Article 1
California Receives Some FRA Planning Money
The FRA today announced recipients of an $80 million grant program for HSR and intercity rail. Florida’s HSR project received by far the largest share of funds, $66 million, but California wasn’t left out. $6.2 million went to the Capitol Corridor:
$6,200,000 for track relocation work in California on the Capitol Corridor which will help bring about fewer delays and faster travel times along a route that connects San Francisco and Sacramento, the state capital.
What exactly will the money be used for? According to the Central Valley Business Times:
The money will help pay for track relocation work at the Amtrak station in downtown Sacramento. It will allow for longer boarding platforms for the increasingly lengthy trains. And it will provide money for planning future rail service into Placer County, using Union Pacific’s tracks, a spokeswoman for Capital Corridor says.
UP has been an obstacle to improved passenger rail service east of Sacramento, although they and Capitol Corridor have a very good working relationship west of Sacramento. This may seem like a small project when compared to the Capitol Corridor as a whole, and certainly next to the HSR project – and it is. But it’s also further evidence of ongoing federal involvement in passenger rail funding, which needs to be supported and welcomed if it is to grow.
Article 2
State Gets Initial High-Speed Rail Payment
THE NEWS SERVICE OF FLORIDA
Published: Thursday, May 27, 2010 at 11:45 p.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, May 27, 2010 at 11:45 p.m.
A chunk of the $1.25 billion Florida won in federal economic stimulus money for high-speed rail is in the state's hands now, transportation officials said Thursday.
The Florida Department of Transportation said Florida received $66 million of its total award, which was higher than any of initial payments made to four states.
One stop is planned for the Lakeland area, probably near the new campus of the University of South Florida-Polytechnic off of Interstate 4.
Florida received the second highest overall funding announced in January.
Then, California, which got $2.25 billion for a 220 mile-per-hour Los Angeles-to-San Francisco train, topped Florida's rail haul for the long proposed bullet train between Tampa and Orlando.
The DOT said the $66 million the state received this week will cover the completion 30 percent of the project, allowing the department to update ridership projections, buy right of way and begin preliminary station designs.
The department said it has already begun testing soil in the medium of Interstate 4.
Gov. Charlie Crist, who pushed lawmakers to approve a separate commuter rail in Orlando to convince federal officials to give Florida the high-speed rail money, hailed the first installment Thursday.
DOT Assistant Secretary for Engineering and Operations Kevin Thibault, who is also interim director of the new Florida Rail Enterprise, said the department will look to private companies to make up the rest of the $2.6 billion the project is expected to cost.
"We will eventually ask private companies to compete for the right to submit bids to build, operate and maintain the system," he said.
Article 3
Bullet-train debate hits 220 mph
The Bakersfield Californian | Thursday, May 27 2010 11:52 AM
Last Updated Thursday, May 27 2010 11:52 AM
In a report made public last month, State Auditor Elaine Howle expressed concerns about the viability of California's $43 billion high-speed rail system, which is set to begin construction in 2012. Howle reported that the authority overseeing the rail system might well fall billions of dollars short of what it needs to complete the project, despite California voters' OK of billions in loans to help pay for it.
The California High-Speed Rail Authority is figuring on as much as $19 billion from the federal government but has guarantees for only $2.25 billion. That funding -- along with the $9 billion in borrowing authorized by voters -- will be essential. So will billions in private investment, a vital component in the funding plan that represents one of Howle's chief concerns.
In response to the auditor's report, HSR Authority Chairman Curt Pringle, the mayor of Anaheim, acknowledged many of the problems and said his staff is working to rectify them. In some cases, he noted, the HSR Authority is already implementing some of the audit's recommendations.
The bullet-train system would send passenger rail cars speeding at up to 220 mph between Southern and Northern California, with a key stop in downtown Bakersfield.
Proponents say the project will create more than 600,000 new construction-related jobs while the system is being built over several years, and as many as 450,000 permanent jobs statewide at build-out. Once it's completed, if it's completed, travel time between Bakersfield and Los Angeles would be 54 minutes; Bakersfield to Sacramento would take one hour and 29 minutes -- and thousands of vehicles that might otherwise be polluting the air would still be parked in driveways.
We asked members of The Californian's Sounding Board about Howle's contentions regarding the "vague" and "optimistic" plan to pay for the 800-mile rail system. Do people believe the high-speed rail system will become a reality for California? Will it be supported by riders and be a boom to the economy? Do the big-picture benefits, including temporary and permanent jobs, cleaner air and ease of travel, override the auditor's concerns? The responses:
IF WE SIMPLY IGNORE the audit as the storm-in-a-tea-kettle that it is, the question becomes more germane. Why have high-speed rail at all? Overwhelmingly, Californians want this high-speed rail to become reality. We like the idea of rocketing through the state and thereby avoiding all the drags on our energy and time that car travel necessitates.
It will be great boon to our fading economy and a great convenience to all Californians as long as the high-speed rail authority can guarantee two things: One, that ticket costs are low enough to entice our car culture to leave freedom behind for the constrictions of the rail; and two, that the rail lines themselves are readily accessible to all parts of California. My only concern about the issues raised in the audit is that spending will become so out-of-control during construction that the rail authority will run its first trip in the red. This will mean high ticket prices. Honestly, if it is cheaper to drive than ride, Californians will continue to flock to the freeways, and will avoid the conformities of rail travel for the freedom of the road.
Karen E. Davis-Ernst of Bakersfield is a high school English teacher.
ALL THE BENEFITS of the high-speed rail system sound too good to be true. So much so that I think they're all pipe dreams and most would never really come to fruition. The "cleaner air" thing would almost be enough to spur Bakersfield residents' thinking, but overall, the price tag on this pie-in-the-sky project is so far out of California's fiscal reach that I really doubt that it will ever get off the drawing boards. I also believe that were it to pass it would take decades to make up the severe fiscal loss to our budget.
Jeff Hathorn of Bakersfield is retired from the Navy.
THIS PROJECT WOULD BE a terrible dud. It is relying much too heavily on the experience of Japan and France's TGV. Neither country has the basic freedom of car ownership and both have the feudal heritage of walled towns, lending themselves to mass transit.
I believe that California HSR, with its wild claims of 90 million riders, based on families traveling from downtown S.F. to downtown L.A. in three hours and using mass transit to get to and from the terminals, is fantasy. Reality is a family in Rohnert Park-Novato-wherever loading the SUV/minivan/car with the kids/dog/boogie boards, slogging down the I-5, stopping in Santa Nella and arriving in six or eight hours at Grandma's in Atascadero/Pismo/East Bent Elbow for a fun weekend.
Check out Acela Express in the Washington-Boston Corridor. With subsidies, its fare is twice the Cal HSR guesstimate of the S.F./L.A. fare, and it does not attract the general public.
Ray Reilly of Bakersfield is a retired engineer.
A HIGH-SPEED RAIL SYSTEM for California is inevitable. The only question is when. Will we do it sooner, in which case we can begin to pay off the costs and reap the benefits earlier, or will we do it later -- when the costs will be higher?
A bullet train system is inevitable because California's population is growing faster than our already crowded highways. More cars will mean dirtier air.
It is inevitable because our need for imported oil makes us too vulnerable to shortages and rising costs. Rail travel uses less energy per passenger mile. Every Californian who is able and willing to leave his or her car at home will save money.
The jobs required to construct the project are needed now, to help California's economic recovery. Labor costs after a recovery will be higher than they are currently.
A bullet train will be used, because its convenience, speed and cost will make it competitive with air travel.
Let me add a historical note: Americans all over the country benefited for decades from the bridges and other infrastructure projects that were built during the Great Depression. We have an opportunity again to reap similar benefits. Let us not delay!
Bruce W. Jones is a retired Cal State Bakersfield professor.
I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT the person responsible to track the appropriate use of public funds, State Auditor Elaine Howle, is doing her job. By showing the Legislature and governor how the High-Speed Rail Authority needs better oversight in its use of public funds, she improves the likelihood that the high-speed rail system will eventually be built.
Do I believe that such a system is needed and will be substantially utilized? Emphatically, yes! Already there are many commuters traveling both to and from Bakersfield between L.A. and other points south, and Sacramento and points north. This would likely see an increase from job-seekers who find a wider range of employment opportunities in those larger and more diverse venues, but who prefer the more relaxed and intimate lifestyle of Bakersfield. Conversely there are commuters to Bakersfield for their employment, and who return for their preferred lifestyles.
It should also benefit tourism in our area. Events such as the Amgen Tour, auto racing, various conferences and recreation opportunities benefit restaurants, motels, car rentals, and much more. This increases employment in these and related venues to supply their demand.
The auditor's job is to see that state money is appropriately spent on the projects established by the Legislature and Governor. She should warn of any shortfalls in either actual or projected funding and, as she has done, of any improper and/or wasteful use of the public money involved.
It is not her job to veto the project itself.
Don Daverin of Bakersfield is a retired teacher.
I AM AN AVID RAILROAD aficionado, having enjoyed train travel as child, but I do not believe that high-speed rail will become a reality in California because we can't fund it. We have $500 billion in unfunded future liabilities for public union and state employees' pension and health insurance benefits, for starters. Additionally, our credit rating is approaching junk bond status, which makes selling such bonds very difficult. If we were to issue bonds to fund the project, they would carry high sub-prime interest rates making the State's indebtedness even worse. Most importantly, we can't even pay our current bills!
If high-speed rail were to become a reality, I believe it would be highly utilized. Any boon to the state's economy would occur during the construction phase only. It is doubtful rider fares would cover the ongoing operational costs, including employee benefits, however.
Big-picture benefits including temporary and permanent jobs, cleaner air and ease of travel, to name a few, could override cost concerns. But those concerns are moot as we simply can't afford the project until we get our state's financial house in order. I am sad to say we will never will until certain interest groups give up their "I've got mine" attitude (to borrow a line from the Eagles singer Glenn Frey).
Angelo Haddad of Bakersfield is an insurance broker.
BEING A BORN OPTIMIST, I believe in the proposed "bullet train" and its potential to benefit California and our valley. Lax oversight, we don't need. California's two- and four-year election cycle doesn't bode well for steady, clear-eyed oversight.
I would rather that the budget be spent on a modern intrastate cargo-moving system. There's no doubt that taking most of the trucks off our highways will save us billions in fuel costs, provide payback and clean up our air. Alas, that's not very sexy.
Gerald Sutliff of Bakersfield is retired from a career in labor relations.
I BELIEVE THE CALIFORNIA High-Speed Rail System will become a reality. The project, authorizing $9.95 billion in bonds for construction, was approved by California voters in November 2008. Since then, an additional $2.25 billion has been awarded to the project through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The CHRSA projects that the project will create tens of thousands of jobs, and the Los Angeles-San Francisco routes will create a profit of $1 billion annually.
But the real benefit lies in the savings, in money not spent for new airport runways, gates and expanded highways for the same number of travelers; in travel time saved and in the reduction of vehicle emissions.
The high-speed rail system is in league with the kind of visionary thinking that created our university system, built the first freeways and protected nature's wonders as state parks. Yes, we have terrible financial issues at present, but that should not keep us from being the can-do visionaries for which California is famous.
Carolyn Ziegler-Davenport is a freelance writer.
"INADEQUATE PLANNING, weak oversight and lax contract management." So says the state auditor's report on the CHSRP. Common sense says these are a prescription for huge cost overruns and years of schedule slippage. It's time to rethink this project.
Primary question: While nice, do we really need it? We are repeatedly told about all the potential benefits, new jobs, cleaner air, ease of travel, etc. Fine, but this is a transportation project (isn't it?), not a jobs bill or an environmental bill or a clever way to snag some (nonexistent) federal dollars.
Second, can we pay for it? California is structurally bankrupt, with a budget deficit exceeding $20 billion and unfunded state pension liabilities exceeding $500 billion. With the federal coffers also tapped out, can we really afford to borrow and tax to the extent required?
How reliable is the CHSRP itself? From its website: Train speed: up to 220 mph. Sample trip: Fresno-L.A., 155 miles, four interim stops, 1 hour 24 minutes.
Allowing only six-minute stops to load/unload passengers, luggage and freight (obviously unrealistic) leaves one hour to travel 255 miles, an average of 255 mph. Given acceleration/deceleration times the train would need even higher peak speeds to reach that average. Oops!
Their numbers are simply wrong. If they cannot get even this right, how can we have any confidence in their planning, engineering and cost estimation? Any decision to proceed must come following comprehensive answers to all critical questions. Think about it.
Doug Savage of Bakersfield is retired from a career as an electronics engineer for the Navy.
THE HIGH-SPEED RAIL SYSTEM proposed for California is one fantastic idea. However, I doubt that it will happen in any of our lifetimes. Why? Not because it is not a good idea, but because every single foot of the 800-mile rail system will be contested by someone who does not like the rail going through their neighborhood or school district or park or vegetable garden or a million other reasons.
We are no longer a nation that thinks about what is good for all of us, but what is good for me and me alone. There are not enough lawyers in California to fight the many obstacles to this wonderful idea. In addition, those responsible for this plan are doing a very poor job of selling it to we the people. The method of "we are coming through your neighborhood whether you like it or not" is not going to build community participation with something we all need to embrace.
Now that I have posed a negative point of view let me say I am a very positive person and looking ahead may not resemble looking back, so perhaps, just maybe, we can all join together and make this high-speed rail system a reality even within our lifetime.
The word of the day is "transparency." This is exactly what is necessary for all of us to gain an appreciation for this people-moving idea to be implemented. If we are able to create this system, California may actually catch up with our fellow travelers in Europe and Asia who already have what we are dreaming about.
Chuck Wall is a retired Bakersfield College professor.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT a high-speed rail system will be "the" benefit promised to the State of California.
Given the cost estimate of $43 billion to construct the system to be overseen by our state government, we Californians must ask ourselves when was the last state project that came in under budget? What about system revenues to pay not only the cost of operation, but to repay bonds issued for construction? How many riders will take advantage of this system and at what cost per seat, when an airline ticket should be much cheaper unless subsidized by state tax revenues?
As for the new jobs to be created by system construction and eventual operation, we should remember these facts: Rail passenger service ended 50 years ago because it was not a profitable enterprise for the railroads. Why should this be any different? Today we have government-subsidized Amtrak, which has lost money in each year of its existence. The golden era of railroad jobs ended at that same time when steam locomotives were replaced by diesel, ice-loading docks at division points were dismantled to be replaced with mechanical refrigerator cars, and engine and car shops were moved to more central locations. The jobs to maintain this proposed system will never replace all those lost in the name of progress.
Don't get me wrong -- I love trains! They put me through college 50 years ago and are a part of my life I will never forget. I also am a passionate native of California who does not believe that our state can afford this venture at present. Perhaps with a $50 billion surplus in the state treasury at some future time. Not now when as a state, we a technically insolvent if not actually bankrupt.
Richard Setser of Bakersfield is the chief executive officer of an independent oil company.
ANY GREAT UNDERTAKING will be met with a certain, and perhaps justifiable, skepticism. The Canal de las Doas Mars (Canal of Two Seas), which was constructed by Pierre-Paul Riquet through France and which connected the Atlantic and the Mediterranean seas, was met with initial skepticism. After King Louis XIV and finance minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert signed on, construction was still ordered to be stopped midway, while the controversial engineering feat of sailing ships on a canal thru a tunnel was to be discussed. Riquet did not stop construction and before the discussion was finished, he proved that it could be done.
Psychologists' have recently discovered that a positive attitude trumps every handicap. Many great feats of engineering would have died on the vine had it not been for a champion of positive thought. It is therefore up to us to decide that this great engineering feat will be built and worthwhile, in the long term, for California. Let us take up this grand plan, on an intergenerational basis if need be, and see it constructed. Many a great vision came with a great sacrifice and a great intergenerational benefit.
Control of costs and a sound engineering plan is pivotal. Not all engineering questions will have answers up front. Some will only be answered after the project is approved and designers spend years of thought to overcome the engineering dilemmas. The Tehachapi Loop, a National Historic Civil Engineering Landmark, is an example.
Strong oversight and fiscal responsibility are crucial to any project, especially such a great and costly feat. This will be a boon for Californians and tourists alike. However, it does not appear necessary to fund it in this deep financial crisis. Once the crisis is over, let's allow future generations to say, "This is what our fathers did for us."
David Bonderov of Bakersfield is an appraiser.
AS A RETIRED SENIOR, it is doubtful I will ever ride this train. Time projections for the project, if built, are in the decades. The current slow economy, California's litigious nature and its dysfunctional Legislature gives no will to the overtaxed citizens to give the project much momentum. Optimism from boards of trade, chambers of commerce and economic development agencies aside, it is a hard sell.
The financially lackluster BART experience indicates the cash flow of such a tremendously large and expensive mass transit project is not hopeful.
Temporary jobs are just that, temporary. Many of the suppliers, technical, labor and contractors will be from outside the state. When they leave, taking their profits, the negative impact remains.
Access to expanded mass transit in the past does not necessarily prove beneficial. Subways introduced into the large metropolitan centers of New York and Boston forever altered the lifestyle and standard of living of the citizens in many ways, some of which are not desirable. These systems led to a denser demographic population and formation of the megalopolis. This results in urban sprawl and inner-city decay. This extended growth eventually overstresses the state's environment in spite of even draconian conservation efforts. There is nothing easy or fun about riding the subway in New York or Boston during rush hour.
However, having said the above, if the picture changes economically and new technology emerges, along with economically viable renewable and alternative energy sources, maybe the political will might reignite the project's vision.
Rich Partain is a retired Bakersfield College professor.
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT the financing of the bullet train or how we can begin. This state is so anti-business that we don't allow other projects that could give jobs and income. I don't know how we can pull this high-speed rail venture off. It should be a combination of investors and government financing.
This state is so involved in environmentalism and political correctness that our hands are tied for new projects. If I had any say, I would hold an offshore lease sale for oil and gas development and use that money and income to pay our debt and start some short segment of the high-speed system, like San Francisco to Sacramento, for a trial.
I don't have much hope of any of this happening because we have too many unreasonable extremists to allow the drilling for known oil or the construction of a rail system.
Phil Ryall of Bakersfield is a geologist.
THE REPORT BY State Auditor Elaine Howle does not surprise me at all. Anyone truly interested in how these projects develop should research the chain of events leading up to the construction of the east-west freeway. The project's missed time frames, expense to obtain right-of way and bureaucratic wrangling all caused the costs to shoot up like our temperatures in summer. History tells us this is the norm with large governmental projects.
What are the realities of high-speed rail for California? While the vision of traveling effortlessly up and down our beautiful state looks good in Powerpoint presentations, questions still remain. Assumptions being made now cannot realistically take into account where the route will be able to go without opposition from some group, the reality that most affected cities do not have metro systems to support the rail, a need for adaptation by Californians who have grown up with cars, and the perceived -- or real -- lack of dependability of most existing public transportation systems.
I think that it would be more feasible to start in the metro areas with intra-city systems that, when utilized by a majority, would develop the ridership for a state system, while also helping the environment and providing jobs.
Finally, estimated cost by the High-Speed Rail Authority is $45 billion, but others say a more realistic cost is between $65-$81 billion, or close to double. According to Authority website information, federal funds committed amount to a measly $2.35 billion. The current pressing financial issues should, by necessity, put projects such as this on the "back burner."
California cannot afford a big gamble with taxpayer dollars until we can pay our bills.
Karen E. Wass of Arvin is a retired real estate broker.
HIGH-SPEED RAIL IS JUST another in a long list of bureaucratic boondoggles. Will it happen is the question many wonder.
I believe that it will at some point since "we the people" have left the decisions for our state up to those who display incompetence as part of their daily decisions. We can count on little to no oversight even though it will be promised, and the public in the long run will not be served.
Here are just some of the questions that should be raised: Is it really necessary? Will it be built by those who live in America and especially in California, or China? Will there be a contest to use union or non-union workers? Will the cost really meet the projections or will the cost be overrun like most public projects? What happens when riders reaches the end of their ride? Will they then need to use more public transportation the get to their job, as an example? The questions are never-ending.
Last but not least is the fact that all public projects cost the public forever and ever and ever, and maybe longer. We do not need more public employees in the public trough. We cannot support the ones we now have. So, I say no. Thanks to the state auditor for raising the flag of deep concern. Will the people in power listen? No!
Sharon Milledge of Bakersfield is a retired homemaker.
DO I BELIEVE THAT the high-speed rail system will become a reality for California? Not only do I believe that, I believe it will happen for all of America. It will sweep from the East Coast to the West, and it should.
If our population continues on the upswing there will no longer be room on the roads for cars. Planes will soon be unaffordable, so a reasonably priced ticket for the bullet train is what we must have.
The California auditor, Elaine Howle, really has no choice and even though there could be financial problems in the future, she must overlook any thought of what might be. Aside from gaining lots of jobs -- temporary or permanent -- to build the train, we simply must have a system in place to move the masses. Her 40-page audit attacks the High-Speed Rail Authority for misusing public funds, but in reality that is no different than the pork-barrel spending I keep hearing about.
President Eisenhower had the naysayers when he proposed a better highway system, but thanks to his good thinking we can now drive coast to coast in just a few days.
Betty Stewart of Bakersfield is the retired officer manager of a medical clinic.
DO I BELIEVE THE HIGH-SPEED rail system will become a reality for California? Yes, I certainly hope so. With more concern about the environment and use of oil, it is very important for this to become reality.
I certainly would support taking a high-speed train versus putting up with the hassles of air travel. "If they build it, people will come" seems to fit this scenario. With the rail line will come businesses at the various stops along the route.
I think the big-picture benefits have to be the main concern. The longer we wait the higher the costs, so it is time to move ahead on this. We voted for the high-speed rail at least a year ago, and the longer it takes the more it will cost.
Kathy Van Reusen of Bakersfield is a public health educator.
IT WOULD BE WONDERFUL to have a high-speed rail system between S.F. and L.A. I would also love to have a house in the South of France, and my own personal jet (or maybe borrow Nancy Pelosi's) to travel there three or four times a year.
Even if the money is in a "holding tank," I don't think the state of California should spend one penny of previously allocated funds until we elect a new governor who will look at the state of the state and make the tough decisions necessary to get us back on the right track (and the right track, in my opinion, right now is not high-speed rail).
Accusations of "weak oversight" and "lax management" are serious allegations and need to be investigated.
All I can see that we could possibly afford right now would be a Matchbox toy racetrack. And maybe two or three fancy little cars at $2 each. That certainly wouldn't cause any air pollution problems, and it appears there are a few senators who would actually have the time to set it up on the Senate floor and play cars with one another.
This state is in a mess and we had better be in a holding pattern until Arnold heads to Hollywood and his replacement is seated, gets our people back to work and figures out how to manage our money without costing us more and more in taxes.
This is a beautiful state. We want it back.
Caroline O. Reid of Bakersfield is a retired executive assistant.
WITH THE STATE IN DIRE economic straits, the bullet train is a little like a man who finds himself wading in the water, up to his hips in alligators, having forgotten that the objective was to drain the swamp.
The concept of the train is solid; it would eventually become a "green" solution to critical transportation needs, and would be supported by riders. However, the financial alligators are closing in fast. As much as I would personally thrill to see a bullet transportation system, does anyone have the stomach to fund a new train along with the obvious cost overrides that will surface, when we cannot even afford to pay the bills?
California seems to always want champaign on a beer pocketbook. Let's be real: The train needs to wait a few years.
Paul Lewis of Bakersfield is a nurse.
I AGREE WITH THE state auditor's contention that the high-speed rail suffers from weak oversight and lax management. This plan has been overblown and underestimated as to cost versus benefits from day one.
The ridership number estimates are inflated, and the proposed ticket prices are so low you would have to be a fool to believe that this will not become yet another heavily taxpayer-subsidized boondoggle.
At the currently proposed prices, everyone in the U.S. would have to ride the train once just to pay for the initial estimate to build it. That's over 350 million riders. Simply put, the numbers don't add up, and never will. I can't support this and I am sure I'm not alone with this opinion.
This state is broke, the system is broke, but our fearless leaders cannot admit to failure, so they just keep popping up with more idiotic things to dump on the public so that it appears they are doing something to earn their bloated salaries and perks. This cannot in any way, shape or form help California's economy.
Will the state's unemployment problems be helped by this? No way. All this does is transfer money from those who do have a job and pay taxes to those that do not, but will be hired to build the rail system. This is not job creation, it is merely transferring wealth.
The Rail Authority should be placed on the unemployment rolls until such time, if ever, that California can realistically afford this.
Richard Diuri of Delano is retired from a career in construction.
PROGRESS IS PAINFUL and often costly. In these times, we are getting used to both.
It would seem that before proceeding, someone should "count the cost" as accurately as humanly possible. Once the true costs are realistically estimated, we need to know exactly how these costs will be paid for.
If it can be paid for without increasing state or federal deficits, then I say, proceed. If it will not unfairly increase taxes on business or individuals, then I say, proceed.
But, if we cannot answer both of these affirmatively, then, perhaps it is best not to encumber our state, our businesses or ourselves any further.
Stephen Dinger of Bakersfield is the principal/superintendent of a Christian school.
THIS SYSTEM WILL NEVER be built. It would cost over $1,000 for every man, women and child in California. People would never support this kind of travel, and it would be a drag on the state's finances for many years.
Wonder how many of the people who voted for this would like to have their IRA or pension funds invested in it? And to have a train travel at 200 mph is recipe for disaster.
Bo Hokanson of Bakersfield is retired after owning his own business.
THOUGH I AM NOT FAMILIAR with the specifics of the report, I am not sure that the rapid rail system will be a great help or anything more than a temporary economic assist. It will primarily be used by a very small group of people who travel the state from point A to point B. The only useful purpose of the system is to commute, or take people to places that they want to go, and don't need further personal transportation. That limits its usefulness.
A far more productive use of the money would be a rail system for the L.A. area. At least that would be used by, and would be useful to, many more people. When I moved to the area in the late '70s, there was talk of, and voting on, doing exactly that. But the people of the area wanted more roads and have been paying the price ever since.
Bill Schlossenberg of Bakersfield owns a tool company.
I'VE EXPERIENCED THE TGV in Europe. It's like flying first-class. In California, it would be wonderful. However, upon review of the CHSRA business plan, I've drawn these conclusions, all negative:
* Fundamental planning flaws are evident. Elements missing from CHSRA's business plan are their stated mission, vision and values -- all essential to avoid "lax management" and "weak oversight."
* Moreover, these statements are not reinforced by long-term strategic goals to accomplish the project's mission, vision and operational objectives (including funding).
* Another fundamental flaw is not following the critical rule that "structure follows strategy". Absent strategic goals, it's no wonder management is found lax and weak.
Admittedly, jobs will be created. This project will be a boon to California's economy. Cleaner air and easier travel will result. Yet none of these benefits override the auditor's concerns because:
* Our state, national and global economies are in horrendous condition. Now is not the time for a project of this magnitude.
* Without clearly defined mission, vision, values and strategic goals, the project becomes micro-managed without essential strategic leadership.
* Ridership is unpredictable. With fares at 83 percent of airfare, this is less value than most expect. Fares need to be lower.
This project should be deferred until economic conditions are restored and improved project management skills are demonstrated.
Admittedly, "sunk costs" will be astronomical. My hope is our economy can be restored, and leadership deficiencies offset, so this important project can be resumed with full funding and all earlier investments recovered.
John Pryor of Bakersfield is a risk management consultant.
I KNOW THAT IN THESE POLITICAL times it has not been prudent to use reference to Japan and France as a way to win a political and economic debate in this country, or even in California. However, I believe the comparisons are still valid.
Both Japan and France have highly touted high-speed train systems, from the bullet train to the TVG. Even China and several countries in Europe have such train systems, including the Czech Republic. Why is it that countries that were economically devastated during World War II, with their infrastructure completely ruined, were able to develop such financially and environmentally friendly means of mass transit? Well the answer has several parts.
One is our love affair with the automobile, an affair that was tainted with General Motors' successful plan to remove an early version of mass transit, the Red Car train system in Los Angeles. A second factor is that people made their car, now called an SUV, an extension of their home. From TV/DVD players to refrigerators and iPhones, one can actually live in an SUV comfortably.
One trip on I-5 can teach anyone that this love affair is killing us! Our air! Our nerves! Our farm land! Our cities!
We need a rapid train system. We need to copy others. We need to return to the idea that more is not better and efficiency is best. A high-speed rail makes us place our wealth not in a vehicle. Our wealth now becomes enjoyment of travel.
Harry Love of Bakersfield is a retired high school teacher and is active in the Sierra Club and Audubon Society.</U>
I BELIEVE THAT THE HIGH-SPEED rail system has to become a reality for California. We need to stop all of this political bickering and name calling, and get to work to start laying tracks.
I've traveled on a few rail systems in other countries. The trains in Ireland, Scotland and Italy are so far superior to anything we have to offer in our country, it's embarrassing. The systems I have traveled on in the United States are all in need of upgrades and repairs.
California needs to take the lead in showing people how to travel in the future. We taught the masses to fall in love with their automobiles; now we need to prove the viability and necessity of a high-speed rail system in the greatest state in the union, and make it happen.
Bobby Scrivner of Bakersfield is a retired Kern County employee.
WILL THE BULLET TRAIN ever happen in California? Yes, if:
* They take the program out of the hands of the government and put it up to private investors to make a profit;
* And the airlines between L.A. and S.F. get a cut of the action to eliminate competition. They probably don't want the competition, and may be working to prevent it.
It will have riders if it only has one stop in each direction.
Having a bullet train stop in Bakersfield is pure stupidly. Amtrak is adequate.
State Auditor Elaine Howle's contention is right on. The high-speed rail authority has got to be a bunch of nitwits with $43 billion to play with.
Having a high-speed train in California will, of course, be a benefit to the state in all categories -- jobs, air, economy. It will not pollute the air as airlines do.
Ken Cannon of Bakersfield is retired from a career with a telephone company.
WHEN I FIRST READ THE glowing, optimistic, totally positive reports about the high-speed rail system, I felt a twinge of that old skeptical feeling I get when I hear about things too good to be true.
Nothing is all good. Everything has a downside. Every venture has a risk.
This was oversold from the start. The plan seemed based on wishful thinking and numbers that just didn't make sense. The marketing plan was based on hopes, not experience. So far they have produced a wonderful animated website, sent a handful of misty-eyed salespeople out to paint a beautiful picture, and conned communities in the Central Valley to spend a fortune competing for the maintenance facility that is still a dream.
It is too much money for a system that, even if built, will be a loser and add to California's growing financial problems. This should be allowed to just fade away. Then maybe Sacramento's super brains can turn their dream power to getting us solvent again.
Bob Hawkes of Bakersfield is a business consultant.
THE HIGH-SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY, created in 1996, took 12 years to bring Measure 1A to voters for approval to borrow $9 billion, chump change compared to the cost of building an 800-mile railway.
The money has strings attached, such as caps on administrations and preconstruction engineering costs. It also cannot be used to pay for more than 50 percent of expenses, and matching funds must come from another source.
Private investors "might" be an option, but they generally look for return on investment, and there doesn't appear to be much to offer.
As of today, $2.5 billion (federal) have been dedicated from the Recovery Act of 2009, an act that would not exist had our economy not fallen. There is "hope" that 19 billion dollars in federal funds will be provided but no commitment. The first-year budget is estimated to be $12 billion, and most projects handled by government go over budget.
This leaves us short $11.5 billion. Who would begin building $1 million home with a quarter-million of secured financing? It is simply irresponsible. Since the system will be built in corridors, what happens when only half the track is built but the money runs out?
California is in no position to borrow more money. There is no guarantee ridership will come close to paying the operating costs with affordable fares. If the trains travel with minimal riders, it will need government subsidy forever and that, folks, means you and I will be paying.
Jim A. Luff of Bakersfield is the general manager of a transportation company.
AS A BOARD MEMBER of the Asthma and COPD Education Center and fervent cyclist and supporter of mass-transit for many decades, I am thrilled with the "concept" proposed by the California High-Speed Rail Authority and similar systems frequented by travelers throughout the European continent.
However, as with cycling in Bakersfield, we have a mindset we are fighting first and foremost, and not secondarily a phenomenal budget crisis rivaling only the Great Depression.
Nothing new here, I know. More importantly, as with anything our government has ever touched this, too, will turn into a tremendous story of cost overruns, timelines failed to be met and ultimately political boondoggles and finger-pointing rather.
Additionally, what many, I dare say most, have failed to consider is the small towns where high-powered street gangs have yet to penetrate will then be quite easily accessed, pushing guns and drugs amongst our young population and ruining what is left of small-town California.
While I enjoy doing my part to clean up our air and improve our way of life, I do not believe that includes another huge burden of debt to be repaid by generations to come. Additionally, the commission has yet to demonstrate potential high-speed ridership substantially greater than that of our ever-subsidized and failed Amtrak system, which only recently has shown a significant ridership increase.
No bullet train right now. It's time is absolutely coming, but certainly not in the midst of the financial meltdown that California is experiencing.
Arin D. Resnicke is a Bakersfield architect.
I EAGERLY VOTED for the high-speed rail system because it offered the promise of rapid transit without the hazards of aircraft. Such systems are in use in Europe and Asia, and we in America are behind in this area.
But, in the ensuing 14 years of delays, the plan now is underfunded and flawed, perhaps fatally so. I've read the auditor's report summary, and am frankly dismayed.
I still support the vision. Mass rapid transit could be a boon to the state, if it is done right. But, done wrong or shoddily it will be a boondoggle.
I don't know if the auditor is being neutral in her criticism or not. I hope she is telling it like it is instead of being a saboteur for special interest that want to sink the project. But I don't believe we can continue the project until the auditor's concerns have been addressed and resolved. We cannot go forward on wishful thinking.
Frank E. Baker of Bakersfield is a machinist.
IT SEEMS WHENEVER government is involved, a lot of money is unaccounted for and time is lost. I agree with State Auditor Elaine Howle's concerns about "weak oversight and lax management" for the high-speed rail project, but what's new? I don't understand how there is no accountability for misdirected or lost funds, and to the contrary, at times there are compliments and kudos given to those directly in charge of projects.
It takes forever to see results and no accounting for how money allocated for projects was spent, and most often projects require more money in order to complete them. Time is lost, job opportunities are put on hold and when questions are asked, double talk and idle excuses are given.
Has anyone thought to do a feasibility study to know if there is a need for a high-speed rail system? What would riders need to pay and how long would it take to recover the cost of such a system?
Even though temporary and permanent jobs would be created, what would the cost be to maintain the system? What a shame it would be to spend the "guesstimated" $43 billion only to discover the benefits and utilization do not permit ongoing use of a bullet train.
How often is the government proactive? Howle's concerns are real. It's time to stop reacting and begin some sound planning before investing so much in what could become a taxpayer's nightmare.
Darlyn Baker of Bakersfield is the co-owner of Interim Health/Care.
CALIFORNIA IS A "love of free movement" state. We like to jump in our cars on our own schedules without waiting for a bus or train. California already has Amtrak, and I think that it would be interesting to do a survey on how successful that is before making a judgement on high-speed rail. Bus travel is successful, but the only way high-speed rail would become the way of travel would be to take away cars.
China wants to build this system. If we are to build a rail system, then the contracts should go to American citizens. If not America, then no one. I do not think that cleaner air will play a part in this. People will try the rail and then go back to their more convenient way of travel, the car, because we are Californians.
As for ease of travel, we have a beautiful airport that has lost how many flights out of Bakersfield? Why? It will cost far more than the estimated costs. It always does. I believe that there will be major padding of budgets. There always is. I believe that at this time in our lives that as much as we need the jobs, we do not need the headaches that would come with this project.
It is not something that would benefit the people in a timely manner. It would cost the people money that they cannot afford because someone always has to pay for the "new costs" that arise.
Irene Edmonds of Bakersfield is retired.
IF THE BULLET TRAIN project is really going to mean having a 5-story track though Bakersfield along the lower side of Truxtun Avenue/upper California Avenue, it would be a real eyesore. How could our city fathers allow such a things to be built? To me, that's a bigger issue for Bakersfield than some misappropriated funds. Of course, Bakersfield is sort of an eyesore in itself, so one more 5-story one wouldn't make too much difference.
Jon Crawford of Bakersfield is a petroleum engineer.
