High Speed Followup

Here are a few more maps to flesh out yesterday's post.

The network I developed previously is overlaid on a population distribution map in this image. Now, the map is from 1970, but as far as I know no entirely new cities have been built since then. Growth since then has been greater in the South and Southwest, so the sizes of the circles (urban population) and density of the dots (rural population) is somewhat wrong. But, in general, Americans are living in the same locations today that they did back then. As you can see, I've hit nearly every major city with a red or blue line, excepting those in the Mountain states. The green or yellow lines hit most of the rest. One area I need to investigate is the western Virgina/western North Carolina/eastern Tennessee region. There are a lot of medium-sized cities there, and I think I missed an important line or two.

Here is the network plus a whole slew of routes that might be considered for passenger rail if the country was to go all out on upgrading and electrifying the rail system. I've included every route that seems plausible. There are a few intentional omissions because of physical geography and size (Grand Junction, Medford), because of isolation and size (Roswell, Bismark), and because of geography and density (north of Lake Superior). I have also excluded the dense commuter rail networks that exist around Northeast Corridor cities and Chicago, which would get even denser if rail had a higher priority. There's probably a bunch of unintentional omissions, too. I tried to avoid filling the Big Empty Spaces out west with extra lines, as the area really is empty. Nonetheless, I ended up with a several routes that would be well-utilized only in a world where flying or driving was prohibitively expensive.

I also compared my plan to this plan from The Transport Politic. The blogger there did a very detailed analysis using a mathematical model to help decide on where to run the HSR lines. Nonetheless, I have a number of minor quibbles (marked in green) about gaps and spurs in the secondary network, and four larger questions (marked in blue) about the HSR lines.

Working west to east, the first is about the Los Angeles to Phoenix connection, where I think it might be a mistake to bypass Yuma. There are about 300,000 more people on a southern route, the geography looks easier, and there could be a connection to San Diego via two decent-size cities in Mexico (it's remotely possible). The diversion does cause a 30 minute time penalty, which pushes the duration of the downtown-to-downtown trip to about the limit. But LA is such a vast area that many of the trips would originate east of downtown, and those journeys would stay well below the limit. Next, the gap south of Macon seems like a missed opportunity. The key here is not to go straight to either Savannah or Jacksonville, but to hit a point between them and fork. Farther south, running the main line on the west side of the Florida peninsula would substantially increase the time to Orlando and Jacksonville from Miami. I think the importance of tourism to the state needs to be acknowledged, and running the line on the east side would pass more touristy areas. Plus doing an EIS for trackage across the Everglades is too horrific to contemplate. Finally, the kink to hit all the cities in North Carolina means the line won't really be HSR. The distances between them are just too small. That's why I bypassed Durham, Burlington, Greensboro, Winston-Salem, and High Point with the main HSR line between Raleigh and Charlotte. The branch route could be served with HSR track and trainsets. But station dwell and acceleration/deceleration times start to dominate with that many stops, so the track might be built only to MSR standards. I think there would be about a 40 minute time penalty for the western route over a direct connection.

That's it for now. I'm all HSRed-out.

Update: One last gasp. Here's the extended system overlaid on the population map.

Just Lines on a Map

One of the most pleasing parts of the economic stimulus bill (aka the clumsy acronym EGTRRA) - at least to us liberals in our decadent coastal enclaves - was the inclusion of several billion dollars of money allocated for high speed rail (HSR). This has prompted an outburst of proposals for HSR networks, conveniently presented in graphic form. Here's some of them:

• The Federal Railroad Administration's designated HSR corridors with some criticism.
• A proposal from The Transport Politic, with a followup.
• US HSR has a plan that projects build-out through 2050.
• America 2050 also has a plan that is based on the concept of megaregions.
• The Infrastucturist has mashup of several different proposals.
• The VHSR group has a nice map of existing Amtrak routes and population estimates of another set of megaregions.

I have my own proposal, but before talking about it let me back up a bit and cover some basics.

First, what is HSR? Internationally, it's defined as a fixed guide-way transportation system that operates regularly at speeds above 240 kph (150 mph). In the US it has been defined by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) as railroad transportation that can travel in excess of 110 mph (175 kph). The international definition covers both conventional rail and magnetic levitation systems. For the rest of this post I'm going to define HSR as conventional steel-on-steel trains and track that allow for regular operation above 150 mph. I'm also going to add two other definitions that are unique to me: MSR as conventional rail that travels at speeds up to 110 mph, and SSR as conventional rail that that travels at speeds up to 80 mph.

Second, what kind of equipment does HSR require? All currently implemented HSR networks use trainsets powered by electricity provided by an overhead catenary system. This combination isn't the only possibility, but it's definitely the best one. Electric power is better for this application than a diesel-electric combination because hauling around a large prime mover (a railroad term for the engine, which is separate from the motors powering each axle) and its fuel supply isn't necessary. And with diesel power, more than one locomotive would be necessary to meet the required power. Electric power is better than a gas turbine-electric combination because turbines are very inefficient in this application. An overhead catenary is better for providing electricity than the only other option, third rail, for safety reasons. A trainset is better than a separate locomotive pulling independent cars because a trainset can be more easily made aerodynamic, access between cars is better, and they are more attractive. (Some HSR designs have two semi-permanent, integrated locomotives that push and pull a set of articulated cars, instead of being part of the articulated set.) For MSR and SSR, diesel becomes viable, though electricity is still better in many situations. A dedicated trainset is still best at all speeds, but legacy locomotives and cars work as long as they are well maintained.

Third, what kind of track does HSR require? A HSR trainset can operate on any electrified track provided the voltage is correct, but requires a separate, fenced-off, dedicated set of tracks free of grade crossings in order to operate at maximum speeds. HSR needs to be separate because the track has to be built to a much higher standard than for MSR or SSR, because mixing speeds slows down traffic substantially, and because heavy freight trains cause much more wear and tear than lighter passenger trains. A dedicated line can also have grades that are too steep for freight traffic. In most HSR networks the trainsets operate on dedicated track outside of city centers and merge with general traffic for the last few miles. MSR and SSR do not have to be segregated, but the track needs to be in better shape than for freight-only traffic. MSR needs to have an in-cab signaling system installed on the line, as does HSR, but SSR can operate on traditional trackside indicators. MSR also requires all grade crossings that can't be eliminated be protected with large, complex gates.

Finally, where should HSR go? Because of the high cost of building dedicated track, HSR is only viable between major population centers. Additionally, when compared to aircraft, HSR is competitive only for trips of up to 3 hours, or 300-400 miles. The number of stops must be limited in order for the average speed to stay up, as does the amount of time spent on low-speed lines, in order to have an advantage over cars.

So, there's a lot of stuff to consider when planning a HSR network even before tackling issues like geography and existing conditions. Let's look at a potential line.

Semi-randomly, I've selected Boston to Buffalo for this exercise. It's not an obvious route, but it does terminate in a top 10 city. From west to east, the cities along the route are (populations are for metro area, mileage is from Google Maps):

• Buffalo, pop. 1,170,000, MP 0, MSA rank 47, Possible connections: Toronto, Erie, Cleveland
• Batavia, pop. 16,000, MP 36
• Rochester, pop. 1,037,000, MP 67, MSA rank 51
• Seneca Falls, pop. 9,347, MP 117
• Auburn, pop. 28,574, MP ?
• Syracuse, pop. 732,117, MP 155, MSA rank 80, Possible connections: Binghamton, Philadelphia
• Oneida, pop. 10,987, MP 180
• Rome, pop. 294,862 (in Utica MSA), MP 196
• Utica, pop. 294,862, MSA rank 155, MP 212
• Herkimer, pop. 7,498, MP ?
• Johnstown, pop. 8,100, MP 262
• Amsterdam, pop. 18,355, MP 273
• Schenectady, pop. 853,919 (in Albany MSA), MP 290
• Albany, pop. 853,919, MP 303, MSA rank 57, Possible connections: NYC, Montreal
• Rensselaer, pop. 853,919 (in Albany MSA), MP ?
• Pittsfield, pop. 42,931, MP 338
• Springfield, pop. 682,657, MP 386, MSA rank 74, Possible connections: Hartford, New Haven
• Worcester, pop. 749,973, MSA rank 65, MP 434
• Framingham, pop. 66,910 (in Boston MSA), MP 453
• Newton, pop. 83,829 (in Boston MSA), MP 466
• Boston, pop. 4,411,835, MSA rank 10, MP 476, Possible connections: Providence, Concord, Portland

When set out like this, most of the destinations are obvious (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Utica, Albany, Springfield, Worcester, and Boston). Others aren't. Schenectady is too close to Albany to be added for a stop on its own merits, but existing conditions mean a stop would have a low penalty. I would also include Newton because Boston is such a big metropolitan area that traveling into the city center can be prohibitive. A similar suburban spot could be added near Buffalo, but the majority of the population lies to the north or south of downtown, making the added utility smaller.

But wait, you say, the line being discussed is much longer than 400 miles. That's true, and somebody going from Buffalo to Boston would most likely fly (at current prices). However, there are so many intermediate destinations with considerable populations that the entire line would be heavily utilized. The line also intersects with several others: HSR lines at Buffalo, Albany, and Boston; and MSR lines at Buffalo, Syracuse, Springfield, and Boston. Many trains could run on the corridor for only part of their routes before branching off, which would increase utilization even more. So, using my rather imprecise technique, this looks like a very good line to include in a HSR network.

Where else should HSR go? To answer that in a semi-methodical way, we could look at the US metro area rankings, and see if any groupings emerge. I've done that, and here is what I saw. I've used the Census Bureau's MSA definitions, so a few larger megalopolises have more than one entry. Marginally attached cities are in parenthesis, and logical extensions into Canada and Mexico are in brackets.

1. Northeast
   • Top 20: NYC, Philadelphia, Washington, Boston, Baltimore
   • Top 40: Providence, Virginia Beach
   • Top 60: Richmond, Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven, (Buffalo, Rochester, Albany)
2. Southwest
   • Top 20: Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Francisco, Riverside, San Diego
   • Top 40: Sacramento, Las Vegas, San Jose
   • Top 60: Tucson, Fresno, [Tijuana]
3. Midwest
   • Top 20: Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis, St. Louis
   • Top 40: Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Kansas City, Columbus, Indianapolis, Milwaukee
   • Top 60: Louisville, (Omaha)
4. Texas
   • Top 20: Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston
   • Top 40: San Antonio, Austin
   • Top 60: (Oklahoma City, Tulsa), (New Orleans)
5. Florida
• Top 20: Miami, Tampa
• Top 40: Orlando, Jacksonville
• Top 60:
6. Piedmont
   • Top 20: Atlanta
   • Top 40: Charlotte
   • Top 60: Birmingham, Raleigh
7. Northwest
• Top 20: Seattle, [Vancouver]
• Top 40: Portland
• Top 60:
8. Non-corridor
• Top 20:
• Top 40: Nashville, Denver
• Top 60: Memphis, Salt Lake City, Honolulu, Albuquerque

The results are fairly encouraging, because 38 of the top 40 cities in America, which have populations of 1.3 million or more, can be organized into 7 different regions. The three strongest regions are the Northeast (where the MSR-ish Northeast Corridor already exists), the Southwest, and the Midwest. The groupings get a bit shakier over 40 due to distance and intermediate density. Four top 60 cities will never be on a national priority network due to geographic isolation: Honolulu (obviously), Denver, Salt Lake City, and Albuquerque. Some people like connecting the last two, but there are very few residents between Pueblo, CO, and Albuquerque, and the geography is punishing. Nashville and Memphis are just a little too far from everything else to fall into any region.

Using the groupings above, a list of the top 200 cities, and various bits of specific knowledge that have lodged in my brain over time, I've come up with the network below. A few more comments are in order. Unlike most plans, New Orleans is a stub, not a hub. This is because I think the Gulf Coast line should be well away from the ocean whenever possible. In some places I have bent the route from straight in order to build a triangle that could connect more routes. One in Texas has already been proposed, and I added a small one in Illinois and a large one in Tennessee. I included some state capitals that are marginal, but that was for inevitable political reasons. Finally, the colors. Red is for the core national lines, all of which should be built to HSR standards. Blue is for nationally important lines, which would be best built to HSR standards, but could work as MSR lines. Green is for lines that are significant for a state or region, but probably merit only MSR standards at best. And yellow is for examples of MSR or SSR infill or spur lines, and is not meant to be comprehensive.

Kinda crappy looking, eh? I hope to find a better base map to work off.

Okay, time to step back again. The underlying assumption for this plan and most other plans is that we will be operating in a more-or-less business-as-usual (BAU) mode in 2050 or 2100. Most of our cities will still be car-centric and car dependent, gas (or other fuel) will be cheap, and airplanes will be affordable enough to dominate city-to-city traffic over 400 miles. That assumption could be entirely wrong. A lot of peak oil adherents believe that transportation will be entirely different by 2100, and that a program to electrify every existing rail line should be started immediately. Only after that should HSR be built. That plan does better reflect the reality of existing North American rail transportation: it is freight centric. As such, it operates quite well - if you are on a main corridor and need hundreds of carloadings per year. Most HSR plans, including mine, fudge or ignore the issue of freight. That's a big problem, because most MSR and SSR routes would run on existing right-of-ways, albeit with much improved track. If freight can't be kept moving at a good pace, a lot of it will end up on the highways, which would be a big negative.

Another major problem with most HSR proposals, again including mine, is relatively weak treatment of Canada and Mexico. That might sound like an odd criticism when the starting point of the whole discussion was funding from the US government. But America and Canada are heavily integrated economically and culturally, so the border there should not weigh too heavily on route planning. The US-Mexico border is much more problematic, to say the least. At this point, future HSR or MSR connections should be planned only at the high level. As for specific lines, the Windsor-Quebec City corridor is obvious and everyone includes it, but other lines should be considered as well. For instance, a small isolated MSR network might be viable in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. An isolated HSR line is being planned for the Edmonton-Calgary corridor, and there is potential for MSR connections to other western cities. Mexico is in desperate need of passenger rail, as very little exists. There are seven potential locations for crossing the border: San Diego, Yuma, Nogales, El Paso, Laredo, McAllen, and Brownsville. Beyond that I don't know much about Mexican cities or geography, but I hope to add lines for that country soon.

Finally, by their nature, no national plan gets down into the weeds. Some regional plans do; for instance, the California HSR proposal is quite detailed, and environmental reviews are already underway for some segments. Elsewhere, though, millions of devilish details remain undiscovered. The biggest problem will be acquiring the right of way. The endless sprawl that covers the country east of the Mississippi might lead to hundreds of billions of dollars being spent in order to develop reasonable routings. NIMBYism will reach new heights once a specific route is proposed, as there is no denying that a train blasting through at 150 mph makes quite a racket, even if it is brief. Every mile of every segment will have to go through an arduous approval process before a single tie can be laid.

So enjoy the pretty maps you see popping up all over. You won't be seeing actual HSR in the US until at least 2020.

Bailout Ben Baffles Backbiters By Bagging Barak's Blessing

My position on the next Fed Chair has been: A.B.S. - anybody but Summers. Or Geithner, for that matter, but adding him to the acronym made it sound awkward. I side with those that say that Bernanke's role in creating the crisis and incompetence at detecting it outweighs his successful (so far) actions in helping to contain the fallout. But the two most obvious candidates would have been worse. Summers is a jerk and Geithner is a toady, and both had a hand in creating this mess, too. At the same time I admit that I don't really have any alternatives to suggest, except Yellin, who I vaguely remember saying some sensible things at some point. Hardly a resounding endorsement, eh? Well, it's Bernanke we're getting, like it or not. Let's hope he has some good ideas about unwinding the First National Hedge Fund Federal Reserve's balance sheet when the time comes.

Pulling a Nader

There was yet another dust-up over the role Ralph Nader in the 2000 election at BJ a few days ago. I didn't feel like jumping into the fray, so I'm putting my thoughts down here instead.

There are four reasons why Nader and - more importantly - Naderites should be ashamed of what happened in 2000.

First, until the election system is changed, voting for a third party candidate helps the other side. This is a straight-up math problem, and is easy to understand. Let's say there are three candidates: Far Left (FL), Center Left (CL), and Center Right (CR). If FL gets 3% and CL gets 48%, CR wins with 49% - despite more people preferring a left-leaning candidate. Unless there's a certainty of a blowout, voting for a third party candidate in an important election is dangerous and shouldn't be done. Now, if the election system was different - if runoffs were held, or IRV was used - then voting for a third or thirteenth or thirtieth party would be fine, as long as the leading candidate was supported in the runoff or included somewhere in the ranking of candidates. Multi-member districts or proportional representation would change the calculus, too, but neither exist to a significant degree in the US.

Second, voting is not an act of self-expression; it is about controlling the government and the resources it commands. It's about power. Some people like to feel they have a clean conscience by voting for a "pure" candidate instead of a moderate they feel is or will be too compromised. That kind of thinking is pure narcissism. It's been clear for a long time that bad elected officials can and do hurt a lot of people. Personal satisfaction can't possibly outweigh the harm that others might experience.

Third, executive positions matter. The POTUS really is the most powerful person in the world. He's in charge of the world's most powerful military. He sets the priorities for the spending of trillions of dollars. He can have a long-lasting impact on the legal environment based on who he nominates to the SCOTUS and the lesser courts. And so on. State executives matter, too, though by varying amounts. Ahnuld has had devastating impacts on California, while Douglas has merely kept Vermont in a holding pattern at a time when progress is needed. And what Bush has done at the federal level is tragic. So, even if the choice is between a bad candidate and a horrible candidate, every effort needs to made to put the least bad candidate into the office.

And finally, the two parties really are different. They may not be sufficiently different for some people, but the logic of the election system pushes the parties into being coalitions. The Democrats are an especially broad coalition, which frustrates the left wing of the party and dulls the party's effectiveness. But the notion that there is essentially no difference between the two promotes apathy and depresses voter turnout. Nader pushed this message in 2000, which also reinforced the media's habits of mindless even-handedness and general laziness. And by being a third party candidate he distracted from a feasible way of making the Democrats more progressive: working hard in primaries. The social conservative movement understood this. It took over many local and state parties, forcing candidates to at least give its issues extensive lip service, even though they never got around to passing much legislation to change things.

One standard retort of Nader defenders is that it was Gore's fault that he lost the election because he ran a mediocre campaign. This is partially true: Gore made mistakes by running away from Clinton and with Senator Droopy Dog, among other things. If he had run a better campaign, throwing away votes wouldn't have mattered. But this doesn't absolve Naderites of failing to notice it was a close election, or the signs that Bush would be awful, or how the electoral math works. For that matter, Gore's effectiveness as a candidate doesn't absolve non-voters of their laziness or stupidity, either.

The past is the past and personally I am not angry with people who voted for Nader. But I do get rather frustrated when people fail to learn from history. I think the arguments above make for a pretty convincing case that voting for Nader was a mistake. And if I can figure them out, then so should most other people.

Gerrymandering and Arrogance

I ran across a couple of rants over the weekend that will save me the effort of documenting my thoughts on the two subjects. One is this article on how dysfunctional the US Senate has become. As a small state resident it's theoretically against my interests to argue for reform of the Senate, but as a progressive reform would clearly result in legislation more to my liking. Another is this article on the hubris of Cerberus, which clearly never should have bought Chrysler to begin with. However, to be fair, I think the newly independent Chrysler was doomed from the start because it was saddled with an awful product lineup thanks to years of mismanagement by Daimler. Even if Cerberus had executed perfectly, the business cycle would have caught up to it before any new products made it to market. At the time of the sale, I hoped Magna would buy Chrysler because it was a manufacturing company that already assembled Chryslers in Europe. The conventional wisdom was that Cerberus really wanted Chrysler Financial, and that sounded to me like Cerberus was going to just slash costs and then dump the car-making business. I thought Magna would take the product side more seriously (though I had no proof of that). Anyway, that's all ancient history - except the products, which still kinda suck.

Bribes for Clunkers

The 'Cash for Clunkers' program (a.k.a. the wittily named Car Allowance Rebate System) has been declared a resounding success, with buyers and dealers loudly requesting more. Congress has satiated them for the time being with an additional $2B allocation on top of the original $1B. Even the net gas mileage improvement has been higher than expected.

But is the program really a success, meaning has it increased the common good? Or are the politicians just bribing voters with other people's money? Consider:

• Has new demand been created or have sales been pulled forward? Pulling sales forward with ridiculous financing is part of the reason vehicle demand slumped so much in the first place. We won't know for 3-6 months whether the demand is lasting.
• Was it wise to target only fuel economy or should have non-CO2 emissions been considered as well? New cars emit substantially lower amounts of toxic emissions (SOx, NOx, particulates, hydrocarbons) than before 1994-7, when the Tier 1 emissions standards were phased in. And there were other emissions milestones before that. Perhaps a different calculation could have been used for older cars.
• Should every trade-in be destroyed, or should they each be analyzed and then sold or donated. Obviously, the latter. There's not much point in crushing a car that is in decent shape. If the vehicle has a fuel economy rating close to or above the median, it should be re-used. (Remember the 3 Rs - reduce, reuse, recycle.)
• What will be the effects on the auto repair industry? The repair and aftermarket parts industry had been doing relatively okay because people were fixing old cars instead of buying new. Has demand just been shifted around?
• What about the used vehicle market? The program might not be taking the very worst vehicles off the streets. Instead, it might be catching vehicles one step up from true beaters. These are cars that people who can afford a new car have been willing to drive until they were offered free money. Poorer people with worse cars are being bypassed.
• Would spending $1B or $3B in a different way have a better effect? Could more oil be saved by building more roundabouts? Could more oil be saved by weatherizing homes heated with oil, or converting them to natural gas? Could the money be given to federal and state governments to upgrade their fleets? Or to transit agencies to buy more and more efficient buses? How much of the money will "leak" over the borders?

As I opined elsewhere on the tubes, I didn't really mind the program as long as it was temporary. To me, the main goal appeared to be to help dealers and, by extension, manufacturers, by clearing inventory. Adding another $2B to the program will make it hang around much longer, and the unintended consequences will increase to a point where they really should be taken into consideration.

But they won't be. Who can argue with success, or the illusion thereof?

Update 2009-08-11: Some non-mendacious funkiness with the reported numbers has given a slightly distorted view of what vehicles are selling. Explanation here.

Get Me Rewrite

According to this article, calling a constitutional convention in California has a broad base of support already. But this diary at Calitics shows that the concept of a clean constitution hasn't been widely adopted. Despite the post's title, the author lists a number of changes that are quite closely tied to the existing framework. Now, IANAL, so I don't know if a clean constitution is possible. An entirely new constitution may invalidate a huge number of existing laws, leaving governmental processes in limbo until the code can be re-passed with proper grounding in the new constitution. But we're bloviating on the intertoobs here, so arguendo is more or less a given.

What would I like to see in Cali's new constitution? Here are some of the elements:

• A 2/3 requirement for constitutional amendments. Either voters or the legislature could put items on the ballot. No other referendums.
• Same day voter registration.
• Instant runoff voting.
• Voting on paper and tallied using publicly available software and hardware mechanisms. Automatic recounts at 0.5% margin of victory.
• A House with 2 year terms elected from districts of about 125,000 people. This would result in about 300 representatives now, and about 400 when the population reaches 50 million. Representatives would be limited to 8 full or partial terms. All legislation would start in the House. Bills rejected by the Senate could be passed with a 3/4 majority in the House alone.
• A Senate with two overlapping classes of senators each with 4 year terms elected from regional multi-member districts. Each district would have a minimum of 2 senators, and the districts would have a minimum population of 750,000. Senators would be limited to 4 full or partial terms. The House majority leader would break ties in the Senate. (Acceptable alternative: two member districts consisting of 6 representative districts)
• Majority voting in each chamber, with a typical veto override clause. No line item vetos. No omnibus bills.
• A redistricting process similar to that used in Iowa. The regions for the Senate would follow Census Bureau definitions where they greater than 750,000.
• State-wide elections for Governor, Lt. Governor, Atty. General, Treasurer, and Sec. of State. Terms would be for 4 years. Officials would be limited to 2 terms in each office and 5 terms total.
• Appointment of top executive branch officials with approval by the Senate.
• Appointment of all judges with approval by the Senate. Judges at the highest level would be limited to 1 full or partial term calculated as the number of justices times 2 (9 justices = 18 year terms). Replacements would serve until the next scheduled appointment of that seat.
• The Senate could remove any statewide official or state judge with a 2/3 vote for any reason. No recall process.
• Strong counties and weak municipalities. Counties would have a county-manager style of government.

There are a few policy-esque issues I wouldn't object to being in the new constitution.

• Explicit reservation of all water issues to the state.
• K-12 education would be funded by the state and administered by counties. Counties could further delegate operations. No funding levels or methods specified.
• The state would fund and administer a system of higher education. Each level could develop endowments as appropriate. No funding levels or methods specified.

And that's it. All the other stuff - motor vehicle fees, property tax calculations, marine resources, medical research, intragovernmental borrowing rules - all of it should go overboard and be reimplemented as laws.

A closely related issue is redrawing counties. This would be even more controversial than a constitutional convention. But, really, a lot of California counties make no sense. San Bernardino and Riverside are just far too large, extending all the way from L.A.'s outer suburbs to the Arizona line. Others like Alpine and Sierra are ridiculously underpopulated. Yet another group are ones like Placer and Kern that range across geographically distinct and not well connected areas. Los Angeles County manages to be overly large, geographically disconnected, and over-populated. A neutral commission should be appointed to redraw the counties based on population, size, and geography. For instance, Riverside might be split into 3 parts - one west of San Gorgonio pass, one at the north end of the Coachella Valley, and one east of the Chuckwalla Mountains in the Colorado River valley (this piece would need to be merged with parts of Imperial and San Bernardino). Alpine should be merged with the western parts of Eldorado, Placer, and Nevada counties to form a new county. And so on. One can easily imagine how contentious the process could be. Communities or neighborhoods near borders might want to be in the other county; the residents might or might not want them. Residents of small counties accustomed to their independence (real or imagined) would object to being merged; other areas would want to break free of a entity perceived as too large or otherwise undesirable. This is why the reallocation would have to be done by a neutral commission operating on clear principles.

Update: Rough Senate allocation: LA region - 48, Bay Area - 20, San Diego - 8, Sacto - 6, everybody else - 18.