Here is a look at some of the transportation headlines gathered by us and the Metro Library. The full list of headlines is posted on the Library’s Headlines blog, which you can also access via email subscription or RSS feed.
Are state and local mass transit projects really job creators? (L.A. Observed)
The post is mostly a transcript of a segment on KPCC featuring L.A. Observed business editor Mark Lacter, who asks and attempts to answer a good question: how many jobs do big infrastructure projects really generate? As Lacter puts it, the total number of jobs is often open to different interpretations and the number of people working on a project at any given time is usually a different (read: lesser) number than the estimates.
What high-speed rail means for So Cal in the next decade (L.A. Streetsblog)
Damien Newton rightly points out that the Legislature’s approval of bond money for the project also includes dollars for local projects in the Bay Area and Southern California that help tie the bullet train tracks into local transit systems. In our area, that could mean money for some double tracking of Metrolink lines and station upgrades for Palmdale and Anaheim.
Is California’s high-speed rail project on track or off the rails (L.A. Times)
Columnist Patt Morrison doesn’t really answer the question in this opinion piece, but tries to draw parallels to other big, ambitious projects that cost a lot of money and may also have done some good. And she includes this good kicker, which I think neatly summarizes the moral quandary facing the state over the project:
High-speed rail could wind up as a techno-evolutionary dead end, or it could be a model for the nation, one for which future Californians will bless us.
That’s why government undertakes big, important, useful things: because no one else can, or will.
As for high-speed rail, in a way, there’s no wrong vote on it, and no right vote, either, except through the rear-view mirror of history, when people either will be lionized or reviled for their decisions. And there are perfectly sound reasons for legislators to vote either way. But none of those reasons should be a timidity of ambition or narrowness of vision.
Joaquin,
“We need some adults to intervene.”
No what we need is to kick out politicians from anything to do with mass transit and replace them with transit officials who know how to plan and run them. All politicians care about is about getting re-elected. That’s why they don’t care about rational plans.
When they hear “free money from the feds,” it means “I want a piece of that pie for my constituents to ensure my re-election.”
They don’t give a cahoot about transportation, they know basically nothing about mass transit. Why would they? They get chaffeured around in their taxpayer funded limos.
I don’t care if it’s done by government or private company, so long as it’s cheap, affordable, efficient and doesn’t make my taxes go any higher.
Bottom line:
If it’s gonna cost me in taking away 20% of my paycheck, forget it.
If it’s going to cost me $10 per ride whether I ride it for a mile or twenty miles, forget it.
If it’s going to take me anything over five minutes for the next bus or train to come, forget it.
If it’s going to take me over an hour just to cover the distance I can get done in less than fifteen minutes with a car, forget it.
So who’s up to providing this the best way? Government or private enterprise?
Eduardo A.,
Private enterprise and competition is the best way to go. They don’t have to rely on taxes and all their investments are at risk. They will need to provide good service at an affordable price to grab market share.
Government on the other hand, nothing is at risk. Good service or bad service, it’s still tax payer money. There is no competition so they can do whatever they want. They can push off the debt to future Americans (i.e. Measure R+), print more useless money, and increase the size of the national debt to whatever they want.
In the beginning, I would have had Japan, Germany and France look over what we wanted to do, give us a proposal, we pick the best, then put it out to bids. Leave the politicians , hordes of consultants and attorneys out of it. Get a good solid plan, then let the engineers figure the best way to do it and move on to construction. Japan runs through earthquake zones, France runs through hills and valleys and Germany runs through farm lands and intense build up urban areas. We have all these issues in California. We are on the verge of blowing this big time. Is it to late to call them for help ?
mark r. johnston,
Ideally that would be the case from our POV, but issues are never one-sided. Let’s look at this from Japan, France, and Germany’s perspective.
What do they gain from this? Japan, France, and Germany are as much as robust capitalist nations as the US; being said that, they’re not going to do this for free, and they are not going to do this just for an one-time deal.
In the eyes of Japan, Germany, and France, building HSR project and being paid for that is nothing. It’s a drop in a bucket in contrast to their economic size. Building HSR from their eyes is only an one time deal. What they want is long term assurance of long term profit gains.
Here’s the biggest thing with high speed rail: unlike cars, HSR cars are built to last for years. Unlike buying a new Toyota every five years, a high speed rail car built by Kawasaki can last upwards of twenty, thirty years or more.
If CA starts running the Shinkansen bullet trains built by Kawasaki from 2020, Kawasaki ain’t going to see another sale until 2050 or more. And that’s also depending on whether the high speed rail project in CA is going to be a success or not.
So how do they want to ensure that CAHSR will be profitable enough that they’ll be sure to buy newer Kawasaki trains more often? Kawasaki will want to become a majority shareholder of CAHSR, Inc.
Simply said, things are not going to go smoothly so long as there’s a government interest on the one side and the other is private for-profit companies. Companies in Japan, France, and Germany are out there to make profit.