Railroaders' Nostalgia > Mad Dog Chronicle # 313.3. Who Supports CHSR

It has already been pointed out,  to understand who supports HSR you start with who benefits and to do this, just follow the money.
you weren't expecting the White Rabbit were you,  No I didn't think so.

Start with these groups:
1.  real estate developers
2.  Engineering. Planning and Political consultants.  Big firms like Parsos Brinkerhoff, AE Com, HDR, and Parsons Transportation Group.  (I did some work on the project while I was with Parsons after I Retired from the UP)
3.  Financial firms, they expect to make commissions on bonds
4.  Local and State elected officials, particularly if their constituents will be served.
5.  Equipment suppliers.   Construction equipment, track, signal, stations, rolling stock, construction suppliers for concrete , steel
          Lumber, aggregate, etc
6.  Big construction companies like Tudor,  Brown & Root,  Bechtel,  MK,  Granite.
7.   Big construction labor unions. They were early supporters from the get go.   Jobs for California
8.  Cities, Counties and Regions that will receive or might receive service.  At least that is until they find out that they won't 
       Note that even if the train goes through your community it may not stop there , ever. And if you do get a station, at least a local might stop there.  Not the trains on the fast express runs.  Figure LA, Bakersfield, Fresno, San Jose and SF, and maybe one or two more.  Otherwise how to make the advertised transit times.  What.  You are suprised   Certainly the CHSR planners told you this in fine print somewhere.  Surely they did surly.
9.  Some transportation advocates,  I fit here.  And supprisingly few rail fans.
10.  Some of the public who hope for service someday, and some of these are actually California Tax Payers.

 OK,  take a real deep breath.   Now.  Where do you fit.   Who did I Leave out?

An now those opposed and who cannot wait to tell us about it,  will now help me write 313.4.

mdo

,



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/18 16:32 by mdo.

This was almost like “The Twelve Steps” in AA.  Good work.

 

Apparently if it goes through the Pacheco Pass to Gilroy there are 2 optional routes around or thru  the town (to the 7000 space parking garage) and one is directly thru our cousins property. They are not amused. 
C

Carol Voss
Bakersfield, CA



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/18 17:47 by CarolVoss.

Mike,

You need to add lawyers at every step of the way.
Caltrans gets to make many upgrades and changes they could not afford before this project.

There is more than politics here. Putting the politics aside, any big investment needs to be justified by a big market that can be competitively tapped.

Between the LA Basin and the Bay Area we have very frequent, relatively low-cost air service. I think HSR will have a very hard time taking that market away from the airlines.

On the other hand, the Central Valley has very infrequent and relatively expensive air service. The Central Valley is growing faster than either the Bay Area or the LA Basin. Driving in the wintertime tule fog on 99 is dangerous. Trips between the Central Valley and the Bay Area or between the Central Valley and the LA Basin comprise a market HSR could capture. I think the Feds were wise to order their money to be spent on construction in the Central Valley before money is spent elsewhere. Amtrak can use the high speed tracks that get constructed while the politics get sorted out about how much of the rest of it gets built.

The Coast Route is nice if the market were to go between SF and LA. Altamont Pass is nice too if that is the market. But that is not the market for HSR. San Jose is probably more important to serve than SF. And the Central Valley is a lot more important to serve than the Coast communities.

Best regards,

Rob L.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/18 20:28 by rob_l.

Rob,
you make a lot of really good observations here. And how could I disagree with any of them.   It is obvious that for a while you worked with Dick Peterson at the UP.  You wouldn't know anything about wood chips would you?

mdo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rob,
> you make a lot of really good observations here.
> And how could I disagree with any of them.   It
> is obvious that for a while you worked with Dick
> Peterson at the UP.  You wouldn't know anything
> about wood chips would you?

Maybe I am just one of those impractical academics you mentioned.

Best regards,

Rob

rob_l Wrote
>
> Maybe I am just one of those impractical academics
> you mentioned.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rob

oh bosh, you know that I do not think that at all
most probably because you once worked for the Milwaukee and for the UP as I so noted.
besides, you do a lot of consulting to keep your self busy.  We know that you only teach because of the fun of it

best regards

mdo

mdo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rob,
> you make a lot of really good observations here.
> And how could I disagree with any of them.   It
> is obvious that for a while you worked with Dick
> Peterson at the UP.  You wouldn't know anything
> about wood chips would you?

I chatted with Dick for quite a while about produce/reefers at the Nashville short line meeting.  He's doing well, by the way.

As much as I love trains and have ridden the shinkasan in Japan hundreds of times, I do not support CHSR, or as we call Brown's folly.

The original alighment here where I live (Morgan Hill) had it going on the Coast Line tracks,  Now the powers that be want in parallel to 101, one block from my house.  If it ever gets built, it will cost billions more that the current estimate, and wipe out many neighbor hoods along the route.

From a tax payer payer point of view, it would be much cheaper to buy hundreds of thousands of Southwest tickets. It will be cheaper, more reliable and Southwest runs on time.  

Can not say that for a government transportaion organization. 

No one every mentions where we are going to get the electric power to run the HSR.  Where are the new power plant that will power it being built.  

Tom Daspit
Morgan Hill, CA
Tom's Trains

tomd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As much as I love trains and have ridden the
> shinkasan in Japan hundreds of times, I do not
> support CHSR, or as we call Brown's folly.
>
> The original alighment here where I live (Morgank
> Hill) had it going on the Coast Line tracks,  Now
> the powers that be want in parallel to 101, one
> block from my house.  If it ever gets built, it
> will cost billions more that the current estimate,
> and wipe out many neighbor hoods along the route.
>
> From a tax payer payer point of view, it would be
> much cheaper to buy hundreds of thousands of
> Southwest tickets. It will be cheaper, more
> reliable and Southwest runs on time.  
>
> Can not say that for a government transportaion
> organization. 
>
So,   many people ask, why can't we have high speed-rail like Japan or Europe?   Well maybe here is at least part of the answer
nimbyism.  Tomd. Liked the Shikasan.  Why not then CHSR.  I suppose that he hates everything LA and wouldn't go there on a bet.
 

mdo --
How ca HSR work in California -- or anywhere, for taht mater -- if it is not added on top of a superb system of rail transit?    HSR anywhere in the USA cannot succeed until there are really  good, frequent, affordable rail systems built that take people where they need to go.

Building HSR now in California is very much like trying to put a roof on the second story of a  very large house when no one has even begun to design the house, much less build it, and when no one has yet shown that the two people who will live in that house rally need a huse that is so huge.

CA HSR is merely "welfare for the wealthy."  

We do ot need HSR in California.   And there is not even one independently-done travel demand study done by professional transportatio engineers that shows that there is any real dmand for HSR in California.  There are, however, many excellent travel-demand studies that show there is real demand for new or better rail transit in many parts of this state, but few of these projects can ever get built, because CA HSR has used up most of the funds that should have gone to those other, non-glamorous projects, some of which are truly "shovel-ready."

One non-glamorous passenger route would run between LA and Las Vegas. That, just like on the crap table, would be a natural. But after numerous plans and studies there are no passenger trains between those two cities.

If you cannot get LA-LV to work, nothing will.

As for "affordable" rail transportation, what does that mean? Rail lines are costly to build and maintain. Passenger services lose money everywhere. More passengers ought to reduce, but not eliminate, losses. Somebody must pay the bills. Who keeps a service "affordable"? Just curious.







Margaret_SP_fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mdo --
> How ca HSR work in California -- or anywhere, for
> taht mater -- if it is not added on top of a
> superb system of rail transit?    HSR anywhere
> in the USA cannot succeed until there are really 
> good, frequent, affordable rail systems built that
> take people where they need to go.
>
> Building HSR now in California is very much like
> trying to put a roof on the second story of a 
> very large house when no one has even begun to
> design the house, much less build it, and when no
> one has yet shown that the two people who will
> live in that house rally need a huse that is so
> huge.
>
> CA HSR is merely "welfare for the wealthy."  
>
> We do ot need HSR in California.   And there is
> not even one independently-done travel demand
> study done by professional transportatio engineers
> that shows that there is any real dmand for HSR in
> California.  There are, however, many excellent
> travel-demand studies that show there is real
> demand for new or better rail transit in many
> parts of this state, but few of these projects can
> ever get built, because CA HSR has used up most of
> the funds that should have gone to those other,
> non-glamorous projects, some of which are truly
> "shovel-ready."

Posted from Android



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/13/18 23:15 by stash.

stash --
I meant affordable by most of the riders.  And, yes, someone has to pay, and someone always will pay for everything, whether in obvious ways or not.  "Pay me now, or pay me later, but you will pay me."

You make an excellent point abtu LA-Las Vegas HSR.  But capacity will also be a problem in whatever rail trasit system is designed to carry lots of people LA-Vegas.  I would think that triple track woud be essential, as the UP still has freight it needs to haul between LA and Salt Lake City, and it never makes any sense at all to put short, fast trains on the same tracks as long, slower  trains.  So -- LA-Las Vegas should be triple-track: double-track for the LA-LV HSR, and single track for the freight, with sufficient passing sidings, and plenty of room between the HSR trains and the freight trains.

A numnber of the costs that are real and quantifiable, but are rarely qualtified, are the  costs in dollars alone of having to drive, instead of taking a train (for the moment, ignoring the huge amount of human suffering caused by  doing things wrong, or not at all):
 + Lost productiity from sitting in traffic jams
+ Additional police and fire and mecical and insurance personnel needed to deal with traffic accidents, and their vehicles and buildings and support staff -- the additional infrastructure to support these extra people
+ Costs of lost prouctivity from people who are injuries and killed in traffic accidents
+ Costs of replacing the work done by people injured and killed in traffic accidents,  including paid and unpaid work of all kinds, including parenting and care for those who are dependent on the work done by those injured and killed in traffic accidents
+ Costs of mental-health issues that appear or are made worse by the trauma of traffic accidents, to the injured and to their families, and to the first-responders and medical personnal, as no one can permanently wall themselves off from that trauma

I am only pointing out the true dollar costs of owning a car, nothnig else.  I am not trying to quantify the things that no one can put a dollar value on  -- broken hearts, shattered marriages, never being able to live out dreams of a life spent doing something good and  useful that a person naw cannot do becasue their injuries prevet them from following their  dreams, or the kids who never get excited about a subject beasuse tjhe teacher who was passionte about it was too badly injured or was killed in a traffic accident, and thus is not around to get kids excited about wat they -- the teacher -- are passionate about.  Or the stereotypical "cure for cancer" that does not get found because a person who would have had the initial idea ws killed in a traffic accident.  I could go on, but I am pretty sure most people who have bothered to read this whle post will understand my points.

Maybe, but that car does one thing others can not:  It goes anywhere, anytime, and is your transportation back.

True. Many locations are only accessible by a car. Got to have one! They're not all doom and gloom.



tomstp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe, but that car does one thing others can not:
>  It goes anywhere, anytime, and is your
> transportation back.

Posted from Android

And then if your car won't you can always fall back on your horse, pack mule or donkey and they burn hay.
 

One thing I think certain about transportation in California is that the business is there along whatever route the planned HSR takes.  Question is: can HSR capture that business from auto traffic and air patronage?

AA

Stanford White
Carmel Valley, CA

agentatascadero Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One thing I think certain about transportation in
> California is that the business is there along
> whatever route the planned HSR takes.  Question
> is: can HSR capture that business from auto
> traffic and air patronage?
>
> AA

As I stated elsewhere, JNR (government-run Japan National Railways) made a preemptive move against the growth of automobile and air travel, and that was 60 years ago. Railroad researchers got together and came up with the Shinkansen, based on their uncompromising dedication to preserve rail travel at whatever cost. Thanks to them, not only do they have the Shinkansen, people still travel by air over there (first big order of Boeing's 787 Dreamliner was from a Japanese airline, ANA), and yes, people drive, too. Evidence is their extensive car culture that I'm sure some younger TO members are fully aware of.

We missed our chance already. Auto and air travel here have become SO established and mainstream, that it is now inconvenient to travel by rail in comparison, or at least that's the perception... and if people look around at what's happening today, perception is everthing these days.