CA4HSR’s Daniel Krause on KPCC at 11AM
“Will High-Speed Rail happen in CA?” is one of the discussion topics for this two-hour LA-based morning show “Airtalk with Larry Mantle” on KPCC, 89.3.
Discussion on HSR should air around 11am to 11:30am. Daniel Krause, Executive Director of Californians For High Speed Rail, is one of three guests discussing high speed rail.
You can listen via the link above, or tune into to 89.3 if you are lucky enough to live in LA. And the call-in number is 866-893-5722.
One idea that got me thinking: all the talk about HSR in CA is about carrying passengers only between SF/Sacramento down to LA and SD. Anti-HSR critics claim this to be a boondoggle, mainly those who are the rich snobs who own businesses so they see no benefit on their end. In contrast, commercial airplanes that fly intra-California carry passengers as well as some cargo and freight for the benefit of commerce here in CA.
So then, why not push HSR as a possible alternative to move freight amidst to counter high gas prices? I mean, HSR can not only carry passengers, but it can also move postal items and courier packages right?
Say by converting one passenger high speed railset for use by USPS, UPS, FedEx, and DHL, couldn’t they utilize them for their benefit instead of using planes or big rigs to deliver items between NorCal and SoCal?
Or how about high speed freight rail to deliver agricultural produce between Central Valley and NorCal/SoCal? I’m sure farmers will benefit by cheaply transporting goods over HSR freight than paying ever increasing fuel surcharges to big rig trucking companies.
I’m sure HSR will gain more supporters if the proposed HSR was a multi-use rail service that handles passengers AND commerce.
thatbruce Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 10:21 am
HSR freight works for high value, low weight/volume packages (eg, the French postal service and their yellow TGVs). Low value freight such as ag produce is better carried by the existing transportation services.
Derek Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 10:35 am
How about freight using electric locomotives that aren’t high speed?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 10:43 am
Track weight limitations come into play. Freight is about 33-35 tons per axle, HSR is about 17 tons per axle. To my knowledge, you can generally compensate with lower speeds, but that throws everything to hell when it comes to train meets and such; the average speed an HSR train can make is lowered a lot (while not looking at it in the context of freight, Clem’s blog has some good info on that).
Coming from that, there’s two problems:
1. The majority of freight is on a different axis than what HSR is constructed for.
2. There’s no lack of capacity which requires building a separate HSR line and then sharing it with freight.
Funding improvements to the already existing San Joaquin Valley Railroad would take care of all the non-PR benefits.
Ken Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
If HSR can handle up to 17 tons per axle (x4 on an average HSR car set? = 64 tons?), doesn’t that provide a bigger advantage over at least the big rig 18-wheeler that can legally carry only up to 40 tons?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
Most people don’t ship gravel using overnight delivery. The cargo, assuming it makes sense to go through the hoops needed to put it on a train, won’t be very heavy.
Ken Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
How about perishible agricultural goods from the Central Valley to NorCal/SoCal?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 2:51 pm
yes, that’s why there’s a conga line of air freighters hauling produce to the East Coast.
http://www.railexusa.com/
Conventional rail is fast enough for lettuce. It doesn’t get bored if it sits on a siding for an hour and half.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
But it provides no advantage over a much cheaper slow diesel that serves the same area anyhow.
Andy M. Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 6:04 am
This is already done in Germany. All the HS lines except Frankfurt-Cologne also accept freight and some shippers are prepared to pay a premium fior the faster service.
Andre Peretti Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 5:25 am
Yesterday I wrote a post about a European project by Fedex and La Poste to replace local flights by high-speed trains. Link:
EURO CAREX high-speed freight
The yellow TGVs currently used by Fedex and LaPoste are just seatless trains not designed for fast loading and unloading of air-freight containers. CAREX will use specially designed cars.
Fedex has its European hub at Roissy (Paris CDG airport) from where containers arriving on B-747s are dispatched to their final destinations on smaller planes. The problem is those planes often sit idle for long hours because of airport curfew. It’s a waste of time and money.
High-speed rail, which can run at night, will save time and money. There has been some reluctance on the German side because CAREX would give Fedex and LaPoste an edge at the expense of DHL’s near-monopoly in Germany. The British have been favorable from the start, but trains will have to stop at London until HS2 is built.
Can the CAREX model work in the US? That’s the question.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 10:03 am
FedEx’s North American hub is in Memphis, UPS’s in Louisville. They both sort the packages at the origin and your overnight package from San Jose to Santa Rosa never gets on an airplane. Your package from Long Beach to Chicago goes to Memphis or Louisville. All the packages for Southern California get on a plane going to Southern California and all the packages going to Northern California get on a plane going to Northern California. Why would they put packages for Southern California on the plane going to Northern California or vice versa?
Andre Peretti Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
That’s what I thought. The CAREX model would make no sense in the US. Yet, I suppose there must be a large amount of goods transported by plane between south and north California. These could be transported by HSR. Unless everything goes through the hub, like LA-Memphis-SF.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 10:32 am
Amusingly, I just posted a bit about it on my blog (most recent entry) in regards to shipping air cargo between San Diego and Ontario Airport via HSR. Ontario Airport has the potential to become a sort of HSR freight hub if FedEx or UPS decided to consolidate down to it and use train for shipping to/from major urban markets of CA from there on overnight and other packages. It is going to be limited to time critical however, since HSR has a major capacity problem compared to regular freight (single level containers and 400m trains at best vs double stacked and three kilometers long as a routine BNSF train). Furthermore, the north-south orientation is contrary to the major flows of freight traffic, which are east-west (and have been since the beginning of US railroading).
That being said, once we’ve built HSR or at least got it onto a self-funding path, we should look into working with UP, BNSF, and the Class II and III railroads for improving the freight lines, access, and the introduction of electrification on the busier lines where feasible.
synonymouse Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 10:49 am
So why not bankroll the UP and the Santa Fe to upgrade both the Tehachapi and 99 corridors to speed up freight and reintroduce passenger service in the case of Tehachapi. Electrification is going to be a difficult sell to the class 1′s unless they resolve to electrify the entire trunk. Public funding might be required here.
Remember the Santa Fe had wanted to build Tejon. My guess is that they recognized looming competition from trucking and decided against such a large infrastructure investment. But even the USRA, afaik, didn’t pump any money into railroad infrastructure. But soon governments at all levels would spend a fortune on improving and building roads and highways.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 11:16 am
Because if we can completely separate passenger and freight along the major trunklines, it’s worth doing. Even with double tracking Tehachapi and such, freight traffic will quickly take up the capacity anyhow. By 2035, freight rail traffic is supposed to nearly double after all from 2005′s level.
I was speaking in terms of public funding anyhow, partnered with theirs.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 11:20 am
That freight level is with no modal shift, mind you, while we can expect a modal shift from trucking to rail thanks to higher fuel prices, with the result of even higher freight traffic.
VBobier Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 11:31 am
Caltrans I read is proposing to upgrade the shared UPrr/BNSF double-tracking over the Tehachapi Mountains from Mojave to Bakersfield with BNSF paying half, It’s been an on and off again subject, I found the original thread that I’d read, It’s Here, It’s an entry that You made Syno, It’s dated: May 16th, 2011 at 11:25 am. Hey more jobs, Good idea Syno, But You’d mentioned this before…
synonymouse Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 11:39 am
I was suggesting a much more ambitious, and of course much more costly, upgrade.
Peter Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 11:45 am
Isn’t that your hallmark? “Suggest” something entirely unaffordable or wasteful?
synonymouse Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Well, I guess then that the Capital Corridor is “something entirely unaffordable or wasteful?”.
Peter Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
WTF are you talking about?
I’m referring to your entirely wasteful “suggestion” for CA to upgrade BNSF and UPRR through the SJV.
What the hell does that have to do with the Capitol Corridor?
synonymouse Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 1:03 pm
public money to class 1′s to double track etc. for the purpose of improving passenger service amongst other goals.
thatbruce Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Classic red herring. Younger people may recognize the Chewbacca Defense instead.
Ken Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
SF is also the gateway of international mail and packages; most of my packages from East Asia go via SFO instead of direct to LAX for whatever reason.
The US Postal Service could also utilize HSR to deliver overseas mail from SF to LA at a fraction of the cost of using planes or trucks to bring them down to LA.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
USPS doesn’t do international overnight deliveries. Conventional rail is fast enough. FedEx packages go to Memphis, UPS packages to Louisville. DHL packages used to go to someplace in Ohio but DHL is pulling out of the North American market and closed their hub if I remember correctly.
Ken Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
Doesn’t USPS still send packages overnight once it arrives at the first US port?
Using EMS trackings of some of my stuff from East Asia, an EMS package will arrive at SFO in the afternoon and by next day it’s already “out for delivery” here in LA. All I could think of is that they haul a big rig from SF to LA along with other US bulk mail or they piggyback it on a commercial airplane. Wouldn’t piggybacking USPS postal mail onto HSR work rather than a big rig or a commercial airplane that’s prone to rising fuel costs (and of which contributes to higher postage rates)?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Or they are shipping it LA by rail now.
thatbruce Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
@Ken:
To expand on adirondacker12800′s comment, UPS (and Fedex etc) already put their parcels in road trailers, take them to the rail yard, and put them on a train.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 10:14 pm
Put “UPS train” into the search box in YouTube. The foamers love to go down to the tracks and video the UPS train going past. It’s not a dedicated UPS train but it seems like half the containers on it have UPS logos on them. Or half the trailers or both.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJj1kodSXnE
swing hanger Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 11:18 pm
Maybe they like it because it actually runs to a schedule (more or less), unlike the majority of freight.
Nathanael Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
It’s fun watching the intermodals go by at 50mph.
FedEx Ground, UPS, FedEx Ground, UPS, Roadway, Yellow,… half of them are trucking companies. The other half are shipping companies. The funny part is realizing that whichever trucker you hire to take your package, if it’s going a long way, they all end up on the same train.
I haven’t seen the US Postal Service use dedicated intermodal containers, which is actually a bit odd; maybe they don’t have enough mail to fill a container?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Apparently, according to rumors in comments on Trains.com, the USPS doesn’t do long haul freight anymore and sub contract it out to common carriers. So that intermodal with some private company’s logo splashed all over it may be filled with mail.
thatbruce Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
DHL is pulling out of the US Domestic market. They still ship to/from the US of course.
Andre Peretti Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 6:24 am
I remember an article (whose link I lost) about future development of international flights. With the increase of oil price and the introduction of CO2 tax every extra mile will hurt. On the other hand, political and technical obstacles to the shorter polar route will disappear. This will give SFO an edge over LAX: less fuel, more payload. SFO will thus become the preferred airport for fast-developping Asian and Middle-Eastern airlines.
In the article, airports were represented by circles. SFO’s circle was 3 times as large as LAX’s.
So, you could imagine for instance:
Dubai-SFO: B-747 or A-380
SFO-LA: HSR.
Seems to make sense, both for economy and ecology.
Of course, it supposes easy access to HSR. Just an escalator to the platforms lile at Paris CDG.
William Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
HSR Freight can only work if the loading/off-loading time of the freight is very small, i.e. similar to time allotted to passengers for boarding/alighting, so most likely it would be small packages/boxes that are either handled by couriers riding with the train, mail-bags thrown off the train by on-board postman, or pre-positioned staff at the station so freight can be off-load quickly.
thatbruce Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
mail-bags thrown off the train? really?
You’re thinking of freight being run in conjunction with passenger operation, utilizing the same stopping times and trainsets. While conceivably this could be done, it would require a greater and more consistent level of time-sensitive coordination than I’ve seen from US operations. Instead, reference the HSR operations of the French La PostĂ©. Essentially, they have a small fleet of dedicated TGV sets, which run from hub to hub around the country, staying in each (hub) station for as long as required to offload/onload mail in sealed trolleys. Other services continue past them.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
“. . .mail-bags thrown off the train. . .”–William and That Bruce
I am assuming both know that this was one method of mail handling that actually was used, and for a long time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnGfWw7Bgu0&NR=1
Even more interesting was mail pick-up, here reenacted by the Illinois Railway Museum:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P2qWzJ5XXY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z3rVCIJbUs&NR=1
Yes, sometimes things got interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhiRDtmp75A&feature=related
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
The Brits did this, too, with the refinement of having the mail land in a rope basket, rather than just throwing it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdRxzXeazdg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_oekWnniDU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZdWxPuhsyQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDYlrsih_Wk
Of course, you wouldn’t do this today, but the historical perspective does add perspective. . .
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
I had this thought myself earlier in regards to mail. It’s one way that the system could get an operating subsidy that isn’t a subsidy. Since mail already used to be delivered by train anyway, it’s not as if the USPS can’t fix it’s delivery system to adjust for it (and the airlines would be happy, since it would free up more space they can sell for cargo).
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Or go out of business because the USPS pays premium rates to get mail cross country on planes. They don’t use planes to get mail from Fresno to San Francisco. I doubt they use planes for mail going between Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
I believe the USPS pays a premium rate for things like the bypass mail program in Alaska, but I believe the airlines are required to stow a certain amount of space for mail. Even at premium prices, it doesn’t fluctuate as much as prices would for the space if it was freed up.
Rick Geddes is a liar!!
OT: Columnist Tom Elias writes HSRA planners show signs of wising up.
synonymouse Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
I could not put it better myself. This is the opinion of the average Californian. Sorry, San Jose, Palmdale, yada yada.
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Am I missing something here????? Does BART have secret tracks that would allow one to get to SF on a nonstop train? Where are all the people who don’t live in SF and Oakland going to park?
Furthermore, I don’t think the planners are giving up on Palmdale, they are simply not too thrilled with the costs associated with Tehachapi. But I think what van Ark is doing is providing cover to the City of LA by verifying you can’t do 2:40 unless you stick to the original alignment or build the West Coast version of the Big Dig underneath the 5. That way, he gets more flexibility from them in areas he wants….
Joey Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
BART has enough excess capacity on the Dublin-Pleasanton line to skip stops as far as Bay Fair. Beyond that, there’s a little less room, but then again the only stops you might want to skip are probably San Leandro and Fruitvale.
Joey Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Of course, this would all be a temporary solution – ultimately HSR needs to end up at city centers regardless of routing.
GoGregorio Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
But it’s disingenuous to suggest that BART would run special trains that do not stop between Embarcadero and Livermore. Sure, it could clear out a few trains to force it to happen. They could also build bypass tracks through Oakland. Doesn’t mean they will.
I wouldn’t mind the oversimplification, except that it makes it seem as though this is an obvious, easy solution that’s being ignored. Not only would it not satisfy Prop 1a to merely build to Livermore and allow BART to do the rest, it would also require a lot of cooperation from BART, which, um.
Joey Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Right. Nonstop expresses are neither feasible nor desirable. At the very least you’re stopping at Bay Fair and Lake Merritt, and probably Coliseum and West Oakland as well.
Joey Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
And like I said above, anyone who thinks this is a viable long-term alternative is delusional. It could work as an interim solution though, as tracks are built toward SF.
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
No, I don’t think it’s viable even then. The reason is that I’ve looked at the headwinds through the tunnel and the Blue Line is only able to run 15 minutes. Even if this becomes an express line…it still has to stop somewhere else to pick up passengers from the East Bay. Except in rare cases, that’s going to take longer than driving to Livermore in the first place…..
Joey Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
My best guess indicates that driving from downtown SF will take about as long as BART, even with all stops. The issue of Transbay capacity is worth consideration though. It’s true – BART doesn’t have any spare capacity at peak hours. So express trains might be limited to off-peak hours anyway (driving is slower at peak anyway). For people traveling to SF, this would be a lot more convenient than renting a car in Livermore, especially since you would have to park it in downtown SF. For people traveling from the Bay Area, well, some will just drive to their nearest station anyway, but that would happen regardless.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Yes. A great deal. Uniformly.
synonymouse Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
Interestingly Elias has not considered the possibility of a high-speed wye, a half grand junction, at the northern end of the Grapevine. Both Bakersfield and Fresno can be served, from both north and south originations, at very impressive speeds and travel times. And of course, the 99 corridor north of Fresno can be incrementally upgraded as monies become available. Meantime Bakersfield and Fresno are on the hsr, as well as Sac, with its 3 million souls and state offices, State Fair, state museums, etc.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 8:20 pm
How many miles of track do you have to build to do this? I-5 doesn’t go through Bakersfield or Frenso. What does it do to the frequency? How long does it take to go from Bakersfield to Fresno with the long detour out to I-5 and back in?
synonymouse Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Fresno would be the terminus of runs south from Sac and north from LA. Most trains would be express LA-Livermore-Sac.
Joey Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
1) How do you manage to put Livermore on LA-Sac?
2) How exactly would incremental upgrades really work? Most of the route is a single-track freight corridor, meaning that it’s not suitable for passenger service of any respectable frequency of speed. It’s also not electrified, meaning that you’d have to invest a large sum of money just to get any service whatsoever. You can use BNSF south of Fresno, but north of there, the route you want to use is owned by UP which will neither accept incremental upgrades nor passenger trains. So you’re building dedicated track anyway. Is it really worth all this just to save 5 minutes (assuming Grapevine for both scenarios)?
BruceMcF Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:01 am
oh, on (1), easy, just run to livermore then use the star trek train transporter to Sac. Perfect solution, given that its a syntho-mouse red herring.
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:55 am
Well you have to wonder, Bruce.
HSR to Livermore would strengthen BART. It would be obvious there would have to be serious capital upgrades to make it a tenable solution. So then you are back to San Jose, and using Cal Train to shift traffic. But wait, for the cost of electrifying Cal Train, you can have BART ring the Bay….
It’s not even about red herrings.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 10:44 am
Could you really have BART ring the bay for the cost of electrifying Caltrain? What infrastructure are you talking to take BART from Millbrea to Fremont through San Jose?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
And people in Bakersfield hitchhike to Fresno when they want to go someplace? How frequently does the train run? Livermore isn’t along the way if you are going from Los Angeles to Sacramento.
VBobier Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 8:44 pm
This idea while good sounds like double the tracks in the valley and at least double the cost, Don’t get Me wrong here, I do think It’s a good idea Syno, In the future if there is a compelling need, sure, Just not for now. We need to get the Test Track built as that is where 220 mph can be done, without this, there is no HSR, Since If the project were started elsewhere, It would just be glorified light rail, Albeit a bit faster, a real waste of money.
VBobier Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
Here’s My reason Syno for why Your nice idea is not needed now, It cause of passing sidings at stations, trains that pickup & drop off passengers stop on the sidings, Not on the Mainline, As the platforms for loading and unloading do not cross the sidings(unless their stub sidings, then they conceivably could, But then passengers are not picked up on the mainline at a station, anywhere in the world), The trains that don’t need to stop at a station can go through the station at full speed as is usual for the area and I’ve seen this happen on YouTube showing HSR trains in Japan doing this and this doesn’t matter if the trains are a local or an express, That’s how trains are routed as each has Its own set of preset destinations to go to.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 11:42 pm
like you Super Bitch Richard
Joey Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 12:01 am
Do you have anything constructive to add to this discussion, or are you just going to call people names?
YesonHSR Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 12:26 am
What would you like to call you?
YesonHSR Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 12:32 am
Stop all the PC stuff honey.. a lot of people areready to kill this project and people like you let them because you don’t flight.. you know the Nimbys in Burlingame are running a full propaganda campaign against this project one of them was a city councilman but I guess you would be nice to him… try and play football some time and see who wins nice little babies get their heads kicked in the dirt that will happen with high-speed rail if you keep acting like they’re not able to kill it.. you and the rest of the goody two shoes … so stop trying to debate because when they do you will still be debating as to how they did it
YesonHSR Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 12:36 am
And Honey I gave 400Bucks to YES onPROP1A and $250 to CAHSR now thats what we need ,not some debate class…pay up!
Joey Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 10:59 am
If you can’t distinguish between Richard’s legitimate technical criticisms and other people’s fearmongering attempts to kill the project, I have no respect for you.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 11:56 am
In what sense is
a “legitimate technical criticism”? he reason that YesonHSR’s reply was uncalled for was that it was a response on the same substance-free level.
Joey Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
Admittedly that particular comment was a little hostile, and Risenmessiah has no way of knowing the argument Richard was getting at before hand (I guess I only know because I’ve heard it before). But this isn’t the first time YesonHSR has made a comment like this.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
nobody has any way of knowing what rm was ‘getting at’, since it was not an argument at all, just a put down.
that’s why yesonhsrr’s reply was uncalled for ~ answering argument-free insult with insult in turn supports and reinforces rather than oppose’s rm’s original decision to avoid engaging in serious argument.
The radio show segment link on Airtalk on High Speed Rail. It is 30 minutes and worth a listen.
Donk Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
Can somebody please give an executive summary for those of us who don’t 30 min to listen to it?
Daniel Krause and Jeff Barker, Deputy Executive Director of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, went head to head with Rick Geddes, Transportation expert ( Associate Professor in the Department of Policy Analysis and Management at Cornell University; Adjunct Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI); Author of The Road to Renewal: Private Investment in U.S. Transportation Infrastructure). Rick Geddes said he liked the idea of HSR in the NEC. Geddes made the claim that only 2 HSR lines in the world covered operating costs and Jeff Barker corrected him saying those 2 lines were so successful that they had covered construction costs and all other lines covered operating costs from fares.
Donk Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 11:33 pm
Thanks. It really seems like the #1 problem with HSR is this misinformation about HSR systems in the world not covering their operating costs vs not covering their construction costs. Is there a report that provides these details?
It seems like CASHR or LaHood should commission a “peer review” study that evaluates profits of HSR worldwide. If the evidence is so obvious then it should be made obvious.
swing hanger Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 12:58 am
Good idea on providing a unified report on HSR systems and their financials. Also, why don’t HSR supporters pound the opponents on the costs of the air traffic control system, the airports themselves, the billion dollar bailouts of ailing airlines, also highways not covering their construction costs. In other words, why does HSR get evaluated by much more strict standards than other forms of transport? What happened to the American sense of “fair play”?
Donk Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 7:27 am
Yes, exactly. The study should first have graphs of capital costs, operating costs, and operating profits over time for every HSR system in the world. It should then provide comparable numbers for airports (including security), roads, and shipping. They could also throw Amtrak, commuter rail, subways, and buses, into the mix. This sort of study seems like a no brainer to me.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 4:07 am
It sounds to me that if you are generating any sort of operating surplus, you are also contributing to paying off the construction cost, or at least equipment replacement cost (which will come due eventually). The only problem is that the rate of payoff is too low (i.e., less than the 5% or whatever on a house loan, and much less than the 20%+ on credit cards) or too slow (50 years+ for bankers used to 30 or less) or too spread out (benefits to the nation instead of the bankers, such as reduced oil consumption, nicer travel, etc.)
We weren’t always so concerned about quick bucks.
swing hanger Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 4:19 am
It seems the worth of everything nowadays (including people) is based on whether they generate profits, or “add value”- corporatism and materialism has really ingrained itself in the culture.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:05 am
the point is that this is as an alternative to the other ways to provide the same capacity that do no cover their operating costs.
in terms of public finance, a lower total capital cost for the same transport capacity while covering operating costs and providing any coverage of any part of capital costs is a better deal than a higher total capital cost for transport capacity such as highways that also requires operating subsidy to run the system.
Andre Peretti Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 7:45 am
You will never prevent biased columnists from cleverly using proven data, telling the truth but not the whole truth. An example I found in Reason Foundation:
“Since the TGV exists, airline ridership has more than doubled in France”. Absolutely true and verifiable. So, the TGV appears as a total failure.
Now, just complete the statement with another equally true fact:
“but in corridors where HSR exists airlines have practically been eliminated”. It changes everything.
This technique of displaying true but incomplete data is very efficient. If you accuse the author of lying, he will prove you wrong because he is not actually lying.
Another example is Mr Morris choosing the worst figures he could find in an SNCF report. Someone said he was a lying. Well, technically he wasn’t. He was just being selective.
Using true facts to prove false things is a very old trick, and difficult to beat.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:02 am
“technically”, giving selective cherry-picked information to support a conclusion contradicted by other information in the same source is indeed lying about the implication of that source, even if each cherry picked factual claim is true.
Andre Peretti Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
HSR opponents are getting more and more clever. They used to make up data, taking it for granted that people would never check anything, especially when they were presented as “experts”.
As the public is now better informed, they have refined their technique. Instead of making up data, an anti-HSR will now use true data, but out of context. Anyone having doubts will just check the data, not the context which is far more complex to verify. They will conclude this man knows what he is talking about and can be trusted.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 8:52 am
Geddes does not seem to have the newer set of notes for his radio appearance, since he made claims that were simply false. He stated that only two HSR system make operating surpluses, and he stated that HSR use such massive amounts of energy that they could not possibly be supplied by renewable power, both of which are demonstrably false.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
No, you can still say he was lying by omission. People go to jail for that in criminal cases. It’s called withholding evidence.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 7:52 pm
Having said our opponents have lied by commission in the past and are lying by omission now does not relieve us of the need to be smarter still. One thing that amazes me as I look at comments on HSR stories and editorials is that nobody, including the heartiest of proponents, tends to use hard numbers, particularly to tell the truth of the highway system and the implications of staying with it. We’ve discussed these numbers here before (overall highway spending and highway revenue, broken down to cost per gallon), and the proponents seem to be familiar with them, but they never actually cite the sources, which is what the liars actually do.
How do we get this story–the whole story–before the undecided members of the public? This is why I advocated for professional boosters a while back. There is only so much private citizens can do because of time and money constraints.
The liars are professionals, with very considerable resources behind them. We have little of that. We are at best guerrillas, and guerrillas eventually have to develop near professional skills–something I’m not really sure I’m seeing in those newspaper-electronic comments–or they lose.
Do we have enough time for this guerrilla war to succeed? Or is it necessary to ramp it up somehow with help from GE, Alstom, Siemens, et al?
Andre Peretti Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 7:13 am
“Or is it necessary to ramp it up somehow with help from GE, Alstom, Siemens, et al?”
No, because you could be accused of being multinationals’ hacks. Don’t sink to Reason Foundation level. You are on a higher ethical level and should stay there.
The only advantage your opponents have is that they constantly oblige you to be on the defensive. A false claim, even debunked, always leaves a trace. For instance, quoting the SNCF’s 2010 report to answer the “rail-loses-money-everywhere” argument was not ideal. The best would have been to quote the report as soon as it was released. It would have cut the ground from under their feet.
You should keep at least as well informed as your opponents and publish complete information before they even have time to do their cherry-picking. I’d call it preventive debunking.
Peter Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 5:55 am
I like how “transportation experts” don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.
swing hanger Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 7:17 am
(passenger rail) transportation experts+US academia= oxymoron
BruceMcF Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
It explains a lot of Geddes gross incompetence on the two main points he raised that he is an AEI propaganda mill “transportation expert”. Sourcewatch
StevieB Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Mr. Geddes is an Adjunct Scholar at the same American Enterprise Institute which produced studies for the tobacco industry and pushed for the Bush war in Iraq. AEI has received major funding from big oil. From his arguments it seems he hastily prepared for the show.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 12:43 pm
as California’s onetime gubernatorial candidate Upton Sinclair noted,
I listened and I thought Krause and Barker did a smashing job, with concise refutations of Geddes’ ‘points’. Hopefully the anti-HSR people will continue to put up puffed-up ignoramuses like Geddes into the front line. Geddes’ reaction to being set straight on the ‘issue’ of power consumption by HSR was priceless.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 3:57 am
I’m afraid I live in the east and couldn’t listen in. Sounds like it was fun. What actually happened with the Geddes fellow?
neville snark Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 5:24 am
You can still get it:
http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2011/05/24/california-rail/
Definitely worth a listen.
Here is more input from a paper in the heart of the central valley and again points out major opposition to the project.
http://www.mantecabulletin.com/news/article/23741/
Put high speed rail back on the state ballot
Peter Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 5:54 am
??
What about that editorial column “points out major opposition to the project”?
Anyway, it’s basically just a pack of half-baked arguments that wouldn’t stand up for one second to someone with actual knowledge of the project.
Jack Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:06 am
So much effort to make it look like the CV is opposed to the project, The people of the CV know the pain of 20% unemployment and welcome any and all attempts to get people back to work.
Morris why do you oppose a project that would bring employment to a much needed area, could it be because you got yours already….
datacruncher Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 9:44 am
Helps if you research the background of the writer. He wants to hijack the money for Manteca/Tracy/Lathrop interests not give it back or stop the project.
That Manteca newspaper editor is in support of any rail service that includes Manteca/Lathrop/Tracy now instead of later, and wants to take the money from the larger Valley cities like Fresno and Bakersfield. The columnist (like Lowenthal wants SoCal commuter rail) wants HSR money spent on ACE commuter rail or the Altamont route, which would make Manteca more desirable for Bay Area exurb commuters.
In previous columns he has pushed the Altamont HSR route
http://www.mantecabulletin.com/news/archive/15850/
I don’t see major opposition instead I see a parochial interest at work.
If HSR dropped Pacheco for Altamont he would once again switch and become a HSR supporter. Instead he is simply trying to build support to grab the money for his own town.
Two main points and both of them displaying gross incompetence ~ clearly not understanding the difference between operating at a profit over full cost and operating surpluses, and being completely confused about the energy costs, obviously going on an account of Chinese HSR that he did not fully understand.
James Strickland from 2005 to 2009 had done a computation of energy efficiency in terms of pass-mpg or energy equivalent, both maximum efficiency and typical efficiency in serrvice:
Max efficiency:
diesel-electric commuter rail with standees: 960pmpge
regional electric train: 650pmpge
hsr (300km/hr): 630pmpge
transrapid maglev (400km/hr): 316pmpge
highway coach: 280pmpge
diesel-electric commuter rail: 260pmpge
toyota prius: 238pmpge
ford explorer: 150pmpge
aircraft: 70pmpge
typical (1.5pass per private motor vehicle, 1 per motorcycle):
hsr: 380pmpge
regional electric train: 200pmpge
diesel-electric commuter rail: 200pmpge
highway coach: 170pmpge
toyota prius: 96pmpge
aircraft: 50pmpge
ford explorer: 44pmpge
Given the fact that strickland gives his sources, information and assumptions behind his computations, so that anyone can compute their own figures on their own assumptions, while Geddes seems to an article he read about the Chinese slowing down to save energy ~ which could just as easily be the Chinese in rushing their construction not providing catenary or substations with adequate capacity ~ I’d reckon Geddes was just pulling that from his posterior.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 10:38 am
Ignorant biases Burlingame NIMBYS are holding back China’s super-trains!
Damn straight. The faster you go the lower the air resistance and the lower power and less energy. So obvious. I can’t drive 55!
Why not just crank it up to 3×10^8 m/s and you can surf the geodesics without spending a single erg?
You people are hilarious — except for the scary fact that some of you seem to be employed, meaning your micro-sector of the economy has to be in trouble.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 10:50 am
“Damn straight. The faster you go the lower the air resistance and the lower power and less energy. So obvious. I can’t drive 55!”
Reading is fundamental. Your addiction to straw man arguments undermines your credibility.
or, in other words, give your numbers that debunk Strickland’s estimates, instead of this foaming at the mouth.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 9:44 am
I’m positive I wrote a comment asking how come diesel-electric commuter trains do better than electric commuter trains, and how HSR does about as well as low-speed electric commuter rail.
Nathanael Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
The Chinese are slowing down from, IIRC, 240 mph to 220 mph, or something similar. It’s not even *relevant* to any other country in the world, since nobody else has been pushing the speed envelope so extremely, even if it is to save energy (and I suspect that was a face-saving comment, given that major train manufacturers have been disapprovingly stating that they were running their trains faster than they should if they want to avoid wheel cracks etc.)
Andre Peretti Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 8:09 am
In China, politics and prestige play such a big role that comparison with the West is difficult.
A Western company like SNCF runs its trains at optimal speed, and not highest possible safe speed. There is a profit/cost curve which peaks at a certain speed.
When you start increasing speed, energy consumption and maintenance per mile increase, but market share increases faster. If you continue to increase the speed, you eventually reach a point where market share stops increasing. This is the optimal speed. A higher speed would increase costs but wouldn’t attract more riders. Engineers might like to go faster, but not the bean counters.
How is optimal speed calculated in China? I suppose among the variables there must be party chief pride, engineers’ career acceleration, but also firing-squad risk if anything goes wrong…
California’s High-Speed Rail Won’t Go Nowhere
German high-speed trains started in the provinces, too, but now have a fast, efficient and popular system crisscrossing the nation.
Joey Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 11:00 am
Didn’t Germany have legacy lines which enabled it to reach city centers without building all the way there?
Reality Check Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 11:38 am
Of course they did. Just like there are legacy lines reaching LA Union Station and Caltrain’s SF terminal …
Reality Check Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 11:41 am
Ok, well not “just like” … the German “legacy” lines put US rail connectivity to shame.
Joey Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
My point is that building an HSR line in the middle of nowhere makes sense in Europe, as you can simply use existing lines with minimal upgrades to reach city centers. Here, we’d have to double-track and electrify in most cases, and that’s if you ignore the FRA problem.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Ya gotta start somewhere. If the track is laid in the Central Valley a few years before the tracks to SF and LA are laid that gives them a few years to test the trains, instruct the operators, have them certified. It’s not as if Kawasaki drops off the train at the local dealer and hands over the keys.
thatbruce Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 11:45 am
Yes; the German HSR trains are able to use electrified ‘legacy’ lines. A lot of the German electrified equipment is also able to use the German HSR lines, and there are timetabled instances of commuter equipment utilising HSR lines.
Feds say no to moving starting point or delaying construction start. The Associated Press reports the following.
This should dash the hopes of politicians working to get the money shifted to their districts from the central valley.
morris brown Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
link to news article on this:
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_18137497
Peter Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 12:22 pm
Good. I don’t know what the hell the LAO was thinking in the first place (other than trying to kill the project for ideological reasons), but this should put them in their place.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
GOOD ..this should stop the sideshow loenthal is putting on and he will get direct blame if he tries any games and losses 3Billion dollars!!
On High-Speed Rail: The LAO is Right: Its time to slow down
In the May 24th Wall Street Journal, a letter from LaHood was printed
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704816604576335783756247712.html
LaHood lately has been running around extolling the virtues of HSR all over the country, trying to dispel the setbacks to this program that were dealt by Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida, who turned back funds for HSR projects.
Here he is trying to rebut a very negative Editorial that was printed in the WSJ
Since he controls the FRA you can certainly see that the LAO’s call for flexibility from the FRA on where and when to start is certainly not going to gain much traction.
LaHood writes:
“The decision to lay the initial segment of high-speed rail track in California’s Central Valley was made for several good reasons. First and foremost, the place to start is the place where we’re ready to begin building, and that’s the Central Valley. This initial segment of track will also connect to existing rail service, providing immediate and lasting benefits to passengers. And, with this central piece built, construction can extend north, south or simultaneously in both directions when additional sections of the project are ready to be built.”
Well the Central Valley is certainly not ready to begin building, they are facing strong opposition, especially from the AG community, and just starting on “value engineering” is certainly not going to speed up the process.
But the final paragraph
“Doing big things requires commitment, long-term vision and the ability to work together. Years of planning, analysis and careful consideration have shown that a high-speed rail backbone through the Central Valley connecting Northern and Southern California will draw substantial ridership, attract private investment and ensure future profitability of the system.”
really “takes the cake”
Everyone wants to see this evidence of “substantial ridership”, which apparently doesn’t exist since requests to the FRA have failed to produce this evidence.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576343140672717036.html
As expounded by Walter Bell of the peer review group, private investment won’t be forthcoming without a firm commitment Congress will fork up the 17 – 19 billions the Authority says is needed from them. There is no Federal commitment, therefore no private equity is stepping forward.
The LAO is absolutely correct. Its time to slow down. Its time to suspend funding, at least temporarily.
.
Peter Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
“Its time to suspend funding, at least temporarily.”
Right, because then nothing happens and your idyllic, bucolic life next to a busy diesel commuter rail line will be safe forever.
Joe Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
NIMBY demands CA slow down HSR, give up billions in federal funding. Allow thousands to remain unemployed and F the central valley.
All because some home owner next to the legacy railroad tracks wants to be left alonooooone.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Start spending the money on the project you proposed or you don’t get the money. Have it all spent by 2017 or you don’t get the money that’s remaining in 2018 or 2019.
Nathanael Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
Now you’re citing the WSJ editorial page, Morris? You do know its editorial page has been infamous for lying outright since at least the *1980s*. Ask FAIR or Columbia Journalism Review (or you can google it).
Seriously, it looks like you’ll just throw anything remotely hostile to HSR at the wall and see if it will stick.
Nathanael Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Oh, and to address your specific comment, the evidence of substantial ridership is all right there in the Alternatives Analyses, EIRs, and supporting statements, and the WSJ is *as usual* just making shit up.
J. Wong Reply:
May 25th, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Right, Morris, you’re hoping that NIMBY’s in the Central Valley will manage to do what you have so far failed to do, which is stop HSR. And your “strong opposition” may just disappear when the actual plan is put forward in October (and their objections have been addressed).
elfling Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 11:37 am
The existing train service in the Central Valley (the San Joaquin) is running nearly full. Go take a ride, talk to the other passengers, and you’ll see there’s demand. Faster service and better connections to LA and San Francisco will drive demand higher.