HSR Opponents Running Out of Options to Stop Project
Last week’s State Senate vote to release the voter-approved high speed rail bonds appears to have been a significant political watershed for the project, at least in California. As Mike Rosenberg points out at the San Jose Mercury News, the opponents of high speed rail are facing fewer and less effective options to block the project after their primary strategy ended in failure:
“The legislative aspect is over, we lost that round. So now it’s going to be the litigated phase,” said state Sen. Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, who led the charge against the project in the Senate. “I don’t think there’s a complete ‘give-up’ view yet out there, but it does look tougher.”
Two opponents said for the first time Tuesday they are close to reaching settlements with the state: Union Pacific, which for years threatened to stall the project by withholding pivotal rail property along the bullet train route, said it hopes to have a deal with the rail authority “finalized soon.” And Peninsula opponents said they’re close to settling a four-year court battle over the rail line.
Even proponents of an initiative to put the project back on the ballot are now conceding their effort is likely to fail.
Other lawsuits remain, including a contentious suit filed by Kings County and agricultural interests, alongside Peninsula NIMBYs, claiming that the revised business plan violates Proposition 1A. However, opponents are losing confidence in this legal strategy as well, with even the deeply anti-rail Gary Patton acknowledging that they’re not likely to win in court:
“If the Legislature doesn’t have the guts (to kill the project) than we better make sure the court system will carry that forward,” said Aaron Fukuda, a community leader in Kings County, ground zero for opposition in the Central Valley. “We’re committed to the very bitter end.”
Still, even Patton acknowledged that judges typically side with the state on big projects. And Stuart Flashman — the attorney for Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton, which have been battling the project in court since 2008 — said he’s “keeping his fingers crossed” for a settlement that would allow construction to move forward on a two-track project to electrify the Caltrain line between San Francisco and San Jose — instead of four tracks. That could pave the way for Bay Area high-speed rail service next decade.
What I take from all this is that the best shot these anti-rail forces had was in the State Senate. With Senator Alan Lowenthal taking the lead in organizing anti-HSR forces to block release of the bond funds, a strategy was carried out in recent years to undermine public support for the project and sow enough doubt in the minds of Senators that the project could die on the Senate floor.
As we know, that didn’t happen. Democratic support for the project remained strong enough to achieve passage. President Barack Obama, Governor Jerry Brown, California’s Congressional delegation and the legislators themselves, led by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Speaker John A. Pérez, refused to take their eyes off the ball. They never forgot the purposes of the project: save Californians money by reducing dependence on oil, create desperately needed jobs, actually do something to reduce carbon emissions rather than just talk about it, and invest in modern transportation infrastructure.
HSR critics will not have an easy rallying point going forward. It’s very difficult to motivate people to take action around a court case. Construction will begin soon and opposition energy will begin to dissipate accordingly, though it will never vanish entirely.
But we can’t get carried away. We may have won this battle but we can still easily lose the war. Attention should now shift to Congress, where the future of California’s high speed rail system will be decided. House Republicans remain vehemently opposed to the project, vowing to kill it by any means necessary. Mitt Romney and Senate Republicans would happily join them in blocking future rail funds if given the chance. Since California high speed rail depends on future federal funding, it’s now clear that the next hurdle for the project to overcome isn’t in the courts and it isn’t in Sacramento – it’s at the nation’s ballot boxes this November.
Robert:
Surely you are joking with the title of your article here.
HSR Opponents Running Out of Options to Stop Project
You can now start immediatly to attack Judge Kopp.
————-
http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/07/11/v-print/2905096/new-bullet-train-plan-mangled.html
New bullet train plan ‘mangled,’ perhaps illegal, ex-rail booster says
By Lance Williams – California Watch
Wednesday, Jul. 11, 2012 | 12:01 AM Modified Tue, Jul 10, 2012 08:16 PM
Even as the state Senate voted last week to approve California’s $68 billion high-speed rail plan, opponents pressed forward on a Kings County lawsuit to stop the controversial construction project.
Former California High-Speed Rail Authority Chairman Quentin Kopp, who led a 20-year fight for the bullet train, said he believes this latest lawsuit poses a real threat.
The compromise high-speed rail plan crafted by Gov. Jerry Brown and approved Friday is a “mangled” — and probably illegal — version of the project state voters enacted in a 2008 initiative, Kopp said.
“They have distorted high-speed rail and twisted it into (providing) money for commuter rail services,” he said.
Kopp is not a party to the suit but said he was familiar with its assertions. His comments are of note because for decades — first as a San Francisco legislator and then as rail authority chairman — he was among California’s leading advocates for high-speed rail.
“I can’t say it was unnecessary to get the votes, but it’s not high-speed rail,” Kopp, who also is a retired judge, said of the compromise plan. “It violates (the initiative) in at last four respects and maybe five.”
In a statement, rail authority CEO Jeff Morales said the rail plan enacted last week — including its expenditures on commuter rail service in the Bay Area and Southern California — was “fully in compliance” with the bullet train law enacted by voters, called Proposition 1A.
“This is now a truly statewide vision that is born directly from the funds made available when the voters passed Prop. 1A,” he said of the new rail plan.
Morales declined to comment on the lawsuit filed in Sacramento County Superior Court by the Kings County Board of Supervisors and residents John Tos and Aaron Fukuda. Central Valley farmers fear that rail construction will wreck vast stretches of prime agricultural land.
Tos is a farmer who owns walnut orchards that are in the path of the proposed high-speed train route through the county. Fukuda and his neighbors in the Ponderosa neighborhood east of Hanford also would be displaced by one of the route options.
The suit itself is not new. It was originally filed in November, and Friday’s filing represents the second time the complaint has been changed by Redwood City attorney Michael Brady.
A Sacramento judge ruled on June 15 that the suit, as then drawn up, failed to demonstrate that approval or expenditure of funds was imminent, but the court’s ruling gave Brady until last Friday to amend the complaint.
The suit accuses the state of illegally spending public funds on the bullet train, arguing that Brown’s reconfigured or “blended” plan for the rail system simply cannot produce what voters authorized.
On four earlier occasions, judges have rebuffed similar lawsuits, saying they were filed prematurely. That might no longer be the case now that the Legislature has voted to issue $4.5 billion in state bonds to begin construction of the first segment, a line between Merced and Fresno.
Michael Brady, Kings County’s lawyer, said he was in the Capitol on Friday to watch the Senate vote. As approval neared, he said he went to the courthouse and filed the lawsuit, which seeks a court order stopping all spending on the project.
“The vote by the Senate doesn’t make any difference,” he contended. “The Legislature cannot approve a project that violates the law passed by the voters.”
The system approved by voters in 2008 is supposed to link San Francisco and Los Angeles with electric trains traveling more than 200 mph, whisking travelers between the two cities in two hours, 40 minutes.
Passengers aren’t supposed to have to change trains, and the state is barred from paying operating subsidies to the rail line. Those and many other provisions are written into state law.
Earlier this year, after construction costs ballooned to an estimated $98 billion, Brown slashed $30 billion from the project’s budget. To save money, the project was reconfigured into what is called a “blended” rail system, in which the bullet train would share tracks with commuter rail systems on the San Francisco Peninsula and in the Los Angeles basin.
In an apparent attempt to attract support, the governor’s measure included about $2 billion for transit improvements for San Francisco’s Muni system, BART, Caltrain and Los Angeles’ Metrolink service.
The lawsuit contends that the latest version of the project is so fundamentally different from what voters authorized that it should not be allowed to proceed.
The bullet train is supposed to be electric-powered, but as the project is now devised, it doesn’t provide for electrification, the lawsuit claims.
State spending isn’t supposed to begin until after the project obtains its environmental permits. But the project hasn’t gotten its permits and instead faces multiple environmental lawsuits, the complaint says.
Meanwhile, the shared-tracks plan will slow the bullet train to the extent that it won’t be able to meet its travel time requirement, the suit says, and passengers probably will have to change trains twice between San Francisco and Los Angeles.
The lawsuit also contends that the project will not meet its promised completion date of the year 2020 and is likely to require “hundreds of millions” of dollars in subsidies.
Kopp said he was disappointed that there were no plans to electrify the Central Valley segment. Planners wanted to start construction in the Valley because it’s a good place “to test the trains at 220 miles per hour,” Kopp said.
Without electrification, trains can’t attain that speed, he said.
“It’s not what I fought for,” Kopp said of the project. “It’s a different system, and therein lies legal problems.”
Bee staff writer Tim Sheehan contributed to this report. California Watch is a project of the nonprofit Center for Investigative Reporting. For more, visit californiawatch.org. This story resulted from a partnership among California news organizations following the state’s high-speed rail program, including The Fresno Bee, The Sacramento Bee, California Watch, The Bakersfield Californian, The Orange County Register, the San Francisco Chronicle, The (Riverside) Press-Enterprise, U-T San Diego, KQED, the Merced Sun-Star, The Tribune of San Luis Obispo and The Modesto Bee.
———-
One can go to:
https://services.saccourt.com/PublicDMS/Search.aspx
and fill in the case # of 34-2011-00113919
to get the filings on this lawsuit. The new ammended complaint has not yet been posted to the Court’s site, but will be shortly.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 3:55 am
Ho, ho, ho, ho, this is the same Quentin Kopp so many here thought was an idiot for his “all or nothing” HSR system that would have been so isolated from regular railroads that it could almost have been a maglev road? And now he’s a hero?
Is this the best you can do?
swing hanger Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 4:10 am
It’s Morris’ habit of wanting to be “first!” whenever Robert posts something new- prefaced with the obligatory “you’ve topped yourself”, “you’re joking”, “disbelief” etc.
StevieB Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 8:44 am
Options dwindling to stop California’s high-speed rail project is the title the Boston Herald newspaper gave the same article by Mike Rosenberg of the San Jose Mercury News when they ran it. Their editors choice of title is very similar to that chosen by Robert. Morris Brown is blind to the truth.
VBobier Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 5:27 pm
the word is Delusional, but that’s cause some will never give up, The news here is encouraging and is very welcome, thanks Robert, sounds like the other side will only require a few more pushes before they collapse, so keep the pressure up…
Vote: Democrats/Obama 2012 into the Congress & the White House, vote for NO one else if Ya want good Government & not a bunch of Delusional Crazy People from the Repugnican Party…
Nathanael Reply:
July 12th, 2012 at 7:48 am
Yep. Morris is using a classic rhetorical tactic which people use when they don’t have anything substantive; get your nonsense in first and hope people don’t read past it to the debunking.
Jo Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 10:10 am
I have never considered Mr. Kopp to be among HSR supporters best and brightest.
Peter Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 10:30 am
+1
Alan Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 4:44 pm
+2
Alon Levy Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Kopp is just pissed at the blended plan – which, for the record, I first proposed in comments and in email in ’09, when there seemed to be enough money for everything.
Speaking of Senator Alan Lowenthal, he is termed out and has a competitive race for US Congress.
VBobier Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 5:30 pm
Is there anyone other than this turncoat Democrat? Like someone with some money or at the very least someone who is locally popular? Sigh, the Repugnican will probably win too.
Nathanael Reply:
July 12th, 2012 at 7:49 am
Unfortunately, the primary election where there was a chance to get a real Democrat on the ballot is over. Best of luck for 2014; Long Beach should be ready to kick DeLong out by then.
UPRR and the CAHSRA finalizing a deal soon? That’s huge! Can’t wait to hear more on that one. Perhaps UP partner$ with CA?
Jo Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 7:52 am
Getting Union Pacific on board would be a game changer. I am wondering how this would effect construction in Fresno. Maybe I am dreaming, but if CAHSRA can use some of Union pacific’s right of way through Fresno, this would help a lot.
synonymouse Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 10:16 am
The UP might be starting to worry about a very possible Obama lame duck double-dip and a rebuilt Panama Canal. Why not take the suckers’ money now.
PalmdaleRail is a stone money-pit and the State will have to jettison it, just as San Berdoo has to walk away from its debts now. The Loopy-Loop updoo is the NdeM, Conrail of the future and always will be.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 11:00 am
Conrail, what’s left of it, makes money.
synonymouse Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 11:06 am
a privatized freight operation. They can hardly find the funds to keep Amtrak running.
You really think you are going to be able to squeeze serious taxes out of the Resnicks, Chandlers, etc.? Everybody’s moving to Utah. he-he
Nathanael Reply:
July 12th, 2012 at 7:53 am
In the tradition of “socialize losses, privatize profits” which looters and criminals (such as Republican leadership) love, the bankrupt Northeastern railroads were nationalized as Conrail, and then as soon as Conrail was profitable, it was sold off again, because there was ideological hostility to making a profit.
Amtrak’s likely to become profitable within the next twenty years; it already costs practically nothing to run, and it’s easy to find the funds for it, but the trends are so favorable for passenger rail that it’s likely to end up in the black sooner or later.
At that point the usual gang of looters and criminals will start agitating to privatize it. They will have to be stopped.
Are you suggesting that the same thing will happen with CAHSR which happened to Conrail? That as soon as it becomes profitable, Republicans will try to sell it off at fire-sale prices to privateers to “privatize profits, socialize losses”?
VBobier Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Conrail? I thought that was split up between NS and CSX… Never mind, I looked up the Wiki, it’s not a common carrier anymore really, just a remnant of it’s former self.
Jack Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 11:20 am
You sound so much like Richard lately, your posts are devolving to three word conspiracy theory nonsense…
synonymouse Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 11:48 am
It is clear that Richard is light-years ahead of me in technical background and has had some gut-wrenching experience with governmental and transit professional mafias.
My experience with the bureaucracy was limited to testifying before the City PUC back in the early 70′s for a local advocacy group. The politics was pretty cut and dried but I got to meet some nice San Franciscans of the old school – in particular Jack Woods and Frank Scheifler. And got to meet Joe Alioto one time in his office – who was perfectly cast as Mayor.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Synonymouse was right about Palmdale (I was wrong, sitting on the wrong side of the fence), and it sounds now like he and Tolmach were right about the I-5 direct shot route also, about which it’s starting to seem I was totally wrong.
That also makes him right twice more than any of the fanboys on this blog, like it or not, or like him or not. Right twice divided by right (0 times) makes him more than a billion zillion squillion times more prescient than Cruickshank and co, regardless of anything else.
PS Alioto is a bad word around my house. Most every nice block in SF there’s what we call an “Alioto Building”, a piece of crap 2 or 3 story over garage (on STILTS, Mr Mouse!) erected at low cost in a frenzy of demolition and tasteless low quality 1970s construction.
synonymouse Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Alioto looked and acted like a mayor; he could have done a movie. When I met him Chub Feeney was in the office too. You gotta remember I was an early 20-something, a nobody from nowhere. Same as now. I was impressed.
I couldn’t agree with you more but Alioto was pure establishment in the mode of Pat Brown and
would not likely have tried to go strongly preservationist or slow growth. On the other hand he went for Muni subway-surface and AFAIK did not try to revive the Panhandle Freeway.
His predecessors were much worse. Lapham and Robinson presided over the destruction of both the Market Street Railway and Muni cablecar and streetcar lines. I was told that Christopher ran on a platform of keeping the B line on Geary in the fall of 1956 but they started ripping it up in December before he could take office. I dunno if this is true but he would have had to go up against Urban Removal in the Western Addition.
But if they deploy BART broad gauge on Geary there will be worse than “Alioto buildings”.
Michael Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 5:04 pm
Joe used to get coffee on Sundays at my local North Beach cafe. Even in his 80′s, with very little wispy white hair, he drew a charismatic sphere of energy wherever he was.
Nathanael Reply:
July 12th, 2012 at 7:54 am
It’s sad to watch you get more and more wrong as time goes on, Richard. It seems that you were right originally and are now wrong (along with the demented Tolmach, and syn) about Palmdale and the I-5 Skip The People route.
William Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
They’ll continue their witch hunt while the rest of us pushed for real, tangible progress…
Interestingly enough, last nights PBS Newshour telecast had the feature story being about climate change. They mentioned that the last 12 months have been the hottest on record, as well as the first 6 months of this year. This was likely spurred by the recent heat wave across much of the country. Also, the USDA just dropped their US corn forecast by 13% due to the worst drought since 1988.
At some point, spewing less CO2 into the atmosphere will become a survival issue. That day may arrive sooner than you think.
RT
SL Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 9:15 am
Two very good new articles by SPUR about HSR:
http://www.spur.org/publications/library/article/getting-high-speed-rail-track
http://www.spur.org/publications/library/article/hollywood-vs-silicon-valley
synonymouse Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 10:40 am
utter boosterite nonsense coupled with yuppie fluff. Silicon Valley is mostly non-union – a real problem for the Pelosi Machine, unless they betray the unions and align with Mega-Meg’s crowd.
The primary theme of SPUR’s hsr – about 10 new taxes. Pathfinder medals for Mssrs. Rizzo and Noguez for cultural innovation anticipating future trends.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 11:01 am
SPUR is a wholly owned fully paid for subsidiary.
You’re just reading construction/real estate industry press releases warmed over by “think tank” shills. Not just on HSR, on every one of their “urbanist” issues.
William Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Read: anyone who doesn’t agree with Richard M. is bad bad bad….
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 4:02 pm
http://www.spur.org/about/about_urban_center/donors
Jon Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 11:30 am
It’s nice that you two are friends. You guys have so much in common.
Paul Druce Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 9:55 am
HSR is literally one of the worst ways to address CO2.
synonymouse Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 10:07 am
And Tehachapi Stilt-A-Sky-Sprawl-Rail chopping up farmers’ fields will have zero impact on C02.
The CHSRA plan is a developers’ scheme, touting and enabling unlimited population growth, the driving cause of all pollution, C02 included.
Just no trains anywhere near THE golf course.
Andy M. Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 10:14 am
yawn
Derek Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 11:08 am
If that’s true, then name one other form of transportation that, fully loaded, can achieve the equivalent of 700 passenger miles per gallon.
A fully loaded bus? Only half that.
A fully loaded Prius? Only 200 passenger miles per gallon.
A fully loaded 787 or 747? Only 100 passenger miles per gallon.
A bicycle? Yes, but it’s slow.
Paul Druce Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 11:29 am
1. You’re looking at entirely the wrong thing if you want to eliminate CO2. Coal is the single best thing to go after.
2. GGE doesn’t mean a reduction in CO2 necessarily, it depends on electricity source.
3. You are literally using a best case scenario with those figures, since those are for the N700 (since I did the math, I recognize them). If you’re using TGV or Velaro you’re more in the 350-400 range (Class 373 is 380 seat-miles GGE) which is comparable to an IC125 or to a Metrolink train with six Sentinel (the new Guardian cars are significantly more heavy with fewer seats as well, so less performance there).
4. A 9 car Class 390, restricted to 125mph, has a figure of 648 seat-miles per GGE.
5. It’s not simply a reduction of the individual carbon emissions per trip, but also of the number of trips, for which commuter, light rail, and subways are far better.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 11:35 am
But the subway doesn’t run between LA and SF.
Paul Druce Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 11:41 am
I’m well aware of that. Maybe, just maybe, I’m pointing out that intracity and intraregion travel has far more trips and far more divertable CO2?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 12:04 pm
so because it isn’t the place we can get the most reduction we shouldn’t do it at all?
Paul Druce Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 12:17 pm
It is not a cost-effective means of reducing CO2. If that is the primary reason for building it, then no, it should not be built.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 12:47 pm
Who said it was the primary reason for building it? It generates less CO2 than alternatives. It can easily be configured to generate no CO2.
Nathanael Reply:
July 12th, 2012 at 8:10 am
It is a cost-effective means of reducing CO2. There are several *more* cost-effective means of reducing CO2, all of which could be implemented more quickly — and some of us have tried to advocate for them. However, bizarre political dysfunction has prevented them from happening so far.
This one, intercity electrified rail, will have to be done ANYWAY, and it has a long lead time, so let’s get started on it. It is NOT in any sense competing with the funding for the better means of reducing CO2 — and if it actually does so, I will advocate that the better means get the money instead. The better means have been stymied in bizarre ways.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 12:21 pm
I’ll personally pay you to stop breathing. Deal?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
I’ve seen what an effect it has on you, no thanks
Nathanael Reply:
July 12th, 2012 at 8:12 am
Intercity and local rail are not in competition for funds. They are not in competition for users, either. They are synergistic.
LA’s building damned near as much as it can handle at one time already, in terms of electric rail. SF has proved that its dysfunctional government can’t handle building pretty much anything. If Fresno had a great new local rail plan, and if there was a competition between that and HSR, I might support giving the money to Fresno’s rail plan, but *that is not what is actually happening*.
Nathanael Reply:
July 12th, 2012 at 8:15 am
I see a repeated misconception that there is some limited pot of money at the federal level. That is simply not true (the feds print money, and California could if it really wanted to, as the “vouchers” proved). There are limited resources (manpower and materials), but we are not really hitting those limits (thank you Depression).
I see a further misconception and that it’s “HSR or solar panels” or something like that. Which is a complete misreading of the politics. As for the politics, the competition is between (on the one hand) swelling the pockets of the very rich and feeding the military-industrial complex, and (on the other hand) money split between various different useful projects. The useful projects really aren’t competing against each other, they’re competing against the military budget and tax cuts for the 0.1%. Whichever useful projects can get through that sausage machine should be encouraged.
Derek Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 12:24 pm
But only 37% of the USA’s CO2 emissions come from coal, while 40% comes from petroleum.
Paul Druce Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 12:49 pm
Ok, so we have about equal amounts of CO2, one of which comes from a discrete number of point sources which can be fairly easily regulated or replaced, while the others possess orders of magnitude more sources which cannot as easily be replaced. Come on, it isn’t that hard to figure this stuff out.
Take the Scherer coal power plant and it’s 25.3 million tons of CO2 per year. Gasoline puts out about 20 pounds of CO2 per gallon and the average car has about 26 mpg and 15,000 miles per year (or 577 gallons per year). Replacing Scherer with carbon-free power is the equivalent of taking 4.38 million cars off the road, permanently.
But let’s say we want to focus on petroleum. In that case, we’re looking at transitioning trucks to ship and rail for biggest bang for our buck (also helpful: getting ships to use hotel power). With passenger trips, we want to increase bus service and use as well as commuter rail, light rail, etc. because those trips are far more prevalent than the others. Bay to Basin is about 16 million annual trips, all modes. I think it’s fairly safe to say that there are more trips and more miles and more CO2 within the individual counties every year that could be diverted for greater bang for the buck.
Derek Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 1:12 pm
If you want bang for the buck, the clear winner by far is to express toll the interstates. It requires very little up front investment, it provides a financial return on that investment, it permanently eliminates traffic congestion, and because of that it even opens the possibility of closing lanes and reducing VMT without increasing traffic congestion. But then people would need an alternative way to travel, and that’s where HSR helps.
A similar strategy is to replace minimum parking requirements with SFPark-style parking management technology.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 6:57 pm
The trip between Washington DC and New York City is laden with tolls. That would take away the breath of any Californian. That doesn’t stop people from using the toll roads. Even when there’s a very very nice untolled road parallel to the tolled road ( I-295 and the New Jersey Turnpike for instance )
Alon Levy Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 10:58 pm
Or surface roads through Delaware.
BruceMcF Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 6:20 pm
And totally eliminating the first is insufficient, which means that despite the challenges of the one with orders of magnitude more sources, we need to work toward making them substantially more easy to replace. This is not an investment exercise with a target rate of return, and if you only have a few projects above the target rate of return, you only do those. There is a need to eliminate our dependence upon CO2 emissions across the board.
We need to have a passenger transport system available in which is is possible to replace CO2 emissions by switching modes of transport for the various trips that people make. Because going carbon neutral on everything else and emitting as much CO2 as we presently do with passenger transport is too much CO2 emissions.
BruceMcF Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 6:14 pm
Going after the single best thing alone, and then when that is done going after the next, is a recipe for failing to meet any reasonable CO2 reductions targets. We need to move across the board.
Establishing an integrated network of oil independent alternatives for passenger travel and freight shipment that are capable of being sustainably powered is one essential part of that, but obviously its not the only essential task.
Nathanael Reply:
July 12th, 2012 at 8:07 am
Bingo. One of the reasons electrified trains are important is because they have a long lead time. Given anything approximating political will, we could swap out all our peaking power plants for solar within a couple of years; we could insulate the whole country in about 10, I’d say. But building train lines to replace the air and road routes? Long lead time.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 12th, 2012 at 8:21 am
Order September 2010.
Deliver May 2012.
Full fleet in service December 2012.
Order April 2010
Deliver March 2012.
Full (29 train) fleet in service by end of 2014.
Order June 2010
Deliver 46 trains by the end of 2016.
etc.
etc.
etc.
What’s the imaginary problem again? (Apart from the obvious one of ignorance?)
Jo Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 11:19 am
Nonsense. That is not what the rest world thinks.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Nonsense. Nobody in the world is undertaking HSR in order to have any effect at all upon the coming environmental catastrophe.
HSR isn’t even in the tents of a a percent or what’s needed.
Just because you love choo choos (and I like COAL POWERED STEAM LOCOMOTIVES, myself) doesn’t mean that the widdle choo choo train is going to save the planet. Especially not at 220mph.
https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/category/carbon-emissions/
http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Stabilization+wedges
http://cmi.princeton.edu/wedges/
You people are so ignorant and so utterly innumerate and so totally unable to understand orders of magnitude it’s hilarious. Or would be, if there weren’t billions of you.
Jo Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 12:44 pm
Such vitriol.
BruceMcF Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 3:33 pm
Yes, because a movement to an ecologically sustainable society is going to occur because Richard Mlynarik has foamed at the mouth and called enough people enough rude names to force the change to occur.
What makes it particularly hilarious are occasions when he adopts his role presenting himself as the genius of the forum, the arbiter of who is technically correct and incorrect, and then he does something like presenting this without comment on the role of windpower in a sustainable energy production portfolio. Given that his numeracy is above reproach and beyond compare, it evidently takes more than just numeracy to be capable of making effective critical judgements of arguments.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 6:02 pm
What’s exactly wrong with what Do the Math is saying about wind power? It is in fact true that solar is better for scaling both up (it doesn’t have to be restricted to a few windy areas) and down (you can put it on top of your roof).
Nathanael Reply:
July 12th, 2012 at 7:57 am
Wind power has a fairly minor role in sustainable energy. As _Do The Math_ says, solar is going to be the workhorse.
The thing is the economics: right now wind is really really cheap to install, compared to alternatives. (We still aren’t charging for the pollution of carbon emissions, which would eliminate coal and oil quite quickly.)
Nathanael Reply:
July 12th, 2012 at 7:58 am
Your problem, Richard, is that you don’t understand psychology. Try studying it. Or, hell, try reading _The Gods Themselves_ by Isaac Asimov, which gives a good description of the psychological problem we face.
If you don’t give people an alternative method of intercity transportation, they WILL use the planet-wrecking one.
Nathanael Reply:
July 12th, 2012 at 8:05 am
And yes, any individual train project is a minor thing. But the general principle of replacing air and road service with electrified trains? That is NOT a minor thing in terms of carbon emissions.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 12th, 2012 at 8:24 am
Pro tip: always reach for the sci-fi shelf when looking to “understand psychology”.
joe Reply:
July 12th, 2012 at 8:35 am
Star Trek Season 1 Episode 23 Space Seed. You are our genetic superior.
Nathanael Reply:
July 12th, 2012 at 7:56 am
RubberToe, it’s already a survival issue,the question is when (if) the majority of plains apes known humorously as Homo Sapiens will realize it’s a survival issue.
Is it true the HSR isn’t going to be electrified? I thought that it was going to be from the very start.
All the promotional graphics portraying the California HSR project show electrification. Can anyone affirm or rebut the statement above asserting it’s now not going to be?
Paul Druce Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 11:31 am
It’s going to be electrified. When the San Joaquins are put on the ICS while they tunnel out to Palmdale and the San Fernando Valley, they’ll continue running diesels, but they’ll be replaced by 220mph capable electric HSR sets once the work for the IOS is complete.
Derek Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Does anyone know when the central valley segment will see its first passenger traffic, at what speed (125 mph?), and what the LAUS to OKJ transit time will be as a result? Right now, it takes 8 hours 40 minutes on the bus + San Joaquin (7:35am~4:15pm or 10:45am~1:05pm or 1:15pm~9:55pm), and does it go above 70 mph anywhere? In comparison, the Coast Starlight takes 11 hours 7 minutes to complete the journey along the coast (10:25am~9:32pm).
VBobier Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 5:45 pm
Yeah no one in their right mind would put up the wires for HSR until everything else was done and the trains bought, as the wires are too much of a target for theft when the wires aren’t alive.
Nathanael Reply:
July 12th, 2012 at 7:59 am
Bingo. The electrification is going to wait until the electric trains are ready, so as to prevent wire theft.
Peter Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 11:36 am
The Initial Construction Segment from Merced to Bakersfield won’t be, they’re not planning on putting in electrification until they complete the connection to Los Angeles. There’s no point in purchasing and running electric trains on the 130 mile ICS, and no point in spending the money on electrifying that segment if you’re not going to run electric trains right away.
Jack Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 12:34 pm
However, Peninsula, Morris, CARRD et al. think prop 1A states an entire HSR line has to spring up complete with everything from LA to SF at the exact same minute or it’s illegal.
Pick your poison.
VBobier Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 5:46 pm
I think that will get shot down in flames PDQ.
BruceMcF Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 6:07 pm
Before the Senate vote, we were reading scenarios from HSR opponents in these threads in which the Senate would kill the funding and then the rollback proposition would be on the ballot in 2014 and the whole project would go down in flames.
I recall earlier the SJ/SF EIR/EIS lawsuit with everything in it including the kitchen sink was going to shoot the Pacheco alignment down in flames and it would be back to the drawing board. As it turned out, the Authority was told it had left a few i’s undotted and t’s uncrossed and would have to go back and fix that, so that lawsuit wasn’t the magic bullet to stop the HSR project.
Until there are legal decisions on lawsuits on the various terms of Prop1a that are supposed to be the magic bullets for killing the HSR project, it seems a safe bet that there will be confident claims about which way those decisions will turn out.
Donk Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 5:32 pm
Hopefully it isn’t as hard to electrify the completed HSR system as it is to electrify Caltrain.
jonathan Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 8:17 pm
Electrifying CalTtain is not hard, not hard at all. It’s dead easy, everyone wants it. (At least everyone who isn’t deaf, and who has to breathe.) There might be squealing about where to locate the sub-stations, and getting them connected to the grid; but not much, and it won’t be taken very seriously.
*Grade-separating* Caltrain, now *that* is hard. At least in PAMPA. The rest of the Peninsula seems to manage it, and even regard it as a blessing worth putting up with three years of Bangkock-style road congestion for. I’m not exaggerating. The El Camino Real/Ralston intersection in Belmont was a nightmare during construction.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 12th, 2012 at 8:30 am
Well, except for the fact that South San Francisco, Burlingame, San Mateo, Redwood City, Atherton, Menlo Park, [Palo Alto], and Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and San José (The Capital of Silicon Valley), at the least, have problems with and have expressed opposition to Caltrain’s and CHSRA’s marvellous grade separation “plans”.
Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the concert?
PS I’m completely in favour of property engineered, well conceived, well executed, and competently planned grade separation, without any exception. (Meaning trains up, roads flat, everywhere except 16th/Common in SF on the Caltrain line.) (And meaning not undertaken by any of the criminal, incompetent sub-cretins of Caltrain.)
THanks, Paul and Peter, for answering my question so informatively.
Here is an interesting take on the media coverage of the project.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/a-ticket-to-ride-highspee_b_1666733.html
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 8:06 pm
Very interesting indeed! Fascinating to look at how some Republican governors–and fairly recent ones at that–backed this in years past, laying the foundation for what we are seeing now.
Equally interesting are a couple of linked articles:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taras-grescoe/no-car_b_1453815.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danielle-nierenberg/high-speed-rail-expansion_b_1081990.html
The second one has an interesting perspective in its comments, in regard as to where to get the money; the use of language almost suggests this fellow could really be Chinese, it looks like English may not be his first language:
s002wjh
from china, we already borrow from them anyway. there is an old saying:”if you own the bank a hundred dollar, you are the one who should be worried, but if you own the bank millions dollar, the bank is the one who should be worried”
the gas price is increase steadily, the airfare is increase too. air travel has more delay compare to train, cost more, spend more time to check in. we need an alternative travel method. its better to spend the money on HSR rather than in iraq. wouldn’t you agree.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 8:07 pm
Oh, my, what would the current Republicans think of their history, what do they say about it today?
Nathanael Reply:
July 12th, 2012 at 8:17 am
What do they say about? They lie about their own history. They rewrite it, and pretend that past Republicans were like them.
Remember, these are the people who claim that Jefferson was a fundamentalist right-wing Christian.
Nathanael Reply:
July 12th, 2012 at 8:17 am
“What do they say about it”
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 12th, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Some of them think that Paul Revere was warning the British. Some of them want the government to be kept out of their Medicare. There’s all sorts of things roiling about in the Republican Id.
Nathanael Reply:
July 12th, 2012 at 8:00 am
“Fascinating to look at how some Republican governors–and fairly recent ones at that–backed this in years past, laying the foundation for what we are seeing now. ”
The final generation of sane Republicans, I call them… when they forced Charlie Crist out I knew that was the end.
HSR and Public Transit are both necessary.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/07/11-transit-jobs-tomer
The typical job is accessible to only about 27 percent of its metropolitan workforce by transit in 90 minutes or less. Labor access varies considerably from a high of 64 percent in metropolitan Salt Lake City to a low of 6 percent in metropolitan Palm Bay, reflecting differences in both transit provision, job concentration, and land use patterns. City jobs are consistently accessible to larger shares of metropolitan labor pools than suburban jobs, reinforcing cities’ geographic advantage relative to transit routing.
…
Over three-quarters of all jobs in the 100 largest metropolitan areas are in neighborhoods with transit service. Western metro areas like Los Angeles and Seattle exhibit the highest coverage rates, while rates are lowest in Southern metro areas like Atlanta and Greenville
jonathan Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 8:27 pm
And who (who can afford to drive) is going to take transit, if it takes 90 minutes to get to work, versus 40 minutes even on on a stop-and-go-congested, rush hour, 101? And at unacceptable Caltrain frequencies, at that. What’s the opportunity cost for (2x for round-trip) * (90-40) = 2 * 55 = 100 minutes? Over an hour and a half per day, with your family or loved ones, or for leisure?
PS: I’m agreeing with you about the need for better transit. But that’s not a reason to steal HSR money for local transit, however often certain SoCal-resident contributors propose doing exactly that.
joe Reply:
July 12th, 2012 at 8:47 am
And I agree with you. No need to steal HSR funding.
This study shows the need to continue to invest in transportation and that doing nothing is not an option.
At 0.50 per mile, a round trip auto commute of 20 miles is 20.00 plus the joy of driving. We car pool mostly when we drive so it’s time to plan and talk. I think we started our re-fi on the iPad one commute.
Parking is another cost in urban areas.
Stanford U parking is costly so the choice is to drive, pay and walk 10-15 minutes to/from the parking or take a Univ bus/walk to public transit. Plus they offer a free pass for Caltrain / VTA if you forgo buying a parking pass. (~$9/day parking on a day-by-day basis).
Here is a follow-up article from Skeletor at the LA Times about the political dealings leading up the the senate vote:
Bullet train vote demonstrates California Legislature working well
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap-rail-20120712,0,4624110.column
If you can’t access LA Times, here is the important part:
Sen. Lois Wolk (D-Davis), whose district reaches into the outer Bay Area, was worried that the promised urban rail money wouldn’t show up. So she was guaranteed it in writing.
Sen. Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) was concerned that if the Legislature spent money on the bullet train, voters would reject Brown’s proposed tax increase on the November ballot. But she owed Steinberg: He had helped “clear the field” of opposition in her reelection race.
Sen. Louis Correa (D-Santa Ana) wanted assurances that Orange County wouldn’t be punished in future bullet train funding because of local tea-party opposition to the project. Brown assured him.
Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) used to have a lousy relationship with the Senate leader, but after losing a mayoral race has been trying to get along. He promised his vote.
Sen. Roderick Wright (D-Inglewood) doesn’t always side with the leadership, but normally will if his vote really is needed. It was. His was the 20th recorded vote.
Sen. Gloria Negrete McLeod (D-Chino) cast the 21st vote that officially put the bill over the top. Roads were deteriorating in her district, she complained. So the Brown administration promised to prioritize some for repair. Also, Steinberg got a promise from Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the United Farm Workers union, to quietly help Negrete McLeod with Latinos in her congressional race.
Sen. Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa), however, gave Steinberg the crucial 21st commitment to vote yes just hours before the Senate debate. She was angry at Brown for cutting parks funds. But she agreed to vote for the bullet money after being assured that her district would eventually be connected to high-speed rail.
synonymouse Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 9:00 pm
hsr to Santa Rosa?
Spanish will the official language before that happens.
synonymouse Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 9:00 pm
Add “be”
morris brown Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 9:05 pm
Please send anyone to me who belives this tale; I want to sell the Brooklyn bridge
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 11th, 2012 at 9:17 pm
What’s so unbelievable? Sounds like typical deal-making to me. Not always the most appetizing thing to watch, but we know something like this goes on.
I know you would have to be upset that both houses of the legislature passed this rail project, and you may wish not to believe it, but it did happen, as unbelievable as it may seem to some people. Then again, maybe you have an alternate take on what really happened. Care to share your insights?
Nathanael Reply:
July 12th, 2012 at 8:04 am
Evans and Correa sound particularly sensible, from that description. Correa definitely had something to worry about.
In Evans’ case, I think people should be clear that “connected to high-speed rail” for Santa Rosa” probably means a connecting train, not an actual high-speed route to Santa Rosa.
RubberToe Reply:
July 12th, 2012 at 9:12 am
That would be the SMART train.
Some interesting material on the modal shift, with the generational shift playing a part, along with other things:
http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2011/update100
And on carbon emissions:
http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2011/update101
General link:
http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/