Can I buy me a ticket from Turlock to Fresno yet?

Woohoo! There’s hope now that Cali won’t be strangled to death by its own car addiction.

And not Manteca?

It would be nice if you had a clue about this boondoggle. This is not HSR such as along the East coast or in other countries. This is the eqivalent of HSR connecting Wichita and Topeka.

This project is not going to reduce traffic on Highway 5 by any measureable amount. It is not going to serve business people who would otherwise fly from LA to SF…because it doesn’t go from LA to SF. And anyone who thinks it will eventually be expanded to LA, SF, or SD is delusional, because after the cost overruns, the low ridership, and the firestorm over on-going subsidies, this project won’t be the beginning of HSR in CA, it will be the end of it.

But it is a big win for the special interests and their bought-and-paid for Dem puppets in the CA legislature.

This is the transportation equivalent of repealing Glass-Steagall. Gonna come back to bite you and all the rest of us in the ass, big time.

A poll by Mervyn Field suggested, implausibly, that this vote would hurt the prospects of a ballot initiative in November that will raise taxes to fill a budget hole. I doubt you will hear more than a low whisper about the high speed rail vote during that initiative fight in the fall.

Are you serious? You don’t think that the GOPers are going to run around screaming, “Why should we raise taxes when the state is spending money on a boondoggle like this?” Trust me, they are going to have a field day with this one.

Here’s some figures for you on this one:

For 2008 original $10 bil bond issue, voters were told the project would cost $33.6 bil.

In 2009 HSRA (High Speed Rail Authority) announced that the cost would be…$42.6 bil.

By 2011 HSRA admitted that the cost will be…$98.5 bil — and that’s after it was rerouted to the relatively flat Central Valley where it is a lot easier and cheaper to build than the coastal route.

But what about ridership you say? Yeah, what about it? HSRA contends that this line will have 30 times heavier ridership than the Acela Express along the East Coast. In fact, they estimated higher ridership that in Japan and major European cities.

Yeah, sure. All those farmers in pickups are gonna take the train because they can haul so much stuff back on the return trip. This throw it on the train.

Rick “The Prick” Scott killes high-speed rail, here

No, what would be nice is if you weren’t such a nasty little shit and lost the attitude— No need for you to talk to anyone like that

BeachPopulist:

Here’s the whole thing as envisioned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cahsr_map.svg

What portion of it does today’s bond issue supposedly fund? From where to where?

Not sure why it’s called “high speed” when the top speeds are around 120 mph. European, Asian HSR runs at about 180-200+ mph. A more apt description might be “moderate speed rail.” Americans always seem to have the capacity for “settling” thinking that it’s ahead of the curve.

Republicans always have a field day at the expense of the people and the Democrats because the Democrats are never willing to fight back and craft a narrative, story that counters right wing fanaticism.

These figures are 10 years old, but they are all I could find right now. Based on traffic on “selected segments of CA-99 and I-5″, trucks accounted for 20%-29% of all vehicle traffic (I’m excluding the outlier, which was 15%) while 5-axle trucks (which I guess means those huge things with lots and lots of tires) accounted for 13%-23% of all vehicle traffic (again, excluding the outlier, which was 8%).

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/economic_development/assistance/sr99ca.cfm

You’re wrong. Actually the HSR will hit 200+ mph in the Central Valley which is flat.

The HSR has a contract or mandate – whatever, to cover the trip from LA to SF in a certain time frame to qualify as HSR.

Hurrah for HSR.

Karen –

Just because something has a contract or a mandate doesn’t mean it will actually get done.

I think this might also be an indicator for other Pacific states to initiate HSR, to eventually connect with Cali. Be nice to ride the rail from PDX to Tijuana.

It’d be mighty nice not to be barreling along at 70 mph in tule fog, too–and not daring to go any slower lest you get run over.

Today’s bond issue supposedly funds the portion from Bakersfield to Fresno.

From nowhere to nowhere. And it won’t get built at the cost estimated. Then, after it proves to be a boondoggle, you’re gonna get voters to approve more money for even more expensive construction up over and down the Grapevine into densely populated and expensive LA, either downtown or to LAX? Sure, it could be done but I just don’t think the public will buy into it at that point.

We have the MetroRail subway and Green Line/Blue Line trains in LA. Green line comes from Long Beach and stops in Hawthorne…about two miles (as the crow flies) from…

LAX.

They promised to extend it to LAX a zillion years ago. Guess what? Still waiting. Haven’t heard any mention of that since before the Great Recession hit.

Wanna hear another one: MetroRail was supposed to go far out into the SF Valley. Guess what: low ridership, high costs, never got built, not even talked about anymore.

Or how about this one: Many decades ago (like 1970′s) voters in LA were asked to approve a local sales tax increase to fund light rail along the Wilshire corridor to Santa Monica. Not to be redundant, but guess what?

Right. Never happened. Sales tax increase stayed on the books, money went for other things, you know how that goes. Then they decided that this line would be part of the master MetroRail system. I was in my late twenties when they proposed this. At this rate, if I live to be 100 I still won’t see it built.

I should say at this point that I am in favor of HSR. Rode it in France, loved it. Rode it in Japan, loved it. Was in favor of this project when it was first announced. The possibility of going from LAX (nine miles from my house) to SFO without having to deal with the hassle of flying sounded great. But this project is NOT the one that was proposed. It’s a fiasco, a money-sucking white elephant. Yes, it will provide construction jobs, but in the long run it is going to make the builders rich and require endless, perpetual subsidies that will suck money away from much more important and necessary uses.

I guess, outside of blatantly partisan arguments going on here, my question would be how many jobs is this proposed to create? I am not fond of the tone of the criticism of the project by the detractor, but I also did not see any information suggesting that there was an outcry for this as a transportation option. If not, was it sold on the creation of jobs in California? If so, how many jobs does it create?

I generally find that I am mostly fond of what Jerry Brown proposes as necessary for the state of California. I also understand the timing being driven by a desire to tap into federal money that will expire otherwise. However, I am concerned that there was not more emphasis on connecting this project to other greener types of transportation projects already in the pipeline. If this does not meet a major transportation need, as HSR meet in the Northeast, then it is really is a program that will not be borne out as justified by attracting a requisite amount of riders.

And honestly, there really is not a lot of routine business travel between the areas in the south and north serviced by this project. In the Northeast, there is a constant flow of commuters that move to all points from Washington DC to Boston and back. There just does not appear to be the same business or tourist traffic that would be supported. Perhaps there are some reports or other analyses that someone can point out that I have not seen that suggests otherwise. Thanks.

Bakersfield to Fresno. Thnx, BeachPopulist.

PDX? How about Seattle to TJ?

Yes, that would be nice. But this route isn’t going to accomplish that.

Here are some dates that will put things in perspective.

Remember the end of SPEED, where Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock got flying out that tunnel onto Hollywood Blvd? That was part of the MetroRail project.

Date: 1994.

The movie HEAT, with De Niro and Pacino. Opening sequence De Niro gets off a train and walks to a hospital where he steals an ambulance: That’s the Green Line.

Date: 1995.

Things in common that this new boondoggle have with MetroRail and Green Line?

Hmmm, let’s see:

Construction delays. (Occurred on MR-GL, virtually a certainty on HSR.)
Route changes.
Huge cost overruns.
Ridership way below projections.
Extensions to initial segments never built.

That’s not what I wrote. But since you decided to snark me…

Actually though, these big public works projects, or ‘boondogles’ as you call them (but this does not really approach real boondoggles like nuclear power plants or military/death machine projects), are just what we need. Aside from some GOP creeps in the Central Valley, most people I know in LA, Venice, SF, and Cali supported this. That’s why we voted for Prop 1A in 2008. Sorry your side lost the vote. In the end, the only way to get HSR going is to start it as soon as possible. You can be cynical about big public works projects all you want, but I suggest you focus more on the corporate welfare that ends up in the energy sector and the war machine rather than whining about fast and convenient mass transit for the future.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWbXQQG9B6c

This is not a story of countering rightwing fanatacism with a coherent narrative. This is a story about a boondoggle.

My father worked in heavy construction. Helped build Bonneville Dam, parts of the CA aqueduct, two powerplants here in SoCal, plus countless of other structures, from high-rise office buildings to special facilities at Edwards AFB. My mother worked in the public works department for a local city. I grew up listening to dinner table conversation about penstocks and coffer dams and on-site safety issues.

But my father and my mother were both quick to point out when the public (voters) were getting sold a bill of goods. More than once my dad said that this job or that one couldn’t be built on the predicted schedule and would cost “X” times more than budgeted. He knew, because he had to experience to know how fast you can tunnel through solid rock or how much time it would take to build the “build road” that you had to have just to get to the site where the bridge or the tunnel was supposed to be built.

Major infrastructure investment and a write-down of personal, not corporate, debt = only way capitalism saves itself.

I’m in favor of public works projects. WPA and similar programs kept my dad from starving during the Depression. (See my comment @23 for more details.)

But we should — must — build projects that work. As I said @17, the original LAX to SFO HSR that was proposed was a GREAT IDEA. But politicians got cold feet when richy-rich Reps in Santa Barbara raised a stink about having it go through their city. Same with richy-rich types of both parties who live in areas around Pacific Palisades, Brentwood, Malibu, etc. (Ever drive Highway 101 from LA north? Runs along fine, a freeway…until you get to Santa Barbara. Then it becomes a regular street with two lanes each way complete with stops for traffic signals. Why? Because the influential types in SB don’t want a freeway through their town.)

So rather than fight these entrenched interests and build something that would be the beginnings of a great HSR network, the contractors who stand to get rich and the unions whose members stand to get paid decided to re-route it. It’s now the “Boondoggle in the Boondocks”.

As Fatster pointed out @ 12, trucks of various sizes account for 33%-52% of all vehicle traffic on I-5 and I-99. I-5 has so much truck traffic that when you get to the Grapevine coming and going over the mountains (L.A. Basin – Central Valley) there are turn-offs and separate freeways just for the friggin’ trucks, which have to go slow going up and coming down.

LAX to SFO is a high passenger, low freight route. I-5 through the Central Valley is a low passenger, high freight route.

Feel the need to say that the reason I am so opposed to this project is that it is going to blow-back in so many ways. If you’re a Dem loyalist you should be worried about how this is going to affect Dems in future elections. You should worry about how factions within the Dem party and the progressive movement will be forced into internal conflicts over funding priorities. You’re gonna have nurses and school teachers fighting over funds to subsidize this boondoogle or pay for education, health care, and social services. You’re going to give gold-plated ammo to rightwing groups when they circulate restrictive ballot measures. You’re going to further weaken public support for unions, both public and private sector, because this project is going to be portrayed as more chomping at the public tax dollar trough.

Actually, the far-right column shows what percentage of total traffic is due to those heavy-duty trucks, and it’s not quite 25%. The column before it shows what all trucks are of total traffic, and they don’t exceed 30%. So, as of ten years ago, not quite 30% of traffic on those segments of CA-99 and I-5 were trucks of any kind, and not quite 25% of traffic on those same segments were monster trucks. In other words, the far-right column is a subset of the earlier one. So sorry to have misled you.

But almost all of the truck traffic was the monster trucks.

i had my husband read the comments here because his firm has been involved in this project since 2003. he said that beach populist has so much wrong, including his “facts,” that he wouldn’t know where to start to address them.

the dems allowed the terminator to convince them to wait on this. the longer you wait the more expensive it gets.

you have to start somewhere. this is a start. we don’t want the subsidized freeways and smog you have in l.a!

So often people settle for lower quality than they have to. That’s what this project sounds like to me. Speeds seem slow and the route is indirect. Were I master of the universe, the first segment I’d build would be Los Angeles to Bakersfield, where there is no passenger rail service at the moment. Even if that’s all they ever built, it ends the long bus ride from LA to Bakersfield to catch the train to Sacramento or SF.

Still, I’m for HSR as planned if it’s the best we can get at the moment.

There is a mistake that several FDL’ers have made, so I must correct:

This project is not being built to get people out of their cars. It’s built to get people out of planes.

Did you read this? You know — the report cited in DD’s post on this subject yesterday?

Just in case you are unable to click on links, here’s a taste:

In order to address these concerns, the California High Speed Rail Authority put together a peer review panel to examine those projections. Late last week they made their final report – and it concludes that the projections are sound:

We are satisfied with the documentation presented in Cambridge Systematics, and conclude that it demonstrates that the model produces results that are reasonable and within expected ranges for the current environmental planning and Business Plan applications of the model. We were very pleased with the content, quality and quantity of the information.

[...]

In short, the peer review panel believes the ridership projections are useful and that the Authority and CS are doing the right kind of work to ensure the projections are refined and updated with the latest available data – and that the panel is confident in the progress and initial results of that work.

This peer review report is a strong vote of confidence in the high speed rail ridership projections. From there, we can infer that decisions based on those projections, such as routes and business plans, are themselves reasonable based on the data.

Will HSR opponents such as Senator Alan Lowenthal, who has constantly derided the ridership projects despite having no basis to do so, admit their errors? Will the same reporters who have repeated the charge that the ridership projections are flawed correct the story and give this report the same attention and ink they gave to critics of the projections?

Heh, I don’t think so either. Which is why it’s important that we get the word out there ourselves, including on this blog.

This is the second time today, in this and the earlier thread on this issue, that the rich in Santa Barbara opposed the coastal route. As a 40+ year, resident of SB, I’ll tell you that there has never been a public debate about HSR in this town and that many people would welcome it especially those who commute from Ventura and Santa Maria to work every day. You also claim that driving north on the 101 from Los Angeles that there are stop lights in Santa Barbara- something that hasn’t been true for 20 -25 years.
I have to assume that the rest of your information is as inaccurate as these two claims about the rich and influential in Santa Barbara.

Yup, my bad there.

What I love are the folks who don’t realize that embarking on or disembarking from a train is far less lengthy (and far less nerve-wracking) than even the shortest plane trips, where fifteen minutes is often spent just trying to get all the “carry-on” luggage (which is carried on to avoid $100 luggage fees) into the already-bulging overhead compartments.

How about not just high speed passenger service but also cargo? That may bring in support of another constituency to the table.
But I am sure that they will not miss this opportunity to screw up this project. The first thing I would do is to bring in experienced management to this, from countries that have experience with these kinds of projects. And don’t just buy equipment from overseas, establish factories here to manufacture the necessary hardware. This is an opportunity to establish new industries. If California get is right, it will control the industry. But I don’t have any faith it will succeed. This is just the nature of this country now. Theft and corruption.

There were no hearings in Santa Barbara or any other coastal cities because it was never proposed that the trains run on the coast. It makes no sense that it would . That is not where large populations are and the land is not flat. It would be much more expensive to build. And the intent of the project is to get people out of planes and cars.

Let me get this straight:

A) Your husband has a vested interest in this project;

B) I have so much stuff wrong that…

C) He doesn’t know where to begin.

Okay, lemme help him. How about he starts with this:

1. When the matter was put to the voters for approval in 2008 the cost was estimated at $36.9 bil. Yes or No?

2. A year later that figure was revised upwards by $9 bil to $45.9 bil. Yes or No?

3. By 2011 the cost estimate was raised to $98.5 bil. Yes or No?

4. All of these cost estimate increases are:

a) Prior to one shovel being turned, one foot of rail being laid. Yes or No?

b) Have occurred in an economic environment in which the cost of many construction materials has decreased because of lack of demand due to the collapse of the residential housing market and cutbacks in infrastructure expenditures by government, not to mention almost a complete halt to new commercial and industrial construction. Yes or No?

When you get back to me on these questions, I’ve got some more.

SBRose –

The rich in areas like Santa Barbara don’t voice their concerns at public meetings. They wouldn’t demean themselves by mingling with the common folk. They make their views known in phone calls directly to legislators, during a round of golf, or over cocktail weenies at a campaign fundraiser.

Edit: Figures in questions 1 and 2 should be 33.6 bil and 42.6 bil respectively.

The coast is not where most of the people live? I got news for you, every major metropolitan area in CA except Sacto and the Inland Empire is…

On the coast, between the ocean and the coastal mountains. SD, the entire LA/OC area, the Bay Area (hint: as in ocean bay).

Also, there’s a big difference between running a train right along the ocean, which I agree is an expensive and arduous undertaking (albeit with great views and travel ambience) versus taking it far inland away from the population centers.

And even if you build the current portion in the flat Central Valley, you still have to get it over the mountains and into L.A., whether that’s downtown L.A. or LAX or both. So if you gotta climb some mountains, why not make it the straighest, fastest route you can?

So, the HSRA, which doesn’t exist if this project doesn’t go forward, assembles a peer review committee (which is beholden to the HSRA for its funding) and that PRC miraculously concludes that the HSRA is right? I awed, awed I tell you. Never in the history of public projects have those who stand to profit fibbed about the costs or likely success of the project. I bet not even in Casablanca.

I notice that you didn’t refute the contention that the HSRA projects ridership more than 30 times (not 30%, 30 times) greater than Acela Express. And higher than that of many European systems.

I should also note that one of the biggest boosters of this project is…

The Banksters.

This bill authorizes the sale of muni bonds. Guess who underwrites those bonds and makes a commission on both ends, from the buyer and the seller.

And with bond-funded projects half the total expenditure goes to bond interest. (Need $15 bil for a project? Sell $15 bil in bonds which, over the course of their lifetime, cost $30 bil in interest payments.) Fan-fucking-astic.

What, you mean he got a few key data points wrong?! Surely that doesn’t invalidate his entire spiel, does it?

You’re saying that municipal bonding is evil?

Ooohhhhkay, time to step away from this thread.

Can we all accept that Beachpopulist doesn’t want, like, or ever expect the HSR will work?
Can we then agree that Beachpopulist has a righteous opinion, and said opinion is duly noted?

Now, can we accept that there will certainly be waste (and fraud and abuse), but by virtue of building something other than an additional lane on I-5 or runways at the airport of your choice, people will be working, and people who cant wont or dont drive may have an alternative sometime in the future, and that even thought the mainline is through the mddle of the state, branch lines are and have been considered that will make the connections where people are, or jobs are or businesses see a consumer base?

I commuted by rail for a year and the alternative from a daily soul-crushing stressfull twice a day grind made the distance job do-able.

To address contrarian about the sharing with freight – it cannot work. Freight takes precedence, and in my commute, if Union Pacific had a train, we were “side-tracked” to allow passage. Your point about the benefits of additional freight movement are well taken though.

Finally, now, is the best time to build. It aint ever going to get cheaper. People need jobs. This has all ready been approved by a majority of the voters.

Hey laurastrand ,Are you saying we need a $00 billion boondoggle for jobs ,yet we can’t find the resources to keep marginal food security ,affordable education and medical services ? Our infrastructure is crumbling ,yet these made-in America jobs are not realistic ? It would be impolitic to consider huge job creation via industrialized hemp and attendant commerce .I don’t know what your real agenda is ,but I know this train hustle is a G-20 construct and is always affixed to austerity and green talking points .My guess is innumerable dissenters will be given free rides to these military camps now being built ,ah ,everywhere .

Hey Beach ,you have been in excellent form today .

Thank you.

Laura –

1. As I noted in a previous post, I support the concept of HSR and the original proposal to connect LAX and downtown LA to SFO.

2. The voters approved an initial $10 bil bond when the projected cost was $33.6 bil, not the $98.5 bil that it has ballooned to before construction even starts.

3. This is not going to help people commute to work. Nobody commutes from Bakersfield to Fresno. You know what Bakersfield has? Agriculture, oil, and gangs. You know what Fresno has? Agriculture and gangs. The John Deere rep isn’t going to commute on the train; he’s going to drive his nice shiny truck up the highway until he turns off and drives back to a farm or ranch or the small farming community. Same with the Dow or Monsanto rep peddling pesticides, fertilizer, or — heaven forbid — GMO crops.

4, Last but not least, this isn’t about building a boondoggle that creates jobs but once it’s done, it’s done. The infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska would have been such a project. No, this HSR project is about building something that will continue to perpetually lose money and thus require endless subsidies — money which could go to many more worthwhile projects.

This is more like a scheme to get free fungible, federal money to plug some of California’s budget holes.

On the off chance it is built would be a severe money drain for everyone involved.

Yay, California! We rule. This proves it. Bonds and interest rates have never been lower. Now’s the time to invest in infrastructure. Create jobs. Just like California did in building the Golden Gate Bridge and the SF-Oakland Bay Bridge to build us out of the depression and into the future. People back then said they couldn’t be built. Blah, blah, blah.

The HSR tracks run down the Central Valley because it’s flat and a straight shot. Think Highway 5. While the first tracks are running between two Central Valley cities, the current CalTrain from SF to San Jose also will be upgraded in short order (BART, the subway system, already has been extended to SFO, our airport). CalTrain will be electrified, and the HSR will use the same right of way from San Jose to San Francisco.

Construction of the new transbay terminal in SF is already under construction, which includes the HSR stop, extending Caltrain and HSR downtown into the financial district.

Once the concept is proved in the Central Valley, then HSR will extend to SF and LA. After which, like BART, it starts small then covers the whole region. Why wouldn’t HSR link to Sacramento, Oakland, Portland? Whatever.

When Taiwan built it’s HSR (yes, shame on us for not doing same earlier), it covered only a portion of the ultimate route, with the rest of their country to be covered later. The People’s Republic, otoh, didn’t stop to question why and just built HSR all over (and learned later better to do incrementally if only for safety reasons).

Nothing would ever get down without the vision of our Governor, Arnold Schwartzeneger (huh?), now Jerry Brown, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, etc. Go California!

Great reply, thanks. Since you live there, is it also the case that California’s colleges are so full up with people that students can’t graduate in four years, since they can’t get into their classes? I have heard that, and it makes me wonder why then Gov. Brown/legislature invites more illegal immigrants into the state for in-state tuition. Shouldn’t they get their house in order before offering more bennies to Mexicans?

Liberals love trains, for some reason. Hey, I like passenger trains, too, but they’re very expensive. What’s wrong with bus routes and planes?

Some new potholes on the tracks.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304022004577515102267199694.html