tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post5479070804650201456..comments2023-10-30T09:03:07.163-07:00Comments on California High Speed Rail Blog: Flawed LA Times Article on Prop 1ARobert Cruickshankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06906581839066570472noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-34403366331491502342008-10-17T15:09:00.000-07:002008-10-17T15:09:00.000-07:00The correct abbreviation for kilometre per hour is...The correct abbreviation for kilometre per hour is km/h. kph is NOT correct!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-40830280368216548082008-10-16T18:11:00.000-07:002008-10-16T18:11:00.000-07:00I just posted this from the LA times regarding the...I just posted this from the LA times regarding the State's successful issuance of short term notes.<BR/><A HREF="http://derailhsr.com/main/2008/10/17/california-averts-a-cash-crunch-but-look-what-it-costs/" REL="nofollow">LINK</A><BR/><BR/>Now say what you want to about a time to be passing Prop 1A. With our bond rating so low that we have to pay almost twice in interest from a state like Mass., it is a lousy time to be borrowing more.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-53040746743375630392008-10-16T17:30:00.000-07:002008-10-16T17:30:00.000-07:00Talk about uniformed columnists writing articles. ...Talk about uniformed columnists writing articles. The Sonoma News prints this <A HREF="http://www.sonomanews.com/articles/2008/10/13/news/doc48f3f82de3cae228939546.txt" REL="nofollow">article</A>.<BR/> <BR/> <B> Prop. 1A to fund high-speed rail</B><BR/><BR/> Here we read:<BR/><B><BR/>The measure needs a two-thirds majority to pass. </B><BR/><BR/>Since I'm opposed to Prop !A, if only that were true..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-44328535451384824812008-10-16T15:37:00.000-07:002008-10-16T15:37:00.000-07:00Robert, you still haven't addressed my argument th...Robert, you still haven't addressed my argument that bond debt is just debt. It's as good as throwing $660 million at HSR every year from the budget. We repay bonds through the General Fund. Do you know why we use bonds? You told me I don't understand bonds, but this is my understanding and I'm sure it's quite true. It's like a 30 year home loan and we use it so we can pay it back slower and not dump $10 billion all at once. While it's the same thing as throwing $660 million at HSR every year, we can't guarantee that funding from the budget due to partisan politics or budget disputes or whatever. That's why when we argue for fiscal responsibility, we argue that could we afford $660 million in a line on the budget for this every year?<BR/><BR/>That's why bonds secure the funding at once but repay it slowly. Thus, when we pass a bond, you better make DAMN SURE it will work and there are measures to make it work. There are too many things open in the air about this especially when it comes to things like cost overruns and stuff. You quote one rail line that has come on time, but this is a first for the US, and if you want something closer, read about the Taiwan HSR, and there's no doubt that scandal after scandal and overrun after overrun and delay after delay that it got done. But... it was privately financed, which can be no worse than a government run project.<BR/><BR/>Finally, stop calling us Hooverites. Hoover himself believed in public works projects (RFC). As a school teacher I would expect you to know that. Hoover RAISED taxes which screwed America over. You don't raise taxes to close the budget gap (we can talk about Obama's tax plans another day). I think EVERYONE HERE, me included, and Morris believe that HSR is a great idea in general.<BR/><BR/>You still have yet to address the things that Morris and I have brought up. Realistic projections and realistic costs/timeline. There are FAR too many screwups in these large projects (Benicia Bridge, Bay Bridge, etc. that you HAVE to have quite a bit of doubt no matter how well laid out on paper any project is.<BR/><BR/>Finally, it's not that we can't afford HSR, we probably can. It's just that with our budget, we have to cut other things. Most people who are in debt can still afford a new car. It's just how much more in debt do you want to be. We can afford to dump more money into Social Security and to rack the national debt up higher, but how much higher do we want it? CA spends $22.2 billion more than it receives. My source was Yahoo Finance, not some LA Times opinion blog like yours, so please tell me, if we're going to spend more like on HSR, how will we afford to keep the CORE THINGS we need like education, healthcare, etc? We will have to cut those or raise taxes right?<BR/><BR/>No one's saying public works can jumpstart economies, but there are BETTER and more NECESSARY and more URGENT projects we can jump into first.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-70946825602970758402008-10-15T21:48:00.000-07:002008-10-15T21:48:00.000-07:00Weyrich is wrong and is letting his Hooverite tend...Weyrich is wrong and is letting his Hooverite tendencies bleed through. As we have repeatedly explained at this blog the state budget deficit does not and should not mean HSR is a bad idea or a threat to our state's fiscal stability.<BR/><BR/>That's why this is <B>bond funding</B>. Not $10 billion out of the general fund all at once, which of course would be reckless. California's budget crisis is not difficult to solve. It is caused by political failure, not financial failure.<BR/><BR/>Besides, just because we approve the bonds now doesn't mean they'll get sold now. We can wait until the fiscal climate improves.<BR/><BR/>This whole notion that the budget crisis means we can't do HSR is based on the most astounding ignorance of the state budget problems imaginable.Robert Cruickshankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06906581839066570472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-43652516241328848882008-10-15T21:43:00.000-07:002008-10-15T21:43:00.000-07:00Robert:Its too bad you now need to censor your blo...Robert:<BR/><BR/>Its too bad you now need to censor your blog. Its your privilege.<BR/><BR/>I'll see if this gets through.<BR/><BR/> Paul M. Weyrich, a major rail supporter, nationally known, and Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation in an <A HREF="http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272623230.shtml" REL="nofollow">article </A> titled <B>High-Speed Rail v. California Deficit</B> concludes:<BR/>If Californians hear the real cost of high-speed rail I would not be surprised if they ended up where as I have – namely, “No” on Proposition A. <BR/><BR/>Quoting from the article:<BR/><B><BR/>"Were I a voter in California, as strong an advocate of rail as I am, I doubt I could bring myself to vote for this project. Were the State in decent fiscal shape I would almost certainly support the project. Somewhere in the USA a high-speed system needs to be built. However, the projections of cost and ridership and revenue need to be realistic. California is just too broke to afford to build this system at this time. <BR/><BR/>Unlike the Reason Foundation, I do not think that this project would be a white elephant. Millions would ride it but the projections being sold to the voting public are way off base. If California’s fiscal condition were in order then would be the time to bring this proposition back. Passage this year is far from assured. If Californians hear the real cost of high-speed rail I would not be surprised if they ended up where as I have – namely, “No” on Proposition A. "</B>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-38481083800387091342008-10-15T20:51:00.000-07:002008-10-15T20:51:00.000-07:00Note that the recently opened Beijing-Tianjin line...Note that the recently opened Beijing-Tianjin line already operates at top speeds of 217mph (350kph) in commercial service.<BR/><BR/>Their rolling stock is Siemens Velaro gear, which the Chinese are now permitted to produce under license. Alstom, Talgo-Bombardier and Hitachi all have off-the-shelf designs that are certified to run at 350-360kph. However, operators are generally cautious about exploiting the full speed potential. In some cases their legacy HSR tracks can't handle more than 300kph, in others the extra electricity cost only makes sense if the ridership is high enough.<BR/><BR/>All this applies today, so by 2018 there will be 10 years of track record to leverage. Perhaps Prof. Moore is not familiar with the latest steel wheels HSR technology.<BR/><BR/>The fly in the ointment is that CHSRA needs a waiver from FRA to use what's available off-the-shelf. Most of the proposed network is dedicated to HSR, so that part is comparatively trivial. However, some mixed traffic situations are anticipated in the Caltrain and LOSSAN corridors.<BR/><BR/>FRA already allows mixed traffic if there is guaranteed time separation. I expect permission for moderately high speed operation (~125mph) in those sections will depend on having a single dispatcher plus PTC on the tracks and all trains sharing them. Since HR 2095 mandates PTC by 2015, chances are CHSRA will get its waiver. FRA may want try whatever new rules it comes up with in the Caltrain corridor first before applying them to more complex situation in the LOSSAN corridor. Plenty of scenario analysis, real-world testing and trial periods will be required to satisfy everyone that mixed traffic can be operated safely.<BR/><BR/>The upside is that the lessons learned will also apply to regular-speed situations. That would let passenger railroads nationwide to gradually transition to lightweight rolling stock and its lower cost of operations.<BR/><BR/>If all else fails, CHSRA and Caltrain will have to negotiate alternate service plans and, the LOSSAN corridor will have to be widened at great expense. However, given that FRA has been receptive to Caltrain's separate waiver process, chances are the agency isn't looking to needlessly bury HSR under a mountain of red tape.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-38499479148198461142008-10-15T19:14:00.000-07:002008-10-15T19:14:00.000-07:00Heh. Of course that's what I believe. But I also g...Heh. Of course that's what I believe. But I also give a lot of reasons - 190 posts so far - explaining why I believe that.<BR/><BR/>The record's there for anyone to see.Robert Cruickshankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06906581839066570472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-64942962665305724762008-10-15T19:12:00.000-07:002008-10-15T19:12:00.000-07:00Prop 1a yes = insightful.Prop 1a no = fatally flaw...Prop 1a yes = insightful.<BR/>Prop 1a no = fatally flawed.<BR/><BR/>Robert, you know what that kind of litmus test is called don't you? Leave blind zeal up to the other side.Rob Dawghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10042154106850545479noreply@blogger.com