More Vegas Rail Options Emerge – And So Does Union Pacific Opposition
Somehow, almost out of nowhere, the Las Vegas to Southern California route has become one of the most popular locations for proposed high speed rail service. With four different proposals now in the mix (maglev, DesertXpress, “X Train,” and a 4th discussed below), it would seem a clear sign that the business sector understands there is quite a lot of demand for HSR to and from Las Vegas, and that government and the railroads would move mountains (figuratively) to make it happen.
That is, unless you’re the Union Pacific Railroad.
Let’s start with the newest entrant in the LA-LV race. Genesis High Speed Rail America LLC announced earlier this week that it was proposing a LA-Vegas-Phoenix high speed rail route. The company is backed by East Coast venture capitalists, who laid out this plan (more details would be nice, but this is all I’ve got):
Genesis’ proposed Desert Lightning High Speed Rail Line would travel between 200 miles per hour and cut a road trip from Las Vegas to Los Angeles from “four hours” to “two hours,” says the company.
The plan is still in its earliest stages and the company is seeking funding for studies on its viability. Genesis estimates that the cost of the rail line would be between $35 billion and $40 billion.
As with the other three proposed LA-LV routes, the funding is a bit unclear, although DesertXpress claims it is close to identifying all of the sources of its capital construction funding. I certainly hope they are successful in doing so, but the fact that now four different ventures are proposing to use the corridor is a sign that the private sector is bullish on high speed rail. Venture capitalists tend to take risks, but in this economic climate, that risk tolerance has become rather low. For all these ventures to zero in on HSR as a possible source of profit indicates that the claims of HSR deniers that bullet trains won’t be profitable and won’t attract private investment are absurd.
Of course, the private sector can’t pay for it all – one reason why these ventures have yet to come to fruition is the reality that only the state and federal governments have the ability to help fund the construction costs. (And before people claim that those governments are broke, the money is out there to balance the state budget and pay for a federal HSR program, if only the governments were willing to get the tax revenue from the wealthy that’s needed to pay for these costs.)
There is another obstacle, of course, and that’s our old friends at Union Pacific. Fresh off their “extortion letter” regarding California HSR, UP is now telling those interested in SoCal-Vegas rail service that UP plans to block that, too:
The companies are locked in a legal battle while they face a bigger challenge in trying to convince Union Pacific Railroad, which owns a majority of the tracks between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, to let them use the right of way. Concerned about growing publicity about the party trains, Union Pacific issued letters last week denying it has had any serious negotiation to allow either company to operate on its tracks.
Union Pacific also does not endorse and will not allow gambling on its tracks, Jerry Wilmoth, the railroad’s general manager of network infrastructure, wrote in the letters.
“If UP doesn’t want gaming then we won’t do it,” said Michael Barron, chairman of Las Vegas Railway Express.
Given UP’s hostility to passenger rail, this has to be seen as a fig leaf for public consumption – UP doesn’t really want to help passenger trains, but they know they can’t say that outright, so they find other reasons (worries about ROW sharing for HSR, concerns about gambling for Vegas rail) to block these projects.
Here again, Congress needs to step in and force UP to stop blocking improved passenger rail service. UP exists only because of massive federal giveaways made 150 years ago. It’s time reminded them of their obligations to the public.
Don’t forget the 5th proposal. Basically the same as the X train, but called the Z train. No joke: http://www.z-trainltd.com/
The problem here isn’t a lack of vague ideas, it’s the lack of a concrete proposal to integrate a line to Las Vegas with the starter line of the California HSR system. Exact same technology plus mutual trackage rights equals direct service that customers will pay for. Everything else I’ve heard so far, even DesertXPress, simply isn’t good enough.
Matthew Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 3:20 pm
I’d say DesertXPress is the most realistic with a link to CAHSR at Palmdale, and it avoids the whole Union Pacific issue. It seems to me the two proposals to make use of existing track only make sense as an interim solution until a HSR system could be built, and because they would provide more convenient access to the Inland Empire and San Diego. I agree that DesertXPress needs to talk a lot more to the California High Speed Rail Authority on interoperability, and the issue of who will pay for and maintain the Palmdale-Victorville track needs to be worked out.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 3:34 pm
They have been talking together about this, so I would not assume that the lack of a clear interoperability plan now guarantees there’ll never be one in the future. From my understanding, that is exactly what is likely to come out of those talks.
Victor Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 6:18 pm
Some how I think UP has drawn a line in the sand, Saying If You want to go on our ROW, Pay US enough or No deal.
rafael Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 1:42 am
@ Matthew -
right now, neither DX nor CHSRA has even formulated a concrete plan to connect the two planned lines into a network. That lack of a plan is exactly what I’m complaining about. Fwiw, I’d prefer a connector in the SR-58 corridor because it would do a better job of also connecting Vegas to the CV and Bay Area.
@ Victor -
Hesperia-Palmdale-Tehachapis is part of UPRR’s main line up the west coast. That right of way is probably not for sale at any price, you’d pretty much have to organize a hostile takeover of UPRR to get your mitts on it. CHSRA is going to have to acquire a greenfield ROW next to UPRR and even then, the freight jockeys are going to ask FRA to veto it. Alternative: 14/138 median, but it’s not as straight and the Palmdale station wouldn’t be in the “downtown” area.
Victor Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
TBM above or below the 14/138 to go through hills to straighten out the route then or do a Federal USRA Takeover of the UPRR, and push It through(One or the other). The old SP route, Didn’t know It went through the Tehachapis, thanks. Congress needs to school the FRA on HSR.
rafael Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Lots of Congressmen (and -women) get campaign contributions from freight rail operators, plus many other companies that rely on them to haul heavy goods. If anything, Congress will respond to lobbying by demanding the FRA not “jeopardize freight rail” by permitting dedicated HSR “too close” to freight tracks. Keep in mind that most HSR projects rely on speeds at or below 110mph, FRA-compliant equipment and upgrades to existing corridors that would also be available for freight, at least in off-design conditions. California, Florida, Nevada and to a lesser extent the NEC are exceptions in the national context.
Nathanael Reply:
May 25th, 2010 at 10:00 am
“Hesperia-Palmdale-Tehachapis is part of UPRR’s main line up the west coast. That right of way is probably not for sale at any price, you’d pretty much have to organize a hostile takeover of UPRR to get your mitts on it. CHSRA is going to have to acquire a greenfield ROW next to UPRR”
Most of the route through the Tehachapis isn’t straight enough for CAHSR anyway. The proposedd routings I’ve seen from CAHSR are all near the UP line, but always quite some distance away, except in a few spots (Sierra Highway).
Joey Reply:
May 25th, 2010 at 10:24 am
It runs right next to UPRR through a lot of the Mojave desert though…
Can anyone provide any insight into what is behind UPs general hostility to everyone given the much gentler tone of other railroads?
HSRforCali Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 5:35 pm
money, money, money, money…
Victor Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Oh Yeah… I totally agree, Greed is what’s going on and their full of It, I’m liking BNSF more and more each day, But then Pumpkins have that nice Orange and Green color that the BNSF has. :D
jimsf Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 11:57 pm
They should change their slogan to: “BNSF. we’re the nice ones”
BruceMcF Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Slogans for BNSF are not hard to come up with. “Yes, that is outrageous. But that was the other guys.”
Victor Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Nice? When one has possibly no other way, then someone plays nice to their benefit mostly, But maybe they will give something in return for what they want, in other words a compromise, We get HSR and BNSF gets some of what they want.
U.P. is not interested in sharing or selling the ROW or allowing High Speed Trains to be built adjacent to U.P. lines for the following reasons. First they are concerned with the general liability of their trains possibly derailing into a High Speed train. Second, they feel that selling off their line will harm them in the future. To quote one U.P. offical we have a 50 year plan why would we sell off our line for a short term gain that would bankrupt us 20 years later. Also U.P. said they are not afraid of congress or the President. They are not asking for money to be bailed out and they will use their team of lawyers to delay any decsion from President Obama basically waiting him out until he is replaced by a new adminstration which is not High Speed Rail friendly.
However, the one olive branch extended from U.P. they would allow their right of way to be used or shared as long as the trains do not go over 110 mph. You will hear more about this information at the next High Speed Rail authority meeting I am sure.
synonymouse Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 9:14 pm
Perhaps the UP recognizes that all levels of government are broke and getting broker and all the promises of payola(aka subsidies)won’t be honored.
This is the same government that could not afford to keep Conrail.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 11:07 pm
The same government infested with free market zealots who insisted that the government sell off what has become a profitable business.
Victor Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 9:36 pm
Maybe the UP should be nationalized then as It was during WWI under the U.S.R.A.(United States Railroad Administration) or at least be threatened with that, As I think the UP is getting too big for It’s britches and should know Its place, The UP is not the Government and the courts can out last the UP any day.
synonymouse Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 9:43 pm
I think you have answered your own question. The USRA did not prove particularly effective and was not repeated in World War II, which was a much more serious emergency for the US.
On the contrary corporations, especially multinationals, are more powerful than governments now. Governments are at their beck and call. See Reaganism.
HSRforCali Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 9:43 pm
A private company should not have that much power over the people. Hell, if it weren’t for the hundreds of millions in public-tax dollars they recieve in grade-separations, upgraded track, and advanced signalling systems, they’d still be living in the dark ages.
jimsf Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 12:00 am
I think they get indirect taxpayer subsidies by making amtrak pay for upgrades.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
“However, the one olive branch extended from U.P. they would allow their right of way to be used or shared as long as the trains do not go over 110 mph. You will hear more about this information at the next High Speed Rail authority meeting I am sure.”
Political divide and conquer – up to 68 senators representing states that have Emerging HSR corridors in some stage of planning or directly benefiting from the work … 4 senators representing states with Express HSR in the works.
Nathanael Reply:
May 25th, 2010 at 10:06 am
UP should think twice. It exists due solely to federal government largess. BNSF already knows that when you’re a regulated utility, you play nice with the regulator. NS knows this too (perhaps the fact that it leases two of its main lines from government agencies helps its mindset).
Also, some of UP’s *excuses* are embarassing. They’re worried about their trains derailing and crashing into a high speed train? If they can’t avoid major derailments (ones which fly more than 20 feet away from the track they started on) on their railroad, they have no business being in the freight business.
And UP wants to wait for a rail-unfriendly President? Good fucking luck. Not going to happen in this lifetime.
Sure, wanting the 50-year expansion potential is reasonable. They don’t need more than three tracks for that. They should get over themselves.
They are way behind the curve. Stupid, stupid management. They must be crushed.
Peter Reply:
May 25th, 2010 at 10:08 am
“They must be crushed.”
That was the first thing that made me smile today.
FYI I found a cheesy local news clip about the Genesis HSR project and they had a picture of the proposed map in the background. It appeared that they plan on going along the 10 corridor east from LA then along the CA62 corridor right N of Joshua tree and S of Mojave, therefore avoiding parks. The line would have a bifurcation near Havasu, with one line heading staight N generally paralleling the 95 and the other line heading straight E/SE to towards Phoenix. The bifurcation would be more or less be the midpoint between the three lines.
Why does UP’s opinion matter on a route that doesn’t use its ROW?
synonymouse Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 12:20 am
Let Steve Wynn and Sheldon Adelson pay out of pocket for any Deserted Xpress variation they prefer.
If it turns out that Sin City influence peddling had anything to do with the Tehachapis detour boondoggle there will be political hell to pay.
rafael Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 2:18 am
@ Alon Levy -
The existing track between Daggett and Salt Lake City belongs to UPRR. That company’s web site no longer breaks out which parts of the national grid it owns and which it serves via trackage rights or partnerships. However, BNSF still has a MAP showing who owns what in the Golden State. Note the grey lines marked “UP”.
BNSF has its own tracks between Redondo Junction and Mojave but relies on trackage rights (shown in yellow) from UP to run its trains into or out of California. UP owns 100% of the tracks that cross the borders to neighboring states.
@ synonymouse -
Back when CHSRA decided how to get from Bakersfield to LA, there was only one highly tentative HSR project between LV and SoCal: the maglev-based California-Nevada Super Speed Train, routed via Cajon Pass. SCAG was on board because manufacturers kept claiming that the infrastructure could be used to haul container freight to a relief port in the Inland Empire at night because maglev is quiet at low speeds. Orange County switched to the steel wheels California project when it became apparent that freight maglev was some engineer’s wet dream, complete with astronomical price tag. That’s part of why Anaheim was added to the starter line, that’s why Curt Pringle is currently chairman of the CHSRA board.
The steel wheels Desert Express effort was born out of frustration with the lack of progress on both Super Speed Train project and a separate push to get I-15 widened. However, even DX has focused narrowly on connecting to SoCal. Phase 1 would terminate in Victorville, an ill-defined phase 2 would extend that into the LA basin via Cajon Pass. The idea to instead connect to the California system in the High Desert wasn’t even on the table before Nov 2008 and remains vague even today.
Ergo, Sin City had absolutely nothing to do with the decision to route California HSR via the Tehachapis. It’s simply that steel wheels HSR can’t handle gradients much above 3.5% and, it would be too risky and expensive to cross both the Garlock and especially, the southern San Andreas fault in a tunnel. It’s basically about topography and geology. Time to fold up the tinfoil hat.
synonymouse Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 10:03 am
Base tunnels can be mined conforming to the 3.5% target and only crossing the Garlock fault in tunnel. The Tejon option was given short shrift by Bechtel to accommodate Palmdale developers.
The rest of California should not have to pay for LA gerrymandering.
Rafael Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 10:47 am
A long time ago, I thought I ran across an online document that spelled out a single alignment variation east of I-5 that would permit crossing Tejon Pass with a series of tunnels that were each less than six miles long – though the total distance tunneled would still be longer than for the Palmdale detour. IIRC, the primary concern was that there was very little if any leeway to either side in case exploratory tunneling uncovered problematic geology. Moreover, the line would run very close to the wildlife refuge at Lake Castaic. Unfortunately, I can’t find that document any more. If you happen to have it, I’d be grateful for a URL.
Figure 2.5 on p17 PDF of the tunneling conference report on CHSRA’s web site implies Tejon Pass would not permit crossing either fault at grade if a maximum gradient of 3.5% is imposed. Considering I-5 has a gradient of 6% near Grapevine, that seems plausible. However, it is just possible that the alignment discussed in the previous paragraph included a deep and fairly remote valley that would permit a very short break in the tunnel system.
Note that Deutsche Bahn’s Frankfurt-Cologne HSR line includes short sections with 4% gradient, but they’re all above grade and nowhere near an active fault zone. The issue is not if a train already traveling at fairly high speed can deal with a slight gradient excess but whether it can come to an emergency stop and then restart in the same direction.
In the event, DB had to order beefier traction systems for its ICE3 rolling stock, leading to higher cost and axle loads. That in turn may have contributed to an axle breaking prematurely, subsequent chaos as the entire fleet was inspected for hairline cracks and ultimately, a very expensive decision to redesign and replace all the axles. CHSRA decided on 3.5% because that’s the limit all other HSR operators have set for themselves.
Note that DX wants to follow I-15 at grade, which would imply a 4% climb over a hill near the Nevada border.
synonymouse Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
The problem is that for political reasons the engineers approached Tehon with a “can’t-do” mindset whereas the Tehachapis is the obvious last resort. What is needed is a proposal by experienced base tunnel drillers working from the determined position that it can indeed be done and for a reasonably accurate price including leeway for difficulties.
Then a decent decision can be made. The same applies to 99 vx. I-5 and Pacheco vs. Altamont.
rafael Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
You need to look at the topography please. Yes, the elevations in Sylmar and the Grapevine are very similar. However, they’re also about 50 miles apart. The longest rail tunnel in the world (St. Gotthard, Switzerland) is “only” 34 miles long and does not cross two very much active slip-strike faults several thousand feet underground.
As for Tejon vs. Tehachapis, it’s simply not true that CHSRA was biased a priori. In fact, they really, really wanted the straight shot route. They even organized a tunneling workshop based on Australian alignment optimization software called Qantm that had only recently become available and had never been used before in the US. This shaved off a lot of total miles tunneled on all the options and showed how much lateral flexibility there was for each of the routes. Tejon Pass simply didn’t pan out, it was assessed as both too risky and too expensive.
Did Palmdale lobby hard for a station? Of course it did and, serving a captive population of 150,000 or more was a nice-to-have for CHSRA. However, I’m sure they hated adding 12 minutes to the SF-LA line haul time.
Victor Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Actually there is a way to avoid a Tunnel there possibly, It’s called a clear cut(a trench really), It’s usually something done to an older tunnel bore that’s too small for current rolling stock, But It should work, So 4% may not be needed, Although Mountain pass has an area of igneous rock that the I15 fwy passes through and to widen the fwy Caltrans had to close the fwy and do some blasting through solid volcanic rock, a TBM could be useful too in that area I’d suspect, But that’s a why a Tunnel Boring Machine would be useful there possibly, It just depends on which is less expensive and which will not shut the freeway down for long as lots of people and goods travel on the I15 fwy everyday(except when It snows of course).
Victor Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
In the I15 Cajon Pass of California there are two major faults, the San Andreas and the nearby San Jacinto fault and I’d want track to cross both above ground and not be in a tunnel, But since I’m not a Tunnel Engineer this is just My opinion on this important matter.
rafael Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
The gradient in Cajon Pass is gently enough for freight trains running at grade. If – big IF – anyone ever decides to lay some steel wheels HSR track through there (neither CHSRA nor DX have any plans) then a tunnel would only be needed if no ROW for running at grade could be identified. And yes, you’d want the tracks to cross those faults at grade if at all possible, because it would be easier to evacuate passengers from a stranded/damaged train and to repair any damage to the tracks.
The 4% gradient I was referring to is much further east, near the Nevada border.
What about Southern Transcon?
rafael Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 9:51 am
Sorry, my bad. BNSF’s Southern Transcon does of course continue past Needles on the AZ border.
UPRR does, however, own all of the other routes thanks to its merger with SP in the 1990s: via Yuma, Las Vegas, Truckee/Sparks, Oroville/Reno and Redding.
PeakVT Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
You’re missing a few: the ARZC crossing at Parker into Arizona, the CORP crossing at Hilt into Oregon, the BNSF crossing at Stronghold into Oregon, and the LRC crossing into Oregon, which is near nothing.
rafael Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Do any of these carry anything like the volume of traffic that the others do? If not, let’s ignore them.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Railroads come and go. I’ve seen very busy lines get turned into bike trails and little backwater branches carry a lot of traffic. UP makes life difficult for shippers, the shippers will find alternatives.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
UP doesn’t make life difficult for shippers at all. It makes life difficult for state governments.
Nathanael Reply:
May 25th, 2010 at 10:12 am
The AZRC lines in particular is connected on both ends to BNSF track.
The rest run into UP track, thanks to the UP-SP merger. Which should be broken up on antitrust grounds.
PeakVT Reply:
May 25th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
That’s some impressive goalpost shifting.
O/T:
SF Examiner(h/t to YesOnHSR) Blogger Kathy Hamilton, self-styled “SF Transportation Policy Examiner”, tries to poke holes in CHSRA’s ridership model, claims it was biased in favor of Pacheco and against Altamont. It’s the bone of contention that simply will not go away.Judge Kenny rejected a similar claim in the original lawsuit against the program-level EIR, but CHSRA still needs to present its updated version of that document for review by agencies and the general public. Look out for the results of a separate study by UC Berkeley in early June. If it disagrees sharply with CHSRA’s own conclusions, expect another lawsuit.
That said, keep in mind that actually constructing a line between Redwood City and Manteca would be at least as hard – if not much harder – than the presently preferred Pacheco Pass alternative:
- crossing the Bay (east Menlo Park, Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge)
- serving the East Bay (station intermodal with BART and/or Amtrak CC?)
- getting across Newark/Union City/Fremont (UPRR ROW, Hayward fault, Quarry Lakes)
- getting across to the Amador Valley (Calaveras fault)
- crossing Pleasanton and Livermore (UPRR ROW)
- serving Pleasanton and Livermore (station intermodal with BART extension?)
- crossing Altamont Pass (Greenville fault)
- crossing Tracy (UPRR ROW)
- serving Tracy (AB3034 limit of 24 stations total)
- connecting to Modesto and Sacramento (ROWs to be determined)
- moving Merced-Manteca forward into phase 1 (may increase funding needs for starter line, original cost estimates were based on assumptions regarding UPRR that are no longer valid either way)
- leaving Caltrain without sufficient funds to complete the electrification needed to make the DTX tunnel to the new Transbay Terminal feasible
and then there’s the big one:
- connecting to San Jose Diridon.
Strictly speaking, AB3034 does not require HSR service to San Jose in phase 1 or indeed, ever. In practical political terms, excluding Santa Clara county from the HSR network altogether is infeasible. Unfortunately, the I-880 median no longer exists south of CA-262 and, UPRR’s Milpitas ROW isn’t available (or desirable, since it’s very narrow in the Ryland Park district). The I-680 and I-280 medians are still available, but additional miles of tunnel would be needed to reach Sunol or Pleasanton.
Of course, there already is a wye in Redwood City but using it would mean constructing HSR tracks through Atherton, central Menlo Park, Palo Alto and south to San Jose after all. In which case, you might as well stick with Pacheco to begin with…
YesonHSR Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 10:06 am
That is not the main paper but someones blog..a Nimby that lives next to the tracks in MenloParkl anyone can start a blog on that web site and “call” themselves a certain kind of “expert” ..
Rafael Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 10:21 am
Clarified.
Reality Check Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Surprise, surprise! So it turns out this Kathy Hamilton “Transportation Policy Examiner” blogger is a neighbor to the Stone Pine Lane gang of 3. Notice a photo of her “relaxing in her private patio“ is included with this profile of her “tranquil” and “well-located” Park Forest neighborhood.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Excellent, and important, catch.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
I know I’ve been seeing this for a long time, but it still amazes me how consistently that age pattern seems to hold. How old do you figure the three geezers to be? How old do you figure Kathy Hamilton is? The whole lot looks between 65 and 85 to me!
I can still recall that I thought I was noticing something about 20 years ago, perhaps longer. I’ve already mentioned my failed attempt to get a modern interurban in West Virginia, but there was also another incident in Pennsylvania.
I’ll admit it, I’m one of those foaming train nuts, and a big steam fan at that. But I’ve also been on 12 lane roads and had plenty of time to count the 12 lanes, and I know something about peak oil, road finance, and the real cost of driving (including the checks to the insurance company). I also know that driving is no longer fun (who do you know still goes on Sunday drives?), and I can appreciate modern electric operation. This includes trolleys–even if the modern, hip, with-it, marketing term is light rail (I’m something of a traditionalist in language, too).
In any event, I wanted to explore the trolley sytem in Pittsburgh, Pa. This is currently a downtown subway loop with two parallel routes (one in a tunnel) through Mt. Washington, joining at a junction at the south end of the tunnel, splitting again at this junction into parallel lines via Beechview and Overbrook, which rejoin again at Castle Shannon (the city hall there is surrounded by trolley tracks, some of which pass the building at minimal clearance), and from there go on to South Hills Village and Library (and, at the time of my trip, to a short third line that has since been abandoned, the turning loop at Drake).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_Light_Rail
My object was to ride to Library (which I hadn’t done before). Getting on the car at the same time I was at South Hills Village were three or four teenaged girls. I still remember their clothes–hot pinks, blazing orange, incredibly bright yellows and greens–colors on clothes and raincoats (it was a rainy day) that were so bright you almost had to wear sunglasses to look at them, and that their conversation sounded like “chip, chip, chip, chip, chip, chip, chip, chipchipchip, chipchip”–makikng me think that’s whyt girls are called chicks!
We rode to Washington Junction, and I had to change cars to go to Library. Surprise, the chicks are going to Library, too! Interesting ride on a modern car running on track that was not really set up for it (the new cars had just started using the route to Library recently, prior to this it had been exclusively PCC cars), including an experience with amazingly violent truck hunting on light jointed rail, and horrible visibility at some grade crossings, at least one of which was in a cut and between buildings.
The run terminated at Library, and the car I was on was going to lay over, but another was about to start back. I made the transfer to the other car, and to my surprise found the chicks there, too. They were joyriding on the trolley! It was like an earlier time in that regard.
Do you know of any people, particularly teenagers, who go joyriding on a bus? I don’t.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 10:09 am
If this results in new ridership studies, the HSR opponents will have set a trap for themselves, since new numbers will merely bolster the projections that HSR will be popular and pay for its own operating costs. What the article didn’t mention is that the studies are from 2005, and the 2007-08 gas price spike meant that more people would be likely to ride these trains.
Ultimately, ridership projections are merely that – projections. There’s no way of ensuring they are actually what results. The global HSR experience – which the California HSR critics *never* mention – indicates that our HSR project will be popular and achieve the necessary ridership goals.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Robert,
What are you talking about?
According to http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20081118143005_Source%20Document%205%20Ridership%20and%20Revenue.pdf,
the price of gasoline used in the biz plan was 23.8 cents per gallon (presumed to be adjusted up with inflation, just like fares)
@20 mpg = $4.75/ gallon
@30 mpg = $7.13/ gallon
@50 mpg = $11.88 / gallon (I my prius).
The model also assumed that the gas cost per person of driving did not depend on how many people were in the car (there was a one time credit for driving in a group – but this was the same whether you were going 5 miles or 500 with 2 people or 7 people in the car).
Yes, projections are only projections. Projections are however in the “horseshoes” category. Closer counts.
Virtually all of the current stumbling blocks (transbay, peninsula, anaheim) are caused by the project being supersized, justified by this model.
It matters.
Brian Stanke Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Elizabeth what are you talking about? From the document you linked to:
How do you auto-magically turn the stated $2.93 (below current prices in the Bay Area) into $11.88? By pretending that gasoline are the only costs to driving perhaps? Oh, $.238 * 50 = $11.88 that is EXACTLY how you came up with the fairy tale numbers.
Really, Elizabeth and you expect us to take your criticism of the consultants’ number seriously when you make such math and modeling 101 errors?
Time to admit you hate the idea of HSR, and the reality of HSR’s success everywhere tried is irrelevant to you. All the ridership number games are just built around your refusal to admit that reality.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
The model does not use a price per gallon. It uses a price per mile.
The way they back into the $2.93 is assuming a constant 21.3 mpg and then assuming that everyone driving to LA grosses up the cost of driving by 60% to account for insurance, depreciation etc – even though when they estimated the model they didn’t use any gross up – which makes this an invalid assump[tion.
.22/1.6*21.3 = $2.93
If you read the further in the document, you will see they decided to increase prices 8% from original assumptions for the estimates.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Rafael,
The question is not how much does it actually cost to drive to LA, but how much do people perceive it to cost.
In general, people are better at thinking of total cost for trips they do frequently. Someon commuting everyday sees how this adds up. Someone taking infrequent trip doesn’t really think about it.
And don’t take my word for it – none other than the same firm that did this analysis explains it
really well.
According to a recent Cambridge Systematics review of another ridership study (available
at http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/rrdev/Appendix_B_Ridership_Forecast_Review.pdf):
“Usually, auto travelers will consider their cost of travel to be only their out-of-pocket gas costs.
Thus, in most intercity travel models, auto costs are generally in the range of $0.10 to
$0.15 per mile. While higher per mile costs are more consistent with the true costs of driving
(including operating, maintenance, and ownership costs), they are generally not considered by
travelers for specific travel decisions.”
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Most travelers don’t think like econometrists. They see an increase in the price at the pump and think about how to reduce their consumption. We saw this in 2008 – the amount of gasoline purchased by Californians dropped considerably that year because of the gas price spike, *before* the economic crisis hit in full force in the fall.
My point is that because we know – as an indisputable fact – that gas prices will rise for a long time to come, it makes sense that HSR will be seen as an alternative. In fact, we have proof of this from November 2008, when fresh memories of the gas price spike and the knowledge of 5 years straight of price increases led voters to approve $10 billion in borrowing for the HSR system.
In turn, that indicates there is every reason to believe a lot of Californians will shift to HSR.
rafael Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Uhm, I think the primary reason less gasoline was sold is that a lot of people lost their jobs and/or moved out of state. Commuting accounts for much of the fuel consumed and only a small subset of those drivers switched to public transport or started carpooling. In the short term at least, average fuel consumption per vehicle tends to be fairly insensitive to changing prices at the pump. People have to get to work, pick up their kids, buy groceries etc. They’ll forgo relative luxuries like vacations and going out to dinner before they seriously reduce their day-to-day mileage.
Structural change in terms of prioritizing fuel economy when buying a new car or moving house closer to work or finding a job closer to home or commuting by transit, that only happens in sufficient volume if consumers expect gas prices to remain high for the long haul. Just look at Japan and Europe: high fuel taxes per liter mean the stuff is going to be expensive whatever the oil markets do, so consumers behave accordingly. It’s not the instantaneous reality that needs to change, it consumer expectations prices at the pump for the next decade. And then, those expectations need to be met if the behavioral changes are to stick.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
I said that the amount of gas sold was in decline in late spring and summer 2008, before the job losses really accelerated (that didn’t begin in earnest in CA until fall 2008).
elfling Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Anecdotally, a lot of casual driving got cut back. Going to the mall or to shop for a sale took on a different complexion when you realized it was going to cost $10 just to drive there and back. Casual trips to visit relatives or just to see this or that were cut back as well.
rafael Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
I couldn’t find the 23.8 cent figure in the document, but I did find a reference to “the cost of driving [...] 22 cents per mile per auto traveler (2005$$). [...] gasoline at $2.93 per gallon constitutes about half of this cost.” (p7 PDF)
In other words, they were looking at the total cost of car ownership, including depreciation, maintenance, fees, insurance etc. (but probably not financing, tolls or parking).
Also, reverse engineering gasoline prices from this based on the fuel economy of any given type of car is plain silly. For planning purposes, they needed to make some reasonable assumptions about fleet average fuel economy and the average number of occupants. What is reasonable for the long drives HSR is seeking to displace? Probably a higher number than for commuting, for which it is close to one. However, CHSRA also didn’t include any discount fares for children under 12 or families traveling with children when it estimated the ridership numbers.
Will the fuel economy of new cars improve over time thanks to tighter CAFE standards? Sure. But so will fuel taxes, because fewer gallons sold means each one has to be sold at a higher price to keep the Highway Trust Fund (and its equivalents at the state level) from becoming insolvent. Politicians may want to kick that down the road or else introduce tolls on commercial vehicles (an indirect tax as all shipped goods would become more expensive). In addition, the medium-term trend in the price of oil (WTI) is almost back to where it had been before the aberration of $140 oil in 2008.
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Inflation_Adj_Oil_Prices_Chart.htm
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
That just proves my point from a few days ago about the Bay Area desire to ghettoize rail – make it small, out of the way, and no threat to the dominance of the automobile. Your focus seems to be to make HSR small, difficult to scale upward, and serving a lesser segment of the state’s travelers. It’s model the rest of the state and the globe are rejecting. So why maintain it?
Elizabeth Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
That is exactly the point. The model assumed people think like econometricians, not like real people.
The model assumes really high costs of driving compared to how people view the cost
of driving.
This is why you got a very strange result that HSR pulled almost as many people out of their cars as off the planes
The most recent data that HSR presented for the current split is 49 Air/ 51/ Auto
The market split for phase 1 (50% fares) was: 53 HSR/ 21 Air /26 Auto
This means that HSR captures 57% of current air passengers and 49% of current auto passengers. This is NOT what you see HSR do around the world. HSR competes very successfully against air / transit and not so successfully against auto.
When the model gets re-done (which it will almost certainly have to be), the numbers will be much lower. That might still mean a “successful” system, depending on how you define success. But it will be one with more modest demand and one that might actually be buildable.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Just to be clear – I’m talking the LA – SF market segment.
Brian Stanke Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Just to be clear – you are ignoring all world precedent for how High Speed Rail has in fact taken many passengers from road travel. Neither Japan, France, Spain (same pop. density as CA) or any of the others exist.
Further you suppose people drive Bay Area to LA and back and don’t think it affects their car beyond buying gas? Before I was 24, I had figured out driving that distance really racks up the mileage and wear and tear on my car. People are smarter than you think, especially after doing that trip a few times.
Besides the point of HSR is speed, convenience, and/or not dealing with kids strapped on crying, “Are we there YET?” for six hours. None of that is impacted by gas prices.
rafael Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
HSR actually competes very effectively against travel by car in two important markets: Japan and France. However, both suffer from severe congestion in their dense city centers, both have high fuel taxes and both impose high ancillary costs on car ownership (stringent roadworthiness tests in Japan, high motorway tolls in France). California is still a lot car-friendlier and connecting transit services are limited in a lot of places that will have HSR stops. Electric bicycles for rent or folding models you can take along might make up for some of that, especially in summer. However, it will take a fair amount of time for cities and developers to take full advantage of the new infrastructure.
Nevertheless, I think you may be underestimating how having HSR as a travel option will change Californian’s perception of their state and over time, their travel patterns. People who would think twice about the hassle of flying within the state (regardless of cost) may well be far more willing to hop on a modern, fast, quiet, comfortable and above all, dependable train. This is especially true of folks who are under 30 today.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Los Angeles is actually more congested than Tokyo, whose roads are fairly clear.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
California also has only three ways to get from SF to LA by road, two of which can get very congested and one of which is significantly longer:
1. I-5. This gets very congested during weekends and holidays. I once spent 9.5 hours getting back to Berkeley from LA around New Year’s 2001. The long drive, usually around 6 hours, is also a major obstacle for many drivers. HSR’s time savings is significant.
2. Highway 99. This gets quite congested on a regular basis, and few people use it to get from SF to LA, although it’s not a great deal longer than I-5.
3. Highway 101. This can be significantly longer than using I-5, sometimes 2-3 hours.
So for a variety of reasons, HSR is a better option than driving for a lot of people. And as we know, time is money, especially when people might need to take time off work to make this drive.
But your point was about the cost of driving. Here’s my point about that: since we *know* – for a fact – that gas prices will rise over the next 10 years, potentially doubling, doesn’t that mean the cost of driving will indeed be high and therefore, the basic notion that the ridership model used is indeed valid, even if we can quibble about the path used to get there.
Do you doubt that gas prices will rise?
Elizabeth Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 6:05 pm
But we also know that efficiency will rise (it is mandated by law)… which offsets price increases. This is the double edged sword of electric/ hybrid vehicles. They really lower the cost of driving and have the potential to increase miles traveled.
The additional challenge for HSR to meet the very aggressive forecasts is that even though there are all the driving challenges that you laid out, over 50% of people going from the Bay Area to LA still choose to go by car, even though there is frequent, convenient and cheap air service (and this was true even before the post 9/11 security unpleasantries), offering point to point service from 3 airports in the Bay Area to 5 LA airports.
The point is not that no one will ride a train. The point is that we should be realistic about the market size and invest accordingly. Transportation dollars are going to be very scarce in the coming decades and they need to be spent really carefully.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
There are many flaws with the “hybrids mean trains aren’t necessary” argument that any good econometrist should understand.
First, the fuel efficiency may not keep pace with rising prices or the cost of car ownership. Even at 50 MPG, if gas prices rise to $5 or $6 a gallon, that’s going to be a huge cost for people to bear. Already car ownership is a major drag on household finances. Economists like Richard Florida have argued that for economic prosperity to be restored out of this recession, less car ownership would be a good thing.
Second, even if hybrid and electric vehicles did outpace gas price increases and provide a net savings (and every Californian could afford to own one), unless there is zero population growth in this state all that will be achieved is packing the existing roads even more full with more cars. Fuel efficiency doesn’t produce roadway efficiency and doesn’t address either the congestion problem or the travel time problem. We’ll still need to spend $80 to $160 billion on expanding roads and airports to accommodate all those cars and travelers. Why not save the money and build HSR instead?
Instead of that, you seem to be trying to grasp any argument you can find to claim that HSR won’t be used by a lot of people. But as Brian has pointed out to you, we have ample evidence from across the world that HSR has no problem attracting high levels of ridership.
You say we need to be “realistic” about the market size, but you’re using the term “realistic” when you really mean “think small” about market size. A truly realistic picture would expect high levels of ridership, given global experience, existing demand, and the rising cost of driving and flying. Yet you don’t seem to acknowledge the powerful evidentiary case in support of those higher ridership numbers. Why is that?
Peter Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Why do you think that “[t]ransportation dollars are going to be very scarce in the coming decades”? Once sticker shock of high gasoline prices with staying power hits (in the next couple of year, most likely, people will be clamoring at their representatives and senators to open the public transit faucet.
That being said, I do agree that the transportation dollars do need to be invested wisely. However, this is not like a situation in Japan that I have heard of on this blog, for example, where they build a full-fat Shinkansen line to a rural town just because the government representative for that area happens to be powerful and wants a Shinkansen line to be his legacy. That is a major waste of transportation yen. This, in contrast, is a line connecting the major population centers in the state. Travel demand WILL BE HIGH! This IS a wise use of transportation dollars.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 8:05 pm
Hybrids cost $25,000 apiece, and currently have a 7% share of new US car sales.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Peter, she probably believes that the current vogue for austerity budgets will mean fewer transportation dollars will be available. She may well be right, at least in the short term.
But that vogue for austerity budgets will not last for longer than a few years. Eventually, once people realize that spending cuts produce prolonged economic crisis and mass unemployment, and once gas prices rise, there will be a new clamor for transportation funding.
My hope is that we can avoid any austerity for transportation, but it’s clear that for non-HSR transit in CA, we’re already there. So we need to work to ensure it is as brief as possible, and make the case for investing in our state’s future prosperity.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
The argument is not that hybrids mean trains are unnecessary.
It is simply that assuming you will get a bunch of riders because it will cost a lot of money to drive is a bad idea, particularly as much higher fuel efficiency is now mandated by law. And traffic is not enough of an incentive either – look how many people choose to drive over the Bay Bridget every day.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 10:59 pm
The fuel efficiency standards that are now law require the average US car to be a few mpg less efficient in a decade than the average French car is today.
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 25th, 2010 at 12:14 am
Um, no. No matter how faulty the model is, the stumbling blocks have more to do with good ol’ politics and demographics. (Where is the Speaker of the House from again?) The HSR alignments do a fine job of proposing a system that would unite most of the state’s population.
The model indeed has weaknesses. But one thing to consider is that if people embrace electric cars ( or Southwest files for bankruptcy) it’s going to get much tougher to travel from the Bay Area to Southern California on a method other than the train.
elfling Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Air service is not particularly convenient or cheap if you don’t live near the airport. It actually costs me more money to pay for travel to the airport, parking, etc than it does for a discounted plane ticket. And, air travel is very expensive if you cannot plan two weeks in advance.
Even though the available Amtrak service takes longer, for me it works better because it goes exactly where I need to go, into the population centers, and because my travel time is productive, spent working or eating.
AndyDuncan Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
I agree that people perceive their per-mile costs to be lower than what they actually are, figuring in TCO, but 10-15 cents a mile seems too low. AAA’s actual cost/mile driven ranges from 45 to 70 cents/mile depending on miles driven per year, and their operations cost/mile (basically the incremental cost of driving), is around 15-20 cents/mile.
You may drive a prius, but most people don’t. If they did, and the incremental cost of driving goes down, traffic is going to get even worse, and we’ll need to implement toll roads or other per-mile taxes to pay for road maintenance since gas tax revenue goes down.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Don’t disagree on future traffic, particularly traffic within Bay Area and within LA basin. The ridership model had some forecasts for traffic. The Bay Area highways were all forecast to be “fail”, with and without HSR.
I am just saying that people were asking how the model forecast HSR ridership to be 9x that of the Northeast corridor. Some of that is faster, nicer trains. Some of it however comes from assuming that a family of 4 thinks of its cost of driving to LA as being $240, when all research tells you that they think of it as being $60.
Peter Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 7:24 pm
So what in hell are you arguing for? Build HSR, don’t build HSR, it will be a success, it will be a flop, it’s being designed right or not? You CARRD people keep on dancing around the issue. I know you say that you aren’t opposed to HSR in principle, but want it “done right,” whatever the HELL that is supposed to mean (although the definition of “done right” probably changes day by day).
CARRD definitely is doing valuable work, but you then muddy your otherwise pristine non-partisan waters by arguing everything you can to show how HSR won’t be successful in CA.
YOU MAKE NO SENSE!!! Declare a position! You can’t be neutral, you’re affected by building HSR the same as the rest of California is. Pretending that you’re neutral when your spin completely shows that you’re not just degrades the conversation.
HSRforCali Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Relax, everyone has their own personal opinion; anger will get us nowhere.
Reality Check Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
HSRforCali wrote “everyone has their own personal opinion.
Hey Mr. Redundancy: when someone has an opinion, it’s by definition already their own and personal.
Peter Reply:
May 25th, 2010 at 7:27 am
I’m not angry, just frustrated by CARRD’s claims to innocent neutrality (“Oh, we’re just trying te make sure everyone has all the facts.”) on the one hand while they argue against the project on the other hand.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 12:23 am
I told everyone what these people were up too…I was told to keep it down
Alon Levy Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
The Northeast Corridor runs 2-3 tph, where the trains are of different classes so that each group of travelers only has about 1 tph effective. It averages 130 km/h between NY and DC, and has a mode share of between 6 and 14% on NY-DC (cf. nearly 50% for the Shinkansen on Tokyo-Osaka and 63% for the KTX on Seoul-Busan).
Don’t compare California to the Acela debacle. Compare it to real HSR systems.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 9:13 pm
I think Northeast Corridor is not a bad comparison. Yes, the trains are slower and not as nice. The Northeast Corridor is a very densely populated corridor with probably twice the population within a stone’s throw of a station, much more developed feeder networks and New York City right in the middle – millions of people with money but no cars.
If you want to look at comparable High Speed Rail, look at Spain. Barcelona to Madrid is a huge success as far as competing with the airlines. There are trains only every 30 minutes (including both locals and expresses)during peak and every hour during non-peak. There are about 6 million passengers a year. http://w3.bcn.es/V01/Serveis/Noticies/V01NoticiesLlistatNoticiesCtl/0,2138,1653_35144087_3_1156096214,00.html?accio=detall&home=HomeBCN&nomtipusMCM=Noticia
This number is growing and LA is bigger than Madrid but gas is a lot more expensive there. Not a perfect comparison but a comparison.
The forecasts for CHSRA assume that there will be full trains every couple of minutes- 256 trains in both directions.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 9:31 pm
The Acela is a huge success, but because of track limitations, Amtrak cannot easily add trains, although the demand for them is there and has been there. And of course, the Acela pays for its operating costs. Both indicate success in CA.
As to Madrid-Barcelona, you are right the number is growing – remember that there is a five year curve to reach optimal ridership. They’re only now in year two.
Finally, keep in mind when you make these comparisons, Elizabeth, that the CHSRA ridership studies are for the year 2035, at full buildout, at a time when oil prices will be significantly higher in the US than they are today – or than they are in Spain right now.
Joey Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 9:31 pm
I think “slower” might be a bit of an understatement (we are talking about the Acela here…). DC-NY is a reasonable 2 hours 48 minutes, but Boston adds nearly 4 additional hours. Those journey times aren’t very competitive at all.
Madrid-Barcelona is what? Two years old now? It’s too early to judge what the full ridership will be.
And while I’d agree that CHSRA’s 9 tph projections are somewhat insane, 6 or so tph is conceivable in the not-so-distant future.
HSRforCali Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
I see about 4 tph for first year of operation and then going into 6 tph the next year. I’d guess 9 tph somewhere in the area of 2025-30 when people have had time to adjust to the new service, let alone find out about it. There are still Angelinos who don’t know we have a subway system, so I wouldn’t be suprised if we had Californians who won’t know about an HSR system during the first couple of years of operation.
HSRforCali Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 10:10 pm
Actually, the Taiwan High-Speed Rail system saw about 32.3 million riders last year. Taipei has a metro population of about 6.87 million and Kaohsiung has a metro population of about 3 million. Obviously, the combined population of the LA and Bay Areas far outwights that of Taipei and Kaoshsiung, but the Taiwan HSR system has a travel time of only 1.5 hours end to end on an express train. The best comparison for California’s HSR system is still probably the Madrid-Barcelona route; the only difference is their route is a little shorter and their trains max out at 186 mph.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Elizabeth, it’s really nice that you’re learning to repeat Richard’s talking points. But you still have no idea what you’re talking about. First, the AVE is a premium product, with higher fares than all other HSR systems. Even the Nozomi isn’t quite as expensive. And second, LA is three times bigger than Madrid, and the Bay Area is twice as big as Barcelona. It’s not something to be brushed aside so casually. Yes, gas prices are higher in Spain; and road congestion is worse in California – so what?
Your NEC spin still doesn’t work. Yes, yes, it’s an excellent corridor for HSR. It just doesn’t have HSR service levels. Amtrak’s main competition nowadays isn’t the air shuttles, but the premium buses, which do NY-DC in about one hour and half more than the Acela. In California, the time penalty would be about three and a half hours, at which point riding the bus is no longer such a bargain. Try to imagine NEC ridership if NY-DC and NY-Boston were an hour and a half each and you’d get California’s comparison.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
It should be noted that Caltrain’s current old-timey diesel service carries far many more riders than the ballyhooed Madrid-Barcelona HSR line. It’s always important to keep the perspective of where most people-moving is happening.
If Union Pacific sued a bunch of toy train makers for something minor then what do you expect them to do with HSR?
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Union+Pacific+gives+%22perpetual%22+license+to+model+train+manufacturing…-a0155204813
HSRforCali Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
They say they’ll bring out their lawyers, well we’ll bring out the representatives, the senators, the assemblymen and women, our own lawyers, and the people of California. Given LaHood’s strong support for HSR, I don’t think it’d be a problem for him to whip their little butts to get with the program; he already slammed the airlines by telling them to not hate HSR and welcome it.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
and the tax assessors in states where they don’t have Prop13, to have nice little discussions about the assessments on the railroad property in those jurisdictions. UP says their ROW in rural California is worth a gazillion dollars I’m sure the tax assessors in places that aren’t rural and aren’t in California will be interested in hearing just what UP thinks their land is worth.
HSRforCali Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 10:41 pm
Since UP’s land was originally given to them in the Railroad Land Grants in the 1800s by the Government, it seems like we should have the power to just take A LITTLE of it back, especially since it’d be going towards improving the quality of life for Californians.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
A lot of things seem like they should be, but aren’t.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 25th, 2010 at 8:56 am
In the late 19th century, Congress exempted federally chartered railroads from state eminent domain action in order to prevent states from regulating or taking over the railroads. Congress very much does have the power to either repeal that law, or force UP to give up its ROW.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 25th, 2010 at 9:26 am
That’s probably not going to happen because people in Chicago don’t want people in Wyoming twisting the railroad into knots. On the other hand if the Federal government wanted to make life difficult for UP I’m sure they could hire a swarm of bureaucrats to have a very very close look at UPs compliance issues. Amtrak could point out a few as could residents along the lines and shippers and sundry rail enthusiasts and rail haters….
Nathanael Reply:
May 25th, 2010 at 10:19 am
The railroads are also not exempt from *FEDERAL* eminent domain, as distinct from *STATE* eminent domain. Worth remembering.
I know this is a bit off message:
In September, 1830, the worlds first passenger railroad began operations in England, running between Liverpool and Manchester. By the end of the first week of operations six trains daily were running between the two cities. Almost as quickly, the number of stagecoaches making the trip was reduced from thirty to one. while the number of travelers increased from 500 to 1600. In addition, actual passenger revenue was exceeding estimates by 1000 per cent.
Our situation in California is obviously not the same as it was in England 180 years ago, but we are trying to construct a revolutionary transportation system just as they did. And just as the estimates of that time wildly underestimated the impact of the first passenger railroad, it is possible that we also may be wildly underestimating the effect that high speed rail will have upon us.
I have never in my life seen a place on earth that screams more loudly “Build a subway here, you idiots” than the Las Vegas Strip. Almost everything is in a straight line, and there are literally many tens of thousands of people who would use the service every day if it were available.
A subway would be fantastic, allowing easy access to both the Strip and downtown from the airport (and, presumably, the HSR station), while additionally providing an easy way to GET ACROSS THE STRIP without crossing a twenty lane road in the blistering sun.
Yes, we need HSR. But it needs to connect to something once we get to the station.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 10:47 pm
On the contrary: the Strip is so wide that LRT or an el would work just as well, for a fraction of the cost. The ideal condition for a subway is not a wide straight arterial; it’s a dense, mixed-use urban area, with streets that are too narrow or winding for els to work without deafening pedestrians.
rafael Reply:
May 25th, 2010 at 3:36 am
Have you ever noticed how casinos do their level best to attract patrons and then keep them inside the building for as long as possible, short of actual imprisonment? They have little interest in helping customers move up and down or across the strip more easily. People out on the street are people who are not spending any money.
elfling Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
They built the monorail, which is fun, but the stations are far from the action in the casinos.
Is there a reason for any California government to support this? It seems all it would do is make it easier for Californians to go to another state and spend money.
And most traffic in LA comes from people driving to and from work, not to and from Nevada, so it would not relieve much congestion in LA either.
Rafael Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 10:23 am
That’s why DX’s funding would come from private Nevada companies with the help of soft loans from the federal government under existing programs not specifically related to HSR. A connector to the California system would have to be funded the same way.
The state of California would benefit indirectly by collecting trackage fees from DX for the route sections on the California network. Allowing DX to connect might also make it easier for California to secure those all-important federal matching funds for its own project.
The argument that the DX project would merely make it easier for Californians to spend their money in Nevada is puritanical. People are free to drive or fly to Las Vegas right now. If you want the gambling dollars to stay in California, just legalize gambling in the Golden State (other than on tribal lands) and compete.
Matthew Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
One also has to take into account that tourism to both states would increase as people make combined trips. A little gambling followed by some time at the beach. All those casino dollars earned by Las Vegas employees could end up being spent at California hotels and retailers. Perhaps California residents would also consider picking up a weekend shift working at a casino if the trip were quick and affordable. The probable result is that there would be a net flow of money from California to Nevada, but it would also serve as a great advertisement for rail transit for the millions of people who ride the train, and would induce higher demand for California’s rail system. I’m not a huge fan of promoting gambling, but connecting large and economically active cities is generally a good thing for everyone involved.
rafael Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
@ Matthew -
“All those casino dollars earned by Las Vegas employees could end up being spent at California hotels and retailers.”
Only true if there are fast, direct trains between LV and California cities other than the metropolis of Victorville.