on the Florida Panhandle (Tallahassee) is a classic example. More than half of the price sensitive market does not use TLH. We drive the 165 miles to JAX or in the case of some extreme fare differences, the 265 miles to MCO or the 265 miles to TPA and to a lesser extent ATL and PFN.
*********
Why would you drive to PFN? They have no air service. Furthermore, if you’re in the panhandle and driving 265 miles to catch a plane you’re losing money. You see, this is what happens when you manufacture a reason to justify a post on a forum to support your argument.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 11:17 am
driving 265 miles to catch a plane you’re losing money.
Yes, they are, but most people don’t consider all the costs when they drive somewhere, they consider the amount of gas they will burn. Some of them don’t even consider the cost of gas.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 11:19 am
smaller cities underperform in relationship to theirir travel market potential because of market leakage to regional airports within a 100 – 200 mile radius. In other words, the airlines don’t see these people until they embark at the major airport .
*************
This isn’t true either. We have the leakage data. Its how many new markets are established. Its called MIDT data and QSI modeling. It’s why Fresno just received San Diego service.
Jonathan Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 11:27 am
Sobiring Reality: do *try* to keep up with the conversation, please.
you don’t have a worthwhille argument, because your premisses are unsupported.
That becomes quite apparent when you are challenged to support your unsupported premisses, and all you can respond with , s argumentum ad-hominem: those who don’t accept your unsupported assertions are insulted as too stupid to follow your arguments.
More, you’re a liar. Direct subsidization of rail is llegal. Tha’ts right, illegal.
And: SNCF makes a profit. RFF makes a profit. DB makes a profit. Fact.
The fact that the German government contracts with DB to provide some uneconomic services is niether here nor there: those are open-market ocntracts, and there are a number of smaller regional contractors. There are even a few long-distance services, like Veolia Verkher’s Berlin-Leipzig.
But that can’t handle that. Why? Because it conflicts with your personal political world-view?
How are you going to try to explain-away the Lufthansa Airport Express, and its successor AIRail?
More Libertarian drivel, that those are “subsidized” and “wouldn’t happen in the free US market?”
As thatbruce wrote:
Your response to additional data from the same sources that you previously used is to dismiss the source entirely because it came from ‘less competitive’ markets ?
that lowered your credibility, but now you’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Can’t handle that, can you? In the same way that you can’t handle the *fact* that someone might drive ~100 mi to get a cheaper flight.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 11:32 am
LOL. I’m pretty sure I said Amtrak was subsidized, and now you moved the bar to “rail” then call me a liar.
You just can’t help yourself can you? What an amature.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 11:49 am
In the same way that you can’t handle the *fact* that someone might drive ~100 mi to get a cheaper flight.
****
What does a comment about a 265 mile drive in the panhandle of Florida have to do with me “allegedly” not being able to handle the fact that someone might drive 100 miles to cactch a flight? Does your mind swirl with madeup irrational conclusions like this all the time? How do you keep track?
Keep the gerbiles running up there. You might impolde if they stop.
synonymouse Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 11:38 am
@ Jack
Don’t get your boxers all in a bunch.
I don’t hate Fresno. Hey, Craig Ferguson quipped LA is just Fresno with bigger boobs. And when Jerry’s unions get their way the ladies working down at the DMV there in Fresno can get their boob jobs too, on the taxpayers’ dime.
I always liked reading Saroyan and my wife is coming back from the Fresno general area this afternoon – she and her old lady homies have got this little vegetable gardening scheme and have a rented a few acres down there. Which just goes to highlight Fresno’s true residual advantage: it’s cheap. That’s why State Farm moved all their operations out of Rohnert Park to Bakersfield. So if you build a bunch of hsr BART’s you may very well drive up prices and kill the golden goose. The State Farms of the world will just relocate to a cheaper place, say South Dakota. SMART certainly did not save Northbay jobs altho taxpayer subsidized freight operations will provide a handful of train crew jobs.
Do you think seven carloads of grain in and out of Petaluma every few days is going to pay for the MOW of the NWP? You and I are going to be bankrolling it, just like hsr in “Podunk” ‘s up and down the Golden State.
Peter Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 12:35 pm
I’m impressed with your ability to translate your earlier dig on Fresno into a dig on SMART. Where did you train?
synonymouse Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 12:53 pm
I practically live on top of dumb SMART-NWP. While I have always liked trains, it is time turn the page on NWP freight, move to streetcars and wire-up, sell the doodlebugs to MAX et al. About the only good thing to come out of the big bux SMART is blowing is rebuilding the trackage and fending the bus lane pavers. Still south of San Rafael is in the worst shape.
And they useless Moonbeam is still evidently sitting on the RoPo casino, which would provide a magnet destination and some handy nitetime entertainment for yours truly . Yuppie nannie must have gotten to his sorry *ss.
Peter Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 1:11 pm
And yet I predict that you will still happily ride SMART once it’s up and running.
synonymouse Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 2:33 pm
A couple of weeks ago I took GGT to the City on a Sunday to a party where I used to work and hey invited the retirees.
Spanking new MCI coach, half fare of $4.50, plush seats with oodles of leg room, and express south of San Rafael. Leaving at 10 am, beautiful sunny day, maybe 3 people on the bus out of Petaluma, 4 or so on at Novato and maybe 5 at San Rafael. That’s all with maybe 20 passengers at the most on and off coming back at leaving SF at 4:30 pm. I hope GGT won’t cancel the service with that low a load.
Point being there is very little in the way of destination on the SMART run, save for southern Marin and the City, and SMART does not go there. Dump the freight,convert to streetcars, blow the BART-level bucks on a new ROW down 101 from Larkspur to Marin City and lay the ground work for eventually crossing the Bridge. Meantime get the casino compact in place.
NWP freights run in the middle of the day as of now – major FRA conflict with non-rushhour SMART. So you are not likely to see me strap-hanging on SMART. It will be the #101 bus a couple of times a year
Peter Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 8:00 am
How far are you from any of the planned SMART stations?
synonymouse Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 10:18 am
About 10 minutes walking.
Jon Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Who in their right mind would run streetcars over 70 miles of track? Journey time would be horrendous, and the cost/benefit of electrification is not justifiable for the level of traffic expected.
Match technology to distance, stopping pattern, and existing infrastructure. Don’t pick technology just because you think they’re cool and they satisfy your foamer fantasies. In this case DMUs are exactly the right choice.
synonymouse Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 2:47 pm
They used to run big streetcars from the City to Chico. An interurban is just a large streetcar with bigger motors and gearing adjusted to match performance requirements. Add a w.c.
You gonna run a doodlebug in a Muni subway?
Peter Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Well, given that no train is going to go over the Golden Gate in the next 30 years (expected lifecycle of SMART’s DMUs), I think we can safely postpone electrification until the need arises.
Jon Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Your problem is you’re matching technology to your own fantasies of future infrastructure, rather than what infrastructure exists or can be realistically achieved. There is no chance of running trains over the Golden Gate into San Francisco, and a new bridge or tunnel would be way too expensive. For the foreseeable future, the Larkspur ferries and bus lanes on 101 will be the only ways to get from Marin to San Francisco.
Jonathan Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 7:08 pm
@Jon:
you hit it spot-on with “in their right mind”. Synonyomuse is a foamer. Until now I hadn’t really encountered the type; now I understand the origins of the term.
I’d bet a sandwich that if HSR goes ahead even sooner than planned thanks to saner Congresses someitme in the next 8 years, that even Synonymouse will bitch and moan that the trainsets are awful, because they don’t look like an EMD E or F unit.
synonymouse Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 7:24 pm
Alco PA’s are much better looking than anything Electromotive.
The Bridge can handle a second deck for light rail – the replacement of the roadbed lightened the bridge enormously. In any event the highway lobby always envisioned a second deck for autos(still possible)to be connected to the Panhandle and Embarcadero Freeways. Loathesome.
If there ever were “fantasies of future infrastructure” that would have to be the zombie Detour in spades. Talking about stupid – a grotesque dogleg route just because some spineless politicans are afraid to stand up for the ordinary citizens of California and demand the optimal route.
Jon Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 12:17 pm
@Jonathan- yeah, it took me a while to figure out too. Basically to understand synonymouse you just need to remember that he hates the highway industry and loves old fashioned railroads and streetcars. That explains pretty much everything all of his positions- everything built in the future should look like it used to back in his day, or else it needs to screw with the highway industry. Otherwise he wont support it. DMUs are fancy new-fangled nonsense to him (multiple units? WTF?) but Caltrain is awesome because it has a proper locomotive and everything.
Personally, my motivation for all this transportation nerdery is a desire to be able get everywhere I want to without having to get behind the wheel of an automobile, or having to go through the endless tediousness of flying. It’s the one major flaw in this otherwise great state. I don’t have any particular attachment to technology choices except being in favor of using the most appropriate technology for the job at hand, which in the case of SMART is obviously DMUs.
synonymouse Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 2:16 pm
Dmu’s, aka affectionately as doodlebugs, have been around as long as the internal combustion engine. I associate them with lack of enough money to do the proper electrification. IMHO if there is adequate passenger traffic to justify rail, there is justification to spend the money to wire. If not stick with buses.
One historical point relative to doodlebugs is what happens to them when they tangle with freights. Not pretty. And I kinda doubt that the SMART version will be as beefy as Budd RDC’s.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 2:52 pm
Synon, it all depends on relative costs. If reviving a rail line is cheap, then DMUs are a fine solution at low traffic levels. They are in practice much faster than buses, and achieve higher capacity for the same fuel consumption.
However, if it’s impossible to get out of FRA compliance, then electrifying and buying EMUs is a better strategy, since there exist good FRA-compliant EMUs (M8, M7, Silverliner V) whereas the FRA-compliant DMUs all suck.
Historic DMUs may fare badly in collisions, but modern ones do not. I don’t know an example off-hand, but DMUs are not any different from EMUs on this matter, and modern EMUs can have very low fatality counts even in fairly high-speed collisions.
William Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 3:28 pm
I thought the SMART DMU was not too bad…
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 3:29 pm
whereas the FRA-compliant DMUs all suck.
All? Both.
The Budd RDC isn’t bad considering the design is 60 years old. The Colorado Rail Car on the other hand…has too few cars in service to make a judgment….
Alon Levy Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 3:32 pm
The Budd RDC was fine for the time, sure. It’s sad that FRA regulations have forced some agencies to reuse it in an era of Desiros, Talents, GTWs, and Coradia LINTs, but back in the 1950s, it was okay.
Also, the SMART DMU costs too much, weighs too much, and consumes too much fuel.
William Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 3:41 pm
I don’t know about the fuel efficiency of SMART DMU, so can’t comment on it. About the price, at the time of bidding, other non-compliant DMU are more expensive. Nippon-Sharyo’s bid, was ~$3Million each. Not low, not high either.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 3:47 pm
That DMU gets 2.5 car-mpg, if I remember correctly, vs. 4-5 for Euro-DMUs.
Non-compliant DMUs in a competitive market with multiple vendors (say, 10, rather than 3) can be bid down to $2-2.5 million each. Private operators in Europe sometimes get them for even cheaper.
William Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 4:00 pm
10 is probably the number of all the major rolling-stock manufacturer in the world that makes DMU :)
Given the FRA-compliant DMU requirement, I think SMART DMU is not a bad order.
SMART probably went with compliant rolling-stocks just to save mountains of paper work a waiver…
Caltrain can probably order or lease a few to run South of SJ and/or Dumbarton trains.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Rolling stock orders routinely have double-digit numbers of bidders. For example, Auckland’s electrification plan includes an order for EMUs, for which there were 11 bidders (and practically all companies that make EMUs also make DMUs). That’s how they keep costs down and get good, proven rolling stock that make the project better than no-build.
Brsk Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 6:21 pm
The non-FRA, non-build-America Stadler DMU was WAY more expensive than Nippon-Sharyo’s FRA and build-America compliant DMU. You transit geeks got your shot at proving the your carping was really how to save money in the real world.
Reality disagreed. SMART didn’t pick Nippon-Sharyo despite a higher price, “just to save mountains of paper work a waiver.” SMART picked it because a Nippon-Sharyo DMU PLUS 20-30 years of fuel for it was cheaper than a Stadler DMU plus 20-30 years of fuel for that.
Reality disagrees with your pontificating. Stadler objectively lost. Get over it. Move on.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 8:56 pm
There were 3 bidders. Of course everything was more expensive. You should compare what SMART paid to what European (or New Zealander) agencies pay.
Jonathan Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 9:10 pm
@jon: how prescient of you! Yes, indeed, Synonymouse thinks that DMUs are just newfangled term for “Doodlebugs”. He completely missed the *multiple unit* part. Whooshed straight over synon’s head, apparently.
@brsk: That’s nonsense. SMART signed a contract that came to $54m for nine trainsets.
Going rate for stock UIC-compliant trainsets is $3m-$4m. SMART subsequenty renegotiated the contract, getting effectively off-the-shelf DMU sets for, gasp, about $3m a set.
As Alon says: look at what European agencies pay for DMUs -Stadler, Siemens, or Alsthom.
Or look at or what Auckland, NZ, is paying for EMUs.
In the *real* world, SMART was looking at $6m per two-car set, about 2x the going rate.
DrunkEngineer’s blog asserts that high price was due to requiring special customizations. Slunds like Richard’s “Unique Local Condition” mantra….
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
Budd RDCs can be MU’d. Rumor on the foamer boards is that the 3 RDCs are cheaper to run that an train with a locomotive. Especially if the locomotive you are substituting RDCs for is a steam locomotive. Gets fuzzy at 4 car trains and 5 cars trains are cheaper to run with locomotives. YMMV with something more up to date then a 60 year old RDC.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 10:39 pm
The MBTA’s study about Fairmount Line semi-modernization compares a DMU that’s half CRCs and half trailers and finds that its breakeven point vs. the existing diesel locos is about 6 cars.
Max Wyss Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 12:24 am
Alon: The private operators in Europe get it cheaper because they do buy in bulk, or, thanks to the smart concept of the vehicles, they can kind of piggyback on other orders. OTOH, Stadler will make you a quote for a single GTW, and depending on your “extras”, it will be not thaat much more than for a small batch (particularly, if the production can be added to another batch).
Peter Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 9:07 am
@ Alon Levy
There were actually five bidders for the SMART contract. CAF, Sumitomo, Siemens (with two offerings), Stadler, and US Railcar.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 1:11 pm
Dear brsk,
As you very well know, the SMART “bidding” process was fixed in advance by LTK Engineering Services to pre-determine the outcome.
Non-FRA, non-dinosaur, energy-efficient, passenger-friendly, cost-effective modern vehicle designs never had a hope.
We know you weren’t born yesterday, so why pretend? If you want to be proud of American Ingenuity, why not just honestly boast about the domestic consultant’s undeniable world-class skill in excluding competition and rigging bids?
Fix the parameters and you fix the outcome. Works every single time. Look no further than PB=CHSRA.
Luckily for you and your mortgage payments nobody in California is likely to allow competent professionals to be involved in transportation planning or procurement or supply any time soon. Carry on as before!
Jonathan Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 3:19 pm
Richard,
Just what were the specific reqiurements which ruled out anything but expensive FRA-compliant vehicles? It wasn’t an explicit requirement for FRA compliance; Siemens submitted bids for both FRA-compliant and non-FRA-compliant vehicles.
Jonathan Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 3:53 pm
…I could not find final documents on the Web, but I did find a “SMART Vehicle Technology Assessment, Final Draft Report”., prepared for SMART by LTK Engineering. The conclusions of that report: buy FRA-compliant equipment, even though FRA-compliant equipment would be more expensive to buy, and more expensive to operate.
Reasons given are *not* cost, but:
1. Compliance with FRA structural requirements other than FRA crashworthiness standards.
2. Buy America compliance
3. Track maintenance costs. Instead of the shitty track used by North American freight railroads, UIC equipment would need either track maintained to Class 5 standards; or severe
speed restrictions, new bogie designs (or both).
4. Not having to negotiate temporal separation with the freight operator
5. Interoperability with the surrounding FRA-compliant rail system, such as service to Napa to connect to the wine train..
Cost had *nothing* to do with the recommendation; in fact the recommendation was made despite the fact that UIC equipment would be cheaper to buy, and more fuel-efficient.
That flatly contradicts Brsk’s statement. Unless Stadler proposed FRA-compliant variants, which isn’t what that draft final report says.
Peter Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 4:12 pm
And yet the FRA-compliant offering from SCOA was by far cheaper than any other bid. Including estimated lifetime costs of fuel.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 4:13 pm
By the way, the Siemens FRA DMU is nothing more than vaporware. It exists only on paper, whereas the Sadler is a real, actual product. This makes it hard to do any meaningful comparison; in normal circumstances the Siemens bid would not get past the minimum qualifications step.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 4:15 pm
Sorry, meant Sumitomo.
Peter Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 4:21 pm
I doubt that Siemens’ FRA-compliant offer exists other than on paper, either…
Jonathan Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 5:13 pm
@ brsk: Read the draft report, which is still available on Google.
[[ discussion of temporal separation, to get out from undre the 800,00lb compressoin end-streng, but]]… There are a number of other FRA egngineering design constraints which would force alternate-compliant suppliers to change or modify a portion of their designs. These would include:
* Requirements for corner posts (structural)
* Requirements for collision posts (structural)
* Requirements for anti-climbers (structural)
* Fuel tank requirements (structural)
* Window glazing requirements
* Flammability and toxicity (could necessitate major wiring and interior changes).
So. SMART did not ask for bids on an off-the-shelf UIC-compliant DMU. SMART asked for bids on a modified, compillant-with-FRA-except-for-800,000lb-buff-strength, version of a Stadler DMU.
Hardly suprising that a proposal to sell vaporware which didn’t exist except as “artist’s conception” came in under the cost of modifiying an exiisting UIC design. And the facts *still* contradict your position.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 8:09 pm
Peter: didn’t SMART winnow it down to a shortlist of 3 bidders?
William Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 10:54 pm
6 bids from 5 builders: http://www2.sonomamarintrain.org/userfiles/file/Vehicle%20selection%20Presentation%20for%2012-15-10%20Board%20Meeting%20Final.pdf
It is true that Nippon-Sharyo DMU is a new design, but it combined off-the-shelf components: NCTID EMU carbody + Japanese DMU drivetrain
William Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 10:56 pm
Sorry, should be NICTD.
Peter Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 5:14 am
@ Alon Levy
No, the bidders I listed above were the ones chosen from at the end.
@ William
They are going to be modifying the design to incorporate CEM features.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 7:47 pm
@Jon: If a street car was all that was available, someone would be trying to build it declaring there is demand for it and that not only is it viable, but that our entire future economy depends on it.
thatbruce Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 1:33 pm
Who in their right mind would run streetcars over 70 miles of track? Journey time would be horrendous,
You’re conflating the vehicle design with the vehicle usage. The two aren’t always the same, to say nothing on historical usage of streetcars in inter-urban operation with 50+mph average speeds.
But in this SMART case, with no existing overhead infrastructure to use, DMUs are the way to go. Or for the foamers, historical streetcars hauling flats with generators mounted on them.
synonymouse Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 4:48 pm
These SMART doodlebugs are reputed to be direct mechanical drive with, I believe, low-slung engines close to the running gear. So a Bugatti bus on rails.
SMART’s problem is that much of the traffic lies south of the route. It needs to go to Corte Mader, Mill Valley and Marin City, which will require new, expensive BART-grade construction, appropriate to electric operation. The old NWP line is full of curves and grade crossings.
SMART and NCRA-NWP regard each other as a cash cow, whereas both are money losers. The Northbay needs to dump the freight past and move on to rapid transit of the standard gauge ocs variety.
swing hanger Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 7:05 pm
“These SMART doodlebugs are reputed to be direct mechanical drive…”
Likely not. Diesel mechanical drives are outdated. It’s a hydraulic torque converter tranny, if it is indeed based partly on the JR Central Kiha 85 express DMU design, as rumored.
synonymouse Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 8:41 pm
That makes SMART doodlebugs even more a bus on rails. This is fending off “peak oil”? This is greener than a GGT bus?
What about diesel prime movers for the CHSRA? Or even more whimsical and zany Bechtelian – gas turbines.
The gone but not forgotten UP gas turbines were something to see in action; they put out smoke like a steam locomotive, oil-fired of course. Great in those tunnels that weren’t supposed to be on the Zombie Detour.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 8:45 pm
The UP GTELs made sense because UP was more or less getting fuel for free.
Peter Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 8:32 am
So, extensive Japanese developments in terms of diesel-hydraulic transmission over the last few decades make it an inefficient concept?
synonymouse Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 10:47 am
Trannies are a maintenance issue – GGT regularly rebuilds theirs and engines too. With juice no need for complex transmissions to go bad.
The core SMART line is not that long and single track for the most part – the cost of electrification from Larkspur(eventually Marin City) to Windsor would not be prohibitive. This is a little longer than the basic #80 SF to Santa Rosa trunk bus route absent the link south on to the City. North of Windsor the population becomes increasingly sparse and the freeway traffic not congested even at rush hours. A connecting bus north makes a lot of economic sense.
The benefits of the “sparks” effect and frequent day-long service make electric light rail the best option for the Northbay and a sound investment. And the GG is definitely not “a bridge too far”.
Peter Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 11:14 am
There is nothing preventing electrification or double-tracking of SMART if demand turns out to be greater than expected. Otherwise there is no point.
synonymouse Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 11:46 am
There certainly is no point in the sense that the local insiders are set on doodlebugs and freight. Where they are going to score the subsidy money is a great unknown.
The project is so poorly conceived that the result will be extremely mediocre. Sounds like an oxymoron. Very embarrassing and very likely a setback for the transit cause hereabouts.
Jonathan Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 1:15 pm
The DB has used hydraulic transmissions for decades; They’ve been very happy with them, ordering new diesel-hydraulics from 152 through 1979 (not counting the wartime locos inherited from the Wermacht.) Diesel-hydraulics don’t have to cart around a generator and electric motors, so they get better power-to-weight ratio. Whch is why the Western Region ran D-Hs: it let them run an extra coach on routes over the Pennines. Re-engined V200.1s are still running (after being bought back from Greece, where they were sold in the 70s). class 260 shunters have been running for more than 50 years. And private operators are running rebuilt v.160s whre the *only* thngs kept from the original were the bogies, the frame.. and the Voith transmission.
But Synonymouse only acknowledges technology from the 50s, so a modern DMU gets the pejorative term “doodlebug”.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Interurbans were a pre World War I phenomenon that declined sharply in the 1920s. Had something to do with paved roads, cheap cars etc.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 4:54 pm
I’m a strong steam fan, but the next best thing to steam, for me at least, were the big, classic interurbans built by Niles, Jewett, and Brill–particularly the Niles cars. Those were beauties!
The later lightweight cars were something, too, most notably the two groups of “high speed” cars built for Cincinnati & Lake Erie, and the later cars for the Indiana Railroad. Both groups were noted for aluminum bodies on low-profile trucks, and each one packed 4 motors of 100 hp. each. The C&LE cars were actually raced against an airplane in a publicity stunt–and won the race! That says more about the state of aviation in 1930 than anything else, but the C&LE “Red Devil” still had to hum along for mile after mile at 97 mph–not bad for a “trolley car.”
One of the Red Devils is preserved at the Western Railway Museum in California. This car is in its yellow colors from when it ran on the Cedar Rapids and Iowa City line, called the “Crandic.”
An interurban that had a leaning to high-speed operation was the Chicago, North Shore & Milwaukee. This line lead for years in the operating category of “train-miles operated at 60 mph or better,” beating out heavyweights such as the New York Central, and doing so on a railroad barely 100 miles long.
This same road had two streamlined articulated trains, called the Electroliners, delivered in 1940. Designed for a top speed of 100 mph, and yet able to negotiate the curves and tight clearances of the Loop line in Chicago (which is how they reached their Chicago terminal), and also running on city streets in Milwaukee, on test both were found capable of 110 mph! It was not found practical to use all this speed, partially because of the large number of grade crossings on the route, and the cars were overrunning the crossing gates, actually going through crossings before the gates were completely down! And that road had a lot of crossings; I have a recording made from the motorman’s compartment of one of the conventional trains on this line, and the air horns are blowing almost constantly to warn motorists. Not something you would want today!
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 5:10 pm
Synonymouse also no doubt recalls the Krauss-Maffei Diesel-Hydraulic locomotives of the Southern Pacific from the 1960s. These were very interesting locomotives, rated for 4,000 hp when the biggest single-unit diesels in America at the time were in the 2,500 hp range, and this combined with what was hoped would be better adhesion with all axles coupled by drive shafts was of interest for the SP. The concept didn’t quite work out, although the diesel-hydraulics did get reordered in a hood-unit configuration. Problems included general reliability, partially because of the way SP ran diesels (the German engineers who came to America to monitor things reported;y exclaimed that “American railroaders are crazy, they never shut anything down, they just run, and run, and run the wheels off.”) Overheating in tunnels, the need to keep all the wheels to tighter diameter tolerances because of all of them being connected mechanically, and weird problems with the transmission when things did go wrong (i.e., it sometimes would happen that the transmission would lock up, and the locomotive wouldn’t roll, even in tow, and there was a danger that a drive shaft could fall out and cause derailments), along with improvements in diesel-electric technology, lead SP to get out of the hydraulic-locomotive operations. One of the second-generation KMs has been preserved in California.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krauss-Maffei_ML_4000_C'C‘
http://sp9010.ncry.org/
The SP also had three American Locomotive Company (Alco) diesel-hydraulic prototypes; these were not reordered, but did get the nickname of Alco-Haulics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALCO_DH643
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 5:11 pm
http://espee.railfan.net/nonindex/c-643_photos/9020_sp-c643-rob_sarberenyi.jpg
http://espee.railfan.net/nonindex/c-643_photos/9151_sp-c643-bob_dengler.jpg
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 5:15 pm
First generation KM diesel under test in Germany; this is one of the units originally delivered to the Denver & Rio Grande Western. This unit and its two sisters would join the other three units on the SP.
http://members.fortunecity.com/trnielsen/km/usa/large/kmml4000cc.htm
http://web.me.com/r.oed/KM_Hydros/Prototype_Southern_Pacific.html
Jonathan Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 5:39 pm
“preserved” is a real stretch for the ML4000 at Niles. SP turned it into a camera car to get cab footage for their simulator. Then they let it rust. It’s being cosmetically restored, but too many parts are missing to try and get it running. (Tho’ they might try to get donations of V.200 parts, or the transmissions from BR 218s. But the only German C-C was 320 001, which is still running strong for a track-construction company, and has its 50th anniversary this year.)
No problem with Voith transmissioins if you maintain them properly. But not really on-topic for CAHSR.
synonymouse Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 6:41 pm
SMART says 79mph. That’s BART’s top speed – on a “closed course”.
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20120121/ARTICLES/201211030/1350?Title=SMART-system-to-depend-on-computer-aided-routing
fascinating
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 6:50 pm
Darn, missed this one:
http://web.me.com/r.oed/KM_Hydros/Prototype_Rio_Grande.html
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 6:51 pm
One more:
http://sp9010.ncry.org/allabout.htm
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 7:16 pm
Synonymouse also recalled UP’s gas turbines, saying they were rather impressive. That’s true, particularly the third generation locomotives that were built in the late 1950s. Here is a video clip of a couple of these large, 3-unit, 10,000 hp monsters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPh1JkIhoOk
It’s interesting to note that the railroads beat the airlines with the introduction to revenue service of gas turbine power; the first successful GTE actually dated back to 1949 or so, and was a demonstrator that later wound up on the UP. Of course, pioneering such exotic beasts occasionally lead to difficulties, as noted in the clip above.
synonymouse Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 7:39 pm
I recall them as much smokier than this clip shows as we paced them all across Wyoming on route 30 paralleling the UP main in the summer of 1960.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 10:00 pm
I’ve seen still photos of the units that seem to confirm your comments about smoke. No doubt much of that was due to the heavy Bunker C fuel UP used. This was what was also called “residual” or “heavy bottom” oil; it was the stuff left in the bottom of the refinery still after all the lighter products–benzine, kerosine, naptha, gasoline–had been boiled off. It’s a black, gooey looking stuff, and has to be heated to about 7o deg. F to get it to flow. It had the advantage of being cheap. Back when gasoline was selling for, what, 12 cents per gallon, this stuff sold for 5 cents per barrel. SP and Santa Fe found it the sort of thing to feed steam locomotives in the West, where coal wasn’t available.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lhz5NzkMgsw
I wonder how the gas turbines liked that diet. Turbines have a reputation for not liking a lot of grit in the exhaust gas; it’s hard on turbine blades. That’s why UP’s experiments with a turbine running on pulverized coal never did pan out.
Oh, the turbines, as built, were “only” 8,500 hp. They were later upgraded to 10,000 hp, which as far as I know, remains the record for the highest power rating for a self-contained locomotive (as opposed to an electric unit, which draws power from outside).
Peter Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 5:01 am
Wasn’t there also an attempt to run them on coal dust as fuel?
Peter Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 5:02 am
Wave off, just saw “That’s why UP’s experiments with a turbine running on pulverized coal never did pan out.”
Jonathan Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 7:06 pm
I’m not sure which I find more offensive: Synonymouse’s equation of status with big boobs; or his repeated assertions that Jerry Brown and transportation unions will connive to give unionized transport workers bigger boobs.
Time to donate more money to researching treatment for Alzheimer’s.
synonymouse Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 7:29 pm
If you bothered to read the WSJ article on Buffalo you would discover that indeed the teachers’ union there did demand free cosmetic surgery benefits and got them.
The prison guards already recieve 8(eight)weeks of annual leave paid for by those of you who reside in California. With a friend of labor on the throne in Sac can free plastic surgery be far behind? Gotta keep up with Buffalo.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 8:36 pm
Syn, you keep bringing up that 8-week vacation bit for prison guards, but I have to ask, do they get that right off, or is it something that guards qualify for after a defined period of service? I currently have over 40 days of leave available to me (and in fact will have to take leave off this year because I will be over the limit that can be carried forward), but I had to be employed in West Virginia Civil Service for 15 years before I even qualified for it, and didn’t actually get to accumulate that much time until the last year or so–and did that by hardly taking time off at all, except for a week around Christmas.
See page 29:
http://www.administration.wv.gov/department-of-administration-employee-information/Documents/Dept-Of-Admin-handbook.pdf
Oh, my sick leave accumulation, which has no carry-over limit, is up to over 300 days. You don’t acquire that much time by using it.
synonymouse Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 11:43 am
Yes, 8 weeks of annual leave for new hires too:
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/19/prison-guards-getting-payoff-for-supporting-calif-gov-jerry-br/ too
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 8:10 am
Jesus. Are they able to bank that too? No wonder the State is broke.
Jonathan Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 6:12 pm
synonymouse; if *you* had bothered to *read* about teachers in Buffalo, you’d know that the benefit dates from the 1970s, when elective cosmetic surgery was for movie-stars; the benefit covered reconstructive surgery after serious burns, or car crashes.
Claiming that anyone is going to get new contracts with free elective surgery is outright dishonesty. Even the New York teachers union say they’d give up the benefit; but they don’t want to negotiate new contracts.
synonymouse Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 7:58 pm
That’s certainly not as reported by the WSJ. I was a little ahead of the curve with the boob jobs but everything else is free:
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/01/buffalo_teachers_get_free_plas.html
Alon Levy Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 8:57 pm
The conclusion you should reach is that you shouldn’t trust what the WSJ is saying about everything.
Jonathan Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 9:13 pm
That’s amazing. The article Synon cites, supports *exactly* what I wrote.
synonymouse Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 10:22 pm
“Exactly” does not comprise the tenor of both articles, which is that this bennie is outrageous and needs to be quashed forthwith.
Jonathan Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 12:42 pm
THe articles do indeed support *exactly* what I wrote. Your claim that unions are going to demand free boob jobs is a total fabrication.
synonymouse Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 6:48 pm
@ Jonathan
They don’t make “bigger boobs” than the ones who fired Van Ark for having the stones to stand ujp to the Chandlers.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 6:57 pm
Just for fun:
Country singer and songwriter Dolly Parton, who is also pretty curvy, recounted an “anatomy story” about her that she enjoyed–feel free to substitute two different people for the ones in this version:
Q: What do you have when Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Dolly Parton are all together in the same room?
A: Two boobs and a country artist.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 8:58 pm
Auto thefts don’t happen in Podunk, Near Podunk or Podunkville. They don’t happen in Whistlestop, Jerkwater, Fumbuck, Boondocks, 田舎町 городишк or פרובינציה
either
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 9:01 pm
Why aren’t the other California assemblypersons and state senators pillorying Ms Harkey, for labelling Fresno and Bakersfield as “Podunk” and “Near Podunk”?
**********
Because in the grand scheme of this project, they are “Podunk” and Near Podunk”.
VBobier Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 6:58 am
And You are Nobody… ;p
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 7:48 pm
Awe… Shucks. You made me blush.
Mac Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Because its not worth the breath it takes. Some people will simply never change their views.
Love the Brown speech, commitment to HSR, and the write-up here on this blog.
Kinda baffled by the GOP response. Ms. Harkney should realize that Prop 1A funds cannot be spent on anything other than the HSR project identified in the November 2008 measure. Also, she should realize that the Federal funds awarded to California cannot be re-directed anywhere else too – either to elsewhere in the State for HSR, or, to other infrastructure ideas. Other States have attempted that road and got no where. Is she playing on the ignorance of state voters?
I’m fully confident that the State Legislature will not stumble in the budget and program funds for HSR as authorized by voters by Prop 1A.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Kinda baffled by the GOP response.
Political theater. They can then go back to the voters in their district and tell them that the evuuuul libruuls stopped them from reallocating the money to [insert your favorite project here}
synonymouse Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 1:14 pm
And they will be correct. Anything crafted by legislators can be changed by them, if they will it.
You can keep Jerry’s phoney “I’m smarter and cooler than the average Governor” shtick. Sucking up to the Chandlers is not smart nor pandering to Palmdale speculators cool. You are old – are you worried the Tejon mob will put a contract out on you? Screw LA – you are supposed to be from Norcal. Act like it.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Jerry Brown is indeed “smarter and cooler than the average Governor”, by a couple standard deviations, even as a geriatric.
That doesn’t mean he can’t be wrong or mis-advised on particular issues.
synonymouse Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 3:00 pm
I see your point – there are some dumb ones. But Jerry’s full of himself. But see Perry was smart enough to pull out and endorse the Grinch. Methinks Mitt is way less electable than pimped once those financials come out. As much a King of TARP as Barack.
StevieB Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 3:31 pm
TARP was signed into law by President George W. Bush. The same president who made it easier for those who did not qualify to obtain home loans leading up to the subprime mortgage crisis.
Nathanael Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 5:31 pm
The same President who told the SEC not to investigate any scams by the banks. The same
President who actually had the SEC shred its records. Illegally. That George W. Bush.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 7:51 pm
I heard Bush caused World War I, Pearl Harbor, the Assasination of both Lincoln and Kennedy, and the first depression too.
What an asshole.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 8:43 pm
Bush may not have quite as bad as you have heard, but he was still pretty bad.
Keep in mind I don’t think he was (or is) a bad person, but I do think he was just about the biggest dunce we could have elected to the Presidency. I still can’t understand how he even got the Republican nomination. That speaks volumes about the Republican party itself (and makes one wonder how the Democrats would fare if they nominated someone so poorly qualified).
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 8:44 pm
Grr, no edit function, “may not have been quite as bad,” grrr. . .
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 9:03 pm
I was being sarcastic. I think without 9/11 he’s a one termer beause shit was going bad. As to why he got the nomination, consider the competition. As to why he got elected twice, again consider the competition. Hindsight being 20/20, Al Gore is a bit nut baggy these days adn John Kerry was the equivalent of John McCain who for all he’s done couldn’t inspire a turnup.
I don’t think he was dumb per se. Christ, he went to Yale. I think he may have had a learning disability though called “dysgraphia” though. A guy I went to high school with had it. He got into MIT, but if you heard him give a speach you’d say WTF??? He’d get his words all jumbled. Its supposed to be a writing problem, but I guess it can impact speech from the standpoint that the thought is out there but you can’t get the words to come out.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 3:51 am
Hmm, “dysgraphia,” that’s something I’ve never heard of, will have to look it up.
My own opinion, I think a lot of his errors, possibly including his speech problems, may have come from all the years he abused booze. I’ve had former alcoholics say they could see this in themselves once they sobered up, that even when dried out, they could have problems.
We have had similar problems with alcoholic politicians in the past; U. S. Grant is the most famous example, but there were others, including the first President Johnson (who succeeded Lincoln in 1865).
Alon Levy Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 4:23 am
What I’d heard about Bush is that he couldn’t read from a prompter, so he had to memorize speeches, and sometimes he forgot certain words.
Doesn’t really matter. Bush’s problem was not the gaffes. All politicians make gaffes. His problem was “Heckuva job, Brownie,” and the entire way of thinking that went into that.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 6:09 am
What we know about Obama is that he’s completely lost without a teleprompter.
Peter Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 6:43 am
My personal favorite is Palin talking trash about Obama using teleprompters for everything, and then using her palm to write notes for her own speech.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 6:55 am
I don’t think the whole 50+ something political crowd has changed much since the 70′s. Never had any real convictions because “it was all cool” when they came of age. If they could get away with polyester and platforms I think they’d do it. These are the same people that thought it would be a good idea not to keep score and pampered their kids which has given us a bunch of 20 something’s that don’t know how to work. Fortunately their reign is going to be short lived. After nearly 20 years of baby boomer arguing in the political arena, one can only take so much mush before a generation with a pair gets to the plate before the softest generation in 100 years comes around to do their damage.
James M. in Irvine Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 8:18 am
Obama can field more questions on the fly from more reporters than Bush can spell his name….
Jim
BMF from San Diego Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Mitt… is Mormon. I don’t think a Mormon is electable today. Gingrich… I know little about him; however, the vibe I see online and tv is that he’s not consistent and is untrustworthy. It feels the biggest threat to Obama right now is that Democratic voters don’t feel threatened and decide not to show-up at the polls, and, GOP voters do show. Next biggest obstacle for Obama… doing something dumb in the eye of voters. All-in-all… Obama and the Democratics are going to save a bundle on their campaigning… they don’t need to do much re advertising – the front running GOP candidates are un-electable.
StevieB Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 4:45 pm
Obama will not be swept into a second term with control of congress as he was his first term. More likely is divided government with at least two more years of do-nothing republicans blocking all major legislation proposed by Obama. The republican goal will remain to be keeping the economy at anemic growth so they can blame the democrats.
Nathanael Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 5:30 pm
The real question is whether elected Democrats will eventually realize that the Republicans are simply trying to trash the country. If so, we might actually start to see the logjam break. If Senate Democrats keep wittering on about “comity” and the “traditions of the Senate” and “bipartisanship”, we’re in trouble.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 6:43 pm
I don’t think it’s the Senate Democrats’ fault when the House Democrats are in the minority.
synonymouse Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 6:51 pm
Romney is a mediocre speaker at best; Barack would eat him alive in a debate. Now the Grinch versus Barack could be a slugfest. Romney belongs to the Bloombergian cosmopolitan wing of the GOP – the conservatives know he will waffle on social issues under pressure. His nomination could bring a third party challenge especially if he starts to poll way behind Obama. The conservatives would have nothing to lose with a rogue challenge from a Paul or a Palin.
Every one of these candidates is a TARP robot except maybe Paul. The celebrate “gnomes of Zurich” made “W” an offer he could not refuse in re TARP in the fall of 2007 and these same gurus of international finance would in due course use their same Jedi mind tricks on Obama and all the rest of them. All you have to do is tell the rubes over and over it is the end of the world. My suggestion to any sitting prez is to put these titans of international finance in front of a hastily assembled firing squad.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 9:33 pm
Ironically, despite being the 1% of the 1%, Romney so far seems the most electable of the bunch.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 6:10 am
@Alon: Let me know when the Senate actually does something. They haven’t done squat in almost two years.
Jonathan Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 3:12 am
@Adirondacker12800:
Ooh. “[insert your favorite project here}”? For Republicains, that’s easy; roads, roads, and roads. And maybe some roads. But realistically, more likely BART in SF or … I don’ t know what in LA (LA and Sf being the only parts of California that aren’t “Podunk”, in Ms Harkney’s elitist view.)
None of which gets us an iota closer to Acela, 196t0s-by-world-standards, high speed rail.
Even if the money was spent on upgrading “blended” corridors, there’s no real gain from spending that much money building gold-plated commuter rail. Unless and until there’s a forcing factor — like HSR with 2hr 40m from LAUS to SF-TBT — to make it worth-while.
Not — and this is the gripping hand — not when the Federal $$ and any matching Prop 1A fund sare to build *High Speed Rail* between *LA* and *SF*. Spending money — bond money, or fedral $$ – designated for LA-SF HSR on local commuter rail is … well, no less surprising than BART stealing Dumbarton-rail capital money to cover an operating-expenditure shortfall.
Where’s the accoutant doofus who a couple of days ago lambasted people for not understanding the difference between “capital expenditure” and “operating expenditure”?
“Well, Suprise, Surprise, Surprise”, those are merely accounting defintiions, not reality. In the real world, one can trade one off against the other; or agencies with big political clout can cover their own operational deficits by raiding less-powerful agencies’ capital budges.
“During the 1930’s, The Central Valley Water Project was called a “fantastic dream” that “will not work.” The Master Plan for the Interstate Highway System in 1939 was derided as “new Deal jitterbug economics.” In 1966, then Mayor Johnson of Berkeley called BART a “billion dollar potential fiasco.” Similarly, the Panama Canal was for years thought to be impractical and Benjamin Disraeli himself said of the Suez Canal: “totally impossible to be carried out.” The critics were wrong then and they’re wrong now.”
Nice catalog. Right-wingers say the *same crap every generation*, don’t they?
We used to try to explain why the New Deal worked, why it was a good idea, by using evidence and facts, but nowadays we see Republican politicians rejecting anything which smacks of facts or evidence. I don’t know how one deals with aggressive ignorance.
nslander Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 5:55 pm
Cue the examples in three, two…
synonymouse Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 7:05 pm
BART is a thoroughly flawed example to use to flog infrastructure stimulus spending. Fortunately for BART’s image electric rail technology is so robust and effective it is hard to sandbag and sabotage it no matter how hard Bechtel tried.
Off topic, but sometimes other material is just interesting, and worthy of inclusion; after all, while the debates on HSR are our passion here, that is not all we are about:
Keystone Pipeline as an addiction supply system (satire):
http://getenergysmartnow.com/2012/01/19/post-watch-encouraging-addictions/
Do airport transit lines really have to serve an airport directly?
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2012/01/19/does-an-airport-line-have-to-reach-the-airport/
And can a development that is supposed to be pedestrian-friendly be so without sidewalks?
http://stopandmove.blogspot.com/2012/01/clovis-pedestrian-oriented-development.html
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 7:12 pm
Do airport transit lines really have to serve an airport directly?
************
Unlike Transit, airports have to justify the cost of construction projects. I know that’s a foreign concept to most transportation planners who have the public wallet in hand, but its reality. Based on a projected ridership, there is a limit to what an airport can justify expending on the segment of the transit system that falls under their jurisdiction. If the mass transit provider doesn’t want to fund the construction of a line to the airports front door but stop at its property line (as is the case with Dulles) then they get what the airport is willing and able to willing pay for.
Do we know when the Legislature is due to take up the issue of whether to sell the HSR bonds?
My guess is it will be a while.
First, until the showdown over the Highway bill is resolved in March (or extended), they won’t want to do anything. Then in May, there is the Governor’s Revise because of income tax revenue data. Then on June 1, you have the deadline for all bills to pass the house of origin.
Now, Brown and Steinberg can suspend the rules ad nauseam, but after June 1, Diane Harkey et. al either have a bill that advances or not to stop disbursement. Then on June 28th it’s the deadline for ballot measures in November. And June 15th is the day that budget has to be passed.
But given the fact that there will likely be triggers on the budget based on the election, there will probably be a provision that calls a special session to adjust the budget act, which will allow there to be an amendment which would appropriate the funding.
To keep the Feds happy and hand Obama a token victory, the Legislature will run a bill to accept the Federal funding award contingent on the Legislature adopting an appropriation within the Budget Act for the bonds. (Even if it’s really small…)
Here are the comments sent to the HSR authority from the City of Bakersfield regarding the Draft EIR for that segment (Oct. 2011) Perhaps this will give better perspective:
http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/high_speed_rail/DEIR-EIS%20Packet%20to%20HSR%2010-13-11.pdf
Nor a very good day for Stilt-A-Rail in the SF Chron:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/22/EDMEYER.DTL
Willie Brown acknowledges in his column that Jerry Brown is building a monument to himself with hsr, a practice with which Willie is quite familiar.
Jerry in his dotage slips up on fixing his pals’ ticket down at the Ranch:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/01/21/state/n100206S83.DTL
He needs to get those not-with-the-program Fish and Game guys fired post haste just like Van Ark.
But by far the most ominous item, buried deep in an unusually less than adulatory editorial by machine flack John Diaz, is this quote:
“Meanwhile, Hill has introduced legislation(AB41)that addresses another serous concern that has arisen about the project: cronyism and conflicts of interest. This very worthy bill would require high-speed rail authority board members to disclose conversations they have with individuals or groups that have a stake in the project. It also would prohibit board members from having contracts with clients that could pose a conflict – such as a past board member who had a business association with Disneyland, which stood to gain from the decision on station siting.”
This could potentially and finally prove to be the ice pick jabbed into the corpulent necks of the Tejon Ranch mob and Palmdale real estate speculators.
Peter Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 11:19 am
What?
Alon Levy Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 11:29 am
On the contrary, I think yesterday was a great day for HSR, as far as obtaining more federal money goes.
Peter Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 11:49 am
Here’s an editorial that pretty much sums up the issue in California:
http://www.presstelegram.com/opinions/ci_19786328
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 12:24 pm
“Several decades from now, Californians might be looking back with gratitude at the visionary leaders of this generation, whose foresight resulted in a magnificent high-speed rail system, less congestion on roads and at airports, and a healthier environment.”
“Alternatively, they may be stewing in frustration. Sitting in congested traffic or waiting in crowded airports, they may be wondering how those early 21st century decision-makers could have been so foolishly shortsighted that they refused to start work on the improved, modern transportation system they knew the state would soon need.
“Which scenario ultimately ensues depends on what decisions our leaders make today.”
I see a possibility of a third scenario. We don’t built the rail line–AND supporting local transit (very important)–and when oil becomes unaffordable, we see ourselves trapped in a country that begins to look more and more like a big Haiti, or a collapsed Soviet Union. For that matter, we could also be looking at a national Detroit. Not pretty, but more realistic than the world of the “Road Warrior” flicks–and that wouldn’t be a pleasant place, either.
synonymouse Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 12:57 pm
Stilt-A-Rail is very much akin to something the apparatchiks at central planning of the “collapsed Soviet Union” would have concocted. Ditto for the godawful Central Subway.
Cited editorial is just another reprint of the cheerleader handout. Nothing new or topical, unlike the observation in the Chron that the lesser lites of the Legislature are not happy with Brown’s pay down the wall of debt plan. They want to use whatever money is available to expand welfare programs and continue the practice of borrowing.
Mac Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 10:49 am
…..and did you read the comments to the article. They were hardly supportive!!
J. Wong Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 10:56 am
So? The comments just repeat the same old stuff, nothing new in terms of opposition. Also, addressed by the opinion piece in any case.
One of those making the comments says “California can’t afford HSR” (I’ve seen the same person stating that opinion on other article comment boards in the LA Times), but I’d say the opposite, California cannot not afford HSR, i.e., if we fail to invest in HSR, we will take an economic hit much worse in the future.
Sort of like “We can’t afford to send Junior to college!” followed by a few years later “Junior can’t get a job that pays enough to start a family!” Of course you invest in a college education because of the obvious pay-off down the road.
Here are comments made from opponents of HSR in the Valley, Bakersfield (one of 4 speeches..at CSUB) Feel free to slice and dice their argument…but the blog asked for reasons the CV is opposed to THIS plan. Here are some more. Note: they aren’t necessarily opposed to future HSR…just THIS flawed plan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBNyiGkP-74&feature=youtube_gdata_player