The OC Register Trots Out An Oil Company Executive To Attack HSR
Ah, the Orange County Register. Along with the San Diego Union-Tribune it has one of the most right-wing and anti-government editorial pages in the state. Unsurprisingly, when it comes to high speed rail, both papers have been among its most persistent critics. Yesterday the Register posted an anti-HSR op-ed by Richard Stegemeier, a former CEO of Unocal. That’s right, they got a former oil company executive to attack HSR. It’s an amusing attack that is rather easily debunked.
The president assures us there will be no pork in the $3.8 trillion federal budget for 2011. That may be true if we ignore the proposed $2.3 billion high-speed-rail grant for California. An undetermined amount of that money would be spent as a down payment on a $42.6 billion proposal to connect Anaheim with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco and Los Angeles with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s Las Vegas. That’s an “oink-oink” if I ever heard one. I can understand the Las Vegas high-speed link to accommodate the thousands of Californians who want to flee to Nevada to escape California’s high taxes.
First, HSR is not pork any more than the Interstate Highway System was pork. It is a national project that was awarded on the basis of merit. Right-wingers love to frame any spending they don’t like as “pork” in hopes of delegitimizing the project.
Second, it’s amusing to see that while he calls out Pelosi and Reid, Stegemeier doesn’t note that one of the HSR corridors funded by the stimulus grant connects Los Angeles to “Curt Pringle’s Anaheim” – or did the Register, long an ally of Pringle’s and the OC Republican Party, veto that reference?
High-speed rail as part of a short-term economic stimulus package is nonsense if it takes a decade or two to build.
Of course, if construction work is taking place in that time, it very much counts as stimulus. Or does he think magic faeries will build the tracks and trainsets?
The environmental impact statement itself will take years.
Yes, it has. And it’s almost done. In fact, as a condition of spending stimulus funds, a Notice of Decision/Record of Decision that officially closes the EIR/EIS process must be in place by September 2012 on stimulus-funded corridors.
Acquiring 680 miles of right-of-way will be contested in thousands of eminent domain lawsuits and will take at least a decade to complete.
That’s rather doubtful, and as is the standard practice with HSR deniers, Stegemeier offers no evidence to back up this claim. Most of the ROW will be bought from willing sellers. Where eminent domain must be used, it won’t take a decade to complete.
If high-speed rail serves intermediate cities then it will increase travel time, create noise and interrupt traffic flow at thousands of intersections. If it bypasses smaller cities to gain the advantage of speed, then it serves only the end terminals and disadvantages everyone in-between.
Reading this, I have to believe Stegemeier has never been on a high speed train in his life. As we know, California HSR will do both – it will serve intermediate cities AND the end terminals, with a mix of express and local service. The noise will generally be less than the loud diesel trains and their horns, and since it will be fully grade-separated, traffic flow will actually be improved.
The right of way to Las Vegas must cross or encroach on multiple wilderness areas. Some are controlled by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, others by the Forest Service and the National Park Service. The Department of Interior and the EPA would certainly contest this proposal.
This isn’t entirely accurate. There are no federal “wilderness areas” along the Victorville-Vegas route, though the Mojave National Preserve reaches up to the southern side of Interstate 15 between Baker and Mountain Pass. That Preserve will be an issue for HSR. But getting BLM permits may not be so problematic. Of course, Vegas HSR wasn’t funded at all by the stimulus, so there is time to sort this out.
The French TGV train reaches 190 mph for the three-hour trip between Paris and Marseille, a distance slightly longer than Anaheim to San Francisco. Each train carries up to 345 passengers, slightly fewer than wide-body airplanes. Without government subsidies the fare would be two to three times the price of flying.
Lots of nonsense here. How many widebody planes serve the SoCal-Bay Area route? Southwest’s planes seat either 122 or 137 passengers. Last time I looked, 747s aren’t flown between LAX and SFO as part of the regular shuttle route.
Of course, what would the fare be without government subsidy for air travel? Some airports are built and operated with subsidies. The airlines themselves have received tens of billions of dollars in subsidies in the last decade, most notably in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.
Stegemeier’s main point, however, seems to be that HSR isn’t a good deal when it comes to fuel conservation:
So, what are the advantages of high-speed rail, considering that an airline infrastructure is already in place? It conserves fossil fuel. On the Paris-Marseille route, each TGV train trip consumes about 30 megawatt hours of electricity that’s produced from France’s nuclear power grid. Because of California’s aversion to nuclear power, we can’t do that. Almost 65 percent of our electricity comes from coal or natural-gas-fired plants. Today’s power generation in California would take about 1,500 gallons of jet fuel equivalent to make enough electricity for the Paris-Marseille trip by rail. That’s slightly more than four gallons of fuel per passenger.
Of course, California is embarking on a project to produce more renewable power. HSR is a core element of that project, with the Authority having committed to seek 100% renewable power sources for its electricity, providing a guaranteed buyer of solar, wind, and other renewably generated electricity.
A Boeing 747 can make the same trip in about half the time. It carries slightly more passengers but would consume a little more than twice as much fuel, or nine gallons per passenger, one way.
Again, is Stegemeier serious? My grandfather flew 747s for TWA for 15 years. His route was usually LA-London, or LA to some European/Middle Eastern destination, not LA-SF. Those planes are enormous and totally unsuited to routes like those HSR will serve.
Statistics show that there are about 100 round-trip flights each day between the Southland and San Francisco, carrying more than 6 million passengers a year. If all airline travel ceased on that route, 50 high-speed trains, serving all those passengers, could save about 30 million gallons of fossil fuel, or about one gallon for every Californian, each year.
Of course, all airline travel won’t cease on that route. But as we’ve seen in Spain, Taiwan, China, and even the Northeast Corridor, HSR will take as much as half of the market share on the route from airlines, if not more. As to fossil fuel, the California High Speed Rail Authority estimates that HSR will save 12 million barrels of oil annually.
The economics of high-speed rail are bleak. Interest alone, at 4 percent on a $42.6 billion municipal bond, would cost $1.7 billion per year – almost $300 per projected passenger. That’s triple the cost of an airline ticket, just to cover the interest on the debt. It’s also $60 per gallon of fuel saved. Surely, there are better investment opportunities for taxpayer dollars than this fantasy.
Of course, that would come out to roughly $47 per year for all 36 million Californians – or 9 cents a week. Brother, can you spare a dime?
It’s almost comical that the Register turned to a former oil company CEO to attack HSR – and that he did such a bad job of it. But then at least they went directly to the source, rather than relying as the usually do on oil company-funded think tanks like the Reason Foundation.
Again, is Stegemeier serious? My grandfather flew 747s for TWA for 15 years. His route was usually LA-London, or LA to some European/Middle Eastern destination, not LA-SF. Those planes are enormous and totally unsuited to routes like those HSR will serve.
JAL and All-Nippon fly 747s on domestic routes in Japan. US airlines use smaller planes mainly because it increases scheduling flexibility. Stegemeier’s point is somewhat moot though given that HSR competes handily with air travel on most of those Japanese routes.
dist Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 2:22 am
JAL & All-Nippon are retiring their 747s from their domestic routes. Anyway, 747s is not suited for short haul services and are best employ on long haul routes. Routes they are designed for. It’s not really economical to use a 747 on a short haul trip.
I also note that Stegemeier don’t know that Paris-Marseilles is often operated by pairs of TGV offering 800 to 1.024 seats (dependings if the pair is made of one TGV Duplex and a TGV Réseau or of two TGV Duplex). More than a B747 or an A380.
Anyway, a HST will allways be more energy efficient than a plane.
Stephen Karlson Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 11:37 am
The plane comparisons miss an important point. It’s easier to make intermediate stops with a train. Yes, too many intermediate stops destroy the speed advantage, but judicious placement of the intermediate stops adds to the value of the service, which is more of Irvine to Glendale or Santa Barbara to Palo Alto or San Jose to Fullerton than it is of end-to-end rides. The railroad metaphor of “corridor” is to compel the mind to think about going from one room to another along the corridor, as well as to go from one end to the other.
Leroy W. Demery, Jr Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
“It’s not really economical to use a 747 on a short haul trip.”
Yes it is – in some cases. Tokyo – Osaka was an example for many years because of the size of the market – and limitations on airport capacity (e.g. runways, limitations on operating hours, and so forth). If the number of flights that you can operate is “constrained” and potential traffic justifies this, then you operate the largest aircraft you can get and cram as many people aboard as you can.
In recent years, capacity at Tokyo-Haneda Airport has been expanded, and a project for a fourth runway is underway. Meanwhile, Osaka and Nagoya (I think Kobe as well) have built new, 24-hour airports. More airport capacity might have the paradoxical effect of reducing the cost-effectiveness of 747s in high-volume, short-haul markets.
Paradox: Given the distance, it’s clear that airlines could compete against Tokaido Shinkansen trains in the Tokyo – Nagoya market. Given the presence of certain “ancillary” facilities such as the Tokyo Monorail, “center-to-center” time by “air” might prove quite close to that offered by “rail.” So why don’t airlines try this? Well, if you have a “limited” number of takeoff-landing “slots,” it makes more sense to use them for markets where air carries heavy traffic (Tokyo – Sapporo, Tokyo – Fukuoka) or can compete reasonably against rail (Tokyo – Osaka).
AndyDuncan Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
And don’t forget passenger flows in the airports. LAX terminal 1 can’t even handle Southwest turning 737s around every 20 minutes.
California’s power generation split is closer to the inverse of what he states. We’re around 60% nuclear/hydro/renewables, 36% natural gas, 3% other petroleum, and just 1% coal, it’s easy to find on google but I guess that’s too hard for him.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 16th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Good catch. Further proof that newspapers don’t apply usual journalistic standards to the op-ed pages any longer, especially when doing so would undermine the conclusions they want to reach regardless of the facts.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 16th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
The OC Register lost their editor to….. the San Diego Tribune.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 6:42 am
I wonder if he has any connection to the Reason foundation?? BTW that post from Morris with the article blasting CAHSR is from someone from TRAC
wu ming Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 5:59 am
i am amazed at the zombielike nature of that particular lie. it applies to the midwest and south, but the repeated claim for the west coast betrays not ignorance so much as deliberate mendacity, so often has it been rebutted. for PG&E customers, the energy makeup comes in the mail on the monthly bill, IIRC.
dejv Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 6:23 am
There could be nice symbiosis between wind power, electric trains and California Aqueduct. The Aqueduct could act as pumped storage to the unpredictable (from electric grid POV) wind and regenerative sources, making them infinitely more useful.
It could even make sense to electrify freight lines through Techachapi and Cajon passes to exploit the energy from all those trains going downhill (and yes, there is suitable locomotive for this task).
It’s sort of sad that the first HSR link in CA will probably serve Orange County. OC is probably the most anti-rail place in the state.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 16th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
Not really. Prop 1A failed in OC, but it was a close vote. There is substantial public support there for passenger rail and for HSR.
wu ming Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 6:00 am
it’s a feature, not a bug, that the line runs through not just OC, but also the san joaquin valley and inland empire. divide and conquer.
I think it’s fascinating that he thinks the CA HSR project is pork but is apparently good with Tampa-Orlando.
Also, I can’t help but point out that the reason that EIRs take a lot of time and money is because they employ people for study and design work.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Disney owns ABC – got to stay on the right side of Fox-news-light, even at the cost of some intellectual inconsistency.
Can anyone substantiate this talk of people leaving California in droves for Nevada and Arizona because of high taxes? It’s oft repeated, but seems dubious to me given that California’s population is growing and and is still the US’ largest economy.
mrcawfee Reply:
February 16th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
I can’t find it now, but i read a while ago that California had negative population growth for native born Americans but we are growing due to foreign immigration. However the reason for this trend is always explained by high cost of living, mainly the cost to purchase a house.
Joseph E Reply:
February 16th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
California has net immigration and high population growth, but statistics show that more native-born Americans leave than enter our state. However, this is misleading. Californian coastal cities are designed to produce “negative net migration” due to their popularity with young singles. New York City shows the same situation.
International immigrants move to California first from Asia or Latin America, often settling in immigrant neighborhoods in LA or SF. These folks are often single young men and women. Also, many native-born Americans move to ours state for college or to find jobs in tech industries or Hollywood. Both groups don’t mind living in cities or actually want an urban lifestyle.
However, later in life many immigrants, whether from Hong Kong or Boise, get married and have families. Some immigrants are naturalized as citizens themselves. But because more young people are always arriving and zoning is tight, there are too few houses for all the people who want a yard and a few bedrooms for their new (born-in-California) kids. So they move to Portland or Austin or Charlotte, taking the kids with them.
As long as California is has expensive housing and is attractive to young singles, it will have net out migration of people born here, due to this dynamic. This is not a sign of our decadence, but of our state’s success in attracting a certain demographic. Manhattan works the same way, and no one today would see it as a place people are trying to leave, due to high taxes or whatever else.
Now, if we made it easier to build new apartments and condos in urban areas near the coasts, and if we eliminated minimum parking requirements (to be replaced with minimum green space requirements) and invested in public transit, California’s cost of housing and transportation might get low enough for young families to stick around, without moving to the suburbs. That would be a good thing.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 16th, 2010 at 11:35 pm
Agree with all you say here, especially this:
Now, if we made it easier to build new apartments and condos in urban areas near the coasts, and if we eliminated minimum parking requirements (to be replaced with minimum green space requirements) and invested in public transit, California’s cost of housing and transportation might get low enough for young families to stick around, without moving to the suburbs. That would be a good thing.
This is one of my highest priorities. HSR is actually only one element of that broader goal. Read more here.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 5:30 am
California’s population has increased between 400,000 and 700,000….. basically, every year since 1970 or 1980. It matters less to me the composition of that population change…. whether it’s influenced by births/deaths or immegration… the bottom-line to me is that the State’s infrastructure has had increasing demands placed upon on it…we have not kept up, and we’ve been on a track that is unsustainable and we need change.
Yes, we need additional housing. Housing costs are too high.
jimsf Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 8:40 am
^^good thing for who? Certainly not those of us who don’t want more people crammed on top of us.
Leroy W. Demery, Jr Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Portland (OR) is also attractive to young singles. In fact, OR congressman Earl Blumenauer made the point, only a few years ago: Of all U.S. metro areas, Portland attracts the largest share of the most highly-educated young adults. The metro area that attracts the smallest share: Vegas …
Dan S. Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
Nice post! Hadn’t thought about that dynamic before. I totally agree that we should use public policy to modify people’s behaviors with regards to where they live and how they get around. And I would challenge those who would resist to at least admit that we’re already doing it, just for the benefit of the white-picket-fence and the SUV.
Leroy W. Demery, Jr Reply:
February 16th, 2010 at 11:22 pm
That should be straightforward to research.
The CA Department of Finance prepares annual estimates of population for the state, and – as I remember – population of counties and cities. This should be easy to find on their website.
Similar estimates might be available for Nevada and Arizona. Comparisons might be interesting.
A sophisticated demographic analysis and projection for California:
Ronald Lee, Timothy Miller, and Ryan D. Edwards, “SPECIAL REPORT: The Growth and Aging of California’s Population: Demographic and Fiscal Projections, Characteristics and Service Needs” (January 1, 2003). Center for the Economics and Demography of Aging. CEDA Papers: Paper 2003-0002CL.
http://repositories.cdlib.org/iber/ceda/papers/2003-0002CL
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 5:34 am
Yes, you’re exactly correct. I seek COF info often. Further, it’s more detailede and accurate that the US Census, except in decinenial years. – pardon speeling errors.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 16th, 2010 at 11:33 pm
It’s bunk. The most common reason for people moving out of California is taking their equity and buying a bigger place for a much cheaper cost in other states. California raised taxes on millionaires in 2004 and did not see an exodus of the wealthy. There are always anecdotal tales of this or that company moving to another state, but that has usually been offset (at least) by the continuing innovation and entrepreneurship that goes on in CA. And even with a lot of people moving out of the state, more move here, whether from other states or other countries.
It’s also worth noting that beginning around 2000, with people of my own generation (I’m 30), native-born Californians make up a much larger share of the population than for older generations. This is true across income brackets and racial categories.
Taxes are usually only one factor – often a slight one at that – in a company’s decision where to locate their production or offices. They usually play a smaller role in household decisions, unless it’s a retiree moving to Nevada (shudder) or a family moving from Portland, Oregon to Vancouver, Washington (and experiencing a corresponding decline in quality of life due to the fact that Vancouver WA is an awful, horrible place).
jimsf Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 8:45 am
nevada is full of people who cashed out of high value ca homes and paid cash for twice the house for half the price. Plus no state income tax. I have friends/family in NV and what no one is going to tell you is, and It’s common in conversation up there.. is that many of the people left ca because they don’t care for the” changing demographics.” Of course they don’t say it that nice when no one is around.
Andrew Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 8:59 am
I can’t fathom why anyone would want to live out in the middle of that goddamn desert, but whatever.
jimsf Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 9:20 am
I can’t stand it. I always say… ” but where are the trees?” but you know they love it out there. Of course I know folks in the reno/northern nv area, not southern nevada and just like ca, northern nevadans want to pretend that they are totally different and separate from southern nevadans. They actually have that whole thing going on. Makes sense I guess, since its southern calis who went to vegas, and norcalis who moved to reno.
- plane crash update: E.PaloAlto twin engine cesna, hit high power lines at 100ft, in heavy fog immediately after take off from pa airport. wing broke off, plane fell on residential subdivision.
Peter Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 9:26 am
As an instrument flight instructor, I always tell my students that while it’s legal to take off in dense fog like today, why the hell would you want to do it? You can’t see what’s right in front of you, you can’t find your way back to the airport if something goes wrong. It’s just dangerous and unnecessary. Just wait a few hours for the fog to clear.
jimsf Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 9:32 am
yes, they were on ifr or irf or whatever that is…. we’ve had tule fog seeping in from the central valley all week and working its way down the bay. Its not our regular home grown fog. Its very thick.
and why are there high power lines at the end of an airport runway?
Peter Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 9:40 am
IFR – Instrument Flight Rules
There are power lines and houses there because the counties and cities permit incompatible land uses to encroach on airport safety zones all the time. Why else is there a mall right off the end of Reid-Hillview. Why else are there houses and schools built right up to the airport fence at Watsonville, Reid-Hillview, and god knows how many other airports.
A friend of mine had an engine failure on takeoff out of Reid-Hillview and barely made it over the power lines that are parallel to the airport there. Then he had to duck under a traffic light to land on Capitol Expressway. He was just lucky he didn’t have to bounce off the houses off the end of the runway there.
Peter Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 9:45 am
And he should have been well above the power lines by that point. Either the pilot messed up and wasn’t climbing out the way he should have, or something had gone wrong mechanically, like an engine failure or instrument failure.
Peter Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 9:59 am
And if he did have a failure like that preventing him from gaining altitude, he was boxed in, because there are power lines on BOTH sides of the departure corridor from Palo Alto.
wu ming Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
that tule fog is another reason why HSR is sorely needed. in addition to small plane accidents, we get a lot of flight cancellations and major pileups on 5 and 99 due to fog in the winter in the valley.
Leroy W. Demery, Jr Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
“The most common reason for people moving out of California is taking their equity and buying a bigger place for a much cheaper cost in other states.”
Nothing new here. During the mid-1980s, housing prices in Seattle were unbelievably low by L.A. standards – $50,000 – $60,000 would get you a nice house in a nice, quiet neighborhood – in the city itself. That changed dramatically once the economy started to emerge from a long recession, more correctly a series of recessions that started at the end of the 1960s.
Matthew F. Reply:
February 16th, 2010 at 11:34 pm
As for high taxes: As a percentage of income, we track barely above the national average – in 2007, 11.5% of the average person’s income goes to state and local (property, sales, income) taxes, compared to 11% nationally.
Interestingly, since capital gains are taxes as regular income and those gains tend to come on top of already higher incomes that hit the top brackets, that percentage is higher in boom years, and lower in bust years. When the numbers are crunched for 2009, I wouldn’t be surprised if we come in below the national average.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 16th, 2010 at 11:42 pm
California ranks 17th in state and local taxes. However, our tax system is regressive, in that the rich pay a smaller percentage of income in state and local taxes (7.1% for the top 1% of incomes) than the poor (11.7% for the bottom 20% of incomes). Source: California Budget Project
Matthew F. Reply:
February 16th, 2010 at 11:58 pm
Unfortunately, the rich are better at protesting taxes.
“Note: Includes offset for federal deductibility of state taxes.” – that’s a pretty big note, there…
elfling Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
People leave California because of the cost to buy a house. State taxes, even in their entirety, are low compared to the premium you pay even for rental housing. There are more affordable places in California, but they are far from jobs (or they have no water).
Does anybody know what Meg Whitman’s stance on the project is?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 16th, 2010 at 11:28 pm
No, and I am very, very curious to know. I could see her going either way on it. She lives in Atherton, which may influence her stance.
Steve Poizner has said he would postpone selling the Prop 1A bonds, but has otherwise kept quiet.
HSRforCali Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 7:11 am
Well, delay is better than putting a moratorium on Prop 1A.
Leroy W. Demery, Jr Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
“… postpone selling the Prop 1A bonds”?
“… moratorium on Prop 1A”?
Do these people know what they are talking about …
Years ago, (no exaggeration), a legislative assistant explained to me that a voter-approved general-obligation “bond issue” is in fact an “authorization” by voters for sale of bonds by the state. This “authorization,” he explained, cannot be withdrawn except by the voters, as in a subsequent election. Back then (1990), Governor George Deukmejian insisted on a provision in a pair of ballot measures, one a gas-tax increase, the other a bond issue for rail projects. This established that if the gas-tax hike did not pass, the “rail bonds” would not be sold. Both were approved, so the “provision” was not tested. A moot point – but – my source explained that the bond authorization would have remained and the bonds could have been sold at some future date if the “provision” had been removed by the legislature, by voters, or overturned by the court. Yes, I know, laws change as times do, but Poizner is probably a “trial balloon.”
Leroy W. Demery, Jr Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Hmmm … make that “Poizner is probably “floating” a “trial balloon.”
@AndyDuncan
Wrong. California electricity is 55% natural gas, 17% nuclear, 13% hydro and 12% renewables. That ignores imports, much of which come from coal fired plants in Utah and Arizona.
pdf
AndyDuncan Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 8:59 am
A couple things:
- The numbers you linked to and the numbers I linked to actually have the same source, so why is there a difference? (yes, mine are 2005, yours are 2007, but there shouldn’t be much difference between those two years)
- As you mention, your numbers ignore imports. While LADWP does operate a coal fired power plant in Utah, most of our imported power is Hydro from Oregon and Washington
- The spreadsheet you linked to includes combined heat and power installations, not just power plants that supply power to the grid. Those include things like large factories, refineries and the like. That inherently skews the statistics towards fossil fuels. If you go by your own spreadsheet, the actual power production for “electric utilities” is around 32% gas/coal/petroleum and the remainder hydro/nuclear/renewable.
- Since your numbers don’t split out private generation for non-grid producers, the numbers I posted, which are also from the DOE, seem like the more accurate estimates
Meg Whitman is a classic example of what is wrong with California – all of the power accruing to a handful of bazillionaires. Don’t worry about the hsr – she’ll be just another Bechtel good ol’ boy. But you could forget your blinking PA berm.
Matthew F. Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 12:04 am
Good, she can pay for the tunnel herself.
spokker Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 12:17 am
ebay fucking sucks and while I know nothing about her, so does she by association! Bwaahahahahahahaa dasljdlkasdasdddgggggggggggggggg
Is Mr. Stegemeier factually challenged when it comes to the subject of pork? Senator Reid may or may not like pork but he didn’t get any out of this grant as Nevada’s share was a big fat zero. Or maybe Mr. Stegemeier is not factually challenged by pork but just considers zero to be an undetermined amount.
One report says the Belgian wreck was “lateral”, not head-on. I guess they mean a sideswipe. This could have an effect on future track clearance standards. Collisions reveal what can happen under real world operating conditions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8518738.stm
Joey Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 12:50 am
If they collided laterally, then chances are it was on a switch (note that in british speak, switches are “points,” which the article mentions. Two trains on parallel tracks would not collide unless one had already derailed. Also note that article says that PTC was not installed on one of the trains.
dejv Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 6:01 am
Wrong. The most likely cause was passing a stop signal allowed by ancient signalling system that doesn’t check speeds and conforming to signals:
The lateral collision you imagine would require really serious overspeeding through curve (exceeding permitted speeds at least two and half times) or earthquake.
EJ Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Yeah, I’m sure they’re going to totally rewrite standards for both conventional and HSR based on one train wreck in Belgium.
Are you actually under the impression that they lay tracks so close that trains can sideswipe each other? You do understand what those two rails do, right?
It’s true every once in a great while a train running on poorly maintained ballasted track will clip a lineside structure because the track has gradually wandered a few inches out of alignment over the years, but these are never particularly serious accidents – and they don’t happen on HSR where the track geometry is much more rigid and its alignment is continuously checked and maintained with precise, sophisticated equipment.
Andre Peretti Reply:
February 18th, 2010 at 6:18 am
The trains were on converging tracks. On approach to stations you often have a dozen tracks converging into just four. This demands a very precise management of each train’s priority. That’s why all European companies, except SNCB (Belgian railways), installed PTC on all commuter trains. France was the first in 1980, followed by Germany, and then all countries except Belgium.
All of these countries use a different national PTC and this is what SNCB wanted to avoid. Its managers thought a European standard would emerge. So, they didn’t invest in a national system that would later have to be changed.
In 2005, after many near-accidents, Belgium decided to install its own system. All tracks, owned by Infrabel are now equipped, but progress is much slower with SNCB. It expects all commuter trains to be equipped by 2013, although you can expect the program to be sped up after this disaster.
For the time being, many Belgian commuter trains are totally driver-dependent, just like in the US, but with a far higher train density and higher speeds. This situation is considered unacceptable in Europe.
The economics of high-speed rail are bleak. Interest alone, at 4 percent on a $42.6 billion municipal bond, would cost $1.7 billion per year – almost $300 per projected passenger.
You can’t just pay the interest. If you repay the bond over 50 years, then the cost will be $425 per passenger. Add in some operating and maintainance expenses, and a ticket from SF to LA is going to cost around $500. And that assumes that you capture 100% of the airline market.
Compare that to the prices that the CA HSR quotes on their website. They claim a cost of $55 for SF to LA. There’s no way that can be true.
The bottom line is that as currently conceived, CA HSR is a hideously expensive project which will suck money away from other public services and help to bankrupt the State.
What about the fuel savings? 12 million barrels of oil sounds impressive, until you consider that California uses 718 million barrels per year. HSR might reduce our oil consumption by a trivial 1.7%
Then there is the issue that construction of the project will lead to significant carbon emissions. On a life cycle basis, HSR doesn’t beat air travel by as much as people think.
Why can’t California make high speed rail work? The State’s many mountains and earthquake faults don’t help, but what really blows the budget are the sprawling Californian cities. Building high speed rail through urban areas is fantastically expensive, which is why it is almost never done in Europe. Existing low speed rail lines are used to access city centers. Yet here in California, we are proposing to build through 70 miles of suburbs to reach San Francisco. That stretch will probably cost more than building from Morgan Hill to Palmdale.
We really need to forget about building into city centers, and look at just building to the edge of the urban area. Freeways and existing commuter rail systems can deliver people to the stations. This means being more creative, and leaving behind 19th century paradigms like city centers.
Joey Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 2:18 am
Uggh … where do I start? HSR was never intended to pay back its construction costs (or associated interest). It is intended as an investment in our state’s future, which includes mobility, population growth, and carbon emissions.
Also, I take it you have never heard of Japan. You know, that little mountainous island where they have at least as many earthquakes as we do and yet still manage to do fine with HSR (Italy too). Not only that, but Japan also manages to build HSR into city centers just fine.
Have you done no research whatsoever? The San José-San Francisco segment is projected to cost around $5 billion out of the ~$40 billion project. Granted, this is on average more than the typical alignment through Central Valley farmland, but it’s not, as you seem to think, the majority of the cost. Maybe you can look these things up before making such absurd claims.
And on city centers … firstly, forcing a transfer effectively kills ridership in most scenarios. City centers, having large businesses, hotels, etc are very high ridership areas, and also tend to be existing transit hubs. If you build to the edge of a commuter line, you can maybe serve the people from there to the city center. If you build to the city center itself, you end up serving, quite easily, the whole region.
Andrew Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 3:55 am
Not all Japanese city centers. Shin-Osaka is probably the prime example, but Shin-Kobe and Shin-Yokohama were also built because it was infeasible to route it into the city center. However, in all cases the stations are well integrated with local commuter rail and rapid transit.
But yeah, it seems many posters on this blog are allergic to Japanese examples.
Leroy W. Demery, Jr Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
I did resolve (on the first of the year) to avoid snarkiness, but: I’ve learned over the years that some people are allergic to Japanese examples because they have 1.) never been there, 2.) do not speak or 3.) read the language, 4.) are extremely allergic to some of the facts, and 5.) implications thereof, associated with Japan. And so forth.
It would have been perfectly “feasible” to build the Yokohama, Osaka and Kobe shinkansen stations at some other location. However, the “benefits” were judged as not worth the cost. (Oh yes, while on this topic, don’t forget Gifu-Hashima station …). On the other hand, the costly and difficult extension of the Tohoku Shinkansen in central Tokyo, from Ueno Station to Tokyo Station, “was” judged as worth the cost.
An example of those “fun facts:” The “primary” administrative subdivision of Japan are its “ken.” This word is almost always translated into English as “Prefecture.” For reasons that defy explanation in “ten words or less,” the closest U.S. equivalent is “County.” If you compare the “ken” of Japan with U.S. counties having similar population, working from “smallest” to “largest” in terms of population, you will find a remarkable trend: Until you come to the most populous “ken,” you will find that the corresponding U.S. county has the smaller area … which of course means the higher population density … and no, no, no, that can’t possibly be true, even though it is true, and I refuse to consider the implications in any case.
Andrew Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
I meant “infeasible” as in “judged not worth the cost,” and with regards to routing the Shinkansen into the city’s existing main rail station. In the case of Osaka, that would’ve required either two new crossings of the sizable Yodo River, or one new crossing and a terminal configuration at Osaka Station which would’ve created a bad bottleneck in the system. So instead it was built in Yodogawa-ku, in a place with connections to the Kyoto Line that get you to Osaka Station in five minutes and the rest of the loop in not much longer.
Leroy W. Demery, Jr Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
I dissent. (Of course, I am ornery, and I date back several eras past …)
First, if a plan or proposed project was found “feasible,” this meant that it could be carried out, is “suitable,” is “possible” and so forth. If not, then it would be found “infeasible.” If you described a project as “not worth the cost” you implied that some form of benefit-cost analysis had been conducted – or that you believed this would prove true if such analysis were conducted. I would not use “infeasible” as a synonym for “judged not worth the cost” – and I suspect that there’s at least one other relic of days past who concurs.
Second, the Tokaido Shinkansen could have been built to Osaka Station – and would have been, given sufficient justification. Obviously, this did not exist. Osaka is not “polycentric” to the same degree as Tokyo, but “polycentric” it is. Osaka Station is “near,” but not “within,” the principal center. “Railway” connections will get you to Osaka Station- but not to major destinations within the Osaka Loop Line. The obvious solution: extend the subway Midosuji Line northward to Shin-Osaka Station, and this was completed a few days before the Tokaido Shinkansen opened.
When you get off at Shin-Osaka Station, you go where you need to go. If you’re continuing west, you might change trains on the Shinkansen platform but you would probably not change “lines.” If you were traveling in “some other direction,” you’d go to the appropriate terminal. If you were traveling to a location within the city, you’d probably take the subway.
So, yes – two new bridges, or whatever, to bring Tokaido Shinkansen trains to Osaka Station – but no particular purpose for doing this.
Andrew Reply:
February 18th, 2010 at 2:26 am
That’s a semantical argument, but whatever. I’d say that Osaka Station being in Umeda is a very central location, as is Namba, Tennoji, and anywhere else on the Loop Line.
I think it’s slightly cheaper and faster to use the JR Kyoto Line from Shin-Osaka than the Midosuji Line, but that depends on where you’re going.
Leroy W. Demery, Jr Reply:
February 19th, 2010 at 1:01 am
Um, yeah; of course the argument (“first graf”) is “semantical.” There’s a bit of irony here. We speak a “word-oriented” language (Japanese, for one, and American Sign Language, for two, are “concept-oriented”), our culture is also “word-oriented” … and some of us have an apparent disdain for “semantics.” (Is this a great country, or what?)
Meanwhile, back to my original point: Present sufficient justification in terms of benefits vs. costs, Shinkansen stations in Yokohama, Gifu, Osaka and Kobe – to name a few – would have been built at different locations.
Now to your point: I am not certain what you mean by “a very central location” with reference to “Namba, Tennoji, and anywhere else on the Loop Line.” Umeda is about 4 km (2.5 miles) distant from Namba, and about 6.5 km (4 mi) from Tennoji. The “official” city center, the municipal office building, is more than 1 km (not quite 1 mile) distant from Umeda. Obviously HSR could not serve all of these locations “directly.” Suffice to say that the location of Shin-Osaka station was chosen because it provided the greatest benefits to the largest numbers of passengers, at the lowest cost. A different location would have required higher cost. It would not have provided commensurate benefits, in the form of “large-enough” travel-time savings to a “large-enough” number of passengers.
Leroy W. Demery, Jr Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
… oh, yeah, while I’m being “snarky” …
I have also learned over the year that some people are allergic to Japanese examples because they are allergic to Japanese place names. Seriously. I have been told by at least one university professor that he “did not like” all those (transcribed) place names on a Japanese map.
(My “revenge:” A course requirement was to make a drawing of an automobile tire and wheel on AutoCAD. I carefully spelled out, along the sidewall of the tire, “H I R O S H I M A ~ D E N T E T S U.” I’ll bet he still hasn’t figured that one out…)
wu ming Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
the weird thing about translating 県 as prefecture is that the chinese term it is borrowed from 縣 is usually translated as “county” or “district.” the word for prefecture in the chinese administrative bureaucracy is 州.
Leroy W. Demery, Jr Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
(… Oh, so I can post Chinese characters!! …)
No surprises here, because the concepts represented by the Chinese characters borrowed (… or, as a woman I once met put it, “stole” …) by the Japanese do not remain fixed. An excellent example is 電車, prounced “densha” in Japanese and “diànchē” in “Common Chinese,” also known as “Mandarin.” In Japan, these characters refer in general to electric railway vehicles, trains or tramcars, the category also includes monorail and AGT vehicles. But, in China, most people would probably think of a trolleybus …
Andrew Reply:
February 18th, 2010 at 2:10 am
I love how 手紙 means “letter” in Japanese and “toilet paper” in Chinese.
EJ Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
While we’re being snarky, what on earth is the point of the last paragraph? All you’re saying is that the Japanese population is extremely urban, which everyone knows, and I’m really not sure what it’s relevant to here.
Leroy W. Demery, Jr Reply:
February 18th, 2010 at 2:05 am
The “topic” was the apparent “allergy” of some people to Japanese examples.
“Most” Japanese prefectures have lower “gross” population densities than U.S. counties with similar population size. I would not want to say that “everyone” knows this. Some people say that this is not true, could not be true, and so forth. That’s the relevance.
I’ll give a favorite Japanese example: The largest prefecture is Hokkaido. Excluding offshore islands, the population was about 5,570,000 at 2008. The land area is similar to Ireland (the island), which has slightly more people (6.2 million). More interesting: the combined land area of the New England states, excluding Maine, is only slightly larger than Hokkaido, but has more than twice as many people – 12.8 million. So, why does Hokkaido have a more “comprehensive” network of rail passenger services? Yes, the population is concentrated in (and around) the six or so largest cities. However, there is “a lot” of suburbanization near Sapporo, and this is plainly visible from satellite photos (see, for example, “Google Maps”). A large share of the land area – about 85 percent – houses a small share of the total population – 24 percent. This is not a “promising” environment for intercity passenger rail – but intercity passenger rail does quite well. Overall, worth considering. But there’s that “allergy” problem: some people will simply not accept the fact that five of our New England States, together, have about the same land area but more than twice the population of Hokkaido. Again, that’s the relevance.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 18th, 2010 at 10:25 am
And the population in New England is clustered around the Northeast Corridor and where it’s not near the NEC it’s near other rail lines. … Hmmmm…. And the major destinations for New Englanders, Boston and New York, have excellent mass transit…. Hmmm….
Leroy W. Demery, Jr Reply:
February 19th, 2010 at 1:27 am
Again, the “topic” was the apparent “allergy” some people to Japanese examples. I believe that one factor “driving” this, so to speak, is that some people are extremely allergic to certain facts, and implications thereof, associated with Japan.
In other words, the issue is not whether “Hokkaido v. CT-RI-MA-NH-VT” is a reasonable, or useful, comparison. This might be discussed at considerable length.
The issue is that some people – not all, but “some” – immediately tune out upon hearing that the area of the five New England states is only slightly larger than Hokkaido, but the population is more than twice as large. Too much “cognitive dissonance,” I guess.
Permit me to illustrate this problem with a different example. There is at least one chunk of the City of Los Angeles that has almost the same area as San Francisco – but houses more people. I first noticed this when working with 1990 census data; 1980 census data supports this as well and I surmise that this has been true since – at least – the late 1970s. The difference is not “trivial;” the area certainly has more than a million people by now.
Significance and implications might be discussed at considerable length. However, some people, hearing the “premise,” simply refuse to proceed. Again, too much “cognitive dissonance,” I guess.
morris brown Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Anybody who has been following the project knows full well the 4.2 or 5 billion estimate for SF to San jose is crazy low. CalTrain estimated sometime ago that to grade separate and electrify its 2 tracks was almost 5 billion. Look at SA to Anaheim, which still not been let to bid and 50 to 100 percent over estimated budget.
Yes, you can roar on about the project was not advertised to ever pay back the initial capital investment , but the costs to society are indeed there and they should be noted as shown above in what this amounts to in cost per ticket.
I’m also tired of hearing about comparing this to the Interstate Highway program. That program serves a huge percentage of society, since the automobile is so pervasive. This rail program will never even by proponents most outlandish projections come close to how useful and needed the Interstate Highway promgan was and is.
Peter Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
At the time though the automobile was not so pervasive. Rail was the prevalent means of long- (and short-, to a large extent) distance travel. So, what justified the investment in the Interstate Highway program at the time?
“the costs to society” are there, but the benefits are, too. It’s an investment in the future, the same way the Interstate Highway program was. I know that you don’t care about the benefits, but many of us do.
morris brown Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
I beg to differ with your statement about the what was and what was not dominate in travel in the early 1950′s. The auto was by far and away the most preferred travel path even then on trip of 200 to 400 miles and maybe longer. Rail passenger travel was well along on its decline and Air travel was just beginning to show it true power. The Interstate Highway program was extremely popular from the early 1950′s on because its benefits were so obvious to so many.
What should be called into question now that the ridership numbers are so obviously fictitious, are the outlandish numbers of permanent jobs that they claim will be created because of HSR and also the number of uneeded highway lanes and airport expansion. All these numbers need to be examinined and validated.
When you read China is building HSR with $100 / month wages to construction workers, and surely we would expect to pay wages here comparable to Bart workers (which I understand push $100,000 per year with benefits), you begin to realize just how under estimated this project will end up costing.
Peter Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Once again, I beg to differ with your claims of something (in this case ridership numbers) being “obvious.”
“Obvious” is one of those words used by people who have no facts to back up their claims. If something was “obvious” or “clear” there would be no reason for a discussion. It’s a weasel word.
- Once again, you, like other opponents of the project, assert there is something wrong with the ridership numbers without stating exactly WHAT.
The numbers you claim need to be examined HAVE been examined. You just didn’t like the result of that examination or how it took place.
- I’ll concede that automobile travel and yes, ever air travel were showing their strengths. But those strengths only continued because there was cheap and easy access to petroleum fuels, and while congestion was low.
The rationale for air and automobile travel has been reduced dramatically in the last few years by a combination of ever-rising fuel prices, increasing road and airport congestion, and the need to reduce greenhouse gases. Those all point very strongly toward a need for a shift in travel methods.
- Why would HSR construction workers get as much as BART employees? You’re just pulling that out of your ass. Same goes for your construction price “estimates”.
spokker Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
“The Interstate Highway program was extremely popular from the early 1950’s on because its benefits were so obvious to so many.”
And the not-so-obvious costs were usually borne by those of lesser means.
http://www.ocregister.com/news/freeways-234391-heart-people.html
Who lives near freeways in Los Angeles? Poor blacks and Hispanics. South Pasadena was able to block freeway construction through their town. South and East LA were not so lucky.
spokker Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
I hope that those who feel that routing HSR through city centers is stupid also think that routing freeways through city centers is stupid, if not more so.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Five billion dollars for grade separation and electrification of SF-SJ? Try 785 million for electrification and most assuredly nowhere near four billion for grade separation.
http://www.caltrain.com/project_factsheet_G_rail_electrification.html
Matthew F. Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
I seem to remember him and others completely fabricating numbers for that segment before. What a surprise…
Joey Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
I think electrification costs have inflated to over a billion recently though…
morris brown Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
My cost estimate of close to 5 billion for CalTrain came from a CalTrain executive.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
And what’s his name and basis for making that claim?
@Joey
Even if electrification costs went up, which is believable, the problem is asserting a five billion dollar cost to electrify and grade separate 50 miles. That would require a Sun Bruno level grade separation every single mile in order to properly add up.
Matthew F. Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 10:30 pm
How convenient, citing an unpublished conversation as if it were an established fact.
Well according to my unpublished conversations, it will be free! Yay!
Clem Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 10:31 pm
Electrification was last pegged at $1.2 billion, including a 100% new fleet of trains which is overdue anyway. That figure includes ZERO grade separations.
Grade seps are very expensive… in San Carlos and Belmont, the 3.6-mile stretch including Holly, Ralston, Harbor and 2 ped underpasses cost $100M YOE back in the 1990s.
There are ~45 grade crossings left to grade-separate, and many of those that already are will require some very significant modifications. Including the above-mentioned project.
More recent estimates in San Mateo put the cost of grade separating Peninsula, Villa Terrace and Bellevue roughly $100 million each.
San Bruno is already pushing $300M (for three crossings and two ped tunnels)
So yes, $5 billion sounds like it’s in the correct ballpark in YOE dollars.
2008 CHSRA cost estimates had $17M per grade-separated crossing, with zero provided for expanding existing grade separations. That’s right: they had less than a billion budgeted for grade seps. Morris’s skepticism is entirely justified: this particular cost item is likely to blow sky high.
schrodinger Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
The idea with an investment is that it pays you back more than what you put into it. What you describe is not an investment. What you describe is a spending plan. It sounds like a new ballpark, but a lot more expensive.
I don’t do Japanese examples because I understand little about that country and have never ridden their high speed network. One thing I do know is that some of their airports were fantastically expensive to build. Osaka’s Kansai was something like $15 billion, because it had to be built offshore. That’s one factor making air travel less competitive there.
On city centers: Let me point out that the French did not build TGV into the center of Paris. They built the high speed line to the edge, and then transfered to existing low speed tracks to reach existing stations. The equivalent in California is to end the high speed track in south San Jose, and run on Caltrain track at Caltrain speeds to some terminus further north. Of course the French only had 15 miles of suburbs to get through, not 70.
One more thing. Whatever you do, people are going to have to transfer to their cars. They can do that just as well at a convenient freeway junction on the city edge as they can in the city center. The 85/101 Junction would work well enough for many people in the South Bay. Californian cities are built around their freeway networks, not around their centers nor their transit systems.
Joey Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Say what you will about Japanese airports, HSR has managed to decimate air travel in pretty much every other corridor where it exists today.
You are correct that the French have a lot less sprawl to deal with, so it makes sense that we have to run our trains faster through suburbs. Also note that Paris actually HAS existing electrified tracks (most of the approaches used by the high speed trains are at least four tracks).
And on cars: the whole point of connecting HSR to existing transit hubs is so that people DON’T have to use their cars. Granted, many still will, especially with all the sprawl we have (though we are increasingly developing our transit networks to deal with this). However, the amount of transit we already have connecting to our city centers is considerable in many cases. Also note that many people will not be using a car at both ends of their journey, so it makes sense to put HSR near business districts, hotels, etc.
schrodinger Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 9:18 pm
The problem with connecting with existing transit hubs is that it raises the costs of the line. It is probably worth doing in San Jose, but I’m not at all convinced it is worth doing in SF.
But you may be able to do things more cheaply if you are flexible. If you eliminate some of the Baby Bullet Caltrain services, then you will have spare slots on that line. Connect a diesel locomotive to the front of the northbound high speed train in San Jose, and an hour later you are pulling into SF. The time from LA to SJ is 2 hrs 9 min, so the time from LA to SF will be 3hrs 10min. Competitive with an airplane, and all without spending a dime north of San Jose!!!
BruceMcF Reply:
February 18th, 2010 at 8:54 am
schrodinger February 17th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
The idea of a public investment is when much of the benefit is to those other than the direct users, it would be gross economic inefficiency to attempt to cover all of the costs of providing those benefits out of the payment made by the users for their share of the benefit alone.
California cannot afford to continue throwing money down the rat-hole of the prison industrial complex unless it makes investments like those in HSR. Independent of the question of whether it is desirable to engage in that public consumption, it will simply be infeasible to have that level of public consumption unless the government undertakes efficiency public investments that are complementary to private economic growth.
One of those public investments is in intercity transport. Financially, the cheapest way to provide the transport capacity that Express HSR can provide in California is to proceed with constructing the HSR system. At the same time, the net external benefits of a moderately well designed are substantially greater than the net external benefits of the roadway and airport infrastructure that is otherwise required – including the insurance benefit of having a greater diversity of intercity transport options with each playing a de facto insurance function against the disruptions that each other mode is subject to.
schrodinger Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 8:55 pm
Will the cost of building HSR through the suburbs of San Francisco cost more then building from Morgan Hill to Palmdale?
Using CA HSR numbers San Jose to San Francisco costs $5 billion for 50 miles, or about $100 million per mile. There are another 10 miles of suburb south of San Jose, so that section will cost around $6 billion in all, if CA HSR is correct.
San Jose to Palmdale is quoted at about $15 billion, of which I estimate $1 billion is for getting out of San Jose. Morgan Hill to Palmdale will cost about $14 billion for about 300 miles of track at a cost of about $45 million per mile.
$45 million per mile is probably low, but it is similar to the costs of building in rural France.
Is $100 million per mile realistic? Running at high speed is going to require a fully grade separated railway, like BART. The BART extension from Fremont to Berryessa is estimated at around $180 million per mile. BART trains only run at 80mph, and they don’t have to share the corridor with an existing commuter service.
Down south, the San Gabriel trench is working out at about $225 million per mile. That is for slow freight trains.
There is another issue on the Peninsula, which is that every Caltrain Station will have to be rebuilt. They were not designed for trains to pass through them at 220mph while commuters wait on the platform.
It’s obvious that the cost of HSR on the Peninsula will be well in excess of $200 million per mile. Getting through the suburbs to San Francisco will cost somewhere north of $12 billion, compared with about 14 billion to get from Morgan Hill to Palmdale. It is quite possible that it could cost more.
There is also a similar problem down south with getting into LA.
The bottom line is that running at high speed through suburbs is a very expensive proposition.
Joey Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 9:07 pm
BART is infamous for costing more than anything else in the known world. Not sure what it is about their proprietary technology that does it, but they can manage to inflate costs on a scale no one else can. In general, it is not a good judge of the cost of anything.
Also, by the way, high speed trains will be running at 125mph on the peninsula, not 220. Seriously, do some research.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 9:13 pm
And thats top speed ..there will be slower sections.. t
Matthew F. Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Those cost estimates are in line with standard construction cost estimates. Trenching is far more expensive than retained fill. Based on the Robert Doty Construction Methods Booklet, retained fill generally costs 2x at-grade costs, vs. 3.5x for trenching. Which means the San Gabriel Trench should be about twice as much.
schrodinger Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 9:53 pm
So why would anybody build a trench if it is far more expensive than the alternative?
Matthew F. Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
There’s a lot you can do to niceify a project when local governments are willing to pony up the dough. Atherton should take the hint: You don’t want retained fill, you pay for it.
schrodinger Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
When you take into account the cost of the whole thing, not just the fill/trench but also the cost of the bridges required, are you still claiming that a grade separated route using retained fill will be twice the cost of one in a trench?
After all, the Alameda corridor also used a trench, and somehow I find it hard to believe that they weren’t using the cheapest method that they could find.
schrodinger Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Ugh! Let me correct that last post:
When you take into account the cost of the whole thing, not just the fill/trench but also the cost of the bridges required, are you still claiming that a grade separated route using retained fill will be half the cost of one in a trench?
Joey Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
You know, a trench requires bridges too, for the roads going over it.
Joey Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 11:27 pm
Even so, I would expect those structures, being relatively short and not structurally complex, to be a fraction of the overall cost of grade-separation in any scenario.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 18th, 2010 at 9:03 am
But the bridge structures when the track passes over the road are also relatively short and not structurally complex.
Its grade, retained fill of either sort, viaduct or trench, tunnel.
Whether viaduct or trench costs more will depend on the details – trench requires a broader footprint in construction, so where the trench would require temporary tracks to maintain Caltrain services while the viaduct would avoid it, the trench would seem likely to be more expensive.
Also there is the vertical distance from grade required/allowed. If roads can be partially elevated, so that the trench is a split grade seperation, that makes the trench cheaper. If the roads can be partially depressed, so that the retained fill or viaduct can be lower, that makes the elevation cheaper.
Of course, on the amenity side, the retained fill is generally preferable to a viaduct in a normal suburban setting, and the viaduct generally preferable to a retained fill in a town center.
Matthew F. Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 11:29 pm
First, you got that backwards – I’m claiming that the retained fill would be half the cost of a trench.
I’m no construction expert, but it seems to be that one way you’ve got the train on a bridge over the road, and the other way you’ve got the road on a bridge over the train. I’d imagine that aspect of the project alternatives pretty much come out even – the railroad bridge has to support more weight, but the fill helps spread that, and the lengths crossed are shorter than the car bridges.
Maybe the costs of a trench increase proportionally with the number of tracks, whereas the cost of a retained fill are fairly static, regardless of the number of tracks? A 4-track trench requires 2x the digging as a 2-track trench, while a retained fill requires two walls of pretty close to the same cost.
Or maybe utility relocation costs are higher for a trench. When you trench, you have to re-locate every single gas pipe, water pipe, sewer pipe, fiber optic cable, telephone cable, and coaxial television cable – 40 feet underground, or thousands of feet out of the way to the nearest bridge.
The estimates I saw were specifically aimed at the Peninsula corridors, which have relatively little right of way – perhaps they take into account that a trench through the peninsula would require more ROW acquisition. The San Gabriel Trench area has wide enough right-of-ways to accommodate a trench.
—
Part of the cost planning anticipates that the train will run at ground level for a significant amount of the trip between SF and SJ – essentially will be the same cost as rural sections, and bringing down the per-mile costs averaged over the whole leg. Doesn’t BART have to be elevated its entire length, because of its electrified third rail?
BruceMcF Reply:
February 18th, 2010 at 9:08 am
There’d be very few places in the Peninsula where you could trench without having to place a temporary track around the construction site to keep rail service going.
By contrast, retained fill can be built half at a time, with the existing track kept in service until the first half constructed can support track to replace it.
And of course these have to be earthquake standard, where the reinforcement for the trench wall extends out from the trench, while the reinforcement for the retained fill fall or berm is within the retained fill, so the footprint for the construction of the trench is wider across.
elfling Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
The alternative to the CA HSR project is building a new lane each way on highway 99, which also cost about $40 billion. How will that be paid for?
Several CA airports are at or near capacity, and will need to expand, at costs of hundreds of millions of dollars each. Fewer LA-SF area shuttles would provide more capacity for flights to other parts of the US without expanding the airports.
Leroy W. Demery, Jr Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
“We really need to forget about building into city centers, and look at just building to the edge of the urban area. Freeways and existing commuter rail systems can deliver people to the stations. This means being more creative, and leaving behind 19th century paradigms like city centers.”
That, young man, is nonsense. Consider the following “totally unrelated” example:
At the end of the 1970s, a frustrated politician made a sketch, on the back of a cocktail napkin, of a proposed “starter” rail line line for L.A. He handed it to another, thoroughly frustrated, politician. This led to “yet another” rail transit plan, in 1980. But this time voters did something they weren’t supposed to: they approved it.
The L.A. Blue Line cost something like 3-4 times the “original” estimate. During the early years the Blue Line seemed able to approach the “original” ridership forecast, sometimes, on a clear day, but not exceed it. You could hear the gleeful gloating from certain quarters … “BOON doggle, BOON doggle, PORK! PORK! PORK!” However, if you know this story, then you know the, um, irony.
The line as sketched on that cocktail napkin, and carried through early planning stages, was a bare-bones single-track facility, as planned in Sacramento and under construction in San Diego. IF the Blue Line had been built in this configuration, it could not have carried traffic at levels that actually occurred. In fact, the line “as built” avoided a crippling shortage of cars only because “extra”l cars had been ordered, and delivered, for the Green Line.
My “quick and dirty” guesstimate is that a “bare-bones” LRT line, in the Blue Line corridor, able to operate trains no longer than two cars, no more frequently than every 15 minutes, would have carried no more than 50 percent of the weekday ridership actually carried – perhaps as low as 30-40 percent.
Why?
Well, if you think I’m an ornery old cuss, then check out those passengers. They are truly ornery – they will not tolerate peak-period crowding aboard transit vehicles at levels once assumed by planners. In other words, the level of “capacity” associated with the ridership “forecast” was greater – significantly greater – than planners assumed.
What does this have to do with HSR?
I did resolve to avoid being snarky, so I’ll resist the temptation to type something like, “If ya gotta ask, then you might not wanna know…” I will, however, stick to the Blue Line.
I remember my initial impressions clearly. Except at one location – the single underground station (7th Street / Metro Center) – the layout of the infrastructure did not provide any hint of provisions for “increased capacity” in the form of longer trains. In fact, the “layout” of stations on viaduct (there are a couple, built to avoid grade crossings) tended to suggest the opposite. I cannot say “for certain” that “the line was built with no provision for operation of trains longer than two cars.” This is not true anyway, for the platforms and tail tracks at 7th Street / Metro Center appear (barely) long enough for four cars. But as for the “rest of the line” …
Fast forward: Platforms were lengthened for three-car trains, at considerable expense. The operator, MTA, stated almost up to the day when the first three-car train entered service that this was needed only for peak periods. Well, those ornery passengers had other ideas. Ridership grew, and before long three-car trains were needed throughout the day. When I last visited L.A. In fact, I do not recall seeing anything other than a three-car train.
Have I made my point yet? Perhaps not, so …
If MTA has any specific plan for the “next increment” of capacity increase – the need for which was obvious until the economy “went south” – then no details are known. Four-car trains could be operated but station platforms would have to be lengthened – again. Doing this at the “viaduct” stations might be costly. The “level” viaduct segments might not be long enough to permit this. Four-car trains would not be able to operate south of Willow, into downtown Long Beach, but that’s not a major issue.
More-frequent service?
I’ve gotten “flamed” for saying this (… I could heat my home, metaphorically speaking …), but that idea is a non-starter, for an obvious reason. Expo Line trains will join the Blue Line at Washington Boulevard (near L.A. Trade-Technical College, thus the name I like to use, “Trade-Tech Junction”). The “current” peak-period headway on the Blue Line is 5 minutes. The Expo Line is likely to require this much service during peak periods – and not long after opening. The maximum service frequency on the common segment will thus be 2 1/2 minutes. As in “150 seconds.” A “downtown connector” might mitigate the problem – or might not, and is some years in the future. With reference to the long term, a separate entrance to downtown L.A. might eventually become necessary for Expo Line or the Blue Line.
Thus: the underlying issue is that whatever provisions for “future” traffic growth were made during Blue Line planning were not adequate for the traffic which developed. This has happened more than once, and is not confined to transit. Thus, the notion that existing “freeways and commuter rail” lines can deliver passengers to HSR stations seems unrealistic.
Of course, I’m well aware that, in this country, the phrase “with reference to the long term” might just as well be “with reference to Marxism-Leninism – Mao Zedong Thought – Deng Xiaoping Theory” (at least in some circles, anyway).
speaking of safety…. and trains falling off of tracks. A plane just fell on a house in palo alto this morning. Airports should be banned. Clearly air travel is not safe.
Peter Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 8:48 am
Or how about if we simply don’t build housing and schools that encroach on an airport’s safety zone.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Definitely. No houses or schools above ground, no children allowed more than two minutes walk from an air-raid shelter.
elfling Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Tragically, killing 3 key personnel of Tesla Motors, the electric car company.
We just need to get as much of this funded and underway as possible before the 2010 elections. Ideally this means passing the six-year transportation bill. There is a risk that Republicans will take the house in the midterm election. I’m sure that a transportation bill passed on their watch would be every bit as expensive as one the dems pass, but it would not be nearly as favorable for transit and high speed/intercity rail.
If CAHSR can get some sort of FFGA commitment from the DOT to keep money coming in even in the face of a Republican house, then once it’s completed and operational for a couple years all the naysayers will note its success and sit down/shut up.
jimsf Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 9:28 am
Obama is working on positioning himself to be able to work with republicans. He’s getting a lot of flack from the fringe left for it, but he knew the writing would be on the wall from day 1, the senate always shifts to the opposition party after a presidential election. The reps in the senate will go along with high speed rail, because obama is also going to give them nuclear power. and combined, the jobs created will speed up the recovery, and then the republicans can say “see what we did”
Its part of the horse trading that goes on so that parties can save face. Both sides are well aware of what needs to be done. They just can’t agree with it in its current form – because they can’t let the other side take full credit. What we see on the outside is actually just the political positioning and dealing to spread the eventual credit/blame, and the creation of a round of news clips and sound bites for future election cycles.
This is pretty easily debunked with Wikipedia:
That, if I’m not mistaken, is triple a 747, or about eight times a smaller plane flown on short-haul routes.