Interesting that the Calif HSR site listed the cost of the San Francisco to Anaheim as $98B. They list $100B as the saving in traffic lanes, airports gates and runways if the passengers are moved to the rail. The politicians had to spend $100B in the next few years, it was just a matter of whether they are going to change the way they move people or whether they were going to continue to build highways and airports.
I think the Calif legislature should be commended. Now if we can get the other states to join the trend!
I too have been following HSR in CA, I am sure you know the reasons, but from what I have read one key is "Spend a little now or a lot more later". That is, once it is built it will be far cheaper to expand with more trains and cars than it would be to pour more concrete. The environmental factors, time savings, and the prestige that comes from getting one first, were just icing on the cake.
First of all, even the breathtaking $98B budget (in this, a virtually bankrupt state!) is a lowball, and the $100B figure for alleged savings (to justify the project) is even more absurd.
But we mustn't worry, the president of the state senate just assured us that the whopping interest payments on all this debt won't come from future state operating budgets, but will be paid with the weight fees which are annually assessed on commercial vehicles here. Oh, goody!
So, how will we pay for the potholes and ongoing major repairs on our still-needed and still-deteriorating state highways? Don't ask.
I think they made a mistake selling it also as a jobs program. That just invites waste. Look what happened in Wisconsin when it was sold as a jobs program. Those Talgo trainsets Wisconsin ordered will never be used and might even be scraped. Talgo is shutting down in Milwaukee, millions of misspent money there. Really states should sell these systems as Economic/RE development and transportation projects and nothing else. On top of that there should be significant involvement by private industry in the management and design of the project. I would be all for the Private Sector taking these projects over completely and given the RE Development rights to as well as land rights to go along with them. It would be controversial but I think more efficient then an all government approach.
The private sector HAD the passenger rail business. They don't want it.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
There are things that are done for the Public Good regardless of whether or not they meet the profit motives needed for the free market.
We can argue about whether or not the California HSR project meets the public good, or whether it is being designed to make the most of the money's assigned to it, but the notion that the private sector would even begin to think about building it from the ground up is not reasonable.
The private sector might have thoughts on it, can be brought in as a contractor, may operate it, but at its core, something like this cannot be anything but a public works project.
The legislature approved the sale of almost 4 billion in bonds to start the process.
Moodies, meanwhile has been tracking their debt, and tripled the amount of unfunded pension and health benefits for California retirees. That may sink their already low credit rating to junk status, and sink the whole project. (It's obvious that they are moving in that direction.)
After all .. if it comes in with a 20% interest rate, California won't be able to move forward. The numbers were all set up for a super low interest rate. The state is already almost $20 billion in the hole in this year's budget.
Adding to the problems, I understand that they 'forgot' to bypass the EIP requirements, and at least 1 city has sued saying that they must do the 3-5 year study before they can start. Gentlemen, start your lawyers.
Just getting it through the court will take more than a year, and that's all they have to get things done, spending $2+ million per day for the next year.
BillBlom The legislature approved the sale of almost 4 billion in bonds to start the process. Moodies, meanwhile has been tracking their debt, and tripled the amount of unfunded pension and health benefits for California retirees. That may sink their already low credit rating to junk status, and sink the whole project. (It's obvious that they are moving in that direction.) After all .. if it comes in with a 20% interest rate, California won't be able to move forward. The numbers were all set up for a super low interest rate. The state is already almost $20 billion in the hole in this year's budget.
Although there are no provisions in the bankruptcy code for accomodating a state financial problem, the reality is that California is moving toward that point. In those circumstances is it reasonable to assume there is ANY "arms length" bond buyer out there? I have doubts.
The state of Michigan just took control of Detroit's city government. They can do that; city goverenments are, after all, creations of their state. However, no mechanism exists to put an entire state under the supervision of adults. As was demonstrated in the auto company bailout, when an ad hoc quasi-bankruptcy solution is put together on the fly. the bondholders take the majority of the haircut.
How many of us are so sold on the necessity of high speed rail that we would put our IRA's and 401's into such bonds?
Dakguy201 BillBlom: The legislature approved the sale of almost 4 billion in bonds to start the process. Moodies, meanwhile has been tracking their debt, and tripled the amount of unfunded pension and health benefits for California retirees. That may sink their already low credit rating to junk status, and sink the whole project. (It's obvious that they are moving in that direction.) After all .. if it comes in with a 20% interest rate, California won't be able to move forward. The numbers were all set up for a super low interest rate. The state is already almost $20 billion in the hole in this year's budget. Although there are no provisions in the bankruptcy code for accomodating a state financial problem, the reality is that California is moving toward that point. In those circumstances is it reasonable to assume there is ANY "arms length" bond buyer out there? I have doubts. The state of Michigan just took control of Detroit's city government. They can do that; city goverenments are, after all, creations of their state. However, no mechanism exists to put an entire state under the supervision of adults. As was demonstrated in the auto company bailout, when an ad hoc quasi-bankruptcy solution is put together on the fly. the bondholders take the majority of the haircut. How many of us are so sold on the necessity of high speed rail that we would put our IRA's and 401's into such bonds?
BillBlom: The legislature approved the sale of almost 4 billion in bonds to start the process. Moodies, meanwhile has been tracking their debt, and tripled the amount of unfunded pension and health benefits for California retirees. That may sink their already low credit rating to junk status, and sink the whole project. (It's obvious that they are moving in that direction.) After all .. if it comes in with a 20% interest rate, California won't be able to move forward. The numbers were all set up for a super low interest rate. The state is already almost $20 billion in the hole in this year's budget.
Great question.
As to the presenting question, why did the California legislators approve California's commitment to the HSR project, I may see part of the reason through the actions of the Texas Legislature. I don't know anything about the California legislature, but I know several members of the Texas Legislature. They are clueless when it comes to finance. To them Monopoly money is high finance.
Over my long career in the utility business, I was assigned to the Austin Government Affairs Office from time to time. This was how I got to know some of the legislators and their staff members. They are well meaning folks, but they don't have the skills to get their minds around complex financial issues.
petitnj Interesting that the Calif HSR site listed the cost of the San Francisco to Anaheim as $98B. They list $100B as the saving in traffic lanes, airports gates and runways if the passengers are moved to the rail. The politicians had to spend $100B in the next few years, it was just a matter of whether they are going to change the way they move people or whether they were going to continue to build highways and airports.
Yes, if you can believe it, coming from people who want to spend the money on rail as a starting proposition.
Serving the public good, spending money now to avoid spending more in the future, buying rail to save money on highways—these things can be platitudes to serve as pretexts to keep the ever-expanding government gravy train rolling forward.
The people who are served by these platitudes have even been able to convince themselves that spending money is the way to accumulate wealth. They tell us they will spend their way out of financial burden.
This California project is so large that it will sink under its own weight of cost overruns. That is the critical mass that all public projects must struggle to avoid. That critical mass is like a black hole. The more money you throw at it, the more money it swallows. And the more it swallows, the harder it is to abandon it and cut the loss.
This project is so large that it starts already beyond that critical mass.
Bucyrus Yes, if you can believe it, coming from people who want to spend the money on rail as a starting proposition. Serving the public good, spending money now to avoid spending more in the future, buying rail to save money on highways—these things can be platitudes to serve as pretexts to keep the ever-expanding government gravy train rolling forward. The people who are served by these platitudes have even been able to convince themselves that spending money is the way to accumulate wealth. They tell us they will spend their way out of financial burden. This California project is so large that it will sink under its own weight of cost overruns. That is the critical mass that all public projects must struggle to avoid. That critical mass is like a black hole. The more money you throw at it, the more money it swallows. And the more it swallows, the harder it is to abandon it and cut the loss. This project is so large that it starts already beyond that critical mass.
Legislatures hear from highway departments, airport authorities, etc, so if the figures were way out of line, don't you think they would have heard about it? Maybe they want to try something different that should take up less valuable real estate. As for a government spending on transportation just to keep a gravy train rolling, can you point out a state that has built more infrastructure than what is actually being used.
MidlandMike Bucyrus: Yes, if you can believe it, coming from people who want to spend the money on rail as a starting proposition. Serving the public good, spending money now to avoid spending more in the future, buying rail to save money on highways—these things can be platitudes to serve as pretexts to keep the ever-expanding government gravy train rolling forward. The people who are served by these platitudes have even been able to convince themselves that spending money is the way to accumulate wealth. They tell us they will spend their way out of financial burden. This California project is so large that it will sink under its own weight of cost overruns. That is the critical mass that all public projects must struggle to avoid. That critical mass is like a black hole. The more money you throw at it, the more money it swallows. And the more it swallows, the harder it is to abandon it and cut the loss. This project is so large that it starts already beyond that critical mass. Legislatures hear from highway departments, airport authorities, etc, so if the figures were way out of line, don't you think they would have heard about it? Maybe they want to try something different that should take up less valuable real estate. As for a government spending on transportation just to keep a gravy train rolling, can you point out a state that has built more infrastructure than what is actually being used.
Bucyrus: Yes, if you can believe it, coming from people who want to spend the money on rail as a starting proposition. Serving the public good, spending money now to avoid spending more in the future, buying rail to save money on highways—these things can be platitudes to serve as pretexts to keep the ever-expanding government gravy train rolling forward. The people who are served by these platitudes have even been able to convince themselves that spending money is the way to accumulate wealth. They tell us they will spend their way out of financial burden. This California project is so large that it will sink under its own weight of cost overruns. That is the critical mass that all public projects must struggle to avoid. That critical mass is like a black hole. The more money you throw at it, the more money it swallows. And the more it swallows, the harder it is to abandon it and cut the loss. This project is so large that it starts already beyond that critical mass.
Minnesota would be one such state, but that is only the one I am most familiar with. But whether or not new infrastructure is being used is not the full measure of whether it is needed, or was the best choice of infrastructure. The money spend for the Hiawatha LRT and North Star Rail would have provided more bang for the buck if it were spent on highway improvement.
Regarding California, I am not really speaking of a dynamic that is only concerned about figures being accurate. I am talking about the whole pull of the process. If it was only a matter of accurate figures, there would never be cost overruns.
California had it's credit rating upgraded in February. It currently has a credit rating of A-.
By what possible logic can anyone conclude that these bonds are going to drop it from A- to junk?
That is not a logical statement at all.
And in a world where US debt is returning a rate that is under inflation and is still the most sought after debt in the world, I'd say California likely won't have too many problems.
Hey, they managed to get a budget implemented before the deadline for once.
Bucyrus MidlandMike: Legislatures hear from highway departments, airport authorities, etc, so if the figures were way out of line, don't you think they would have heard about it? Maybe they want to try something different that should take up less valuable real estate. As for a government spending on transportation just to keep a gravy train rolling, can you point out a state that has built more infrastructure than what is actually being used. Minnesota would be one such state, but that is only the one I am most familiar with. But whether or not new infrastructure is being used is not the full measure of whether it is needed, or was the best choice of infrastructure. The money spend for the Hiawatha LRT and North Star Rail would have provided more bang for the buck if it were spent on highway improvement. Regarding California, I am not really speaking of a dynamic that is only concerned about figures being accurate. I am talking about the whole pull of the process. If it was only a matter of accurate figures, there would never be cost overruns.
MidlandMike: Legislatures hear from highway departments, airport authorities, etc, so if the figures were way out of line, don't you think they would have heard about it? Maybe they want to try something different that should take up less valuable real estate. As for a government spending on transportation just to keep a gravy train rolling, can you point out a state that has built more infrastructure than what is actually being used.
My understanding of the North Star Rail project was that it was intended to be built to St. Cloud which is a bigger city and has colleges that are proven passenger generators. They quit before it was complete. Even so there are bound to be some duds, no human institution is perfect. I don't conclude the project was a "gravy train". Remembering the Minneapolis bridge disaster, I can agree they need to spend more on highways.
I can't argue that the CA HSR is beyond becoming a financial black hole, but the legislature probably concluded that continuing on the old path, or doing nothing, was an even greater risk. (Now I'm starting to sound like my 401k adviser.)
The NorthStar line in Minnesota stopped at Big Lake due to Federal Regulations. The regulations require commuter rails must be faster than the available highway. North of Big Lake there was too little traffic congestion to slow down the commuters. These are rules created to insure that the highways are severely clogged before rails are built to bypass them.
Every highway department has now realized they are not getting enough funds to maintain the roads they have. The stimulus money was a shot in the arm for upgrading the highway infrastructure. That money must be spent by August 2013. After that the fuel taxes will have to increase or highway improvements will grind to a halt. California saw this coming and decided that starting on rail now was the only answer.
MidlandMike Remembering the Minneapolis bridge disaster, I can agree they need to spend more on highways. I can't argue that the CA HSR is beyond becoming a financial black hole, but the legislature probably concluded that continuing on the old path, or doing nothing, was an even greater risk.
Remembering the Minneapolis bridge disaster, I can agree they need to spend more on highways.
I can't argue that the CA HSR is beyond becoming a financial black hole, but the legislature probably concluded that continuing on the old path, or doing nothing, was an even greater risk.
The minneapolis bridge collaspe had nothing to do with a need to spend more on roads and bridges. But it was dishonestly exploited for that charge by the people who cannot stop spending public money. The bridge collapsed due to a design error, which had nothing to do with maintaining the bridge.
The California legislature (like all legislatures) is wired to spend money. That is how they empower themselves and the institution. The belief that they can solve every problem by spending money courses through their veins. Naturally, they will defend their spending by saying that doing nothing is not a good option. But they exaggerate by suggesting that anybody is advocating they do nothing.
However, the solution to the problem is indeed doing less. That is exactly what will avert the problem of a spending meltdown. But the California legislature is not wired for that solution, so their rail project will go forward and will speak for itself in either confirming or refuting my prediction of becoming an economic black hole. I would say that it might be a large enough project to become the first example of the economic black hole.
Tripling the unfunded retirement benefits means they aren't just 30 billion in the hole (on top of the current budget deficit of 20 billion.) - It means they are now (for just that one line item) over 100 BILLION in the hole.
To quote a snippet of the article: "Moody’s Investor Services, who was expected to provide the credit rating to justify selling the debt, may have just torpedoed California’s credit rating by tripling their estimate of the state’s unfunded public pension liability from $38.5 billion to $109.1 billion liability and raising the annual cost of state pension funding by $7.3 billion."
That tells me that they are now another 7.3 billion in the hole next year. That is a VERY bad place to be. Where are they going to cut? They've already started releasing a mass of criminals from the prisons to save money. They have problems paying for Children, and will have power problems going forward. (Shutter the nukes, knock down the coal plants... Someone will give me wind...)
I wonder if they have thought about how many megawatts the thing will need if it gets finished.
Of course, the 113 or whatever miles in the central valley, connecting nothing to nowhere will not be carrying any significant passenger loads. If the suing cities get their way, there won't be any sign of track work, however.
Keep in mind I'm on the other coast. I'm watching the incremental effort in NC, which has produced a limited improvement in performance of the trains from Raleigh to Charlotte. (500 million got us about 15 minutes of improvement.)
Something has be done sooner or later
Freeways in urban areas are maxed out, widening would take years if not decades of legal battles to do.
Airports in most major cities are also maxed out real estate wise, expanding? see above.
More people are using light rail and commuter rail, if you build it they will ride it.
Aside from the costs, the biggest issue with HST is when and where, because its is a logical choice. I dont agree with starting its first leg being between a gopher hole and a tumbleweed but it does have to be built somewhere and sometime. I have to admit I get darn sick and tired of hearing people in this country grumble about public infrastructure projects, while watching Japan (which also has a terrible economy) Europe, China, Russia and even Taiwan adding first class HST rail service while we gripe and moan and crumudgen about something every other first world country can clearly see as vital to their transit needs.At the rate were going with all the naysayers, Cuba will have a better HST network than the US.
Have fun with your trains
BillBlom Keep in mind I'm on the other coast. I'm watching the incremental effort in NC, which has produced a limited improvement in performance of the trains from Raleigh to Charlotte. (500 million got us about 15 minutes of improvement.
Keep in mind I'm on the other coast. I'm watching the incremental effort in NC, which has produced a limited improvement in performance of the trains from Raleigh to Charlotte. (500 million got us about 15 minutes of improvement.
Actually, since 2001 NCDOT has improved the trip by 35 minutes. They are working on ANOTHER 15 minutes. That said, the improvements are not just speed improvements. The money is increasing CAPACITY for both freight and the growing passenger service. Many miles of double track have been added, signaling has been improved, and grade level RR crossings are being sealed and in some cases eliminated. A noon passenger round trip has been added, and they hope to add another train in the future. Two more engines and some passenger cars were recently purchased and grade level crossing safety is being studied.
It is simplistic to say "$500 million for 15 minutes".
True, it used to be almost 2 hours longer than when I drive it.. Not it is a lot closer. (well, other than the other day when 74 hit a trespasser...) I was referring to the latest round of spending, which added improved cross overs between Raleigh and Cary, and improved/eliminated grade crossings, and started on the double tracking. That was just the most recent update.
NS loves the state dropping money on its railroad. The main line from Greensboro to Charlotte was virtually all double tracked, but that got single tracked back in the 60's and 70's to save on maintenance. NS expects the state to pick up the extra maintenance, I suspect.
It runs with one heck of a subsidy. (Thank goodness the NC RR has real income from NS. If NS pulled out, that would be one lightly used chunk of rail.)
In just a couple of years, it will be back to double track from Greensboro to Charlotte. That will help NS far more than the 6 passenger trains per day. (well, 8 when you throw in the Crescent.)
Figures I've seen have NC throwing in 70-100 per ticket worth of subsidy. That's one heck of a benefit for the people that use it.
vsmith Something has be done sooner or later Freeways in urban areas are maxed out, widening would take years if not decade of legal battles to do. Airports in mosta major cities are also maxed out real estate wise, expanding? see above. More people are using light rail and commuter rail, if you build it they will ride it. Aside from the costs, the biggest issue with HST is when and where, because its is a logical choice. I dont agree with starting its first leg being between a gopher hole and a tumbleweed but it does have to be built somewhere and sometime. I have to admit I get darn sick and tired of hearing people in this country grumble about public infrastructure projects, while watching Japan (which also has a terrible economy) Europe, China, Russia and even Taiwan adding first class HST rail service while we gripe and moan and crumudgen about something every other first world country can clearly see as vital to their transit needs.At the rate were going with all the naysayers, Cuba will have a better HST network than the US.
Freeways in urban areas are maxed out, widening would take years if not decade of legal battles to do.
Airports in mosta major cities are also maxed out real estate wise, expanding? see above.
I am in agreement with your post except for the highlighted part, there is a reason why they started building in a place where no one would ride it initially: the Feds such as Ray LaHood didn't just fall off of a turnip truck. They know that if money were allowed to be spent in urban areas first elected leaders would be inclined to use HSR for run of the mill transit projects that already are there (and therefore not need to pay for those existing projects with state taxes), not HSR, and we would never see HSR built. But if you start building in the Central Valley it would be difficult to divert funds away from their intended purpose. The experience with Chris Christie in New Jersey is just one example, of trying to divert HSR money to older projects.
Bucyrus However, the solution to the problem is indeed doing less. That is exactly what will avert the problem of a spending meltdown. But the California legislature is not wired for that solution, so their rail project will go forward and will speak for itself in either confirming or refuting my prediction of becoming an economic black hole. I would say that it might be a large enough project to become the first example of the economic black hole.
I think if other countries can figure out how to build HSR without being sucked into a black hole, we should be able to do it also.
MidlandMike Bucyrus: However, the solution to the problem is indeed doing less. That is exactly what will avert the problem of a spending meltdown. But the California legislature is not wired for that solution, so their rail project will go forward and will speak for itself in either confirming or refuting my prediction of becoming an economic black hole. I would say that it might be a large enough project to become the first example of the economic black hole. I think if other countries can figure out how to build HSR without being sucked into a black hole, we should be able to do it also.
Bucyrus: However, the solution to the problem is indeed doing less. That is exactly what will avert the problem of a spending meltdown. But the California legislature is not wired for that solution, so their rail project will go forward and will speak for itself in either confirming or refuting my prediction of becoming an economic black hole. I would say that it might be a large enough project to become the first example of the economic black hole.
Conceptually the answer is simple. Since passenger rail depends on taxes to cover its costs, especially the capital costs, raise taxes or shift the government spend priorities, i.e. take money away from another program and give it to high speed passenger rail or passenger rail in general.
The people in most of those "other countries" pay considerably higher taxes than we do in the United States. Every time a special interest group, i.e. high speed rail advocates, reaches into your pocket, not to mention mine, no matter how well intentioned, it is taking away your freedom and mine to decided how to spend our money.
Sometimes taking our money as well as the money of everyone else in the country is for the public good. But on many occasions it is for a narrow interest that the advocates dub the public good, e.g. like a new football stadium in Arlington, TX for the Dallas Cowboys. Accordingly, a key question regarding high speed rail is whether it is in the public interest or good along side of defense, education, housing, etc.?
DwightBranch vsmith: Something has be done sooner or later Freeways in urban areas are maxed out, widening would take years if not decade of legal battles to do. Airports in mosta major cities are also maxed out real estate wise, expanding? see above. More people are using light rail and commuter rail, if you build it they will ride it. Aside from the costs, the biggest issue with HST is when and where, because its is a logical choice. I dont agree with starting its first leg being between a gopher hole and a tumbleweed but it does have to be built somewhere and sometime. I have to admit I get darn sick and tired of hearing people in this country grumble about public infrastructure projects, while watching Japan (which also has a terrible economy) Europe, China, Russia and even Taiwan adding first class HST rail service while we gripe and moan and crumudgen about something every other first world country can clearly see as vital to their transit needs.At the rate were going with all the naysayers, Cuba will have a better HST network than the US. I am in agreement with your post except for the highlighted part, there is a reason why they started building in a place where no one would ride it initially: the Feds such as Ray LaHood didn't just fall off of a turnip truck. They know that if money were allowed to be spent in urban areas first elected leaders would be inclined to use HSR for run of the mill transit projects that already are there (and therefore not need to pay for those existing projects with state taxes), not HSR, and we would never see HSR built. But if you start building in the Central Valley it would be difficult to divert funds away from their intended purpose. The experience with Chris Christie in New Jersey is just one example, of trying to divert HSR money to older projects.
vsmith: Something has be done sooner or later Freeways in urban areas are maxed out, widening would take years if not decade of legal battles to do. Airports in mosta major cities are also maxed out real estate wise, expanding? see above. More people are using light rail and commuter rail, if you build it they will ride it. Aside from the costs, the biggest issue with HST is when and where, because its is a logical choice. I dont agree with starting its first leg being between a gopher hole and a tumbleweed but it does have to be built somewhere and sometime. I have to admit I get darn sick and tired of hearing people in this country grumble about public infrastructure projects, while watching Japan (which also has a terrible economy) Europe, China, Russia and even Taiwan adding first class HST rail service while we gripe and moan and crumudgen about something every other first world country can clearly see as vital to their transit needs.At the rate were going with all the naysayers, Cuba will have a better HST network than the US.
I understand why its being started where it is, its just to me it would be better to garner public support if it was started where people who were the actual targets of its use could see it being built daily, thats been a positive thing here in LA where people can see the Metrorail lines being expended and they know something is being done. So while I understand why its being started between a gopher hole and a tumbleweed, I think it would garner better public support if it was started say between San Francisco and Sacramento, but I'll just be glad to see the ball finally rolling somewhere.
Conceptually the answer is simple. Since maintaining military bases in more than 100 foreign countries depends on taxes to cover the costs, raise taxes or shift the government spend priorities, i.e. take money away from another program, like transportation infrastructure and give it to the military.
See, it's all about the perception of what is in the public good or public interest. Those other countries can afford rail because they are not running themselves into bankruptcy with an ever increasing military budget. But, like you, I don't get to decide on what the government spends my tax money. I live on the east coast and will probably never ride that HSR in California, but I consider it a good use of my tax money. Transportation infrastructure benefits the nation as a whole.
"Every time a special interest group, i.e. high speed rail advocates, reaches into your pocket, not to mention mine, no matter how well intentioned, it is taking away your freedom and mine to decided how to spend our money. Sometimes taking our money as well as the money of everyone else in the country is for the public good. "
Notice the subtle political theater: "Taking away your freedom...taking our money" rather than "choosing as a society how we will spend our money for the common good." Our government is not our enemy or problem or some abstract entity. It is simply us and has been increasingly so since 1776.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm "Every time a special interest group, i.e. high speed rail advocates, reaches into your pocket, not to mention mine, no matter how well intentioned, it is taking away your freedom and mine to decided how to spend our money. Sometimes taking our money as well as the money of everyone else in the country is for the public good. " Notice the subtle political theater: "Taking away your freedom...taking our money" rather than "choosing as a society how we will spend our money for the common good." Our government is not our enemy or problem or some abstract entity. It is simply us and has been increasingly so since 1776.
As I have stated on several occasions, one person's common good is another person's common fallacy. It depends on how one sees the world. I resent the implications that I am engaging in political theater. I have never said anything about politics in these forums, other than to note that I worked on the Obama campaign in 2008. In North Carolina! And I got there on my nickel.
Phoebe Vet Conceptually the answer is simple. Since maintaining military bases in more than 100 foreign countries depends on taxes to cover the costs, raise taxes or shift the government spend priorities, i.e. take money away from another program, like transportation infrastructure and give it to the military. See, it's all about the perception of what is in the public good or public interest. Those other countries can afford rail because they are not running themselves into bankruptcy with an ever increasing military budget. But, like you, I don't get to decide on what the government spends my tax money. I live on the east coast and will probably never ride that HSR in California, but I consider it a good use of my tax money. Transportation infrastructure benefits the nation as a whole.
If the California High Speed Rail Project were a good investment; i.e. likely to generate a return for the investors, it would not matter how much the country spends on the military establishment or any other public project. Investors would invest in the project in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, the probability of being able to recover the cost of the project without significant taxpayer support is practically nil. Therefore, since the project will depend on public monies, what the government, as in we the people, spends on other projects matters.
I don't happen to believe that passenger railroads trains are a public or common good. Neither is the new Dallas Cowboys football stadium, which was funded with public dollars. They are nice to have; I ride them, and I like traveling by train. But to say that they are vital to the well being of society is a bit over the top.
The California High Speed Rail Project is a California project. It is not part of a national system as is the case for the federal highway system, the national airways system, etc. Accordingly, if the citizens of California want to pay for a high speed rail system, that is their choice. But they should not be able to raid the federal treasury for their project any more than Texas should be able to rail the federal treasury for a high speed rail project in the Lone Star State. Point of difference to be sure.
Sam1 schlimm: "Every time a special interest group, i.e. high speed rail advocates, reaches into your pocket, not to mention mine, no matter how well intentioned, it is taking away your freedom and mine to decided how to spend our money. Sometimes taking our money as well as the money of everyone else in the country is for the public good. " Notice the subtle political theater: "Taking away your freedom...taking our money" rather than "choosing as a society how we will spend our money for the common good." Our government is not our enemy or problem or some abstract entity. It is simply us and has been increasingly so since 1776. As I have stated on several occasions, one person's common good is another person's common fallacy. It depends on how one sees the world. I resent the implications that I am engaging in political theater. I have never said anything about politics in these forums, other than to note that I worked on the Obama campaign in 2008. In North Carolina! And I got there on my nickel.
schlimm: "Every time a special interest group, i.e. high speed rail advocates, reaches into your pocket, not to mention mine, no matter how well intentioned, it is taking away your freedom and mine to decided how to spend our money. Sometimes taking our money as well as the money of everyone else in the country is for the public good. " Notice the subtle political theater: "Taking away your freedom...taking our money" rather than "choosing as a society how we will spend our money for the common good." Our government is not our enemy or problem or some abstract entity. It is simply us and has been increasingly so since 1776.
I am with Schlimm here, your statement could have come out of a Heritage Society pamphlet. And you are using a very narrow definition of politics as regarding only government and elections. EVERYTHING you say here is political. When I taught university level US government the definition of politics I used is: "Politics is collective action: different people acting together for the achievement of common aims."
To me, this isn't about political ideology but it is indeed about passenger train advocacy.
1. Do you suppose that as passenger train advocates that we could give passenger train critics/skeptics "some space to be unreasonable"?
When I ran the Talgo train exhibit at the Madison, Wisconsin "Mad City" Model Train show, all manner of people would come up to me with what has been called subtle political theatre, that is with the complaint of "Taking away your freedom...taking our money." My main response was to let a person talk, because there is often a need for a person to be heard, to share what is on their mind, before getting the "sales pitch" for public funding for the trains. I would also explain that "what we are here for is that the train needs public funding, and whether or not we have trains needs to be decided by the political process, and people pro-and-con should express their opinions on this."
Given that we need bi-partisan support if we are ever to get public money for trains, is the scolding tone the proper way to win people over to the side of passenger trains the best approach? And yes, "subtle political theatre" is a way of saying "with respect to the use of public money for public purposes, I am right and you are wrong." A lot of the people expressing passenger train skepticism at the Mad City Show and here on this forum are indeed train enthusiasts of some stripe or model railroad enthusiast or have at least some interest in trains.
2. So what about the scoldings I have delivered to the advocacy community? Should I pack my bags as it were and restrict my postings to anti-(passenger) train Web sites?
For one thing, I don't buy the argument that this is the "Camaro enthusiasts Web site and people who are Mustang fanboys should go somewhere else." This Web site draws upon and serves the interests of trains, and not everyone who is a railfan, train enthusiast, model train enthusiast, or even a rider of passenger trains agrees 100% with the opinion that passenger trains merit any and all public support that can be sent their way.
The second thing is that there is a (small) portion of the passenger advocacy community who are perhaps believers but heretical believers. When people hold to strongly held beliefs, I guess in some sense being a heretic, not believing in the correct way, is viewed worse than not believing or being even interested at all. On the other hand, some of us perceived heretics see ourselfs as reformers, correcting the passenger train advocacy movement from going down the wrong and ineffective path.
The strength of this particular forum as that there is a small but vocal group of heretics, er I mean reformers, expressing their opinions here, opinions that are not being expressed anywhere else. Remember John Kneiling the Trains Magazine Professional Iconoclast? John wouldn't have been writing the thought-provoking and even annoying things he had to say in Trains if it weren't for Editor David P Morgan putting up with it. The moderators of this forum could indeed tell us to go elsewhere because afterall this forum is a venture from a for-profit entity serving the interests of the stakeholders in that entity.
3. I know there is a strain of thinking in the advocacy community (channeling that Galaxy Quest comic movie) to "Never surrender! Never give up!"
Do you think it is maybe a teensy bit possible (or maybe a teensy bit allowed) that yes, all manner of money is wasted on military expeditionary forces and many countries considered to be more humble than our United States have gotten HSR lines built, but maybe, possibly that the time isn't exactly right to press on with the California HSR? That maybe we should get economy going again that California's balance sheet straightens out before going full bore into HSR?
A full end-to-end HSR at 220 MPH would be kewl and everything, but should the advocacy community place all of its hopes for growing and evolving passenger service in the U.S. on that one project? A project where we really have not idea the final price tag? Or whether it can even overcome the NIMBYs to get completely built?
Can we talk on these pages of compromises of a partial build-out of the California HSR (was there some talk of 125 MPH as an intermediate or shakedown phase?) Or do we have to be "all in" on "220 MPH Anaheim to downtown San Francisco or nothing" or we are somehow moles for the Cato institute or something?
I mean that on the Steam and Preservation page we get to argue whether or not the Pennsy T-1 was a failure, but we don't get to discuss whether the full CA HSR is a good idea or not here without getting the thread locked?
4. Finally, I think people need to chill. If the CA HSR gets built and everything, I believe it will be a net plus. If gets stuck somewhere along the line and doesn't get completed, it is not the end of the world as we know it. I remember back in the 1960's we had a 'transportation crisis" of congestion, pollution, overpaving, and so on, and we muddled through with only a tiny amount of trains (Amtrak carries about .1 percent of total passenger miles). So today we are faced with a transportation crisis of congestion, pollution, and overpaving, and we may yet muddle through.
Trains are kewl and everything, but since the 1960's we pack more people into a highway lane because automobile brakes are much more capable (remember non-power drum brakes?), and in the near future electronics will automatically apply the brakes faster than human reaction time ("adaptive" cruise control is already on luxury cars, and electronics only gets cheaper with time). Aviation was supposed to be at a crisis in the 1960's, but somehow improved procedures have been developed to keep the air lanes flowing.
Trains can and will be part of the future, but trains are not a magic bullet either and they have their own set of economic and engineering design trades. The engineering geek in me would like to discuss pros and cons without being labeled a traitor to the cause. The passenger train advocate in me would like us to step back and see the bigger picture of how to advance trains rather than being committed to what could be a losing cause.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.