Sunday Open Thread
The following photo was sent to me by Aron Hegyi. It’s of a Siemens ad up at SFO, touting high speed rail:
This is part of a broader marketing campaign that includes TV ads and a website, as well as this YouTube video on the recent US Conference of Mayors report.
It’s good to see Siemens is out there aggressively promoting high speed rail. Sure, they have their own interest in it, but that’s a positive thing for us. Siemens is willing to expand their Sacramento factory to include HSR production, adding good, green manufacturing jobs at a time when California desperately needs them.
This is an open thread. More tomorrow morning on HSR financing.
UPDATE: Ryan Stern took this picture at LAX about 3 weeks ago of the same ad. It’s fantastic that Siemens is advertising in airports, a perfect place to build support for HSR.
Sunday Train is up, Sunday Train: A Dime A Gallon Tariff on Imported Oil for Energy Independent Transport
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 1st, 2010 at 9:17 pm
Neat piece, but how come it’s there on Daily Kos for so long before it shows up on your own Midnight Oil site?
BruceMcF Reply:
August 1st, 2010 at 9:20 pm
It was published to Midnight Oil first, and then the process of bringing it over to DailyKos started. But the community blogs are sometimes more responsive than blogspot.
While we’re talking about ads for trains, I saw this at a gas station: http://www.flickr.com/photos/8579276@N05/4848401807/
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 1st, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Does anybody here remember an old Amtrak poster from about 30 years ago? It portrayed a swan in flight, with the caption, “Not everybody was born to fly.”
jimsf Reply:
August 1st, 2010 at 9:49 pm
its here. I have seen this. we have lots of old poster boards collecting dust in backroom. Another one was “see america at “see” level
and another about the dining car – making revolving restaurants seem silly.
And really dreadful one that read – “we’re making the trains worth traveling again” sounds a bit clunky and convoluted and reminds me when jack in the box said “we’re blowing up the clown” most of you don’t remember that one.
jimsf Reply:
August 1st, 2010 at 9:50 pm
its here I mean
YesonHSR Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 9:08 pm
There was a reason the slogan was used… the last three or four years of private railroads passenger train were terrible… I kind of like early Amtrak though I was only a teenager in one of the few trains with relatives and the trains were cool back in the late 70-80s way better food and now a couple even had lounge pub discos..the Broadway limited ran overnight Chicago to New York.. not the 23 hours late sure Limited of today!!
Alon Levy Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 9:27 pm
It wasn’t always like that… ATSF got so pissed that Amtrak was degrading the Super Chief that to protect the brand it forced Amtrak to change the train’s name.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 1st, 2010 at 10:25 pm
More old (and some not so old) Amtrak ads (TV, courtesy YouTube):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0MIkduzGx4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iygSXXdGyXY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjITNdIMLmE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uo74XXWWsNM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqgN3DC0NSY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppUh-R4QHA4&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qbpNLGgr70&feature=related
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 1st, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Some other (sometimes strange) ads (Virgin):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkY498RpYbA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX173CZcNPc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYZOgNJ9eXM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvBCMDAokJE&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OdRnaTKk4M&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6WlOp6PI6k&feature=related
I like the old movie references, but I prefer the old movies!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hozCKWDOk9c&feature=related
Hmm, maybe we can use female train attendents. . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL1uud6Fy6M&feature=related
I wonder if there is some way we could use this; there is a lot of other (worse!) footage on YouTube that would make many a soul want to stay out of the air!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSqN7wDeQdM&feature=related
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 4:37 am
Maybe only loosely related, but perhaps there is a marketing lesson to be capitalized upon here.
http://server.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29793&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
For those living in San Jose, Santa Clara/San Benito County’s and the Central Coast section, here’s an idea that could be made possible with high-speed rail:
http://www.thesanjoseblog.com/2010/08/new-hypothetical-scenario-for-sjc.html
Peter Reply:
August 1st, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Right. Because we want to put the airport further away from the city. Especially after we just dumped $1.3 billion into our current airport in San Jose.
Tony D. Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:29 am
Peter,
See “25 years out in the future.”
See “adaptive reuse.”
Just because a new terminal was just built doesn’t mean the airport should remain downtown till Kingdom come.
Peter Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:33 am
Like political_incorrectness said below, SJC has WAYYYY more than enough capacity. There’s simply no reason to move the airport at this point. Maybe when San Jose has actually densified somewhat and needs that space, THEN it might make sense. But right now, there’s no reason to make it HARDER to get to the airport.
Samsonian Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Especially after we just dumped $1.3 billion into our current airport in San Jose.
It was never good idea for SJ leaders to pursue that. They did it because of their tiny, pathetic egos.
In any case, it’s a sunk cost.
SJC is not a viable long term airport, and it has nothing to do with its capacity. We can see it partly in the numbers, both airlines and passengers prefer SFO. If OAK gets multi-billion dollar investments, it too will become a preferred airport. SJC has few transcon flights, and almost no international flights, and a huge amount of short haul flights, which will go away with high oil and HSR.
The airport’s attributes really explain why. SFO and OAK are essentially in the bay and away from people, planes can fly in and out 24/7, no large buildings in the way, not many affected by noise pollution, etc.
None of those things are true for SJC. It’s inland and landlocked. Noise pollution over large parts of SJ, with nighttime restrictions as a result. And the flight path for landings goes right over downtown SJ, which has aviation-imposed building height restrictions. This prevents downtown SJ from growing up, and very detrimental to its long term viability.
It really comes down to SJ making a choice. Having a real downtown, or a downtown airport. It can’t have both.
Peter Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 4:36 pm
SJ has a LOT of infill densification to do before the height restrictions become a problem. Most of downtown is still 3 story buildings. 10+ stories are still easily possible without running into height restrictions.
Mostly only cargo goes in and out 24/7, and especially at night. Passenger flights are mostly limited to daytime hours anyway, with or without curfew hours.
Samsonian Reply:
August 3rd, 2010 at 10:27 am
SJ has a LOT of infill densification to do before the height restrictions become a problem
The height restrictions are a problem right now. They have been for quite some time, and will continue to foreclose on downtown development while an airport operates just north of downtown SJ.
Proposed new height limits near San Jose airport challenge developers: How low can they go?
SJ hopes to avoid airport-related downtown height limits
S.J. skyline vs. flight path: Airlines want lower-rises for emergency route
Airlines say downtown SJ buildings pose aviation hazard
Airlines object to 309-foot downtown SJ condo tower
Choice quote on why they don’t get it:
The San Jose Airport Commission and the Santa Clara County
Land-Use Commission have asked the San Jose City Council to consider
the economic impact on the airport these taller buildings will have
on Mineta San Jose.
“There seems to be a disconnect between what happens downtown and
the impact it will have on an airport that we will be spending $1.5
billion on to make it more desirable,” Airport Commission Chairman
Steve Tedesco says.
There seems to be a disconnect between what happens at a downtown airport and the impact it has on downtown, particularly among city leaders.
jimsf Reply:
August 3rd, 2010 at 10:32 am
Is there a shortage of office space in san jose? Is there a need for 40-60 story buildings? No. The majority of the valley’s economy does not happen downtown but in the vast surrounding areas.
Peter Reply:
August 3rd, 2010 at 10:39 am
Debating this is an even greater waste of time than synonymouse’s Tejon Pass v. Antelope Valley shtick. SJC has been built and is not going away ANY time soon. San Jose will have to deal with its height restrictions, and they know it. *Shrug*
Tony D. Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Thank you Samsonian! I’d choose a real downtown and an airport 40 miles away BUT 22 minutes away via high-speed rail!
jimsf Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:17 pm
You don’t just go building “real downtowns” they happen over time out of necessity. San Jose has a real downtown now. But people who live in Santa Clara County aren’t that fond of downtown lifestyles. They take caltrain up to sf for that when they want a little nip. I think there is probably a glut of office space in San Jose already so there really isn’t any demand for building more high rises. They are very expensive and difficult to keep full of tenants. Look, even Los Angeles with 10 million people, doesn’t have that much of a downtown, visibly or activity wise, and what it does have, its taken decades to reach even though LA itself has been a city of millions for those same decades. YOu know part of california’s appeal, part of the reason for its growth, is that people come here to get away from that rat race back east. Why would we want to turn our gorgeous geography and natural blessing into a dump like the NEC? Bleh!!!
wu ming Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:49 pm
as gas goes up, san jose’s downtown – like any downtown with adequate transit links – will look like a better and better deal. the densification will happen then, as you say, organically, as long as the infrastructure is there to support it.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Jim, you have to get off the train now and then along the NEC. The railroad has been there and has been very busy for 150 years. So people put the dank industrial stuff down by the tracks. Four blocks away from the tracks it looks just like California with a greater variety of trees and lot molre of them. .. not everybody likes sunbaked palms teetering in the middle of carefully irrigated lawns.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 3rd, 2010 at 12:29 am
Except for that school in Connecticut… where is it again, Greenwich?
jimsf Reply:
August 3rd, 2010 at 7:57 am
To be honest I haven’t even been back east since 1978. I spent one year in New England. On the way we drove from Florida ( another pit) up that 95 freeway, which was a nightmare, past DC and up through… well all I really remember is lots of rust, and smell, and broken down cars strewn along the freeway, then you could barley see nyc through this smog that was a totally different color than LA’s smog, then we went over this bridge and it was the george washington, and through a neighborhood that caused us to lock our doors and hold on tight, and there were the buildings, it looked they had been bombed, like those pics of Berlin from ww2, and someone had tried to hide the bombi-ness by putting fake coverings over the outside of the empty buildings well, I mean I remember asking my mom what this was and she said it was the slums, and I said I didn’t know we this in America. (lol) cuz you know, we had poor neighborhoods in cali but nothing that looked remotely like that, I mean that place was like what you’d see in the movies. And all the cars on the freeway were beat to hell and rusted out, same as when we got to boston. So I fear that with easterners infiltrating and trying to bring their lifestyle here, that they will turn us into that, because they haven’t any experience with natural beauty and thus don’t know any better. We like our lawns and palms and two tone beige stucco all neatly manicured with snowcapped mtn peaking above the smog. Its just a popular, manicured look. Its just our way. I haven’t been back east since, but I remember it like it was yesterday. I think I was traumatized by it. lol.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 3rd, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Well, Jim, two years ago I looked for an apartment in the area where you locked your doors, and nowadays it’s a thriving lower-middle-class neighborhood. The crime rate in is actually below city average.
And if you want natural beauty, I guess you could say downtown SF looks better than Manhattan. But go half an hour on the train north of Manhattan, and you’re in the lower Hudson Valley, along the river with the Palisades across (New Jersey is best enjoyed from a distance). Go another half an hour north and you hit the hiking trails. As long as you stay off I-95, the Northeast can be surprisingly scenic.
jimsf Reply:
August 3rd, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Well to be fair, I do remember new england as being very nice, the White Mountains and the Main Coast and such. But what worries me is the lack of appreciation for what makes a city like sf desirable in the first place, its livable scale and ample open space within the city limits in addition to the unparalleled nearby natural environment. ( this applies to nearly every part of california) More often than not the chant here from outsiders is flat rate “tear it down and make replace it with something bigger” or “hurry up and put something in that blank spot” as they want to have a big fat ugly crowded concrete jungle just for the sake of having one. People generally move here because sf is NOT what they left behind, but there are those who I think moved here because they couldn’t make it in new york, so they can do it here so much easier, but then they want to pretend like its ny. That’s what I think it is. My feeling is that one benefit of high speed rail in cali will be that it will allow those cities who are not pulling their full weight or potential, to step up and help even things out. Not to encourage sprawl, but spruce up and enliven their own downtowns so as to offer alternatives to newcomers so it doesn’t have to be ” I have to move to sf or la to have an exciting life” choice for them. LEt every medium size city be just as fabulous and just as accessible. ( and quit tryin to cram new condos in every freakin nook and cranny of town) Know what I mean?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 3rd, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Jim. Great big swaths of the Northeast and the Midwest look just like San Francisco.
There’s even a name for the phenomena, trolley suburb. It’s very very unusual in California bey it would blend right in Chicago or New York or Boston of Philadelphia or Cleveland or…
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 3rd, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Hey, hey, hey, you’ve had trolley suburbs for years in California, too. How do you think all those people living in all those cute little bungaloes you have out there got to work in the 1920s?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_car_suburb
Some random links; you ought to like the idea that trolleys still roll in Philadelphia.
http://www.phillytrolley.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaker_Heights,_Ohio
http://www.shakeronline.com/relocation/buying/ShakerNeighborhoods.asp
http://www.studio34yoga.com/trolley.php
http://www.salisburync.gov/lm&d/2020/ch03b/03bcityhistoryandcityform.htm
The link just above came from here:
http://www.salisburync.gov/lm&d/2020/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Electric_Railway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Railway
I’m mighty retro, and I’ve had people tell me I live in the wrong time (it’s one thing to think or feel it yourself, it’s another when a couple of other people tell you so!), but a couple of good things about today are the internet and YouTube!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDRY7DzbRGM&feature=fvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAPMvhD62kA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFhsrbtQObI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJuo2_pcUsE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhNDZV1uDUg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whW8c1OpO54&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whW8c1OpO54&feature=related
Explore and enjoy!
Michael Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:20 pm
SFO is only 12 miles from downtown SF.
political_incorrectness Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 12:57 am
This is really an impractical investment. San Jose has got enough capacity for the next half century at least as long as HSR is built.
Tony D. Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:29 am
See “downtown airport.”
Peter Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:46 am
I’d argue that San Jose is actually an example of a successful downtown airport. There are many, such as Berlin Tempelhof (now closed and converted into a park), who have outlived their original purpose, or London City, which was added as a bit of an afterthought, that are arguably a waste of valuable space.
SJC, on the other hand, has the advantage of having had enough space to expand to a size that other downtown airports could only dream of. It has two 11,000′ parallel runways, giving it ample runway capacity for many years to come. Those runways have now finally been upgraded so that they can serve even 747s. It has quick access to downtown San Jose (hence why it is called a “downtown airport”). It now actually finally has a road layout that does not make it a nightmare to drive to. There are many good reasons to keep San Jose.
An airport should only be moved for VERY good reasons. The fact that it is located near the downtown is actually a reason to keep it. Simply the fact that it might be attractive to developers is not a good reason to move it.
Caelestor Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 10:43 am
Yeah, downtown airports are only closed when there’s lack of capacity.
A downtown location makes it much more convenient and opens up the possibility of feasible public transportation to it.
thatbruce Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Compared to Heathrow/Gatwick and their express connections, London City was a real pita to get into the center of London from. Sure, it is the closest airport, but ground transportation to/from it was lacking.
Peter Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Not only that, but London City is tough to operate into. Crews need special training to land there. The ILS approaches (with the lowest approach minimums), has a STEEP glideslope of 5.5 degrees (normal is 3 degrees). Add to that the fact that the runway is only approximately 4500 feet long, and you can see why only smaller planes can go in there, limiting the airport’s utility.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Phoenix is another good downtown airport. McCarran is not really downtown, but it’s a spit’s distance from the Strip, which is where most visitors come to anyway; it’s getting congested, but Desert Xpress will probably relieve it.
Joey Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Phoenix isn’t really downtown. It comes close, but in terms of access and height conflicts, it’s nowhere near what SJC or Lindbergh Field are.
Samsonian Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 3:32 pm
I like it.
Realistically SJC isn’t even needed. SFO and OAK could handle all commercial traffic (especially after HSR, higher oil prices), and they’re more viable airports. If there is additional demand, then a new SJC could be built south.
Tony D. Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 7:40 pm
San Jose’s population over the next 30-40 years should grow by 200,000-300,000. That additional demand and growth not only make the argument for a new SJC south, but also that high-speed rail will be desparately needed as well to help get folks around. Glad you liked it Sam
!
Alon Levy Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 4:58 pm
What’s the point of adding airport capacity to a region whose largest air market is about to get decimated by HSR?
Bianca Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Um, because there are other places to fly besides just California? Taking out short hop flights isn’t going to leave the airports with excess capacity, it’s going to free up precious capacity for longer haul flights. And the population of the state will continue to grow, so it’s not like demand is going to freeze at current levels.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Long-haul flights don’t consume that much capacity, because they run large planes. Freeing up precious capacity for other flights is precisely what HSR will do; in conjunction with rising fuel prices encouraging (slightly) less flying and larger planes, this means that there may not be an airport capacity problem in the Bay Area in the future.
Peter Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 5:55 pm
Just so we’re clear on what “excess capacity” means for an airport: It simply means the number of arrival and departure slots. It doesn’t matter for capacity whether it’s a big or small plane.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:41 pm
I’m well aware. That’s why I’m plugging larger planes as a partial solution to airport congestion.
Caelestor Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 9:03 pm
My opinion is that the hub-and-spoke model is outdated and will be replaced by focus cities (and ultimately point-to-point) sometime in the future. Though I do think SJC is superfluous at the moment, this shift could increase its function in the future. Besides, closing it right now hardly does anybody good after spending so much money on renovation.
But yes, SJC does not warrant any more expansion, and it’s good to see the city leaders not trying to satiate their large egos on more white elephants. Now about that bridge…
They’ve had a similar poster at LAX for months now.
Joey Reply:
August 1st, 2010 at 9:06 pm
I’ve been seeing them all over … even outside of California.
Someone needs to buy that poster for Meg! Or are they jobs at McDonalds that she’s talking about?
She doesn’t know anything. She’s gonna buy here way in. Then fail.
wu ming Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:54 pm
i don’t think she’ll pull it off. while you need to have tons of money to win in CA, it’s ironically pretty hard to buy your way in if the perception is that your sole political asset is your fat checkbook. especially when the public is seething at plutocrat CEOs making bank while everyone struggles.
CA’s political landscape is littered with amateur plutocrat candidates, at the statewide level if not necessarily lower down.
-her way in-
Since it’s an open thread, I want to give a link to these Shinkansen track standards. A while ago, Richard and I argued over why slab track is preferred in tunnels. The linked article states that the reason to use slab track in tunnels is that “the lower track height reduces the cross-sectional area, cutting construction costs by about 30%.”
jimsf Reply:
August 1st, 2010 at 9:10 pm
Would slab be used on viaducts and tunnels and ballast at grade?
Peter Reply:
August 1st, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Slab appears to be preferable on aerials because it is lighter than ballasted track. That way the aerial could be built with less concrete.
Eric M Reply:
August 1st, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Hopefully they use slab track for the whole system. It may have a higher initial cost, but next to no maintenance and lasts a long time. I belie most systems are trying to switch to slab, aside from the French
jimsf Reply:
August 1st, 2010 at 9:51 pm
just seems ballast would be quieter and more comfy.
Joey Reply:
August 1st, 2010 at 10:03 pm
Vibrations shouldn’t be a problem for anyone, but noise is, both for the people on the train and those outside of it. Anyone who rides BART frequently knows this, though the difference is much less profound on other systems.
jimsf Reply:
August 1st, 2010 at 10:06 pm
yes the bart at grade sections are like night and day compared to the elevated and tunnel sections when it comes to noise. The fremont and concord lines have a lot of at grade on ballast section and you hardly hear them.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 1st, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Interestingly, this is essentially what the Washington DC Metro (subway/heavy rail) does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC_Metro
http://www.wmata.com/
http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=507
http://web.presby.edu/~jtbell/transit/Washington/Metro/
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Jon_Bell_Metro_Photos.html
http://www.urbanrail.net/am/wash/washington.htm
http://world.nycsubway.org/us/washdc/
An interesting point: This system has had a number of safety questions of late, largely due to now aging signal equipment compounded by a relative lack of money available to maintain it (and there have been a couple of serious wrecks with fatalities on this account). What is interesting, however, is when you go to a proposed budget, the Metrorail system typically requires only half the subsidy the Metrobus system does, but carries twice the passengers (and a much larger percentage of passenger miles)!
Doggone it, you’ll have to tease that out of the current proposal. . .it’s not as easy to spot in the current edition.
http://wmata.com/about_metro/docs/FY2011_Proposed_Budget.pdf
Joey Reply:
August 1st, 2010 at 10:16 pm
It’s not just the Washington Metro. BART and other commuter and/or metro systems do it, a number of high speed systems do it, etc. In fact, it’s pretty standard practice.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 1st, 2010 at 11:44 pm
The NYC Subway is ballast-free, as well. I can’t think of a single subway system that isn’t a commuter rail hybrid that has ballast; when you build a subway, the extra cost of slab is trivial, whereas the costs of a larger tunnel cross-section and of extra maintenance are large.
However, the RER is ballasted, even in its underground center-city segments.
Peter Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 7:32 am
Berlin U-Bahn is ballasted.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 12:01 am
If I’m not mistaken, the standards published by CHSRA call for building the entire system with slab track.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 1st, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Cool article, thanks for sharing; I in turn plan to pass it on to my friend with the interest in coast-to-coast service, who in turn knows some people from that “horrible” Parsons-Brickerhoff outfit. Be interesting to hear what feedback he’ll get.
The comments about track irregularities and their effects on a railroad car were also of interest, and reminded me of how track line and surface was judged on the Cumberland Valley Railroad over 100 years ago. On a relatively secondary railroad built for speeds in the 60+ mph range behind steam engines, the test consisted of running a train at top speed with the president’s private car, in which a very full glass of water was placed on a table. There were supposed to be no spills, or the track foreman had to answer some questions.
No doubt this is a very crude measure compared with electronic sensors and the like available today, and operations in the speed ranges of modern HSR requires much more precision in trackwork now, but for the time it worked, and ride quality would have been superb, although perhaps a bit noisy (jointed track back then with plenty of clickity-clack, no welded rail).
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 9:40 am
Alon, I agree with you that slab construction lowers track system height.
I disgree that this is significant (or even non-negligible) cost for high speed tunnels.
Check your order of magnitude arithmetic, man! ~40m^2 free air for 300kmh and ~0.5m hright reduction. (I know that you, unlike most, are capable of that.)
Alon Levy Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 5:07 pm
No, the height reduction is significant – the difference between a 4 meter radius and a 4.5 meter radius works out to 50 versus 63 m^2 of cross-section.
Or are you saying that the limiting factor is width and not height, making the track height less of an issue?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 10:02 pm
He’s saying that if you want to run trains through a tunnel at high speeds you need lots of free space around them so the windows don’t blow out.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 3rd, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Yes, thank you. What I’m saying here is that cutting track height by 0.5 meters significantly reduces the tunnel cross-section for a given amount of free air.
PBS show SoCal Connected had a piece last month called DWP, High-Speed Rail.
StevieB Reply:
August 1st, 2010 at 11:02 pm
http://www.kcet.org/socal/socal_connected_online/episodes/season-2/dwp-high-speed-rail-marcos-villatoro-r-1.html
Joey Reply:
August 1st, 2010 at 11:08 pm
Starts at about 14 minutes
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 1st, 2010 at 11:38 pm
It simply amazes me that the Reason Foundation crowd and others totally, totally ignore peak oil, highway operational limitations, highway subsidies, and make all kinds of assertions about behavior, particularly when we are seeing that demographic shift to trains among the young. And it is equally, if not more amazing, that the media doesn’t call them on this; it’s not like these issues haven’t been seen and reported on before, some from several years back.
mrcawfee Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 12:00 am
Not to mention that he pretty much admitted that they made up their 60-80 billion dollar estimate
political_incorrectness Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 1:00 am
Even at$ 80 million a mile for a 480 mile system the cost is still below $40 billion bucks. $64 billion for full buildout.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 1:20 am
What’s the matter with the media people? Didn’t they learn basic math to figure out what Political Incorrectness could figure in seconds?
jimsf Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 9:18 am
Math? they can’t even write.
political_incorrectness Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 1:50 pm
I wonder the same thing D.P. I want to see what the practical labor cost is in other countries and compare it to what workers would demand here. I am certain France doesn’t pay labor cheap due to all the protesting they do when wages are not high enough. I want to see a labor comparison cost in other countries on a per hour basis for construction of HSLs as this might determine how accurate costs are. Right now, the Reason Foundation’s cost projections do not make sense at all.
http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/12397/1/MPRA_paper_12397.pdf Page 14 shows the most expensive infrastrucutre has been constructed in Italy at $65.8 million euros/km. Now assuming that figure would bring the system to $64 billion. However, these were for lines under construction in 2006 meaning it was probably the Florence-Bologna tunnel segment which of course will cost more per km. Taiwan’s figure of $82 million per mile would give a Shinkansen style system all around but it excludes land acquisiton and planning costs.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Yes, the cost figure for Italy is the Florence-Bologna subway. However, the UK is planning to build HS2 at-grade for about the same per-km cost, for reasons I still don’t understand.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 11:02 pm
Simplest explanation that fits the evidence:
English as a first language >= irreparable transportation brain damage.
(Please note: English is my first and only fluent language.)
Never ever ever under any circumstance hire a native English speaker as a transportation planner or decision maker. Yes, you might miss out on a competent employee once ever decade o so, but he odds of catastrophic failure due to Anglophone brain death outweigh this by many orders magnitude.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 3rd, 2010 at 12:28 am
The US and UK are pretty bad about this, sure. But Canada isn’t. I don’t know a single example of a first-world rail line with a lower per-rider cost than Calgary’s C-Train; the initial three lines cost about $2,700 per weekday boarding, and the per-boarding operating cost is $0.27. Vancouver’s Skytrain is also fairly well-run, though not to anywhere near the same degree. Both systems were planned by local Anglophones, who just took the time to learn from European examples and aggressively upzoned near the train stations to raise ridership.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 3rd, 2010 at 1:04 pm
By the way, Political_Incorrectness, France has about the same hourly wages as the US. Its GDP per capita is lower entirely because of shorter working hours. Norway, which built a tunnel-heavy HSR line for about the same per-km cost as tunnel-free LGVs, has high hourly wages as well.
Arthur Dent Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 1:22 am
According to the World Bank’s own research on cost estimates, an 800-mile system is approx. $45-90 billion. Looks like that 60-80B is within reason.
Robert, how about a piece on their newly released HSR report?
Alon Levy Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 2:50 am
And according to SNCF, it’s exactly as claimed in the current budget.
Arthur Dent Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 3:40 am
No surprise there. But unlike SNCF, the World Bank doesn’t have a dog in the race.
Did you read the report? It’s about as unbiased as you’re going to get.
Caelestor Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 11:31 am
I agree with that report.
Congested corridor? Check.
Less than 750 km? Check.
Peter Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 11:50 am
A number of cities along the route suitable for stations? Check.
480 miles for Phase I x $80 million/km=$38.4 billion? Check.
Joey Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 11:54 am
Peter: I presume you mean $80m/mile
Peter Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Gahh, yes, sorry, forgot the conversion. *Facepalm*
Well, using $42 billion for phase 1 at 480 miles gives us $87.5m/mile. That’s $54m/km. That is right within the World Bank’s estimate of $35-70m/km.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 4:13 am
To once again paraphrase Winston Churchill, the World Bank has an excellent grasp of the obvious.
Peter Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 7:37 am
I’m sorry, but since when is Phase I, for which the $42 billion number has been given, 800 miles? Only if you consider total track miles would it be anything that high.
jimsf Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 9:32 am
Well on thing we can bet is that hsr will need to use fare buckets/ yield management to optimize revenue on each train based on demand. Hsr tickets will be like airline and amtrak tickets and not like bart tickets with early birds getting the worm and latecomers/the unprepared paying more. There will likely be at least classes of service in addition to restricted fares and passes. Thats’ why I was baffled by the initial media reports of “59 dollars from sf-la” or whatever they were saying. Ridiculous. Everyone knows there isn’t one fare. Fares are based on availability.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 9:56 am
Reach for the stars!
Right.
jimsf Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 10:19 am
yes richard right
jimsf Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 10:21 am
Travel data 1 adult, BahnCard 25 (2nd class), 2nd class
Outward journey
from
Departure Arrival
to
Change other data Refresh
Print viewSelection outward journey – Selection
Station/Stop Date Time Duration Chg. Products Savings fares Standard fare
Earlier
Hamburg Hbf
Tu, 10.08.10 dep 07:08 1:36 0 ICE 21,75 EUR
Purchase
52,50 EUR
Purchase
Choose return trip
Berlin Hbf (tief) Tu, 10.08.10 arr 08:44
Hamburg Hbf
Tu, 10.08.10 dep 08:06 1:39 0 ICE 29,25 EUR
Purchase
52,50 EUR
Purchase
Choose return trip
Berlin Hbf (tief) Tu, 10.08.10 arr 09:45
Hamburg Hbf
Tu, 10.08.10 dep 08:31 2:02 0 EC 21,75 EUR
Purchase
42,00 EUR
Purchase
Choose return trip
Berlin Hbf (tief) Tu, 10.08.10 arr 10:33
Show details for all Later
Peter Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 10:24 am
It looked to me like the EC fare is lower than all the ICE fares. That’s the same way the HSR fares will likely be higher than Amtrak fares along the same route.
Peter Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 10:31 am
That’s VERY rudimentary yield management, Jim. I don’t think that would even qualify as such.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 10:32 am
There won’t be any Amtrak fares along the same route.
Peter Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 10:34 am
“There won’t be any Amtrak fares along the same route.”
Right, which is why there are EC trains along the same route as the ICE travels. Or why there are slower commuter trains on the NEC when you could just take the Acela.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 10:44 am
The NEC is three and four tracked between New Haven CT and Wilmington DE with minor exceptions where all the traffic is moving at the same speed. And a few minor exceptions where it’s more than four tracks where traffic isn’t moving at the same speed. At peak there are 26 trains an hour through the North River Tunnels. They are able to do that because all of the trains, from a NJTransit Gladstone Express to an Acela are all moving at the same speed. Put a 100 MPH San Joaquin on the two tracked sections and you lower capacity severely.
jimsf Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 10:44 am
Here you see DB fares for the same train they have a “standard” and a “saver” and those are 2nd class fares
and then two more fares for first class $49 and $113.
then other fares if you have a bahn card. special fares if that are train specific versus anytime.
If you have bahn card the 2nd class fares are 39 (“savings fare”) and 70 (“regular fare”)
and 49 and 56 in first with a bahn card.
There are also several types of bahn cards.
So there are at least 12 different prices for the same train. And thats not counting rail pass pricing.
The prices also change based on how far out you book. You know, just like amtrak and airlines.
jimsf Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 10:53 am
The overall financial performance of high-speed train services depends on enough people being able to pay a premium to use them. In Japan there is a surcharge for high-speed rail which doubles the fare on conventional services. China high-speed train fares are about three times conventional train fares. ****But in order to generate the required volume of passengers it will usually be necessary not only to target the most affluent travelers but also to adopt a fare structure that is affordable for the middle income population and, if any spare capacity still exists, to offer discount tickets with restrictions on use and availability that can fill otherwise unused seats.****
jimsf Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 12:36 pm
I’d bet lunch at Boulevard that the ca hsr fare model will most resemble the sncf tgv model as exampled here on a paris -lyon run – a two hour trip.
Four classes of service
-economy 57, 69, 74, 100.
-freedom 96, 122.
-comfort 81, 113, 157,
-premier 195.
all four classes have various levels of restrictions.
In addition to offering those four types of tickets, prices all vary by time of day with peak demand times having higher prices. With a total of 10 fares across 4 classes based on demand. Only “premier” has a set price regardless of time of day. In addition to those 7 fares across 4 classes based on demand there are discounts for youth, children, and seniors.
If you choose a different date, the fare buckets are the same but the prices per each departure time are different.
And all of that excludes pass riders be they locals or international.
Just they the way it is now. Ca HSR will do it just like that.
Peter Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:11 am
“We didn’t like their estimate, so we just made up a new one.”
jimsf Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 9:20 am
another example of lack of interest in trains… not.
wu ming Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 10:37 am
it’s not that hard to explain, the reason foundation gets a ton of funding from big oil interests. obfuscating is what they get paid to do.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 7:32 pm
Quite frankly, I am steamed that they get paid good money to lie, and we can’t really speak the truth because we don’t get on TV.
They get paid to be bad, and we are good for nothing (stole that one from Red Skelton!)
How do we effectively deflate these clowns? They are at least part of the reason the politicians are so timid about promoting transit of any kind, yet as has been discussed here and elsewhere before, we need this service to get off the oil diet and promote jobs that do something useful. I for one am tired of these liars delaying what we are needing more and more desperately every year.
I am ready for a new America that has a lot of features that look like an old America we were so foolish to throw away.
political_incorrectness Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:16 pm
Start at the local level. Respond to negative opinions and perhaps through CA4HSR send an op-ed piece to papers in the region. If they refuse to publish, it shows that the media has stacked against HSR.
jimsf Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:25 pm
“the media” isn’t stacked against hsr, the media only cares about the media and at the moment its chic to jump on the “oh know the spending! the debt! the government interference! the horror of it all!” they do it on cnn cuz they did it on fox cuz they did it msnbc and then the locals who are like little brothers and sisters have to ump on the “us too” bandwagon… after all if that’s how everyone is getting ratings then we’d all better do it. Oh sure they took a five minute course on “objectivity” back in journalism school, but everyone knows that getting ratings, and a contract are like way more important cuz you know, that’s just reality besides they can always justify whatever they want.
The change in american societies values between early 70s and now is absolutely astounding. This is a country completely devoid of group consensus on what’s right , or moral compass.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:40 pm
I don’t think there’s much need to deflate Reason. As far as liars go, they’re not especially effective. In recent years Americans have tired of traffic jams so much that they sometimes vote 2-to-1 to build rail projects with cost projections so high that in Europe they’d make heads roll. One political party has already embraced smart growth; another has a large contingent of people who actually listen to Cox et al, but also a contingent of urban conservatives who like mass transit, at least as long as the workers are not unionized. The limit to constructing a world-class rail system in the US is no longer political; it’s that the costs are several times as high as in the rest of the first world.
Peter Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:50 pm
I’m getting nearly 23 million Euros/km for DB’s Neubaustrecke Erfurt–Leipzig/Halle. Assuming the current exchange rate, that’s $29m/km. That does not include capital costs for trainsets, for example, whereas CA’s $42 billion does (not that the trainsets are a substantial part of the cost).
Peter Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:59 pm
And DB’s Neubaustrecke Wendlingen–Ulm is planned for 34 million Euros/km. That gives $44m/km. So, given that CHSRA’s cost estimates include planning, land acquisition, construction costs, and trainsets, I’m not so certain we’re THAT much more expensive than all other HSR first world HSR systems.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 9:23 pm
The estimates for HSR construction cost in the US are actually in line with European costs. Even the New Haven-Boston electrification project, which endured serious cost overruns, ended up having about the same per-km cost as a recent electrification in Scotland. It’s the local transit where the US is excessively expensive. US subway projects can expect to cost 2-7 times as much as comparable European or Japanese lines. Commuter rail can have an even higher cost premium, largely because of the FRA.
Even LRT doesn’t cost more per-km in the US than abroad. However, it’s usually poorly planned, with little upzoning near stations and poor integrations with buses, leading to a high per-rider cost. Canada usually gets it right: while its mainline rail is even worse than in the US, thanks to similar regulations, its LRT and subway costs tend to be in line with European costs, barely higher, or, in Calgary’s case, much lower.
Caelestor Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 9:05 pm
I’ve always wondered why this happens. I have a feeling it may be how contractors are chosen (RM’s going to have a field day with this one), but I would appreciate it if someone could elaborate further.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 9:26 pm
The commenters on Second Avenue Sagas who’re familiar with the process say the issue is that New York (as well as other US cities, presumably) draws over-exacting specifications, holding quality constant while varying price. The process is so byzantine that all the competent contractors bail out and get private sector work, saddling the MTA with people who are too corrupt or incompetent to work for anyone else.
Caelestor Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 10:52 pm
I see. Clearly, the process needs reform; otherwise, the MTA is permanently screwed (I do follow SAS btw).
wu ming Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:57 pm
the way you deflate them is to increase taxation on the wealthy interests that fund them as mouthpieces.
Item of interest:
This link is to the weblog of Nine Shift, which is the website and book title of William A. Draves amd Julie Coates; Mr. Draves is the one quoted so extensively about the internet and its effect on car sales in the story about the changing demographics of the auto the appeated in Advertising Age a while back.
I personally think he may be overrating the impact of the internet, but at the same time, I think he sees other things, and is worth a look.
http://nineshift.typepad.com/
http://nineshift.com/