How bullet-train fiasco maintains support, momentum
April 15, 2013
By Wayne Lusvardi
It may be unpleasant to contemplate, but opposing California’s high-speed rail project with a green-eyeshade strategy that targets its estimated huge annual losses seems likely to be a loser. Project opponents may need to find another approach, given how such big projects can maintain momentum no matter how bad the headlines get.
The findings of a new study by the independent Reason Foundation could hardly be more damning. It details how the California High-Speed Rail Authority overestimated ridership by up to 77 percent and that San Francisco-to-Los Angeles train trips would take a slow four hours. But the research is likely to fall on deaf ears among many constituencies, starting with the influential unions and trade groups who love the prospect of construction jobs and the wealthy energy industrialists and entrepreneurs who benefit from green power subsidies.
One particularly crucial constituency is the local officials on the bullet train’s route. The cities that would get train stations would get most of the benefits of transit-oriented real estate development and tourism. But the costs would be spread over all the state’s taxpayers through a general obligation bond rather than a project-specific revenue bond.
Stated differently: The costs and the impacts would be socialized, but the benefits would be mostly localized and privatized. This means cities with designated high-speed rail stations are likely to be advocates for the project.
A ‘loss leader’ helping utilities, others
What often drives public infrastructure projects is not the prospect of making money — positive cash flow above costs — but the positive side effects from induced economic development.
In the business world, money-losing tactics that yield positive side effects are called “loss leaders.” McDonald’s loses money on its hamburgers but makes a windfall on french fries, Cokes and shakes.
Similarly, high-speed rail could be a major purchaser of green power. Thus, solar, wind and geothermal energy subsidiaries of the three major regulated public utilities in the state — PG&E, Edison and SDG&E — would likely benefit. This would result in another class of beneficiaries of the project.
Consider Los Angeles’ stealth purchases of farmland and water rights in Owens Valley in the early 20th century. The project didn’t make any economic sense until there was greater population growth in the Los Angeles basin. But the project was as much about land speculation in San Fernando Valley as it was about water. The spillover effect of the water was increased land values.
This is why it is said water runs uphill toward money. And boondoggle rail projects are often unstoppable because of the community and corporate wealth effects that trains and train stations can potentially create.
And this is why California’s high-speed rail project is a runaway train that can’t be easily killed. It’s a stealth redevelopment project mainly for central California cities where the state’s future growth is forecast — one with a built-in subsidy for green power.
Anticipating benefits that may never materialize
But this theory, while it may explain how the bullet train keeps moving forward, isn’t necessarily built on sound reasoning.
For one example, a bullet train is unlikely to spur housing redevelopment around its train stops, as has light rail. If it did, Amtrak — which already provides long-range commuter service throughout California — would have seen much more transit-oriented development at its stops.
Light rail in San Gabriel Valley in Los Angeles County — called Metro Rail — has been a loser on a cost-per-rider basis. But it is still wildly popular with cities along its route due to its positive real estate economic side effects. Even though Amtrak is a better parallel to the bullet train, the Metro Rail’s popularity gives a boost to the state project.
Then there is another big selling point by Gov. Brown and the state Legislature: that the bullet train would reduce air pollution. But the problem of outdoor air pollution is not only the amount of polluted particles in the air but the geography of air basins. The Central Valley is an air basin surrounded by mountain chains on three sides. Thus, Visalia and Fresno have high air particle levels and flat and windy Lancaster-Palmdale has low levels. High-speed rail won’t reduce much air pollution in the Central Valley anyway because the bulk of the long-distance commuters are not business or tourist travelers.
Most impartial studies of the social costs — accidents, congestion, noise, pollution, relative travel time, etc. — have found that high-speed rail has the highest and most undesirable social costs and air travel the least. Moreover, permanent economic development induced by high-speed rail is too speculative and unquantifiable to be included in most cost-benefit studies. And whatever economic development might result would likely be 20 years from now.
Rail proponents also minimize the overall $68 billion project cost by focusing on annual costs. If the share of cost to state and local governments is $26 billion that reflects only $1.789 billion annual bond principal and interests costs at a 5.5 percent interest rate over 30 years. But that $1.789 billion could instead go to plug the public pension gap or help fund the much more needed Delta Tunnels and two new water storage reservoirs.
The stronger argument against the boondoggle?
High-speed rail critics may think they are doing a good job making the case against the project. But the fact is that for all their efforts, construction is expected to begin soon in the Central Valley. Proponents have been able to keep enough of the public — and enough special interests — on their side by emphasizing near-term construction jobs, green power development, and speculative long-term real estate and tourist development.
For this reason, it may be time for opponents to begin focusing more on the negative social costs — starting with the massive disruption now unfolding in the Central Valley — and the shaky prospects for promised economic development than on the high costs per rider and the negative operating and financial costs.
Emphasizing the extreme long-term cost may also win over some wavering parties. For example, the Brown administration’s claim that it could readily trim $30 billion from the project’s previous tab of $98 billion and still have a true statewide high-speed rail system is ripe for attack. It was this revision that led bullet-train pioneer Quentin Kopp to renounce the project.
One way or the other, the need for new tactics appears clear. It might be painful, but high-speed rail opponents need to “bite the bullet” and realize that focusing on accounting details like estimated losses per rider is not likely to result in a red light for the project.
10 comments
Write a commentWrite a Comment
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Related Articles
Caltrans releases optimistic, costly five-year plan to find thousands of lost holes
Caltrans finally provided a cost estimate for its plan to find and possibly seal thousands of improperly drilled holes throughout the state,
AB 296 could make Gov. Brown a global warming ‘denier’
Aug. 31, 2012 By Wayne Lusvardi A piece of legislation may end up putting Gov. Jerry Brown on the global warming
Root Canal For Single-Payer Health Bill
JAN. 26, 2012 By KATY GRIMES Despite warnings that tooth decay in children can lead to a life in prison,
First, between the cutting off of additional federal funding, the Kings County lawsuit on Prop 1A compliance, and the challenge of selling the Prop 1A bonds, this project is in jeopardy. The “case against the project” is making sure the project doesn’t resurrect like a phoenix once it is stopped.
Actually, the efforts to show the negative social costs were less effective than showing the negative costs to taxpayers. Sadly, California’s urban elite and upper-middle class suburbanites have little empathy for dairy farmers in Kings County. They’ve never even heard of Kings County or Madera County, and they don’t know anything about agriculture.
Polls over the past few years show that about 60% of Californians are at least somewhat skeptical of the project.
California has a significant minority of “progressives” who will never change their minds in support of this project.
The best tactic right now is to show people who like the idea of high-speed rail that the project is not what they thought it would be. People like fast trains – they are cool. But this fast train has turned into a disaster as every special interest group and crony capitalist took a bite out of it.
By the way, yes, PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric) will benefit from the project. That’s why it contributed $20,000 to the 2008 campaign to pass Proposition 1A, authorizing the state to borrow $9.95 billion through bond sales to fund California High-Speed Rail.
LOL
Don’t you CWDers have to admit that if we build this train that we will lower our carbon footprint? Wouldn’t that be good?
LOL yourself! Ted Steele
What good is a small carbon foot print that costs mega billions and no body rides after the new wears off?
What good is a small carbon foot print that costs mega billions and no body rides after the new wears off?
Tkg2902 there really isn’t any point trying to talk or reason with Teddy…..he just won’t….no he just can’t ..is perhaps more apt…get it! It’s kind of like showing a dog a card trick….he’ll just stare back at you with those confused uncomprehending eyes……sad really.
Teddy has many arguments why the masses must ride public transportation for the good of all of us.
Carp bashes instead of seeking solutions….so so sad!
Teddy has many arguments why the masses must ride public transportation for the good of all of us.
Imaginary sychophant is imaginary…..so so sad.
U. Uhaul— I guess ol fishlips thinks that you are not real? I guess?
I guess ol fishlips…..
fishlips…….Hahahahahahahahahh! Whew!
LOL Ted! LOL
Ah Teddy you are putting years back onto my life…..bless you sir!
That’s what we love about ya little buddy; you’re easily amused !!!
wait for it…
wait….
mmmmmmmmmmmmmm LOL BFF!
Teddy…..what….. you’re still on this thread? C’mon son we’ve moved on…we’re talking about other things!
You know that obsessing on things isn’t mentally healthy! So for your sake and the sake of your other personalities well being you should probably move on to other topics.
I’m here for you “Big Buddy”!