Tell Steve Lopez: HSR Is No Boondoggle
You can tell a lot about the inherent biases and assumptions of the state’s media by their opinion columnists. Most of them are deeply conservative people. I don’t mean that in an ideological sense, but in an attitudinal sense. They are usually not interested at all in change, and instead look on it skeptically. This could just be a reflection of the decision by most of California’s news outlets to pursue a very narrow slice of the available demographic – seeking hits and subscriptions from that band of people between about age 45 and 65 who are the most defensive about the 20th century way of life, the least willing to accept the need to evolve and change.
The LA Times’ Steve Lopez, whose columns I enjoy, sometimes falls into this camp. His column today, Should California bite the bullet on high speed rail?, suffers from the problems of an assumed conservatism and a lack of background on the issue. Lopez’s primary error is ignoring the evidence from both the ridership studies and from around the world showing that California high speed rail will generate high ridership. By instead assuming that it’s doubtful that the train will attract riders, Lopez suffuses his entire approach to the issue with a skepticism that is unwarranted by the evidence:
But when I spoke to rail passengers at Union Station on Monday night, and to air travelers at Burbank on Tuesday morning, I got roughly the same amount of support for high-speed rail as I did criticism of the project. This mirrored my own thinking. I like the concept. I just don’t know if it’s a realistic or even sane idea at the moment, despite Gov. Jerry Brown’s recent cheerleading efforts….
“That much money is obscene,” said Kevin Lundby, a human resources manager who was waiting for a train to get him home to Santa Clarita.
But “if it can support itself” (that’s a very big if), and “if it creates jobs” (which it certainly will, despite disagreements over how many), he’d be willing to at least try taking the train.
In fact, it is NOT a “very big if” whether the train can support itself. It’s actually highly likely that it will be able to do so. It’s not like California is proposing to do something radical and untested. We’ve known for 50 years that high speed rail works. And it turns a profit – in Japan and France, Spain, Russia, Taiwan, even the Amtrak Acela. And California compares favorably to those globally successful routes. In most of these cases, riders have flocked to HSR from planes – including the Acela.
Many HSR critics and opponents are motivated by their belief that nobody will ride trains in California. Those arguments are completely baseless, fly in the face of the available evidence, and should simply not be taken seriously. Amtrak California is setting ridership records. Remember that the independent peer review found the HSR ridership numbers to be sound.
Lopez doesn’t appear to be aware of any of this. I’m guessing he’s only been reading Ralph Vartabedian’s biased and flawed reporting on the project. But if Lopez is serious about getting more public feedback on the project – as he suggests in his column – then he’s going to have to confront these facts that directly challenge his preconceptions.
Lopez also fails to ask what the cost of not building HSR would be. It’s at least the same as the possible $100 billion cost of HSR, is perhaps as high as $170 billion, and that’s before you include the cost of maintenance, of oil, and of lost economic activity because of the rising cost of oil. Lopez quotes someone from Lompoc who actually points out the cost of oil, but it’s tacked on at the end:
Parks, who was on her way to her best friend’s funeral in Omaha, said she thinks our gluttonous oil dependence should be a strong consideration. There’s been much difference of opinion as to how environmentally friendly high-speed electric rail will be versus air travel or auto travel — all vehicles might be electric in 20 years — but Parks’ point goes beyond that. She’s concerned about diminishing supplies of fossil fuel, and the many costs of going after it.
“Someday, we’re going to have to face this,” she said.
Lopez also needs to think through the electric vehicle issue. If the state’s population keeps growing, then even if you somehow convert the entire private automobile fleet to electric vehicles you still have to face the costs of widening freeways to accommodate those vehicles.
Even then, are people going to want to drive? Lopez seems to still be in a 20th century mindset, where driving is seen as the most flexible way to travel. That’s no longer true in the 21st century, since time spent behind the wheel is time spent away from one’s digital device. The great shift away from driving has been under way for some time now. Driving is inconvenient in the age of the iPad and the Blackberry. So too is flying, for that matter. But a high speed train allows you to stay online and connected through the duration of your trip. That’s a big advantage.
At the very end of his column, Lopez invited readers to email him your thoughts on high speed rail. I’ve emailed this post to him. I hope you’ll also share your thoughts – nicely, of course – as to why high speed rail is a very good and a very important thing for California.
Why do newspapers allow people who don’t understand inflation to write about financial topics?
joe Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 7:03 am
It’s cheaper than hiring financial experts who write freely on their blogs and appear on CNBC.
Also, a journalist or columnist must strike a neutral, balanced posirtion between difficult issues, such as the flat Earth vs. round Earth controversy.
VBobier Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:15 am
Problem is Journalists these days are not neutral, they are Biased & so do not have open minds, rather closed & prejudiced minds, the part about them that’s neutral is that their in neutral.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 12:18 pm
If you think that the MSM (with the obvious exception of Murdoch owned properties) is biased conservative, you’ve got a wee bit of delusion going on.
joe Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 7:10 pm
The Establishment Media is quite conservative.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 8:12 pm
I’ve commented on this before, but my big complaint is that too often, reporters don’t know the subject matter well enough to properly describe it, much less understand it. That includes the potential costs of not building this high speed rail line, the true costs of the current road system, and possibly the air system.
Sobering Reality Reply:
February 3rd, 2012 at 3:33 pm
This^
However, cost inflation or not, when this is built out it will cost $100 billion or more in todays dollars when you consider cost overruns and the addition of the Sacramento and San Diego legs.
Nathanael Reply:
February 4th, 2012 at 3:30 pm
No, it won’t. Again, you’re making shit up. The current estimate is $65 billion in today’s dollars, and that’s got a LOT of room for cost overruns in it (look up “contingency”).
Nathanael Reply:
February 4th, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Uh, if you don’t think the MSM is biased (politically) conservative, you haven’t been paying attention.
It’s biased conservative in a *very particular way*, however: it’s biased, as joe said, towards “he said she said” reporting. Given that the “conservative” viewpoint is usually stark raving lunacy, easily verifiable as being full of shit, while the “liberal” viewpoint is usually something moderate and plausible, this *does* constitute a “conservative” bias. (The actual raving lefties are never allowed in for balance.)
Of course, politically “conservative” bears no relationship to the dictionary definition of conservative.
Nathanael Reply:
February 4th, 2012 at 3:31 pm
“Why do newspapers allow people who don’t understand inflation to write about financial topics?”
Because newspapers are run by idiots. The publishers got used to having monopolies and got lazy; they figured they didn’t need competent reporting in order to sell papers or ads.
They have not adjusted to the existence of competition, in the form of the Internet (blogs for news, Craigslist for ads). Newspaper is good for fishwrap.
Nathanael Reply:
February 4th, 2012 at 3:32 pm
Oh, and for washing windows.
RE: Electric vehicles
In 20 years, we wont even have 100% of new vehicles being electric, never mind the entire fleet. Remember, the average age of a car is 11 years.
Hybrid cars were introduced in the USA 12 years ago.
Hybrid cars now make up 2% of new vehicle sales.
Anyone who thinks 100% of new car sales will be electric in 20 years is off their rocket.
Maybe 50%, at best.
ben bethel Reply:
February 1st, 2012 at 10:24 pm
I wouldn’t say 100%, but I bet it’ll be around 80%. With battery prices dropping like a rock (70% by 2015), and more charging stations than gas stations planned by the end of next year, and every electric outlet being a charging station, and no oil changes, and brakes that last almost forever (due to regenerative braking), and lower registration costs, and lower operating costs, and vehicle leases of $169-199/mo projected for the Leaf and Volt, and much faster cars than gas equivalents, and home-based solar allowing for free charging also dropping in price, etc., etc., etc. it just seems obvious that an electric vehicle will be much cheaper, much faster, much more convenient than any gas car, and very soon. Remember when people said “hybrid – hah – who’s going to pay the premium for those ugly things… then the Prius started getting cheaper, to where you still see leases of $149-249/mo around the country, and from what I can tell it is a pretty popular car… not for the looks, not for the speed, but for the fact that people can spend less on foreign war-supporting gas (I swallowed my pride and went from a 10mpg car to a 50mpg Prius), which means they can spend more money on local restaurants, shops, cafes, services, etc…
JJJ Reply:
February 1st, 2012 at 11:37 pm
“Remember when people said “hybrid – hah – who’s going to pay the premium for those ugly things… then the Prius started getting cheaper, to where you still see leases of $149-249/mo around the country, and from what I can tell it is a pretty popular car”
Except its actually not. Again, hybrids hit the market 12 years ago.
Today, every month, the giant Ford F150 outsells every hybrid vehicle on the market….combined. Throw in CNG and electric cars as well. Combined, still less sales than just one gas pickup truck. I believe if you throw in all the diesels as well, the F150 still outsells them all combined.
And heres what a pro-EV source predicts sales will be in 5 years. I cant find any real prediction for 20 years
“Still, even by 2017, Pike Research’s report, “Electric Vehicle Market Forecasts,” calls for pure electric cars to represent a mere 0.8% of the U.S. market, while plug-in hybrids will account for 1.2%. (At that point, gas-powered hybrids will make up 3.1%, according to Pike.)”
http://www.plugincars.com/polk-research-forecasts-1-million-plug-electric-cars-2016-107652.html
Thats optimistic because they suggest electric sales will be 2% in 7 years, faster than hybrid (took 12 years tor each 2%)
And by the time HSR opens (what we’re talking about!) the average vehicle will actually be from 2017.
joe Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 7:09 am
J^3
“The average age of a vehicle on US roads in 2011 was 10.8 years, an all-time high.” USATODAY.
Electric vehicles take up space and therefore congest just as easily as gasoline cars.
I bet on a typically warm CA day they also run an A/C and drain the battery pretty quickly so the gasoline engine runs to power the A/C.
I know, the next step is self driving hybrid and electric cars.
Peter Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:20 am
We sold our Honda Civic Hybrid when we moved out of the country. We’re not going to buy another hybrid when we move back next year. Too expensive for too little increase in fuel efficiency. Better to buy something like the Chevy Cruze Eco.
StevieB Reply:
February 1st, 2012 at 11:48 pm
Nissan is proudly proclaiming plans to open a plant in Tennessee this year to build 150,000 electric Leaf vehicles. The Chevy Volt sold under 10,000 last year and may ramp up to 3 times that by 2015. Meanwhile GM and Ford each said they expect auto sales to reach at least 13.5 million vehicles in 2012. Electric vehicle sales will be a drop in the bucket of total automobiles for more years than you expect.
jimsf Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 11:18 am
IVe yet to see a hybrid since I moved to the valley. I only ever say them in SF. EVen in SF they were far from common.
joe Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 2:52 pm
Prius are everywhere in Santa Clara Co. They provided carpool lane access until Jul 2011. Plug-in Prius will have car pool access and is out this spring.
wu ming Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 6:43 pm
there are tons of them in davis and sac, i see them on 80 interspersed between the big-assed SUVs all the time.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 6:51 pm
Sorry, but Davis is a strategic isolated outpost of the Greater San Francisco Co-Prosperity Sphere and doesn’t count as Central Valley.
blankslate Reply:
February 3rd, 2012 at 10:46 am
Did you miss the words “and sac”?
VBobier Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 5:25 pm
Not everyone will have even a new vehicle, let alone an electric one, Me I’m currently not allowed to save up more than $2,000.00 and this hasn’t been changed in Federal Law since 1989, Riding a bus to get food out here is out, as there is nowhere to sit down at, outside of the ground and I can’t stand for very long, plus getting up would be very hard on My Joints and I already have a damaged right knee that needs to be fixed, yet hasn’t been as I’m too far away and cause I get Medi-Cal and SSI as I’m disabled, plus the bus only allows 4 bags per trip and they want exact change too, no debit/credit cards are allowed at all. So I can only maintain the car that I have now and that’s it.
Nathanael Reply:
February 4th, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Yep. People, read what VBobier wrote.
There are going to be more and more people who simply cannot afford a new car. (I mean, yes, this could be changed if we taxed the rich very heavily and transferred the money to the poor, but right now the rich are taxed at LOWER rates than the poor, so don’t hold your breath for that.)
I think it is possible that 100% of new car sales will be electric in 20 years… but only if the total number of new car sales has catastrophically collapsed. Electrics will take over the high-end market, so the question is if there will even *be* a low-end market for new cars. There may not be.
Nathanael Reply:
February 4th, 2012 at 3:35 pm
I doubt that the number of new car sales will catastrophically collapse, but here’s the scenario for it:
(1) Continued impoverishment of the population by policies designed to benefit the 0.1% at the expense of everyone else
(2) Repeated massive gas price spikes, such as we saw in 2008
Combined, people will decide that gas cars are unaffordable luxuries, *particularly* new ones (which lose half their value when you buy them). I don’t actually think there will be enough of either effect (1) or effect (2) to destroy the new car market, but there *could* be — both effects are ongoing and the size of the effects is unclear.
Its a disgrace that the US is lagging so far behind the rest of the world in hsr. One trip on the Eurostar and you will see how stupid the anti-hsr crowd arguments are. California lets lead the way for USA and build this important infrastructure project.
It is not going to cost $100 billion and as Gov. Brown suggested, Cap and Trade will pay for it anyway.
morris brown Reply:
February 1st, 2012 at 10:41 pm
@ joemelendrez:
Governor Moonbeam really showing just how little he knows about the project with these statements. He is really grasping at straws by voicing such nonsense. The new word is this “train to nowhere” is The Moonbeam Express.
joe Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 7:12 am
I think The Moonbeam has better insight than a Curmudgeon.
HSR produced pessimistic, conservative estimate in YOE dollars that hit 100B so naturally critics who demand fair-accurate-reasonable estimates take that estimate, roll-eyes and double it.
Brsk Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 7:31 am
Yeah, that idiot Moonbeam! Can you believe he supported high-speed rail in 1982?
Thank God it wasn’t built or it would have been a total failure, like that now abandoned high-speed rail line in France they built at the same time.
/sarcasm
Wake up Morris, HSR will be built. You may be dead before it is be finished, but it will continue to built; the the world will go on with 99.9999% of it not even noticing your gone.
Be a man. Deal with it.
VBobier Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:17 am
Morris? A man? I thought He was a Cat…
this is what I wrote to him:
Steve –
I own a hotel in Phoenix and also have served as a county transportation commissioner, but one of my areas of interest is high speed intercity rail. Just the quick and dirty: perhaps you could point out that a rail line from Phoenix to LAX could make more sense than a SF-LA line…. a few factors: the rail bed is already in place, no new alignments required, just electrification and laying new ties/track for the most part. Railroads in the 1800s were built as quickly as 12 miles per day – although this is a more complicated project, it’s still pretty easy since the right of way is already there. We have the 6th busiest airport in the nation, and the 15th busiest in the world, busier than JFK. There are literally *hundreds* of flights to/from PHX and LA-area airports every day… we need to expand our airport, but that doesn’t mean more gates will be available at LAX… so both airports could reduce demand with rail to make room for much more profitable long-distance transcontinental and international flights.
Not only would these trains transport passengers, but at night they could transport goods – from packages and mail, to chips from our Intel plants and wafers from our wafer production facilities, to produce and dairy from the Imperial Valley, to cargo from the port of Los Angeles to Phoenix, the nation’s 5th largest city. Having fast, affordable means of transport means more tourists – those escaping the rain/riots/mudslides/earthquakes/high taxes/high unemployment/depression of Los Angeles and those visiting the sunshine/happiness/opportunity/natural beauty of Arizona.
For power, we have the world’s largest nuclear generating station, two of the world’s largest hydroelectric facilities, some of the world’s largest natural gas power plants… and are now building the world’s 2nd tallest structure at 2,400 feet (look up Solar Tower on youtube or Enviro Mission on the web – it’s pretty awesome, 70 stories taller than the new Freedom Tower), which was just fully funded three weeks ago, the power to be produced has already been purchased by your great state.
Sorry for the choppy email… just think how we could get people and goods moving back and forth if it only took 2 hours (325 rail miles between Phoenix and Riverside, then connections to SF-LA-SD segment at Riverside station), and only cost $100 RT – check airfares right now and you’ll see PHX-LAX can many times cost $485 – we could fly from PHX to London non-stop for less than PHX-LAX during many days of the year… which just goes to show the demand and compression. When RT flights hit a certain price point, there’s no reason to visit California if it doesn’t make economic sense.
Here’s a quick spreadsheet of the PHX to LA-Area flights – there are 374 flights a day between these two areas and the areas along the way!
https://docs.google.com/a/goclarendon.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArJWFsPyq0cTdFQ3Y2U3emZNekxvVDFDaGticUt2ZlE&hl=en_US#gid=0
Have a great day… remember, cheaper transit between cities = more economic development = more jobs = lower taxes
Sincerely,
Ben Bethel – Owner & GM
The Clarendon Hotel, Phoenix’s Urban Retreat – a member of Genre Hotels
401 West Clarendon Avenue / Phoenix, Arizona 85013
http://www.GoClarendon.com / 602.252.7363
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Clarendon-Hotel/104734861632
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ClarendonHotel
JJJ Reply:
February 1st, 2012 at 11:39 pm
Very, very little freight is time sensitive. Thats why freight trains are so slow, time is not an issue, cost is.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 6:49 pm
That’s how US freight railroads have defined their market.
A great deal of freight is time sensitive. US railroads have elected to carry coal.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 6:54 pm
They are going after intermodal including domestic intermodal which is far more time sensitive however. And to be fair, they couldn’t afford to do so before Staggers when oil prices went up (that killed Denver and Rio Grande’s fast freight for instance; would’ve been interesting if they had gone ahead with their earlier electrification plan).
Nathanael Reply:
February 4th, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Intermodal is the expanding sector of US freight rail. (There’s some temporary expansion of Powder River Basin coal, but that’s just a bubble.) Surely Richard knows this…
Even with having to pay for their own ROW, and even with severe transloading delays, it’s cheaper for UPS/FedEx/Yellow/Roadway to put their truck bodies on trains from NY to Chicago than it is to drive them. To say nothing of the traffic coming off ships.
The intermodal business is interesting and demands some very specific network layouts, which the Class Is are slowly inching towards (they are very chary of large capital investments). Apparently the “sweet spot” is often 50mph, which unfortunately isn’t really quite as fast as we want for good passenger rail.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 6:58 pm
That’s just the market in the US. There’s more coal to be hauled, over longer distances. If the US had the same mixture of goods transported as Europe and same average distances, then its rail freight mode share would be 15% rather than 37%.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 7:50 pm
Rail freight used to handle all sorts of time-sensitive stuff. That included perishables (how many Californians here recall the long, solid trains of refrigerator cars, many loaded with oranges, headed east in Pacific Fruit Express (joint UP-SP subsidiary) and Santa Fe refrigerator cars?), livestock, including cattle and pigs (the animals had to be allowed off the train at certain intervals, otherwise the railroads were fined), and going back into history, the cherry trains in the east, and the famous racing silk trains of a century ago, with their precious cargoes of live silkworms rushed to the east with passenger power? Even later, there was all that LCL (less than carload) freight, and the express and parcels traffic of the Railway Express Agency, which often ran in passenger trains.
What killed all this was a combination of regulated rates, subsidized competition, and higher than average operating costs, well above the premium rates railroads attempted to charge for this service. These higher costs ranged from the fast-running with short trains required to meet the schedules, the requirement for special facilities such as icing docks in the ice-cooled refrigerator car days, and most of all, the heavy labor content that was involved then, which included the men at those icing stations, and especially all the men involved in handling parcels, packages, etc. in the LCL system. There were also the operational disadvantages (and costs) of local freights picking up all those cars from sidings everywhere to be delivered to a central marshaling point where all those cars brought in could be combined in a long train.
How it used to be, with locals feeding the main line trains–”Operation Fast Freight,” a publicity movie from Norfolk & Western from about 1950. Of note is that this railroad was among the last to run in steam, building its own locomotives in a huge shop at Roanoke, Va., until 1953. It did not buy its first diesels until about 1955, and steam was in daily service until 1960. The newest engines would have been just under seven years old at the time–and there are those who thought the engines were retired too soon. . .including me. . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xf9CTEG5hE
A look at freight yard operation on the New York Central in roughly the same time period:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dhQq3oxpgQ&feature=related
These yard operations took time and didn’t directly contribute to revenue, but still had to be paid for. On top of that, all that property had nice real estate taxes on it as well.
Today, railroads rely on containers, and let the truckers do the local work, and also let the public pay for the roads the truckers run on, doing the work the local freight used to do.
EJ Reply:
February 3rd, 2012 at 11:41 am
Coal is 44% of US rail freight tonnage and 21% of revenue. Intermodal revenue exceeds that of coal, and farm produce and food together are 15% of revenue. I mean, these stats aren’t hard to find.
BMF from San Diego Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 6:11 am
What is between LA and Phoenix? Answer, not much.
Derek Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 8:07 am
That’s why construction costs will be so low! Except through Palm Springs.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 8:08 pm
Ben,
Some of the people here can sound a little negative. They feel they are up against the world, and if you’ve been reading the posts for any length of time, you can understand the reasons. Some have been pretty beat up (figuratively speaking) in their experiences trying to make the world a little better.
Don’t let them get you down. We need all the help we can get, and I appreciate your letter, although I also have to admit to wondering if the service is worthwhile over all that desert country west of Phoenix. At the same time, I once suggested that a transcontinental high speed sleeper train would make an interesting thought experiment–20 hours to cross the country in a rolling hotel, roughly the same pre-1930 time as the 20th Century Limited between New York and Chicago, but at more than double the 1930 speed, but still conservative by HSR standards. Obviously not something to build in the first stage, if at all! Still, what might the future hold, especially if oil goes crazy, as some of us think it will do?
Oh, and I like how you are out to make sure your hotel is more fun than the average chain operation. That’s one advantage a good train can have over an airplane!
Sobering Reality Reply:
February 3rd, 2012 at 4:25 pm
Ben,
LAX has more operations, but its because it has a layout that can handle more throughput than JFK. In terms of congestion, complexity and average delay the two aren’t even close.
Your spreadsheet also double lists the number of flights, overstating them by . Airlines use different flight numbers and times on different days. You count those flights as though they operate every day when they don’t – effectively doubling the number of flights
City Pair/Your Chart/Actual:
BUR-PHX31/12
LAX-PHX 59 29
LAX-PSP 13 4
LAX-YUM 6 4
LGB-PHX 7 5
ONT-PHX 27 11
PHX-BUR 27 12
PHX-LAX 57 29
PHX-LGB 5 5
PHX-ONT 26 11
PHX-PSP 7 6
PHX-SNA 26 15
PHX-YUM 9 6
PSP-LAX 17 4
PSP-PHX 7 6
SNA-PHX 35 15
YUM-LAX 6 4
YUM-PHX 8 6
373 184
Sobering Reality Reply:
February 3rd, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Also, while you might get a first class round trip ticket for $485 between LAX and PHX the average fare is far lower at $180 round trip (a complete waste of money). The current lowest published round trip from Phoenix to London is about $800, considerably more than what you suggest.
Robert writes:
I hope you’ll also share your thoughts – nicely, of course – as to why high speed rail is a very good and a very important thing for California.
This Oakland Tribune editorial titled: State auditor is latest critic of
high-speed rail, which is fiscally irresponsible.
gives so many reasons why high-=speed rail, is anything but a very importing thing for California — in fact it should be dead by now, but somehow thus far continues to cling to life.
Link to editorial:
http://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_19871220
Brsk Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 7:41 am
Wow! the same people who opposed Prop 1A… Now still oppose high-speed rail.
Who knew! Stop the press! Full-page headline for the NY Times!:
Anti-rail people are still anti-rail!
They haven’t changed their minds so everyone else must be wrong and agree to unconditional surrender, or else…
Anti-rail people will refuse to stop disagreeing with pro-rail people!
Thanks to your valiant efforts Morris, the world is now informed of this impending continuation of existing disagreements. How would the world continue to function without your crucial efforts on this blog… I cannot imagine!
The Orange Co. Register blasts Gov. Brown and the project in this editorial titled:
Bullet train becoming ‘Moonbeam Express’
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/billion-338231-state-project.html
Ken Orski has just sent to his subscribers the following preface to this editorial:
He writes:
Seldom has public opinion and expert judgment been more unified than in its opposition to the California high-speed rail project. The project has been criticized by its own Peer Review Group, the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), the California State Auditor, the State Treasurer and a group of independent experts (Enthoven, Grindley, Warren et al.). In addition, the bullet train has come under severe criticism by influential state legislators and by members of the state’s congressional delegation. Equally damaging to the project’s future prospects have been two public opinion surveys showing that California voters have turned solidly against the project, and the opposition of virtually all of California’s newspapers, including The Orange County Register, whose latest editorial we reprint below.
Brsk Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 8:10 am
Self-proclaimed expert Ken Orski’s headlines regarding HSR over the last couple of years:
NewsBrief No. 1, January 5, 2011
The Uncertain Future of the High-Speed Rail Program
NewsBrief No. 2, January 12, 2011
Skepticism About High-Speed Rail is Growing
…
NewsBrief No. 4, January 30, 2011
The President’s Unserious Proposal
NewsBrief No. 5, February 8, 2011
A $53 Billion High-Speed Rail Program to Nowhere
NewsBrief No. 6, February 15, 2011
A Few Questions Concerning the President’s FY 2012 Budget Submission on Transportation
NewsBrief No. 7, February 23, 2011
Mainstream Media Opinion Turns Against the High-Speed Rail Program
…
NewsBrief No. 10, March 25, 2011
The End of the Line: The High-Speed Rail Program Has Hit the Buffer of Fiscal Reality
NewsBrief No. 11, April 8, 2011
The Federal Transportation Program and the New Budget Realities
NewsBrief No. 12, April 12, 2011
A Requiem for “High-Speed Rail” : An Editorial Point of View
NewsBrief No. 13, April 25, 2011
Fast Train to Nowhere
NewsBrief No. 14, May 5, 2011
Skepticism Greets US DOT’s Draft Transporattion Bill
NewsBrief No. 15, May 11, 2011
Pragmatic Funding Decisions Mark the Final Round of Rail Grants
NewsBrief No. 16, May 31, 2011
California’s Bullet Train — On the Road to Bankruptcy
…
NewsBrief No. 19, July 18, 2011
Chairman Mica Passes on the Offensive
NewsBrief No. 20, July 25, 2011
The Senate Transportation Bill Lacks Political Momentum
NewsBrief No. 21, August 1, 2011
Bullet Train to Nowhere
…
NewsBrief No.26, September 13, 2011
Obams’s New $50 Billion Infrastructure Stimulus — Old Wine in New Bottles
NewsBrief No. 27, October 3, 2011
For High-Speed Rail It’s the End of the Line
…
NewsBrief No. 31, November 13, 2011
Califormia’s Bullet Train in the Court of Public Opinion
..
NewsBrief No. 33, December 7
The High-Speed Rail Program Under Congressional Scrutiny”
All in all a HSR hater, rail transit hater, and walkable, livability communities hater who has been proclaiming HSR dead since 2010.
Your kind of hater Morris:
http://www.bettertransport.info/pitf/Orski-Livability.htm
http://www.newgeography.com/content/001585-rail-transit-expansion-reconsidered
joe Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:55 am
OC is pissed that in 2011 Gov MoonBeam cut their Bankruptcy entitlement.
Staunchly conservative OC refused to negotiate on taxes and then “dropped the ball” so Brown eliminated their annual 48M bankruptcy entitlement to balance the State budget.
Robert knows the $170 billion has been debunked. Why spread lies?
synonymouse Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 10:35 am
I wonder if the airline industry will alter its position as it grasps that hsr under Caltrans will not be a franchised, but a nationalized, state-run operation with a very militant union on board and very heavily subsidized. Like BART, Caltrans will try to eliminate competition, ie the LA-SF flights, to drive up disappointing passenger counts.
Sobering Reality Reply:
February 3rd, 2012 at 5:10 pm
I’m pretty sure LastGen (I mean NextGen) funding for the next 5 years in the new authorization out of the General Fund vs. Trust Fund is an effort to avoid this. The airlines have spent billions in the last 20 years to equip their aircraft with systems to use in NextGen which was supposed to be available in the mid to late 1990′s only to have the FAA flush $35 billion in Airport and Airway Trust Fund money down the drain between 1982 and 2003 on “NextGen”. With a 2025 timeline for full implementation, the airlines will have purchased and nearly retired two generations of aircraft built with equipment to support NextGen that will never see “NextGen”. This boondoggle may finally be eclipsed by CAHSR.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/120/110488.pdf
But yeah, when the subsidies come on a project constructed with Federal dollars you can bet an equal protection suit will come. The only reason the airlines aren’t suing right now is because of the stipulation of no subsidy. I guess they learned something in Texas when they got creamed by Southwest.
Nathanael Reply:
February 4th, 2012 at 3:15 pm
There’s no merit behind an “equal protection suit” — there is no constitutional right to profit.
Of course, it’s anyone’s guess what the R.A.T.S. running the Supreme Court would rule, but if they make rulings like that of the Taney court, those rulings won’t stick.
Emma Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 5:46 pm
The money doesn’t even matter when it is fact that the $170 billion will be spread to airports, highways and commuter rail which will spread traffic to multiple forms of transportation. The $170 billion plan would also provide far more flexibility.
The gap is getting narrower up to the point where even I begin to ask myself if we shouldn’t just drop the whole thing and provide HSR light instead.
Here’s my e-mail to Lopez:
jimsf Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 11:20 am
Thats a good letter.
Roelof van Ark in his Chief Executive Officer’s Report said applications for the latest round of TIGER funding would be for smaller projects at the endpoints of Phase 1. Successful funding of these projects should sate the demands of politicos in these areas and give them something to show to voters in their short term cycles.
Dan Walters: Jerry Brown will cut high-speed rail to save it
synonymouse Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 4:14 pm
All the while he will have to peddle his tax increase plan and satisfy LA’s demand for the Peripheral Canal, now that he is taking his orders from Villaraigossa.
Meantime my take is hsr terminated at Iconic-Galactic and Ring the Bay from there. Cutting costs and blowing billions on the TBT are not on the same page. Remember MTC is in charge now.
J. Wong Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 6:54 pm
He might accelerate the plan, but I think it more likely that he understands the conservative nature of the business plan, which when the first bids come in will be shown. Also, I could see him pushing through with more sharing on the Peninsula, which I think means some quad-track but will include cheaper grade separation such as berms (too bad Burlingame).
Brown appointee Dan Richard to lead high-speed rail board
off topic but this article was in the merced paper I don’t know why I didn’t think of this before but this is actually an excellent ( or would have been- too late now) idea. The majority of population gorwth is east of 99 and up into the hills. There is a linear stretch along the lower (200-500 ft elevation) foothills that is mostly clay soil and worthless for farming. also, its hard to get well water in that zone. most housing and developement is below 200 ft and above 500 ft elevation. And that 65 route would make a lot of sense for the reasons metnioned in the article
Peter Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 4:29 pm
Not really. It would completely miss Fresno, for one. Also, one of the advantages of going through farmland is that farmland is a lot easier to use than land likely inhabited by threatened and endangered species. One of the comments to that article mentioned the fairy shrimp living there. Even though the California Fairy Shrimp is not listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act, there are likely other species there that are. Less so in agricultural areas.
wu ming Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 6:48 pm
“help create a beltway outside of our urban centers” = greenfield sprawl for real estate speculators. it is the exact model the taiwan HSR used in the middle section near taichung, and it is a lot less effective than putting it into urban cores (like taipei, banqiao and kaohsiung stations).
Brown’s attempt to use Cap and Trade fees to fund HSR was not the intent of Nunez’s AB-32 (2006).
This was made clear in a memo, copied below.
The key section, 38597, of AB-32 (2006) reads as follows:
38597. The state board may adopt by regulation, after a public workshop, a schedule of fees to be paid by the sources of greenhouse gas emissions regulated pursuant to this division, consistent with Section 57001. The revenues collected pursuant to this section, shall be deposited into the Air Pollution Control Fund and are available upon appropriation, by the Legislature, for purposes of carrying out
this division.
Nunez then wrote the following memo regarding use of these funds:
7646 ASSEMBLY Journal Sept. 1, 2006
LETTERS OF LEGISLATlVE ‘INTENT
Pursuant to a roll call vote, the following letters of legislative .intent
were ordered printed in the Journal.
,
Legislative ‘Intent-Assembly:Bill No. 32·
Mr. ·E. Dotson lVilson
Chief Clerk of the Assembly
State Capitol, Room 3196
Sacramento, California
August 31, .2006
Dear Mr. Wllson: 1 am submitting this letter to the Assembly Daily
.. Journal regarding AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.
AB 32 authorizes the California Air ‘Resources Board to .adopt a
.schedule of fees to pay for the direct.costs of administering .the reporting and ·emission reduction and compliance programs established pursuant to the bill ‘s Provisions.
It is my intent that any funds provided by Health and Safety Code
Section 38597 are to be used solely for the direct costs incurred in
administering this division. This intent is further demonstrated by the
fact that Section 38597 is contained within Part 7 of the bill which
relates to the CaIifornia Air Resoutces.Board’s administrative functions.
Sincerely,
FABIAN .NUNEZ
Speaker of·.the Assembly
thatbruce Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 5:33 pm
large pdf and date search (the above shows up in the one dated 31st August). Morris, does leginfo provide a full-text search through these documents, or do you need to rely on external search engines? (I’m hoping that I’m just not seeing it)
morris brown Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 7:49 pm
@thatbruce:
It is certainly in (near the very end of the large pdf search you gave (http://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/legisdocs/adj083106a.pdf) (date Sept 1). I got it from a different link:
http://www.cmta.net/mpowered_blog.php
I OCR’d the document to be able to post here.
I hope this helps.
(the extracted section from AB-32 (2006) is easy to find doing a Google search on California Legislation and entering AB-32 (hear 2006)
morris
DingDong Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:16 pm
Legislative history carries very little weight—it wasn’t enacted into law and legislators put all sorts of crap in there to cover themselves; if they meant it and had the votes, they would have put in the statute and not written some silly letter.
What matters is that the text of the statute says the funds can be appropriated “for purposes of carrying out this division.” I’m not totally sure what “carrying out this division” is (I’m lazy and haven’t looked up the statute) but it doesn’t really matter as, so far as I know, AB 32 is just an ordinary statute and the legislature can amend it at will. So basically the limitation on spending the funds “for purposes of carrying out this division” is meaningless dross that the next appropriations bill can override.
Nathanael Reply:
February 4th, 2012 at 3:38 pm
Furthermore, money is fungible.
Currently CARB is funded by general appropriations, correct? So if the entire funding of CARB is suddenly replaced with greenhouse gas fees, that frees up a pile of money to use elsewhere.
thatbruce Reply:
February 3rd, 2012 at 1:09 pm
@morris:
More of a general question about finding similar tidbits on other bills. OCR? Ow, that makes the source pdf annoying. Thanks for that.
nothin out there but jackrabbits and rattlesnakes. the land is worthless. but oh well too late now anyway. Anyone figure out how to get through kings county yet?
Firms on short list to build part of rail system revealed
Paulus Magnus Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 5:59 pm
Gee, what a surprise PB is on there.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 6:45 pm
Parsons Transportation Group — the World Class Transportation Professionals directly responsible for the Caltrain DTX “design” fiasco, and the “winners” of the Caltrain CBOSS “contract”, among hundreds of successes in the highly, highly competitive North American transportation market — is unrelated to the World Class Transportation Professionals Parsons Brinkerhoff (or PBQD, or Balfour Beatty plc) — responsible for BART to Millbrae, BART to the San José Flea Market, and other triumphs too numerous to mention.
So, no, PB isn’t on there.
Of course Tutor Perini, PTG’s consortium partner, is pretty much joined at the hip with PB and Bechtel, those three, under the moniker “Bay Area Transit Consultants”, instigating, controlling, directing and profiting mightily from the “public” BARTD agency and program over more than five decades.
We need more private investment. Period. CHSRA needs to get really serious about winning investors and illustrate all the long-term benefits to them. We can’t build a $68 billion/$98 billion project hoping the federal government will somehow step in.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 5:59 pm
Gee, what a surprise PB is on there.
yes so? along with lots of other large construction firms. Why wouldn’t they be on there? who else would build a project this large, Bob and Sue’s pick and shovel inc?
Yet another black eye for the Authority:
High-speed rail tapped state funds for unusual lobbying contract
http://www.mercurynews.com/california-high-speed-rail/ci_19881156
Note all the Democrats expressing outrage over these expenditures, “Kopp, DeSaulnier, Hill.
Oh, did a little research on Lopez; he was born in 1953, making him 58 or so. That’s fairly close to the border of my generational pattern, and it may be mentioned that there would be a bit of overlap at the ends (and of course, there are variations in it anyway, as we are dealing with people).
He does have some interesting color and achievements in his past. How many of us can say Robert Downey, Jr., has played us on the screen?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Lopez
EJ Reply:
February 3rd, 2012 at 11:56 am
Lopez is a very well-regarded figure in LA. He’s definitely one of the good guys, not prone to knee-jerk reactions.