[size=6]Op-Ed: High-speed job creation for California[/size]
By MADELINE JANIS


[size=4]An artist's rendering shows one of the high-speed trains that are projected to run from Los Angeles to San Francisco. (EPA / California High Speed Rail Authority)[/size]

During the recent election season, the California high-speed rail project came under attack once again, with candidates vowing to defund it. "Let's focus on real job creation," said GOP gubernatorial candidate Neel Kashkari in one television commercial, as he smashed a toy train.

Do Kashkari and others have a point? Is the multibillion-dollar project unlikely to produce good jobs?

I believe they are wrong, as long as the state remains focused on keeping job creation as a principal goal of the program.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority has already negotiated a comprehensive "construction careers" program with the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, one that guarantees access to apprenticeship programs for disadvantaged and unemployed workers, prioritizing those from the state's poorest areas, including Fresno and the Central Valley.

The program was modeled after one developed by L.A.'s Metro in 2011 that has put thousands of disadvantaged people into union apprenticeship programs. Those who finish are prepared for permanent careers as electricians, pipe fitters or sheet-metal workers. The high-speed rail construction careers program will similarly train thousands of Californians and then put them to work designing and constructing the rail line.

Until late last week, the rail authority also had an excellent plan in place to bring the manufacturing of its high-speed rail cars to the United States, which would create thousands more American jobs.

Currently, there is not a single company operating in the United States capable of manufacturing the high-tech aluminum trains the rail system will use. To address that issue, California's rail authority decided to team up with Amtrak, which was also in the market for new high-speed trains. The idea was that the two agencies together would wield enough purchasing power to create a market for U.S.-manufactured rail cars.

In January, they put out a request for proposals from manufacturers interested in building the high-speed trains domestically.

The request for proposals required companies interested in bidding to spell out exactly how many U.S. jobs they anticipated creating, as well as what kind of outreach they would do to hire unemployed workers and what kind of wages they would pay. The winning bidder would have been expected to purchase 100% of its major rail car components from U.S. factories, which would have led to additional American jobs making those parts.

On Friday, though, Amtrak and the rail authority canceled their joint manufacturing plan, having concluded that the needs of the two agencies were too different to be addressed in a single contract. Amtrak runs its high-speed trains on aging rail lines in the Northeast that can accommodate trains going no more than 160 mph. California is looking for trains that will go up to 220 mph.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority's plans will now have to be rethought. But Californians should urge the agency to continue its commitment to building the trains in the United States. The agency should also require, as the joint proposal with Amtrak did, that companies bidding for the job clearly spell out their plans for creating good U.S. jobs and for providing opportunities for disadvantaged Americans.

Ultimately, the proof of the California High-Speed Rail Authority's commitment to job creation lies with its final choice of manufacturer and that manufacturer's approved job-creation strategy.

But despite the qualms voiced about the high-speed rail line, it's reasonable to expect that if the project sticks to its core commitments, it could become one of the greatest economic development programs in the state's history, providing both a train system that will benefit Californians for generations and tens of thousands of new, good U.S. and California jobs.

I think if we want better infrastructure we should privatise it. Government jobs are inefficient and never run on time or on budget.

Put in a private backer who doesn't have time for the BS that contractors give to suck the budget dry and things will move like shit through a goose.

Check out whats happened to some of the sites used for the athens olympics

http://www.news.com.au/sport/more-sports/athens-olympic-site-in-ruins-10-years-on-from-2004-games/story-fndukor0-1227024073167

Its the same thing for the Beijing Olympics

http://www.reuters.com/news/pictures/slideshow?articleId=USRTR30UOB

I shudder to think what the remains of a Qatar 2022 World Cup will look like in 2032.

Indeed. If you want to see how it's done, look no further than the Melbourne Commonwealth Games, not a white elephant to be seen, all permanent infrastructure (both built or renovated for the games) is still in full use, even being fought over this very day by powerful sporting entities for use.

Hell, Melbourne is the only city in the world that could host an emergency Olympics with a couple of months' notice.

I shudder to think what the remains of a Qatar 2022 World Cup will look like in 2032.

Aren't they just palming off their stadiums to Africa? :lol:

-PB

For some reason, taking that step forward in Australia with public transport is taboo. We've all been overseas and seen the amazing systems elsewhere. I guess I can keep dreaming.

Aren't they just palming off their stadiums to Africa? :lol:

-PB

The Sydney-Melbourne route takes roughly 7 million passengers each year. If the high speed rail took half that, at say $50/head (to be competitively priced), not factoring in wage and maintenance costs it would take them 285 years to make back that money. And that's JUST for the investment in the melbourne leg. You'd have to be moving 10 million people a year to make that back this century.

So to get a return in the next 50 years you'd have to move the ENTIRE COUNTRY's populace annually, or some 55,000 people (the entire crowd of Suncorp Stadium) from Melbourne to Sydney every day.

That strikes me as unlikely that they're going to literally triple the number of people travelling between Sydney and Melbourne on a daily basis.

The Sydney-Melbourne route takes roughly 7 million passengers each year. If the high speed rail took half that, at say $50/head (to be competitively priced), not factoring in wage and maintenance costs it would take them 285 years to make back that money. And that's JUST for the investment in the melbourne leg. You'd have to be moving 10 million people a year to make that back this century.

So to get a return in the next 50 years you'd have to move the ENTIRE COUNTRY's populace annually, or some 55,000 people (the entire crowd of Suncorp Stadium) from Melbourne to Sydney every day.

That strikes me as unlikely that they're going to literally triple the number of people travelling between Sydney and Melbourne on a daily basis.

Less than 285 years I'd imagine.

You also have to remember, this is a nation which can't keep the fuck off level crossings and can't be trusted with nice things.

There are no level crossings with HSR's. In turns of straight return, it's never going to look appealing but I'm kinda of the opinion that such an investment would have immense flow on effects that would be positive for society, not just for travellers but also regional areas.

Well Qantas is half way down the gurgler now.

I don't think it's much of a stretch to say Qantas employ more people than a HSR network would, and HSR could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. The hit to the economy suffered by such a large employer going under would also have huge repercussions.

Love people using 2014 figures to determine the viability of a 50-100 year asset :lol:

Edited by mcjules: 23/8/2014 07:07:03 PM

And limiting the value of infrastructure to ticket sales alone, even over that amount of time.

Both the government and Beyond Zero Emissions reports found there was a strong economic case for the project.
Dr Bygrave said the $84 billion figure could be put into perspective when you considered that state and federal governments spent a combined $18 billion each year on roads.
If an equivalent amount was set aside for five years, that would be enough to pay for the project.
Mr Albanese said Labor’s study showed the $114 billion project would provide $2.15 of economic benefit for every $1 invested on the Sydney-Melbourne line.

And making crazy accusations that Australians are any worse than people of any other nation when it comes to "looking after" infrastructure...

Infrastructure in other first world countries is quite well maintained compared to Australia.

For HSR to be viable in Australia the population of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane needs to at least double in all three cities in the next 50 years.

I love a good back of an envelope calculation.