Gas Prices Continue to Rise, Threatening Economic Recovery
It’s the scenario this blog has been discussing since 2008: rising gas prices can threaten economic recovery:
Brent crude, used to price foreign oil imported by U.S. refineries, rose $1.08 to $120.01 per barrel on Thursday. It’s up 12 percent so far this year and 15 percent from a year ago. West Texas Intermediate, the U.S. benchmark, rose 52 cents to $102.32 on Thursday. It’s up 21 percent from a year ago….
A 25-cent jump in gasoline prices, if sustained over a year, would cost the U.S. economy about $35 billion. That’s only 0.2 percent of the total U.S. economy, but economists say it’s a meaningful amount, especially at a time when growth is so weak. The economy grew 2.8 percent in the fourth quarter, a rate considered modest following a recession….
Instead, it is demand for oil in developing nations that is pushing up global demand, and prices.
Dwarkin expects demand to rise 1 million to 1.2 million barrels per day in developing countries in 2012. She thinks demand in developed countries will fall by 400,000 barrels per day. Together that would push global oil demand up slightly less than one percent for the year.
The supply of oil is finite and discoveries appear to have peaked. The oil that is left is harder and more expensive to extract, and comes at even greater environmental costs (like the Alberta tar sands). Global demand continues to increase, as does US demand as economic recovery slowly takes hold. It’s a recipe for even further price increases, at a time when gas prices remain at levels far above anything seen before 2006. The current average price of gas in California is just under $4 per gallon and that’s not so far below the summer 2008 peak of about $4.50.
Rising gas prices can choke economic recovery. The recession itself was touched off in large part by rising gas prices, as the cost of commuting broke household budgets, making it harder for people to pay the mortgage in far-flung exurbs. That burst the housing bubble and led to a cascading series of problems that produced the worst downturn in 60 years.
The only solution to rising gas prices is demand destruction. That can take two forms. Either demand is reduced by shifting to alternatives – including high speed rail – or demand is reduced by less economic activity. Without developing alternatives like HSR, reduced economic activity and a return to recession is the only option.
Forecasts show modest recovery for California in 2012, which rising gas prices can threaten. In the long term, as prices continue to rise since supply is finite and global demand is increasing, it is essential for California to develop alternatives to oil. Those alternatives will save the state money and allow economic activity to continue despite rising fuel costs. And HSR is a key piece of developing those alternatives.
Of course, you’ll never hear HSR critics talking about the rising price of gas. They have to pretend it isn’t happening or that it isn’t a problem, since the gas price spike of 2008 was a key reason why a majority of California voters approved the Prop 1A high speed rail bonds that November. But we know that rising gas prices are real and are a threat to economic growth. And that means it’s time to start laying tracks and building a transportation system that doesn’t require oil to operate.
OT but this seems relevant:
Positive Train Control Set to Revolutionize Railroad Safety
California Chatsworth Congress Los Angeles Los Angeles Times Metrolink Positive Train Control System Technology Transportation
Posted by: Jonathan Nettler
14 February 2012 – 10:00am
A cutting-edge railroad collision avoidance system is being installed in Los Angeles. Dan Weikel and Richard Simon examine the system, and the reasons why the federal government is backing down from requirements to install the system nationwide.
Weikel and Simon report on the $201-million positive train control system, the “most sophisticated collision avoidance system in the country,” which is set to be completed next year by Metrolink, the Los Angeles area commuter railroad. The system is being implemented under a 2015 nationwide deadline that Congress is now looking to relax.
According to the authors, “Federal lawmakers are being pressured by influential railroads and transportation organizations that say positive train control is very costly and tricky to install and remains largely unproven in daily operations.”
However according to Richard Katz, chairman of the Metrolink Board of Directors, “This is the most important development in our lifetimes as far as rail safety is concerned. Every year we delay, more people are going to die that don’t have to.”
Is it my imagination or is this stuff last century’s news in the rest of the world? I mean “revolutionize” really? Anyway I’ll assume its good news.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 16th, 2012 at 10:50 pm
Federal lawmakers are being pressured by influential railroads and transportation organizations that say positive train control is very costly and tricky to install and remains largely unproven in daily operations.”
Except along the NEC. But the NEC isn’t in Real America(tm)
TomW Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 6:38 am
Or in Europe. Which doesn’t count, of course.
(Example: the UK added a system called ATP to a couple of lines in the early ’90s, where it is still used to this day. Cost prevented a wider roll-out, but it’s certainly not “unproven in daily operations”)
Beta Magellan Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Or in Asia—or even in Michigan, which has had PTC since 2002.
VBobier Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 5:11 pm
Which according to Railway Age, Amtrak in Michigan was just granted the ability to run at 110Mph…
Jonathan Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 5:51 pm
Yeah. Twelve years after Michigan first deployed it, late — at 79mph. And the revised (delayed) target for 110MPH operation was 2007, so it’s 5 years behind even the revised date for 110MPH.
Whee! ITCS (father of CBOSS-to-be): getting faster at 2.5mph per year !
Peter Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 6:13 pm
Well, at least it has the five year minimum track record that CHSRA will likely require for use by HSR trains. ;)
Jonathan Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 6:03 pm
Oh, for fuck’s sake. Germany deployed automatic-stop of trains that passed a signal at “Danger” (UK english) in *1934*. A system popularly known as Indusi, more formally known as PZB. PZB is good for operation up to 160km/hr.
That”s *1934*. The newer, 1980 vintage implementation of Induzi is microprocessor-based, and can be used for speed enforcement as well as automatic-stop.
The follow-on LZB was designed for cab signalling at speeds of 200km/hr and above. DB AG will start replacing LZB/PZB with ERTMS in 2015, but the replacements won’t be finished until 2027.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 6:30 pm
The NYC subway has had automatic stop since it opened. I don’t remember off the top of my head if they were the first to use it or they imported the idea from London.
Peter Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 6:51 pm
S-Bahn Berlin had mechanical train stops from the beginning, too.
Jonathan Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 7:01 pm
The GWR had a cab-signalling system (audible alarm) in 1905?. . 1906?
When did the NYC subway open?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 7:33 pm
1904
It’s didn’t go up Broadway the whole length, as initially planned, because of NIMBY’s…
D. P. Lubic Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 7:30 pm
How far back did the Pennsy have that cab signal and automatic train stop system? And isn’t it the basis of Amtrak’s current system on the NEC?
YesonHSR Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 11:22 pm
The 1940s…great railroad…
Jonathan Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 9:26 am
PRR pulse-codes were designed in the 1920s and deployed n in the late 20s or early 30s. THe PRR deployed it widely enough, that no trains can operate on PRR/ex-PRR lines unless they have pulse-code signals. So (non-ACSES) pulse-code cab signalling persists even today.
ACSES is an overlay, on top of the pulse-code system, which provides temporary speed-restrictions and “absolute stop”. The overlay transponders were based on the SES system deployed by NJT on a smaller line. (Engine crews reportedly hated SES, as it would brake without first giving the crea an audible warning and a chance to brake themselves.) ACSES II uses Alstom WIUs with radio communication to the back-office and to locomotives.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 3:42 pm
Thanks for the answer. And a little addition–it’s my understanding that the pulse-code system of the PRR was also adopted by a southern connection, the Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac. I don’t know if the system is still in place, but for a number of years, and perhaps still, successor CSX has had to use either former RF&P locomotives or other engines with code-signal equipment as the leading engines on the line between Washington and Richmond.
Nathanael Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 8:00 pm
A number of the pulse-coded PRR lines which are in the hands of freight railroads have had their pulse-code signalling removed, unfortunately. I don’t know off the top of my head which ones.
postive train control is unproven in daily operations. LOL. What morons at what “influential railroads and transportation organizations” are saying that?
I’m starting to see Richard M’s point.
I mean for real are they kidding with this sht?
VBobier Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 12:02 am
Just a bunch of cheapskate RR bean counters who only care about the bottom line.
Nathanael Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 8:02 pm
The freight railroads have been trying to avoid paying for track circuits since the 1930s.
There is really no excuse for their behavior. However, it can be *explained* by noting the massive subsidies given to their trucking competitors in the form of free roads and free road maintenance (railroads have to pay for all their own track building and repairs, and in many states actually pay taxes on the land; until the 1970s they were even subject to extra railroad-only taxes.)
Jonathan Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 7:06 pm
“What morons at what “influential railroads and transportation organizations” are saying that?”
Perhaps the same ones who attend the PTC Conference to hear a San Jose politico/”Transport export” talk about what a wonderful, effective use of money CBOSS is?
the sad thing is, that’s not ironic.
“Of course, you’ll never hear HSR critics talking about the rising price of gas. ”
Oh, they will. Just not in ways that make sense.
Example argument:
“Look at how the Obama policies are leading to record gas prices! We must immediately divert all funds from transit to oil drilling, to lower prices and save the economy! And we must quickly remove all taxes and regulations that the wonderful oil companies face is trying to give us cheap oil!”
VBobier Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 12:06 am
Their delusional as that would only hurt people, oil prices are largely & historically beyond the US Governments control, in the 70′s price controls were tried & they only made shortages & yes It was a time when Republicans in power had ideas, dumb ones, but they had them then.
AHAH! I KNEW my city was gonna step in and try to take the reigns on this mess. they’ll make sure those trains get into the station. I knew they would. Thats why I was never worried. what the state and feds can’t do, sf will go ahead and do and put it in their faces.
Clem Reply:
February 16th, 2012 at 10:12 pm
More information about San Francisco’s Fast Start proposal. Basically, they want to built the downtown tunnel together with electrification, and soon.
jimsf Reply:
February 16th, 2012 at 10:14 pm
I knew that the city wouldn’t just sit around and wait while the rest of the gang stumbled around in the dark.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 11:25 pm
Mark Leno needs to do alot more…his actions on HSR as strangley absent…
Drunk Engineer Reply:
February 16th, 2012 at 10:40 pm
Seems like more vapourware. What is this “more information” you are referring to? And how do they propose to pay for a tunnel?
Clem Reply:
February 16th, 2012 at 11:29 pm
Dunno… By marking down the price of it from $3 billion to $1.5 billion, apparently. Oh, and are you dead-panning or did you not see the link?
Jon Reply:
February 16th, 2012 at 11:56 pm
Would be interested to know how they saved money on the DTX by ‘reduction in scope’. Maybe two tracks instead of three?
Peter Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 11:33 am
Probably also a pushback of Phase 2 of the TBT’s trainbox.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 12:04 pm
Another way is scrimp on licensed professional engineers, and instead hire unqualified personal friends of the SFTA executive director to be your “Manager of Project Oversight”.
My fondest memory of Luis Zurinaga will always be the afternoon of 10 August 2004 when he and his legitimate business associate bought lunch, starting with bubbly, for the SFCTA executive director Moscovich and deputy director Lombardo at the Zuni Cafe in SF, celebrating the hour earlier vote of the SFCTA to directly enrich a private developer, Jack Myers, at the direct expense of and quite possible termination of the Transbay program.
Interesting to see he’s made it through the revolving door of a lunch buddy and consultant to being an agency staffer.
synonymouse Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Thanks, Richard, for bringing us all back to the “press-the-flesh” reality of patronage politix.
As we used to say at work(low-level civil service)it is not you who know, it is who you blow.
joe Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 1:13 pm
I’m sorry – who blew whom?
joe Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 1:11 pm
You don’t realize how creepy this recollection comes across to folks that don’t follow people as closely as you apparently seem to be everywhere.
Jon Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Mlynarik cat is watching you masturbate
jimsf Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 1:38 pm
but 3 stars for the lunch at Zuni reference. Delish!
Beta Magellan Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 2:22 pm
It’s not creepy at all—I’ve heard and read similar recollections from transit advocates in Chicago, some of going back decades.
It turns out people remember events that were important and meaningful to them.
Tom McNamara Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 3:00 pm
Richard’s misanthropic tendencies make it entertaining. The man could turn fond childhood memories into “Jacob’s Ladder”….
Tom McNamara Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 3:01 pm
Richard’s a man of such future, he would give Cato the Elder a run for his money….
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 3:01 pm
It’s fairly striking to see the head of a city public agency and the consultants employed by that public agency openly celebrating the enrichment of a private developer at the direct expense of another public agency in which the city is a partner.
Here’s to $80 million between friends!
synonymouse Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 7:57 pm
There has been some inflation. Isn’t it $2bil to drink to at the mountain crossing?
joe Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
State law pegs gift limit at about 390 per year per employee.
Enrichment is one view, another is they are moving on from the award phase to construction of a public utility. Both parties have reason to celebrate. One completed a milestone, another has the awarded work.
390 dollar gift limit. That is your business, the dinner is not your business.
synonymouse Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 10:37 pm
@ joe
Don’t insult our intelligence. You must think California is Disneyland. Does the name Jesse Unruh mean anything to you? Just about everyone in politics in this state is on the take in one way or another. It is called favors, grease, kickbacks, consideration. Willie Brown’s rule is never write anything down.
In Italy they call it the sistema.
J’accuse. The Tejon gang used their money to buy off Villaraigosa and Brown. Bribes are legal – it is known as political contributions.
jimsf Reply:
February 16th, 2012 at 11:33 pm
They will find the money. they have it up their sleeve. don’t worry.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 4:31 am
Is there something in the water up north that rots everyone’s mind? I’m referring specifically to the “Transbay is the only HSR construction in the country trololo” and comparing commuter ridership to intercity ridership as though it were in any way relevant.
synonymouse Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 11:33 am
I’m sure BART has put together a strategy to deal starve out SF’s residual commitment to hsr.
Losing Ring the Bay would be a major and humiliating setback for BART. Loss of a lucrative market, loss of funding to Caltrain-hsr; and the BART to SFO line would look more like an afterthought at best. At worst an abject failure.
And of course a victory would secure its monopoly of Bay Area rail transit and retain its position at the top of the local funding food chain.
Tom McNamara Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Whoa there… BART’s fine with TransBay and HSR IFFFF that doesn’t constitute a back-door bailout of CalTrain.
Clem Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 3:37 pm
The back-door bailout to San Jose. Or is it the back-door bailout to Berryessa? Either way, I like it, it really trips right off the tongue.
synonymouse Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 7:20 pm
Without Ring the Bay BART is pretty much near the end of its imperial expansion. Right now it is the only game in town but if hsr is there to compare the idea of riding a rattletrap BART beer can to Sac would seem pure ghetto.
What BART says for public consumption and what its lobbyists and moles do are two different things altogether.
Peter Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 4:15 pm
I thought BART to SFO already was seen as an abject failure?
Jonathan Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 6:15 pm
not to the local BART True Believers.
Peter Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 4:08 am
Ummm, when did the $6 billion ICS become $20 billion?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 4:31 am
It didn’t, it was referring to the IOS.
Peter Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 11:33 am
The article specifically said “Initial Construction Segment”.
there was a guy on tv today talking about the gas situation and he said that there is no shortage right now and that the US for the first time in history is actually exporting excess gas. But the high prices are due to bidding ( something about when there is a lot of soft market stock activity its followeed by hard market oil and gold activity or something) and also due to the shut down of many refineries.
Thats just what he said.
JJJ Reply:
February 16th, 2012 at 10:12 pm
Yes, the truth is oil isnt at over $100 a barrel due to traditional demand. If all was right, oil would be at $50-$60. Well above the $14 of 15 years ago, but not anywhere near the inflated amount of today.
You guys remember that? When oilt was under $15 a barrel? It feels like yesterday.
But yeah, I do expect a mini-bubble crash within the next year or so, back to the $80 range.
missiondweller Reply:
February 16th, 2012 at 10:30 pm
Its primarily do to easy monetary policy combined with a “risk premium” due to middle east tensions.
Remember, oil is globally priced in USD. Every round of QE devalues the dollar making the same barrel of oil cost more in the devalued currency. You can get more info on the Petro Dollar System here:
http://macrowealthpreservation.blogspot.com/
Alon Levy Reply:
February 16th, 2012 at 10:52 pm
And yet the Euro is currently trading at $1.31, well below the 2008 peak.
missiondweller Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 9:34 am
Keep in mind all major currencies are declining in a race to the bottom. Both the EU, Britain & Japan are increasing liquidity. The Euro program is less obvious, they do not call it Quantitative Easing since the ECB’s mandate is “price stability”. They’re just sneaky about it.
Randy Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 10:35 am
ALL major currencies aren’t declining (They trade relative to each other.) IF they were ALL declining it would mean there is high general inflation — which is clearly not the case. Oil is the exception that is rising in price, while inflation has been very low due to the recession.
Tom McNamara Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 2:48 pm
Currencies of major importers like the EU and US are in decline. Nations that export a lot, like Austrlia and Canada are holding firm. And then there’s good ol’ China which artificially keeps its currency low to support exports.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 3:26 pm
In the not-so-long-at-all term, all currencies are in a rapid race to the bottom against the one that matters: liquid hydrocarbon fuels.
Jonathan Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 6:21 pm
Economists, as a a rule, are fools and frauds. Not only do they not understand the Second lLw of Thermodynamics; they haven’t even gotten as far as a conservation law. Economists think the markit wi “substitute” as a commodity gets more expensive. They literally do not understand that there is no such thing as a substitute for high energy-density, low-entropy fuels.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 6:33 pm
Sure there are. there’s no substitute for cheap fossil fuel. There’s decades old technology for making all sorts of synthetic hydrocarbon fuels. If you are really desperate you could use electricity and air to make it.
Nathanael Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 8:08 pm
Some friends of mine have a design for energy storage with extremely high energy density.
The difference is that it doesn’t come spurting out of the ground. Yes, people will switch to substitutes — they just won’t be CHEAP.
Peak oil is really “peak cheap oil”. And once oil is expensive, people will switch to something else as fast as they can. The trouble is, switching is a slow and capital-intensive process.
missiondweller Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 10:44 pm
Randy, compare all those currencies, whos countries are printing like crazy to the price of gold, which has not changed. Gold doesn’t change. Its merely repriced in cheaper currencies.
Going back to my original post, oil is being repriced in cheaper dollars.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 9:07 pm
Gold does too change, relative to the prices of other goods and services. Commodities are increasing (more demand from rapidly industrializing developing countries); other goods and services are not. The trajectory of gold in the last, say, 30 years has been of rapid swings, with booms and busts, very different from the persistent but low level of general inflation in developed countries.
missiondweller Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 6:16 pm
And gold hasn’t gone up?
Nathanael Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 9:02 pm
Gold’s a bubble.
Historically, gold rises in price on *economic uncertainty* — it’s a *leading indicator* of trouble. Once trouble really settles in, gold crashes.
The run-up in gold indicates that we haven’t seen the worst yet. :-)
joe Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 6:35 am
This is the time when oil and gasoline prices climb.
Data showing a modest drop in unemployment in the US which coupled with stimulus in an election year and seasonal summer use all add to demand.
Projections for global oil production show a long term decline, so the incentive to add refinery capacity is low.
I don’t see monetary policy shifting Oil – the Euro is mixed, the yen increasing.
missiondweller Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 9:37 am
Yes, but also keep in mind oil would generally be well below $50 when the global economy is performing poorly. Imagine what it would be like if demand wasn’t tanking.
Check out the graph of gas retail deliveries. Its falling off a cliff:
http://truthingold.blogspot.com/2012/02/economy-thats-gone-off-cliff.html
Alon Levy Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 6:53 pm
I’ve heard reports of some exotic places in the Far East where they have 10% GDP growth per year and import more oil than before. Has anyone else heard these rumors?
Jonathan Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 6:59 pm
Aren’t those the same rumour-mongers who say the US should clamp down on illegal export subsides and excnage-rate manipulation from aforesaid rumoured exotic places?
Alon Levy Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 9:12 pm
Yeah, those.
But if international trade law hadn’t been written by Americans and Europeans, the defense contractor welfare given to Boeing and Lockheed Martin and the farm subsidies and price floors would’ve been long deemed illegal. While complaining about Chinese currency manipulation and tariffs in a variety of developing countries, the US and EU force many countries to sign unequal trade agreements, which do nothing to restrain rich-country subsidies but then force poor countries to pay full price for patents. (The US didn’t even respect or enforce foreign patents until the beginning of the 20th century.)
missiondweller Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 10:46 pm
Excellent point. Aggregate demand is increasing globally even as its declining in the US.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 7:28 am
An economic page that’s interesting in general; today, we are looking at gas prices:
http://bonddad.blogspot.com/2012/02/weekly-indicators-oil-choke-collar-re.html
Nathanael Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 8:10 pm
Good analysis. Bonddad isn’t always right, but he’s one of many people who have figured out the “oil choke collar” phenomenon. The winners in this situation will be the places which get off of oil as quickly as possible, the ones who are ahead of the curve.
Peter Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 4:09 am
They haven’t become a net gas exporter yet, but are expected to do so in the next two years or so.
Peter Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 5:05 am
I’m talking natural gas, not gasoline.
missiondweller Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 9:40 am
I think he means nat gas. We’re swimming in the stuff its so cheap. The result of new fracking technology.
VBobier Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 5:16 pm
Which has been known to make drinking water from water wells undrinkable…
Jonathan Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 6:26 pm
Who’d ever image it? Flammable water!
VBobier Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 6:32 pm
Yeah, I never thought I’d ever hear of flammable H2O, but…
We must be living in interesting times…
D. P. Lubic Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 4:46 am
The real truth:
http://getenergysmartnow.com/2012/01/30/the-murdoch-energy-lie-that-went-around-the-world/
Very disappointing, even by the standards of the Wall Street Journal as run by Murcoch.
How can someone run something into the ground so badly as Murcoch seems to do and get away with it?
Well, one positive aspect of higher prices (which are expected to be $1 higher by June) is that Californians wil be reminded why they voted for HSR in the first place.
Let’s see the next time someone wants to argue you can fly from SFO to LAX on SW for $40.
joe Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 7:18 am
Central Valley is on a roll, Kings Co. in particular. Cue JimSF.
So much for statewide sympathy over big bad HSR picking on the poor little Kings Co. farmers.
“Give us your water and F you on HSR.”
Wikipedia tells me the largest economic employer in Kings Co. is not farming, it is government. Co. State and Fed jobs which pay more than farming jobs.
jimsf Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 8:39 am
I didn’t need to read that before I’ve had my coffee. Over my and millions of other northern californian’s dead bodies will corporate southern san joaquin valley corporate farms get that water. Y0u’re going to have a coalition of Sacramento Valley and delta farmers, and environmentalists put a stop to this.
Maybe someone should remind southern san joquin valley farmers that once HSR comes through and their corporate farms are paved over with tract homes, they won’t need to worry about watering their crops.
Quit planting cotton in the desert.
jimsf Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 8:42 am
oh and sportsman. sac valley farmers, delta farmers, environmentalists, and outdoorspeople. and they have guns. more guns than corporate farmers have.
I can’t wait to watch this fight.
joe Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 9:42 am
SFGATE article also says CV Republicans and Costa blame locally high CV unemployed on water “shortages”.
Wow.
CA must stop HSR to protect Kings Co. farm land and CA must transfer water rights so Kings Co agr-business farmers can farm that valuable land with subsidized water.
I think we have found the “South Carolina” of CA. If we refuse, they’ll probably secede.
synonymouse Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 11:20 am
Sending water to San Joaquin farmers is just a front for an LA water grab, the real intended benefactor.
Rising petroleum prices will increase costs of all transport modes. And LA demands a costly extra 50 route miles at Tehachapi.
All that a spike in gasoline prices will accomplish is the Keystone Pipeline, which Barack will approve before the election.
I’d love to see California broken up into less corrupt pieces. But LA will never let that happen.
Tom McNamara Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 8:21 am
You are contradicting yourself. What exactly does the City of LA get out of pumping more water south? Sure there are the “Chandlers”, Stewart Resnik, Don Brem, Eli Broad and the like but they don’t represent L.A.
Not just because they aren’t building within L.A. proper, but because the City is not exactly full of young white families working for Hughes Aircraft anymore. The density and diversity of today’s Los Angeles actually favors less sprawl and water/land grabs. But because the political landscape is so fractured between hundreds of cities and five counties, the mice always play.
Tejon, meanwhile, may get built someday. But it just doesn’t make sense to build something that forecloses connections to Las Vegas and the High Desert so quickly when you also know it will not be any more technically challenging to go through Tehachcapi.
synonymouse Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 11:06 am
Sin City is dead in the water. (except there’s very little in the way of water there) The only that is keeping it going is a California state government that is on the take from the likes of Adelsona nd Wynn and refuses to outright legalize.
Peter Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 11:39 am
If by “dead in the water” you mean over 200,000 convention visitors in April alone, then yes, I guess it’s dead in the water.
You seem to be in denial that Las Vegas offers more than gambling. It’s a MAJOR convention city.
Peter Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 11:40 am
Sorry, I meant March.
synonymouse Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 11:59 am
And virtually all this business can be easily poached in short order by, say, Anaheim, if they build similar to LV, with of course across the board legal casinos. All that is stopping it are some nannies and crooked pols.
Peter Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Nothing has prevented Anaheim or any other city from poaching such business, but none of them have. Nothing is “stopping it”. *shrug*
Peter Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 12:03 pm
Your argument is like saying “You might get shot/die in a car accident/be struck by a meteorite tomorrow, therefore you shouldn’t continue planning for your future”.
synonymouse Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 12:12 pm
You’re overlooking the obvious. Slot machines are like free money and are subsidizing every aspect of the Sin City phenomenon. Not having slots is what’s “preventing” places like Anaheim from competing with LV. Rectify that and the poaching will take place like overnite. Believe it -Adelson and Wynn are perfectly well aware of this.
Peter Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Oh right, I forgot that you’re still hung up on slot machines not being available in Rohnert Park, was it?
synonymouse Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Have you ever been to Vegas? Or better, read Casino Players’ chart of the breakdown of casino profits, and especially the ratio of slots to table games take.
Take away slots and the convention center thing would implode, like an aging casino.
Peter Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Yes, no, no, and no.
Peter Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Btw, has SMART begun construction near your house yet? I know you’re excited to ride it…
synonymouse Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 12:25 pm
“Over my and millions of other northern californian’s dead bodies will corporate southern san joaquin valley corporate farms get that water”
Well, its final destination will be LA, not corporate farms. If the “farmers” sell off their land for tracts of course they will sell off their water rights. That is if LA doesn’t just outright steal it.
The grotesque power play at Tejon shows how it goes down. Mega-Meg has always favored it and you can see that Brown is now under Villaraigosa’s Rasputin-like influence. I guess Mega-Meg must be under the delusion that LA could not touch Hetch-Hetchy. Think again.
Peter Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Meg lost. Why is she even relevant to you anymore?
Nathanael Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 8:13 pm
No, the destination is corporate farms.
My fiancee grew up in Bakersfield. She understands the psychology of the area better than you do.
David Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 9:38 am
And so it begins….
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19980565
J. Wong Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 10:53 am
Airline fares rising including everyone’s discount airline Southwest. And you don’t want HSR why?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 3:28 pm
Because I’d rather fund the UC system or child nutrition programs or aggressive building energy efficiency retrofits or …
HSR: Nice to have, but not at any price. And certainly not just to make frequent fliers’ travels cheaper.
joe Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 7:12 pm
The game where we pit HSR vs selected domestic spending is another strawman.
We can run budget deficits for war profiteering but once rail is involved, its money fromgranny’s meds and foster kids lunches and tuition.
Clem Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 7:23 pm
At the state level, it’s true since the state must balance its budget.
joe Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 9:44 pm
We can raise revenue at the state level – in fact we did.
Tom McNamara Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 7:46 am
Owww! Ears burning!!!
States do not have to balance their budgets. Instead, in most states is entirely feasible to approve a budget that does not appropriate more than revenues for any given fiscal year. However, if there’s a deficit, it’s not clear that a state can’t just tack that on to next year’s budget instead of cutting spending in the near term. And then if you are like California you buy debt for so cheap bond rates become more important than anything else…
Finance (both public and private) is about PRIORITIES, not Sarbanes-Oxley or Basel III. Accounting is the language, but politics is the formula of public funding.
synonymouse Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 7:30 pm
Complexes are complexes, whether they be military-industrial or consultant-contractor-labor.
joe Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 9:45 pm
You sir have a BART complex.
Tom McNamara Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 8:10 am
You do realize, of course, that the UC system would not exist if not for active lobbying and support of the Southern Pacific and the “steelz-wheelz transit Mafia”?
The thing with your statement is that I respect your priorities, but I also know that issues like childhood nutrition and energy retrofits are never going to be the tide that lifts all boats in this country. The Obama Administration factored both of those programs heavily into the “Stimulus” and wound up with a public frustrated about the pace of success and their value.
On paper, his reforms for SNAP and the State Weatherization program were the stuff wonks dream of. He had every liberal staffer wetting themselves and then… PBBBFT! No glorious victory, no sudden economic recovery, no parade along the Appian Way. No politician gets credit for managerial leadership, only political leadership.
Thus, although I don’t disagree with a “swords to plowshares” mentality, it’s important to note that the debate is never going to be HSR versus SNAP. It’s HSR versus another decade (or more in Iraq), it’s HSR versus Keystone XL, it’s HSR versus fracking. It’s HSR versus more income inequality, fewer employee protections, and less retirement.
Still, we’re no angels. To paraphrase Garth Algar, “[consultants are] nobody’s friend. If [they were] an ice cream flavor, [they] would be pralines and dick.” Nevertheless, if you asked me to choose between spending $3 Trillion on farm subsides, greenfield BART extensions, football stadia, and covering up naked alabaster breasts or our current attempt to replicate the Congo Free State in the Middle East…guess which one I am going to choose?
Jonathan Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 10:00 am
“None of the above.” Oh wait, you’re a BART-fan.
Nathanael Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 8:16 pm
The Weatherization program’s been great!…
…but the program was WAY too small. You could have multiplied the number of homes covered by a factor of *100* and not covered all the homes which needed it.
I have money so I paid for my weatherization myself. The payback is MASSIVE. If you do full-scale super-insulation (which is quite involved) you can cut your heating needs by 80%. I didn’t actually go that far.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 9:18 pm
No, it’s actually the exact opposite. HSR is nice to have, benefiting its users and their direct associates but not others. But retrofitting older buildings to be more energy-efficient makes a big dent in a large source of emissions, and employs labor-intensive construction everywhere, not just where lines can be built. And childhood nutrition programs may not benefit you directly, but then again it doesn’t really benefit the Kochs and Bushes directly for the government to protect your rights instead of seize your property and enslave you to work in the mines.
The reason the stimulus has fizzled is that it was too small. The content matters a lot less, except that infrastructure has a somewhat lower multiplier than direct benefits to the poor and unemployed.
I’m not sold on gas prices being a significant factor in why people switch to other modes.
Yes, if there is a spike. But, switch seems short lived. People will return to old pattern.
For non-spikes… People adjust. …at least up and until the $5.00 price point.
Bigger factor… Parking availability and cost.
Tom McNamara Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 2:54 pm
NIMBY Menlo Park officials compared to Mafia shakedown.
PAMPA shake down.
HSR needs to build a free trench, fix schools and let PAMPA cities put a toll both for trains – no need to worry they’ll use FasTrak.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 7:57 am
And your alternative, other than rescinding Prop 13, would be what precisely?
(The alternative in SF would be to just have Zuckerberg toss off trivial four-figure amounts to local “electeds” and have them do away with all those pesky taxes. Works every time!)
joe Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 9:28 am
If I lived in MP, I’d support the downtown revitalization project. See the bolded above – sales tax.
My friends who are long time MP residents complain city policies encourage them to shop and dine in neighboring cities. The city relies too much on income from green lighting residential development on previously commerical property and allow infill along the Caltrain ROW. MP will complain about traffic and extorted 3.5 traffic mitigation for Stanford’s Hospital expansion and then allow traffic to impact the city without you know, mitigating it.
BTW, Fascinating that you know there isn’t any below the table or conflict of interest between FB and MP officials.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 11:42 am
Fascinating that you’re so well informed about what I know.
joe Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Fascinating that you are so fascinatingly sensitive.
Jerry Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 4:22 pm
This entire blog is fascinating.
Haven’t paid attention to gas price since I purchased the all-electric Nissan Leaf last year. It’s a great feeling knowing that I pay local utility (with >50% CO2-free power mix) to fill up instead of the likes of XOM, BP, and RDS. My XLE is doing great, however.
Now if only I can go all-electric when I go down to LA…
The excuse of rising oil prices has been used in the past by HSR proponents to justify the investment in HSR, however it doesn’t appear to be a valid justification.
First of all we are not sure if those rising prices will be enough to convince people to leave their cars at home and take the high speed train instead. Gas prices in Europe are slowly approaching the 2 Euro/Liter mark (in part due to increases in gas tax to stave off the debt crisis) and yet roads are still congested while high speed trains are still not full. I was there for an extended period last summer, occasionally traveling by HST, and I rarely saw trains more than 60% full.
Second of all, we should consider that improvements in technology in response to rising gas prices will likely cause cars to use less and less gas. We already have vehicles that are much more fuel efficient than just a couple of decades ago, some even using hybrid or fully electric technology. As that technology improves, people may not care as much about gas prices and still opt for the flexibility of a personal vehicle, rather than an expensive high speed train, especially for trips under 3 hours. Let’s face it. It would be rare for most to have their final destination near the station. In most cases, people would still have to rent a car once at the HST station in LA or Fresno or SJ, and drive to the final destination, therefore negating most of the time savings for trips under 200 miles. Our American cities, unfortunately, are not as densely compact as their European or Asian counterparts, where the station is often within 30 min. from any destination.
If we make a cost benefit analysis of this project, I’m sure we would come up with the conclusion that this money would be better spent for metropolitan/commuting transportation systems, which would probably have an even greater effect on traffic abatement in our congested cities.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 11:27 pm
And you work for an airline?
YesonHSR Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 11:29 pm
AND when you get to that airport you still need to rent a car…
peninsula Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 2:43 pm
As will you when you get to the HSR station…
Peter Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Some will, but you’re a lot more likely to have excellent access to public transit if you’re dropped off at a downtown HSR station than at an airport.
Paul Dyson Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 9:27 am
Quite right. Too grounded in common sense and based on actual observation for the fanatics who post here. Let’s build for the journeys that people make every day.
Jonathan Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 10:02 am
Absolutely, let’s do that . Oh wait. Do you mean you want to steal funds allocated to HSR to do that?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 9:42 am
Let’s face it. It would be rare for most to have their final destination near the station. In most cases, people would still have to rent a car once at the HST station in LA or Fresno or SJ, and drive to the final destination, therefore negating most of the time savings for trips under 200 miles.
Or they could have their friends or relatives pick them up. Or walk the few steps to the cab stand and take a cab. Or they will be going to San Francisco or Los Angeles where there are buses and streetcars and even subways.
Nathanael Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 8:25 pm
Trains are rarely more than 60% full — 60% full is plenty for a train *on average*.
Think about this carefully. Trains stop at many stops. If a train stops at points A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, then if it fills up between C and D, it cannot sell any more tickets from A to G.
Trains also have to run on schedules, and frequent, reliable schedules, in order to be attractive. This means running the 11PM train even though it’s never full, because its existence attracts people who would otherwise not have taken the morning train either. So only one train in the course of a day is likely to actually fill up even on the peak segment.
The same applies year-round, though there’s more ability to add “extra trains” during busy times of year.
What my point is is this: a consistent 60% full on a random segment of a random journey is just fine for a train and indicates that lots of people are taking trains. If it were 25%, you might want to worry.
Nathanael Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 8:27 pm
Cost-benefit analysis would show that we should spend money on Medicare for All before spending money on HSR, and spend money on HSR before spending money on the Interstate Highway System. (And spend money on the Interstate Highway System before spending money on the Department of Defense.)
So what’s your point? HSR is NOT in conflict with metropolitan rail; they are complementary and do not compete for funding. HSR IS in conflict with the Interstate Highway System, competing for funding in fact — and given that choice, HSR is the obvious choice.
in related news about big oil and climate change. the blogsite desmogblog.com has published leaked documents from the heartland institute showing how wealthy corporations and individuals have supported the climate change denial industry which is what the heartland institute does. Not surprisingly the Koch family is on the list. go here to read the details:
http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-insider-exposes-institute-s-budget-and-strategy
D. P. Lubic Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 6:28 pm
Some follow-up on this from “Energy Smart:”
Climate scientists are sympathetic to Heartland Institute, which had confidential information smuggled out; these are some of the scientists who had their mail hacked. Real sympathy–or alligator tears? If the latter, I don’t blame them:
http://getenergysmartnow.com/2012/02/17/climate-scientist-empathy-for-climate-denier-heartland-institutes-travails/
Genuine conservatives are upset with Heartland–but they may be a minority in their own party:
http://getenergysmartnow.com/2012/02/18/heartland-republicans-call-for-heartland-investigation/
Other comments:
http://getenergysmartnow.com/2012/02/18/does-americas-heartland-really-support-the-extreme-right%E2%80%99s-war-on-k-12-climate-and-environmental-education/
D. P. Lubic Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 6:30 pm
One other item, actually the oldest of the lot:
http://getenergysmartnow.com/2012/02/15/breaking-heartless-news-for-valentines-day-dissuading-teachers-from-teaching-science/
Hmm, the people who really use the climate are onto something:
http://getenergysmartnow.com/2012/02/03/gardeners-know-america-is-warming/
put the rich in their place. In the Chopped baskets, entree round.
synonymouse Reply:
February 17th, 2012 at 7:48 pm
Actually to the rich we are the chopped liver.
But even they do have to pay the piper from time to time. I wonder what kind of quid pro quo Jerry demanded of the Tejon tycoons to agree to a no-rail embargo on their lands. The marker will doubtless be claimed when the time is right. I guess we’ll never know the greasy details.
And the rich do enjoy spreading around their dough. Sheldon Adelson is ponying up more big bucks for the Grinch. I think he knows something and is a pretty savvy gambler.
And Romney has hired the same campaign hatchet men who did the dirty trix on John Kerry. There will be blood.
Nathanael Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 8:29 pm
Regarding Tejon, think water. Water is the key issue for California.
An additional point that’s often made, is we should be building infrastructure for the post-fossil-fuel age now, while we still have access to relatively cheap fossil fuels and other resources to build it with, and while our economy can still generate the surpluses necessary for large-scale public works. It’s going to be much harder to do these things with windmill power and stuff recycled from garbage dumps.
A national electrified rail system, similar in scope to the interstate highway system, is something that will be useful when the oil runs out, and is something we know how to build now and can use now. We certainly should not be building things that will become uneconomic as fossil fuels become more expensive.
Nathanael Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
Absolutely right. Unfortunately, the US seems quite unable to do the sensible thing.
Governor Brown says high speed rail is not just better than the alternative but a hell of a lot better than the alternative.
synonymouse Reply:
February 18th, 2012 at 11:24 am
Actually California will build an hsr that is a hell of a lot worse than that of other countries. If there is anything peculiar to the Golden State it is that it has more money than most and it is given to gratuitous stupidity. And you can be sure that the more PB and government functionaries are involved in building it the more mediocre and dysfunctional the result.
But there is an upside to this. Much as was the experience with the BART proprietary fiasco, the rest of the country will see in the CHSRA how to do most everything wrong. Places like Florida will benefit from holding off as they will be see right in front of their faces exactly what not to do.
My take is that the residual Bechtelians will do everything to sabotage hsr that they can achieve – in other words to make it like BART to the worst possible extent. In other words to Brutalize hsr so as to protect BART from an unfavorable comparison, which would undermine its manifest destiny. Brutalism is the quintessence of the ugly and the antithesis of the appealing. So the goal will be to make the trainsets so disappointing the so-called Acela “pigs” will look like gazelles by comparison. This will not be easy, especially if there are experienced foreigners or private entrepreneurs involved so the plan will be “customize” the cars so they can be really trashed down. If they could only make them look like BART cars, but the beer cans are so structurally deficient they could not even support pantographs. But how about scads of that raw unpainted aluminum?
But the most effect way to protect BART is to simply bottle up hsr at San Jose. That would not please the cheerleaders but then corruption, fixing and influence peddling is a double-edged sword. You win Palmdale but lose SF.