A Train to Nowhere: Not A Train Through Nowhere

Cross-posted at NewGeography.

In expressing its opposition to the California High Speed Rail line, Washington Post editorialists noted that critics of the now approved Borden to Corcoran segment have called the line a “train to nowhere” (“Hitting the breaks on California’s high speed rail experiment“). The Post call this:

…a bit unfair, since some of the towns along the way have expensively redeveloped downtowns that may now suffer from the frequent noise and vibration of trains roaring through them.

What the Post missed, however, is that a “train to nowhere” is not a “train through nowhere.” There is no doubt that the high viaducts and the noisy trains have potential to do great harm to the livability of the communities through which it passes. This is one of the reasons that the French have largely avoided operating their high speed rail trains through urban areas, except at relatively low speeds. Stations, except for in the largest urban areas, are generally beyond the urban fringe and towns are bypassed. Yet, one of the decisions not yet made in California, for example, is whether the town of Corcoran will be cut in half by the intrusive, noisy line.

Building the Train to Nowhere

Cross-posted on New Geography.

The California High Speed Rail Authority has approved building its first 54 miles in the San Joaquin Valley. A somewhat longer route, 65 miles, has been indicated in a number of press reports, but Authority documents indicate that only 54 miles of high speed rail track will be built. The route would start in Corcoran, and go through Fresno to Borden, a small, unincorporated community south of Madera. All of this would cost $4.15 billion. The route would include two stations, in Fresno and Hanford/Visalia.

The segment was adopted under pressure by the United States Department of Transportation, which was interested in ensuring that the line would be usable (have “independent utility”) by Amtrak should the high speed rail project be cancelled due to lack of funds. The first section of the California high speed rail line would instead be a somewhat incongruously high-tech Corcoran to Borden spur, or perhaps more accurately stub to the region’s rather sparse conventional rail services.

There are appear to have been concerns that growing opposition movements in the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas could have delayed construction, which could have put the federal money at risk. The Sacramento Bee’s Dan Walters, perhaps the leading political columnist in the state implied an ulterior motive:

Missing the Point on Jobs: The “More Transit – More Jobs” Report

Cross-posted on NewGeography.com

The Transit Equity Network has just published a study called More Transit – More Jobs
in which it suggests switching 50% of highway funding to transit in 20
metropolitan areas to create an additional 180,000 jobs over the next
five years. Their basic thesis is that each kajillion in spending can
produce more jobs in transit than in highways. We don’t comment on
that, because, frankly, the purpose of transportation spending is
neither to create transit jobs nor highway jobs.

We spend on transit and highways because of benefits that extend beyond
any direct employment. And, the extent of those benefits cannot be
compared between the two modes. At current rates of spending each
billion dollars spent on highways supports about 25 times as much
personal mobility as one spent on transit. Beyond that, highway
spending supports the movement of more than 1.25 billion ton miles of
truck freight, which keeps product prices low and supports our affluent
life style.

Transit carries 0.0 ton miles of freight. Researchers such
as Prud’homme & Chang-Wong and Hartgen & Fields
have shown that the type of ubiquitous mobility provided by road
systems produce greater economic growth. Moving money out of roads
would increase traffic congestion, destroy jobs and increase product
prices by slowing down trucks.

Time to Dismantle the American Dream?

Cross Posted on NewGeography.com

For some time, theorists have been suggesting that it is time to
redefine the American Dream of home ownership. Households, we are told,
should live in smaller houses, in more crowded neighborhoods and more
should rent. This thinking has been heightened by the mortgage crisis
in some parts of the country, particularly in areas where prices rose
most extravagantly in the past decade. And to be sure, many of the
irrational attempts – many of them government sponsored – to expand
ownership to those not financially prepared to bear the costs need to
curbed.

But now the anti-homeowner interests have expanded beyond reigning
in dodgy practices and expanded into an argument essentially against
the very idea of widespread dispersion of property ownership. Social
theorist Richard Florida recently took on this argument, in a Wall Street Journal article entitled "Home Ownership is Overvalued."

Power in Los Angeles: The High Price of Going Green

Cross-posted on NewGeography.com.

Greece and Los Angeles are up against a financial wall. Los Angeles had its bond rating cut on April 7. Greece managed to hold out until April 9. Greece has endured public employee strikes as it has attempted to reign in bloated public payrolls. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa drew the ire of the city’s unions and city council opposition in proposing two-day a week furloughs for city employees.

A Bankrupt Los Angeles?

Most recently, the context of discussions has been an expected $73 million payment to the city from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP). Mayor Villaraigosa raised the possibility of a city bankruptcy if the payment was not received.

The Mayor attempted to encourage the city council to approve an electricity rate increase, which was sought by DWP. In support of the rate increase, Villaraigosa submitted a report to the city council saying that "Council rejection of the DWP board’s action [to increase rates] would be the most immediate and direct route to bankruptcy the city could pursue."