The California HSR system with Bond measure already approved by the voters and now bogged down by bay area NIMBYS and questions about will the San Francisco terminal be large enough needs somebody to really exert control in a hurry.
The California HSR project will be the states largest employer during its construction stage and with unemployment hovering just below 10% it needs to get started now. It now looks as if the portion between Sacramento and LA will be finished first as it is easier to get it going the fastest.
Now all California needs is to insist that any HSR trains built for California be built in California employing California labor. This will ensure that since the California system will be the first in the US that any future proposed HSR systems in the country will be able to buy there trains from California. Besides California will without doubt have the greatest number of trains for there own system. The Fremont plant that was operated jointly by General Motors and Toyota that is now closing down would be an ideal location to build HSR trainsets.
The Port of Stockton is the largest port in California for bulk cement a reason for this city to build the concrete bridge sections and even the prestressed concrete ties for the California HSR system. They already have the facility in place that built the new concrete sections for the east bay section of the Bay bridge.
And further more Stockton would make an ideal place to build a HSR maintenance base as it will eventually connect with all parts of the system, and land is cheaper here than almost anywhere else on the proposed HSR network. Besides there is already sites available with rail access.
Al - in - Stockton
What California needs is the attitude that this is not just another stimulus project; it is in fact THE BEST ANSWER to ALL of the major problems the state faces. If Stockton is anything like where I live with unemployment, I am sure you are wondering why this hasn't started already.
My Toyota truck is from Fremont, and I have several times ridden past that plant on the lonely, slow, one train a day that heads to LA. The workers there could certainly be proud to see trains they had built zipping by... they sure built good pickup trucks!
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
passengerfan Now all California needs is to insist that any HSR trains built for California be built in California employing California labor. This will ensure that since the California system will be the first in the US that any future proposed HSR systems in the country will be able to buy there trains from California. Al - in - Stockton
Now all California needs is to insist that any HSR trains built for California be built in California employing California labor. This will ensure that since the California system will be the first in the US that any future proposed HSR systems in the country will be able to buy there trains from California. Al - in - Stockton
If the California High Speed Rail project requires the equipment to be built in California, which you espouse, I presume that you would have no problem with the Chinese banning the sale of Boeing airplanes there, since they are not made in China, or the Air Bus consortium of countries blocking the use of GE jet engines on any Air Bus airplanes because they are not manufactured in one of the consortium countries.
If the high speed rail equipment must be built in California, what makes you think that Texans would buy it, as an example, given that they could not bid on any equipment for the high speed rail project, unless presumably they open a plant in California?
In the first place California will have the longest HSR system in the world if it is ever completed which will require more trains than any of the existing systems. With almost 10% unemployment why not jobs for Californians.Some are already predicting that before things see any improvement unemployment in California could top 12%. Crime is already on the rise and with the State issuing warrants that the banks won't honor crime will only go up. As a matter of fact newly released prisoners in California are being given warrants instead of checks. So I guess the state expects them to go out and rob a bank for spending money until the warrants can be cashed.
Sam1 passengerfan Now all California needs is to insist that any HSR trains built for California be built in California employing California labor. This will ensure that since the California system will be the first in the US that any future proposed HSR systems in the country will be able to buy there trains from California. Al - in - Stockton If the California High Speed Rail project requires the equipment to be built in California, which you espouse, I presume that you would have no problem with the Chinese banning the sale of Boeing airplanes there, since they are not made in China, or the Air Bus consortium of countries blocking the use of GE jet engines on any Air Bus airplanes because they are not manufactured in one of the consortium countries. If the high speed rail equipment must be built in California, what makes you think that Texans would buy it, as an example, given that they could not bid on any equipment for the high speed rail project, unless presumably they open a plant in California?
China contibutes to Boeing Commercial Airplane Division as a sub contrator at the present time as does Japan, Canada, the UK and other countries. GE/Snecma builds GE engines for Airbus in France already. I am not saying we can not utilize the Japanese, French, or German Co's for the actual trainsets but I would think it would make more sense to construct them in the USA. I believe that much research has already been developed for HSR at the Pueblo test site. Whether it be GE or whoever builds the US HSR trains it would certainly make more sense to build them in California as there system will probably operate the greatest number of trainsets. We have much to learn from the Japanese where HSR is concerned as they have a great deal of experience building and operating HSR is a country that has seismic activity almost on a daily basis.
The California HSR project will be the states largest employer during its construction stage and with unemployment hovering just below 10% it needs to get started now.
Why now?
Yes, there is the reasoning that land or condemnation of occupied land is cheaper now.
But the state is near bankruptcy. Will taking on this project help with the bond rating? Will it help keep public school teachers, police, social workers, and prison guards paid?
Will it help with "business climate", that is, encouraging businesses to locate in CA or stay located there? I guess having a fast train will help some business that rely on moving executives between the major cities for important meetings. Highways are said to help business climate by keeping the wheels of commerce, both freight and passenger traffic moving along. But taking on even more bond debt at this point may scare businesses away from CA, that the future tax burden be higher than it is now.
Spending on the HSR will help those workers employed on the project, but could it hurt many other workers, including workers in the private sector losing their jobs owing to higher taxes, and even jobs in the public sector owing to the greater strain on the budget?
Admittedly, HSR is contributing to "infrastructure", that is building something of lasting economic value, much as highway construction has in the past, assuming of course that the HSR gets as much "bang for the buck" as highways. But is now the time to take on major highway building through state bond funding?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
passengerfan In the first place California will have the longest HSR system in the world if it is ever completed which will require more trains than any of the existing systems. With almost 10% unemployment why not jobs for Californians.Some are already predicting that before things see any improvement unemployment in California could top 12%. Crime is already on the rise and with the State issuing warrants that the banks won't honor crime will only go up. As a matter of fact newly released prisoners in California are being given warrants instead of checks. So I guess the state expects them to go out and rob a bank for spending money until the warrants can be cashed. Al - in - Stockton Sam1 passengerfan Now all California needs is to insist that any HSR trains built for California be built in California employing California labor. This will ensure that since the California system will be the first in the US that any future proposed HSR systems in the country will be able to buy there trains from California. Al - in - Stockton If the California High Speed Rail project requires the equipment to be built in California, which you espouse, I presume that you would have no problem with the Chinese banning the sale of Boeing airplanes there, since they are not made in China, or the Air Bus consortium of countries blocking the use of GE jet engines on any Air Bus airplanes because they are not manufactured in one of the consortium countries. If the high speed rail equipment must be built in California, what makes you think that Texans would buy it, as an example, given that they could not bid on any equipment for the high speed rail project, unless presumably they open a plant in California? China contibutes to Boeing Commercial Airplane Division as a sub contrator at the present time as does Japan, Canada, the UK and other countries. GE/Snecma builds GE engines for Airbus in France already. I am not saying we can not utilize the Japanese, French, or German Co's for the actual trainsets but I would think it would make more sense to construct them in the USA. I believe that much research has already been developed for HSR at the Pueblo test site. Whether it be GE or whoever builds the US HSR trains it would certainly make more sense to build them in California as there system will probably operate the greatest number of trainsets. We have much to learn from the Japanese where HSR is concerned as they have a great deal of experience building and operating HSR is a country that has seismic activity almost on a daily basis. Al - in - Stockton
It may be a good political move to require the equipment be constructed in California, but politicians seldom make good economic or business decisions. Unless one believes in protectionism, which most economists believe is a bad idea, since it leads to trade wars, the equipment should be built where it produces the best outcome for the project. It may be California, or it may be anywhere.
The Dallas politicos insisted that the final assembly of DART's light rail cars, which had been purchased in Japan, be done in Dallas. The idea was to provide employment for local people. As a result, DART paid considerably more for its light rail cars in 1994 than Houston paid for its light rail cars, with similar characteristics, nearly six years later. The Houston authorities did not insist that the cars be assembled in Houston or Texas. They awarded the contract to the lowest effective cost bidder irrespective of where the cars were built.
If the project emulates other high speed rail projects, it won't cover its operating expenses let alone the capital costs. So requiring the equipment to be built in a high cost state, with a rampant budget deficit, may not make that much difference in the long run.
On 7-6-09 bond rating service Fitch dropped California's bond rating to BBB, which is the worst of any state. S&P has taken a similiar position.
Just where do the advocates of HSR think they are going to be able to sell the bonds for this project? What kind of terms are going to be demanded by lenders? What investment bank is going to be brave enough to underwrite this issue? Assuming an issue is sold, what kind of "lock box" provisions are going to be necessary to segregate the cash from the clutches of a disfunctional legislature? In short getting a bond issue approved by the voters may prove to be a whole lot easier than getting the issue sold.
I have a very hard time believing any dirt is actually going to be flying in the next few years.
California is in its financial situation because they have invested so heavily in an automobile-based infrastructure, and it is not sustainable. For example, it is expensive to maintain highways, let alone expand them for increasing population.
Washington State had some problem using Stimulus money to build ferry boats because of a requirement that all Washinton State Ferries be built in-state. They managed to work out something; it's all political.
Which brings up the main barrier to this: profit equals politics; the current system is very profitable for some. Their profits are at the expense of the environment and long-term usability. While the costs to taxpayers for a rail system are high, there is a long-term savings--which means less profit for the automobile-based industries. But where is the political power: held by those who hold the purse strings now, or in care of some abstract concept of sustainability?
Maglev California is in its financial situation because they have invested so heavily in an automobile-based infrastructure, and it is not sustainable. For example, it is expensive to maintain highways, let alone expand them for increasing population.
I like trains and would like to see more of them. I really do. I was a charter member of NARP before many of the people around here were even born. But the advocacy community has been advancing arguments in support of public spending on trains that are simply preposterous, and this is wearing on me. It is wearing on me because I have been hearing the same thing for 40 years now, and judging by the precarious state of Amtrak, 8 billion in ARRA money that Don Oltmann warns us needs to be spent judiciously notwithstanding.
If California is in its straights because of too many highways and too many cars, why isn't Texas teetering at the same precipice?
I was talking with my wife the other day about a guy I work with and the kind of car he drives. I was talking about how they had Volkswagen Jetta or some such car that was fun to drive, but they got rid of it because the upkeep on their Volkswagen was too expensive -- apparently the Japanese makes are really reliable but some European cars break down more often than the supposed unreliable American cars.
I also got to mentioning that the guy I work with doesn't depend on his car because he takes the bus to work from where he lives out in the suburbs, but that his wife needs a totally reliable car: she drives "way out to someplace" because she has a job as a schoolteacher. Where they live allows him to take transit but she runs up miles on a car on account of her job.
If anyone dares take a peek at the David Lawyer Web site (its safe, he is not some "right wing Cato Institute" dude), you would see that automobiles were more energy efficient than the kinds of trains they replaced. The reason our transportation energy use has increase 40-fold in a century is that our transportation passenger miles has increased even faster.
What is unsustainable about cars, to the extent one suscribes to autos being unsustainable in the face of imminent Peak Oil and/or Global Warming and that electric cars or partial electric cars (plug-in hybrids) won't work, is that we use them so much. Autos provides such convenience and flexibility that we go places and travel at levels we had not dreamed of when steam trains and interrubans were king.
But what kind of indulgent activity are people engaging in with their cars? Having jobs is a start. My friend takes bus transit, but his wife travels a long distance in a car every day, allowing both of them to be employed. Each of you probably have friends in the same situation if you are not in it yourself.
Even if we get some "proper" level of trains, they will not even begin to make a dent in automobile passenger miles. Sustainability may require us to drive much, much less, but trains will not even begin to make up the difference in miles travelled -- they certainly did not "back in the day." The societies that have a much larger fraction of passenger miles in trains (Japan, China, Russia, I believe in about that order) have populations that move about much less.
Sustainability, at this point, requires people in metro areas, at least, to have an available choice of public transport to get to jobs if they wish. It's going to be hard because we have built all our growth of the past 60 years on a cheap gas, drive everywhere basis. Down the road, the flexibility to drive everywhere may not be an option. We have time to begin to make some changes. Building more highways is not a viable part of the long-term answer.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Paul MilenkovicIf California is in its straights because of too many highways and too many cars, why isn't Texas teetering at the same precipice?
Could it be because of fuel mileage standards? Would you say Texas gets a lot fewer miles per gas tax dollar because of all the SUVs?
I for one do not even own a car any longer and find it not to be an inconvenience. I walk three blocks to and from work. The Super Market is two blocks away , a multiplex theatre is just a few blocks away easily within walking distance. The Arena and Ballpark are also within walking distance as is a number of fine restaurants and even some fast food places. Once a month I rent a car for a day or two and we go to a Casino or something. If we go to San Francisco we take Amtrak and Bart. If we go to Las Vagas we take Amtrak the same if we go to Reno. I find not owning a car to be no problem at all. When I rent a car they come and pick me up and drop me off when I return the car. I pay no car insurance no car license and have no tires batteries or anything else to buy.
I deliberatly moved to this area so i could get rid of my car which I promptly did.
passengerfan I for one do not even own a car any longer and find it not to be an inconvenience. I walk three blocks to and from work. The Super Market is two blocks away , a multiplex theatre is just a few blocks away easily within walking distance. The Arena and Ballpark are also within walking distance as is a number of fine restaurants and even some fast food places. Once a month I rent a car for a day or two and we go to a Casino or something. If we go to San Francisco we take Amtrak and Bart. If we go to Las Vagas we take Amtrak the same if we go to Reno. I find not owning a car to be no problem at all. When I rent a car they come and pick me up and drop me off when I return the car. I pay no car insurance no car license and have no tires batteries or anything else to buy. I deliberatly moved to this area so i could get rid of my car which I promptly did. Al - in - Stockton
There are many lifestyle choices that affect resource consumption and financial requirements.
We can roll the clock back to when I was growing up in suburban Chicago. We moved out of the City, not so much to get away from whatever the City of Chicago represented but because Father's job move out. We had one family car, which Father used for a 4-mile each way commute to work.
When Mom took the kids out shopping, during times we were off school, it was an all-day affair. We walked what seemed like forever to get to a bus, where we transfered to the El, where we left at the station stop for Marshall Fields. The ride back offered more options. One of which were suburban commuter buses, where I remember the bus barn reeked of the propane fuel. Mom didn't have a job outside the home.
My wife and I are so fortunate to have a five-mile each way commute to the same place -- we have been sharing the ride as of late. My co-worker where his wife is a school teacher: hey, she doesn't need that job anyway -- her husband works, and a family that moderates their wants can get by on one income -- I grew up that way.
There are other lifestyle choices. If one is not married, one can join the Trappists -- not only save on car ownership, commuting expenses, but on phone and cable TV charges. I don't say this to be silly: monastaries were an important lifestyle option in the resource-constrained Middle Ages.
Some of our moving to and fro in cars is spinning our wheels as it were. We move out to the far-out hinterlands in pursuit of affordable housing and rack up miles in a car without having gained anything. There are grand plans for sustainability minded high-density housing. In discussions of promoting the car-free lifestyle with a streetcar plan in our community patterned after Portland, I was told that a quarter million-dollar "streetcar condo" represented the sort of "middle income" housing the developers in alliance with our "progressive" mayor had in mind.
The unvarnished truth, as it were, is that meaningful reduction of transportation environmental impact, the sustainability people talk about, would mean a serious reduction in passenger miles. It would not mean a one-for-one substitution of train passenger miles for auto passenger miles. It would not mean a rollback to Medieval Times, but it might mean a rollback to the 1950s, when we had a much lower participation of women in the workforce and gender equality in public life was not what it is today. There are some "right wing" political factions that would like to turn the clock back in that manner as their "hidden agenda" -- perhaps passenger train advocacy could make common cause and achieve more progress towards our agenda.
Paul:
"It would not mean a rollback to Medieval Times, but it might mean a rollback to the 1950s, when we had a much lower participation of women in the workforce and gender equality in public life was not what it is today. There are some "right wing" political factions that would like to turn the clock back in that manner as their "hidden agenda" -- perhaps passenger train advocacy could make common cause and achieve more progress towards our agenda."
I grew up in the Chicago suburbs, too. Modest homes on tree-lined streets. One mile walk to downtown for the CNW or CA&E, then into Chicago Loop. The latter (with a transfer) took one right to Fields. Not such a bad time, in some ways, those 1950's - early 60's. But I am not a right-winger. Just the opposite. Most folks who believe we have no choice about if, only when we move to a sustainable society tend to be liberal. It's been the right-wingers who want to drive monster trucks and SUVs b/c they are willing to pay for the gas, though even here down the Willamette, that is changing..
All:
I am a native son of California. I live in the North but travel for business to the South. When gas prices hit $4.00 a gallon last year it became very clear that I must find a new way to travel. The airlines were hit very hard by the fuel prices. But they are fighters. Some people say thatSouthwest airlines pays the most to fight the HSR alternative. I can believe that.
The State needs a reliable method to do trade in the State. Peak Oil is for real. Cars and planes will not provide a reliable solution. If California does implode from financial or fuel problems, then we need the train even more.
I do not belive we must spend the gazillions to take the train into downtown SF. When I fly from the East Bay, I must take BART to the SF airport. A downtown rail stop makes no economic sense. Bring the train to Livermore or Pleasanton. All the Bay Area can take BART to Pleasanton about as easily as to downtown SF.
Let's build the HSR before we run out of fuel to build it. We must prepare for a new reality, one with lots less cheap fuel. Railroads are the future. If we don't say it long and loud, who will?
Railroads are the immediate future. Let's reapir the old passenger rail and build the new ones before it is too late.
danasaur When gas prices hit $4.00 a gallon last year it became very clear that I must find a new way to travel.
When gas prices hit $4.00 a gallon last year it became very clear that I must find a new way to travel.
If gas prices are the driving force behind large public expenditure on trains, I haven't seen any evidence that Amtrak or a future HSR offers any meaningful energy savings over fuel efficient cars. If Global Warming or Peak Oil is the concern, a much more effective use of public money is to subsidize hybrid cars through the tax credit.
If HSR is a matter of substituting electric power for gasoline, it is not clear to me that there is a base-load source of electric power acceptable to people in California. Wind power certainly doesn't count because wind varies and you want to run the trains at all hours and on all days.
danasaurAll: I am a native son of California. I live in the North but travel for business to the South. When gas prices hit $4.00 a gallon last year it became very clear that I must find a new way to travel. The airlines were hit very hard by the fuel prices. But they are fighters. Some people say thatSouthwest airlines pays the most to fight the HSR alternative. I can believe that. The State needs a reliable method to do trade in the State. Peak Oil is for real. Cars and planes will not provide a reliable solution. If California does implode from financial or fuel problems, then we need the train even more. I do not belive we must spend the gazillions to take the train into downtown SF. When I fly from the East Bay, I must take BART to the SF airport. A downtown rail stop makes no economic sense. Bring the train to Livermore or Pleasanton. All the Bay Area can take BART to Pleasanton about as easily as to downtown SF. Let's build the HSR before we run out of fuel to build it. We must prepare for a new reality, one with lots less cheap fuel. Railroads are the future. If we don't say it long and loud, who will? Railroads are the immediate future. Let's reapir the old passenger rail and build the new ones before it is too late.
My guess is bio-fuels will replace petroleum before any significant shift is made to transit and intercity rail.
I have come to the conclusion the CA HSR does not need to go to San Francisco at all. The east bay communities have never thrown any roadblocks in the path so why not just let those passengers bound for SF get off in San Jose and take Caltrain for the remainder of there trip. The rest of California can enjoy the growth that HSR will bring and the westbay communities and San Francisco can return to the dark ages. The time for starting construction is now while the real estate prices are low not wait for the real estate market to return.
I'm sure that if Sacramento continues its growth pattern San Francisco will become even less important that it thinks it is. And Palo Alto means nothing to the HSR program anyway.
passengerfanI have come to the conclusion the CA HSR does not need to go to San Francisco at all. The east bay communities have never thrown any roadblocks in the path so why not just let those passengers bound for SF get off in San Jose and take Caltrain for the remainder of there trip. The rest of California can enjoy the growth that HSR will bring and the westbay communities and San Francisco can return to the dark ages. The time for starting construction is now while the real estate prices are low not wait for the real estate market to return. I'm sure that if Sacramento continues its growth pattern San Francisco will become even less important that it thinks it is. And Palo Alto means nothing to the HSR program anyway. Al - in - StocktonI've heard some controversy about continuing high speed service from San Jose to San Francisco. I thought the compromise was to run at slower speeds with Caltrain. A one-seat ride to Palo Alto and possibly other stops to San Francisco has got to be more convenient and attractive than longer drives and slower Caltrain or or bus schedules. Alternatively, why stop at the BART connection at San Bruno? To stop short of the goal because 220 mph infrastructure is prohibitively costly in an urbanized area seems unduly iconoclastic. Your argument could be used for Los Angeles too.Obviously, I do not share the view that Palo Alto and San Francisco itself are not important traffic sources. I'm sure Stanford University draws substantial travel beyond proportion to the population. Similarly, the Stanford medical center draws both patients and professionals. If you are using a model for a premium high speed business travel, potential ridership is severely limited between other points as well and must compete on both fares and travel time with airlines that fly much faster than 220 mph. Political and public relevance, urban road congestion, emission reductions, and energy savings benfits also are greatly reduced. Such a model may work okay with a companion Regional Express service for other travel as on the NEC. I would leard toward maximizing ridership with lower fares along with different classes of service and amenities. How many airlines have all-business class flights?
I've heard some controversy about continuing high speed service from San Jose to San Francisco. I thought the compromise was to run at slower speeds with Caltrain. A one-seat ride to Palo Alto and possibly other stops to San Francisco has got to be more convenient and attractive than longer drives and slower Caltrain or or bus schedules. Alternatively, why stop at the BART connection at San Bruno? To stop short of the goal because 220 mph infrastructure is prohibitively costly in an urbanized area seems unduly iconoclastic. Your argument could be used for Los Angeles too.
Obviously, I do not share the view that Palo Alto and San Francisco itself are not important traffic sources. I'm sure Stanford University draws substantial travel beyond proportion to the population. Similarly, the Stanford medical center draws both patients and professionals.
If you are using a model for a premium high speed business travel, potential ridership is severely limited between other points as well and must compete on both fares and travel time with airlines that fly much faster than 220 mph. Political and public relevance, urban road congestion, emission reductions, and energy savings benfits also are greatly reduced. Such a model may work okay with a companion Regional Express service for other travel as on the NEC. I would leard toward maximizing ridership with lower fares along with different classes of service and amenities. How many airlines have all-business class flights?
It was just announced that the Fremont plant will close and be liquidated. That will cost California 7,000 high paying (30.00 per hour) jobs for those who worked there and an additional 23, 000 jobs that supported the work at the plant. This will directly affect UP with the lack of Auto loading as well.
Now if California is smart they will make this plant the home of new HSR trains for the entire nation. And the plant is large enough to build additional California Cars. Not to mention that a skilled production force will already be available. This could be a great opportunity for the state to become the home of US HSR train construction. The size of this modern facility would make it easily adaptable for HSR trains whether we partner with Japan or Europe , or maybe just go it alone. The Pueblo test sight has played around with HSR concepts and catenary for years maybe now is the time to put to use what has been learned there.
My pickup truck that was assembled in the Fremont factory will last a lifetime. Perhaps this shows that our manufacturing system is not successful at sustained production of long-lasting machines. Isn't that the reasoning behind the "cash for clunkers" program?
I believe we need a major overhaul of our government system. Not welfare, communism, socialism, or $700 a month to an insurance company only to find out that they wouldn't pay a dime for cancer treatment. Here is a solution for the 23,000 affected in Fremont: build trains.
(To the tune of "Accentuate the Positive"):
You've got to:
Subsidize the disposable,
Refinance the reproachable,
Ignore that TGV's are possible...
Just make it all look good on TV!
Paul MilenkovicIf HSR is a matter of substituting electric power for gasoline, it is not clear to me that there is a base-load source of electric power acceptable to people in California. Wind power certainly doesn't count because wind varies and you want to run the trains at all hours and on all days.
To paraphrase you "If plug-in cars are a matter of substituting electric power for gasoline, it is not clear to me..."
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.