schlimm jclass: Here's the World Ecomomics Forum report, all 529 pages of it. My instinct is to not put much stock in such things, but I suppose important decisions are made based on this level of abstraction. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GCR_Report_2011-12.pdf The relevant chart on the USA: 2nd pillar: Infrastructure Score Rank 2.01 Quality of overall infrastructure............................. 5.7............24 2.02 Quality of roads..................................................... 5.7..............20 2.03 Quality of railroad infrastructure............................ 4.8...........20 2.04 Quality of port infrastructure................................. 5.5.............23 2.05 Quality of air transport infrastructure.................... 5.7...........31 2.06 Available airline seat kms/week, millions*... 32,085.9.........1 2.07 Quality of electricity supply................................... 6.0..............32 2.08 Fixed telephone lines/100 pop.* ......................... 48.7..........14 2.09 Mobile telephone subscriptions/100 pop.*......... 89.9.........87
jclass: Here's the World Ecomomics Forum report, all 529 pages of it. My instinct is to not put much stock in such things, but I suppose important decisions are made based on this level of abstraction. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GCR_Report_2011-12.pdf
Here's the World Ecomomics Forum report, all 529 pages of it.
My instinct is to not put much stock in such things, but I suppose
important decisions are made based on this level of abstraction.
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GCR_Report_2011-12.pdf
The relevant chart on the USA:
2nd pillar: Infrastructure Score Rank
2.01 Quality of overall infrastructure............................. 5.7............24
2.02 Quality of roads..................................................... 5.7..............20
2.03 Quality of railroad infrastructure............................ 4.8...........20
2.04 Quality of port infrastructure................................. 5.5.............23
2.05 Quality of air transport infrastructure.................... 5.7...........31
2.06 Available airline seat kms/week, millions*... 32,085.9.........1
2.07 Quality of electricity supply................................... 6.0..............32
2.08 Fixed telephone lines/100 pop.* ......................... 48.7..........14
2.09 Mobile telephone subscriptions/100 pop.*......... 89.9.........87
How, exactly, does the US come in at 20th in "Quality of railroad infrastructure"? That's just nuts.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
In your opinion it's nuts, but in the opinions of many American execs, etc. in the survey, our rail infrastructure isn't bad, just not top-notch. By way of contrast, Canada's rail infrastructure ranks pretty low, 82nd, with a score of 2.3.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm In your opinion it's nuts, but in the opinions of many American execs, etc. in the survey, our rail infrastructure isn't bad, just not top-notch. By way of contrast, Canada's rail infrastructure ranks pretty low, 82nd, with a score of 2.3.
Who are these executives generally? Are they private business executives or public sector executives? If they are private business executives, I am trying to visualize how one would judge the performance of railroads. If the executives are using railroads as shippers, don't they get the service they are willing to pay for?
If an executive deems U.S. rail service to be less than perfect, what sort of remedy would that executive expect to be applied to make it perfect?
One, the survey is reputable by a primarily business group. Two, the execs are from private corporations, not the government. Three, it's the same in all countries, so it's a level playing field. Or are you saying US corporate execs' opinions about infrastructure are more irrelevant or biased than those of execs in other countries about their respective nations? Why would that be? And don't you think it says a great deal if American business execs see the need to improve infrastructure (not just rail), even if you don't want to acknowledge that?
I'm not drawing any conclusions because I don't see any to draw.
But railroad infrastructure is private. So I don't get where American business execs are coming from when they say it should be improved. Private infrastructure is determined by business demand in terms of the law of supply and demand.
But here is my main question: When American business exces say that railroad infrastructure should be improved, who do they expect to pay for the improvement?
Government projects have a nasty habit of coming in way over what the public was first told a project would cost. It is not limited to transportation projects.
Anecdotal experience points to a correlation. The greater the doubt of acceptance and controversy, the larger the spread between initial cost stated for the project and the final cost.
Will that happen with California's high speed rail?
Victrola1 Government projects have a nasty habit of coming in way over what the public was first told a project would cost. It is not limited to transportation projects. Anecdotal experience points to a correlation. The greater the doubt of acceptance and controversy, the larger the spread between initial cost stated for the project and the final cost. Will that happen with California's high speed rail?
That is true of any complex project, especially one breaking new ground organizationally or technologically.
The cost estimates have already been revised upward at least once. That's just part of the fun with this project.
First they do a rough design and a rough estimate of cost. Then they start arguing over the route on a macro level and redo the costs. Then they try to figure out where to start construction and then argue about the route on a micro level. Then they realize they are building a route from nowhere to nowhere and say they are going to tie it into the existing network but have nothing but nodding heads from the commuter operators and Amtrak. Nothing from the actual track owners. Nothing on equipment compatibly. Nothing on interim levels/stages of implementation, Nothing on interim levels of service, revenue, ridership.
Stay tuned!
Well, Caltrain owns SJ to SF, so that's ok. Electrifying that instead of building another main is one of the first undeniably smart things the HSR authority has done. Caltrain would never have justified doing that itself, but it is a benefit to the community either way.
In the south, the Antelope Valley Metrolink line is still UP (Former SP) which is probably why it isn't up for Electrification. This transfer is less compelling I think, but its more a political issue than anything else. If they were smart, the Desert Express people would try and share this connection as well rather than build at Victorville . It would be a bit more circuitous, but I think if you're going to build a transit hub in the middle of the high desert, you should choose to build one, not multiple.
I've often wondered how much traffic the original SP line from Mojave to the LA Basin sees versus the Cutoff and Cajon. Obvioulsy, the coast line still uses a portion of it in the valley, but what about traffic from the Central Valley over Tehachapi? How much goes over the original line and how much moves over the cutoff?
That's right. Reinvent the wheel...
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-rail-advice-20120709,0,4539140.story
jclass That's right. Reinvent the wheel... http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-rail-advice-20120709,0,4539140.story
My favorite quote:
"It's like California is trying to design and build a Boeing 747 instead of going out and buying one," said Dan McNamara, a civil engineer who worked for SNCF's U.S. affiliate.
How did this project go from $45 billion to $68 billion estimated cost? Is there a really solid single explanation for this, or was it due to a lot of little details?
YoHo1975 Well, Caltrain owns SJ to SF, so that's ok. Electrifying that instead of building another main is one of the first undeniably smart things the HSR authority has done.
Well, Caltrain owns SJ to SF, so that's ok. Electrifying that instead of building another main is one of the first undeniably smart things the HSR authority has done.
Really? How do they plan to keep the current capacity of the commuter lines and meet the Proposition 1A maximum time requirements? Their latest business plan released in April states they will conduct studies. Ask anyone who has run a railroad, trains running at significantly different speeds reduces capacity.
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
schlimm One, the survey is reputable by a primarily business group. Two, the execs are from private corporations, not the government. Three, it's the same in all countries, so it's a level playing field. Or are you saying US corporate execs' opinions about infrastructure are more irrelevant or biased than those of execs in other countries about their respective nations? Why would that be? And don't you think it says a great deal if American business execs see the need to improve infrastructure (not just rail), even if you don't want to acknowledge that?
In other words, it's an opinion poll.
Note that many popular entertainers and sports figures are frequently asked their opinions about politics and international affairs. Just how knowledgeable about the subject(s) are the people giving opinions? For that matter, how much weight is given to the, "If I tell my honest opinion, I'll lose my job," factor.
So `corporate executives' were asked for opinions. Were the corporations actively engaged in the businesses asked about? I'm sure that a Johnson Wax exec will be able to speak knowledgeably about rail service in a state where Johnson doesn't operate...
My considered opinion is that opinion polls, unless supported by hard, verifiable statistics, aren't worth the paper they're printed on. (As a statistician, I may be biased)
Chuck
You are presenting a very valid concern, and these plans are just for an rather insignificant portion of the line out in the middle of nowhere.
In addition, the recent Stockton bankruptcy is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of coming California fiscal problems. The funding source for California's share of the project cost is additional state debt, and I believe lenders increasingly will hesitate to provide funds.
ericsp YoHo1975: Well, Caltrain owns SJ to SF, so that's ok. Electrifying that instead of building another main is one of the first undeniably smart things the HSR authority has done. Really? How do they plan to keep the current capacity of the commuter lines and meet the Proposition 1A maximum time requirements? Their latest business plan released in April states they will conduct studies. Ask anyone who has run a railroad, trains running at significantly different speeds reduces capacity.
YoHo1975: Well, Caltrain owns SJ to SF, so that's ok. Electrifying that instead of building another main is one of the first undeniably smart things the HSR authority has done.
Have we not discussed numerous times on this board how electric operations allow for higher capacity and tighter schedules? Further, I didn't say that this move met all the specific requirements of Prop 1A, I said it was the first tangibly smart thing they've done. Building another main up the peninsula would be stupid. I don't care what 1A says.
As for the central valley routing. I sympathize with the I-5 routing, but the fact of the matter is that California and really the entire countries political system tends to favor ideas and policy that is tangible at home over what's best in the abstract. People will vote for HSR that goes through their town. They won't vote for HSR that skips their town but is better for their state. The big picture is regularly lost.
tomikawaTT schlimm: One, the survey is reputable by a primarily business group. Two, the execs are from private corporations, not the government. Three, it's the same in all countries, so it's a level playing field. Or are you saying US corporate execs' opinions about infrastructure are more irrelevant or biased than those of execs in other countries about their respective nations? Why would that be? And don't you think it says a great deal if American business execs see the need to improve infrastructure (not just rail), even if you don't want to acknowledge that? In other words, it's an opinion poll. Note that many popular entertainers and sports figures are frequently asked their opinions about politics and international affairs. Just how knowledgeable about the subject(s) are the people giving opinions? For that matter, how much weight is given to the, "If I tell my honest opinion, I'll lose my job," factor. So `corporate executives' were asked for opinions. Were the corporations actively engaged in the businesses asked about? I'm sure that a Johnson Wax exec will be able to speak knowledgeably about rail service in a state where Johnson doesn't operate... My considered opinion is that opinion polls, unless supported by hard, verifiable statistics, aren't worth the paper they're printed on. (As a statistician, I may be biased) Chuck
schlimm: One, the survey is reputable by a primarily business group. Two, the execs are from private corporations, not the government. Three, it's the same in all countries, so it's a level playing field. Or are you saying US corporate execs' opinions about infrastructure are more irrelevant or biased than those of execs in other countries about their respective nations? Why would that be? And don't you think it says a great deal if American business execs see the need to improve infrastructure (not just rail), even if you don't want to acknowledge that?
I agree with your comment regarding opinion survey.
As an Audit Director for a Fortune 250 corporation, as well as the chief auditor for one of the company's foreign subsidiaries, I reported to the CEO as well as the Chairman of the Audit Committee. In their moments of candor, usually after several glasses of wine, they told me that they believed they might understand two to five per cent of what was going on in the company. Their views were shaped by key performance indicators, as well as information flowing up the organization. This latter information usually was scrubbed pretty thoroughly by the time they got it.
Large organizations employ auditors (internal and external) to provide an independent information conduit to the CEO and audit committee. The idea is that the auditors, who don't have a dog in the hunt, will give them good information. It is a challenge. Figuring out what is going on in a large organization is a mind bending exercise.
YoHo1975 ericsp: YoHo1975: Well, Caltrain owns SJ to SF, so that's ok. Electrifying that instead of building another main is one of the first undeniably smart things the HSR authority has done. Really? How do they plan to keep the current capacity of the commuter lines and meet the Proposition 1A maximum time requirements? Their latest business plan released in April states they will conduct studies. Ask anyone who has run a railroad, trains running at significantly different speeds reduces capacity. Have we not discussed numerous times on this board how electric operations allow for higher capacity and tighter schedules? Further, I didn't say that this move met all the specific requirements of Prop 1A, I said it was the first tangibly smart thing they've done. Building another main up the peninsula would be stupid. I don't care what 1A says. As for the central valley routing. I sympathize with the I-5 routing, but the fact of the matter is that California and really the entire countries political system tends to favor ideas and policy that is tangible at home over what's best in the abstract. People will vote for HSR that goes through their town. They won't vote for HSR that skips their town but is better for their state. The big picture is regularly lost.
ericsp: YoHo1975: Well, Caltrain owns SJ to SF, so that's ok. Electrifying that instead of building another main is one of the first undeniably smart things the HSR authority has done. Really? How do they plan to keep the current capacity of the commuter lines and meet the Proposition 1A maximum time requirements? Their latest business plan released in April states they will conduct studies. Ask anyone who has run a railroad, trains running at significantly different speeds reduces capacity.
In order to use the bonds, they have to comply with Proposition 1A; unless they plan to just ignore the law. If CHSRA ridership numbers are accurate, electrification will not be able to increase capacity enough. If they are not accurate, then the whole project should be scrapped. Also, as the bay area continues to grow south there will be a need for more commuter trains.
Actually, quite a bit of people in the Valley would prefer the I-5 route.
Making sausage.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304373804577521432823203066.html
Guess I'll just try to ride the Acela.
jclass Making sausage. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304373804577521432823203066.html Guess I'll just try to ride the Acela.
The Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch and displays the same impartial journalistic "integrity" as his other media entities Fox News and The National Enquirer. The Feds like Ray LaHood didn't just fall off of a turnip truck, besides the fact that the total cost will be less if they beat speculators to the land in the Central Valley (not as much of an issue in urban areas), they want the first section built in the Valley so that money earmarked for HSR is not diverted to run-of-the-mill commuter projects a la Chris Christie. HSR will be built in the Valley, money spent in urban areas, not necessarily.
It is not just WSJ that has published critical articles. The San Jose Mercury News, LA Times, Fresno Bee have all done so. I doubt there are many things that Sen. Semitian agrees with Rupert Murdoch. Listen to his speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW3Rwa5JzdA
http://www.senatorsimitian.com/
You may want to read about the project before commenting. In order to get the votes, they earmarked at least 1.7 billion dollars to "ordinary projects," a la Jerry Brown.
http://www.mercurynews.com/california-high-speed-rail/ci_21022882/all-aboard-california-approves-high-speed-rail-project
California is a horse trading state, and I don't doubt that every vote involving money involves logrolling of some sort (I taught university-level US Government for four years). But HSR is a project in the planning stages before most current legislators were elected, and the Central Valley route was chosen for good reasons.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.