Bill McEwen has written one of the more perceptive articles on HSR recently. It appeared in the Fresno Bee. For those of you who are not HSR spotters for the California Central Valley (CV), Fresno is one of those smaller towns on the intended rail route.
Like many of these CV towns, everyone in Fresno is highly conflicted between not wanting the horrendous damage the trains will do to their urban and rural environment, and wanting the financial benefits in their region where unemployment is rampant.
William Grindley, whose papers have been identified on this blog repeatedly, has the answer for McEwen's question about private investment. It's a simple explanation. Private investors do so to make money and that will not be possible from this HSR project in California unless the state (or any other) government pay eternal subsidies to keep this opulent rail system operating. And that's not allowed by law. So, there you have it. No subsidies? No surplus revenues. No profits or surplus revenues? No private investments (except those funds from our foolish federal government.)
As McEwen says, any group of well and honorably intentioned politicians and saavy engineers can design a cost/effective high-speed rail system. But, that's not what we have here. To the contrary.
What we have here is rampant selfish greed and a pork-barrel project of unrivaled size and cost driven by political decision-making on the fly.
What we have here is rampant selfish greed and a pork-barrel project of unrivaled size and cost driven by political decision-making on the fly.
Furthermore, there's endless confusion in all those regions where the train is headed, with conflicts about what people do and don't want. One attitude is that "Well, it's coming anyway so we better get the least bad alignment and route we can."
That's a very bad approach and plays right into the hands of the rail authority, which actually doesn't give a damn what people think or want. Why should they? Look, we're talking billions of free dollars from the government of California and the US. People have been known to kill for much less.
Also, I shouldn't have to remind you that Van Ark is a ruthless turn-around manager who is determined to shove this project down our throats, regardless of what we want. When we read what they write or listen to them when they speak, it becomes ever more clear that the intentions of the CHSRA is to build what they wish, with whatever funding they can get their hands on, despite all of our concerns, objections, fears, and reasonable efforts for mitigation of harm.
Also, I agree with McEwen about this entire concept of high-speed rail, whose time has come and gone. When the US was at its peak of passenger rail service, from the '30s through the '50s and '60s, greater improvements were both possible and desirable. That was our window.
But with the emergence of planes and cars on such a massive scale that provided more cost-effective transit than rail, passenger rail declined. Bringing it back, even running at twice the speed now and in the future, makes no sense. It's not only hugely expensive, but will be a perpetual money sink-hole, requiring massive subsidies forever. It certainly can never be "the greatest good for the greatest number."
Isn't there a message for the rest of us if private investors don't see any benefits?
===================================
Private investors will have final say on rail
Posted at 10:10 PM on Wednesday, May. 04, 2011
By Bill McEwen / The Fresno Bee
SHARE
Every week brings a new wrinkle to California's ambitious high-speed rail plan. The Grapevine route is back in play. Miles of elevated track are being dropped to terra firma. There's now a proposal to blend high-speed rail with the CalTrain commuter line when the bullet trains reach Silicon Valley.
Keeping abreast of high-speed rail was easier back when it was a far-off vision that was as much about California making a bold statement as it was about moving people around the state more quickly.
The irony is, the closer high-speed rail gets to reality, the further away it appears. Politics, the vetting process and troubled federal and state budgets have complicated what a majority of California voters approved in 2008 after more than two decades of discussion.
Going forward: Smart engineers, savvy accountants and reasonable politicians are capable of deciding routes, track elevations and the exact placement of passenger stations.
But there remains one great unknown, and it's why high-speed rail remains as much of a fantasy in California as those flying saucer cars crisscrossing Orbit City in "The Jetsons" cartoon series.
To date, we've heard not a peep about private investors putting up $14 billion to $16 billion to complete financing for a $43 billion system that is supposed to stretch from Anaheim to San Francisco by 2020.
We know that there are interested parties. Foreign delegations have visited California -- including Fresno, where the system is supposed to start -- and talked to high-speed rail promoters. It's tempting to write that these visitors have kicked the tires, but there's nothing yet to kick but dirt and blueprints.
A reasonable assumption is that private investors -- like many of us -- await an educated forecast of ridership and ticket prices. But even if these numbers prove promising, the emerging truth about high-speed rail is that it's a high-price gamble.
Last month, The Washington Post had a story and an editorial detailing safety and financial concerns about China's much-praised system.
The top speed of trains there have been lowered from 218 mph to 186 mph to improve safety. Ticket prices have been cut and new routes delayed because of lagging ridership. Meanwhile, the Railways Ministry's debt totals $276 billion.
High-speed rail supporters counter that these systems are long-term investments returning big dividends for society -- no different than dams, highways and airports.
While this may be true, high-speed rail -- as writ in California -- requires private investment. Private investors typically want quick returns and, if possible, government guarantees.
In addition, there's the possibility that high-speed rail's time has come and gone in the United States. Personal communications technology -- evolving at warp speed -- continues to erode the need for business travel and for friends and relatives to meet in person.
For those who want face-to-face contact or to experience California up close -- from Mount Shasta's purple hues to Disneyland's fun-for-all-ages magic -- there is still the car, plane, bus and Amtrak.
Whether you're for or against high-speed rail, know this: While the planners, promoters and politicians carry on, private investors have the final word.
THE COLUMNIST CAN BE REACHED AT BMCEWEN@FRESNOBEE.COM OR (559) 441-6632. LISTEN TO HIS TALK SHOW DAILY AT NOON ON KYNO (AM 940). FOLLOW HIM ON TWITTER AT @FRESNOMAC.
