The LA Times Repeats the LAO’s Flawed Attacks on HSR
This editorial in today’s Los Angeles Times was pretty depressing to read. Not because it makes any new points – it doesn’t. Instead it pretty much repeats the discredited Legislative Analyst’s Office attack almost verbatim. As such, I don’t really need to do a thorough debunking here. I’ll hit the main points:
• The Times criticized the selection of the Central Valley segment for initial construction, repeating the flawed “Borden to Corcoran” claim that conveniently ignores the existence of Bakersfield and Fresno. Daniel Krause did a good job making the case for the Valley segment in his Bakersfield Californian op-ed, and what he said there stands as a good reply to the Times on this point.
• The Times also said the choice of a Palmdale alignment was a “poor decision.” Apparently they didn’t realize that the California High Speed Rail Authority is going to study the Grapevine alignment again, which is fine, but the attack on Palmdale is unwarranted. There were sound geological reasons to use the Tehachapi Pass instead of the Tejon Pass, including the proven superiority of crossing a fault at-grade instead of in a tunnel. More importantly, the Palmdale alignment has 500,000 people along it (with 1 million expected by 2020), whereas the Grapevine alignment has virtually nobody.
• The Times also called for defunding the Authority in the 2011-12 budget, which Jerry Brown released today (he didn’t take their advice, thankfully). They joined the LAO’s call for “renegotiating” the federal agreements, to move the money to commuter rail even if it means no statewide system is built. It’s sad to see the Times follow Scott Walker and Chris Christie on this, but as Jim Costa pointed out, the chances of the feds granting such a request are pretty small.
High speed rail is poised to bring big benefits to LA. A US Conference of Mayors report published last summer, when LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa served as its vice-president, concluded that HSR would bring a big Green Dividend to the city:
In Los Angeles, as much as $7.6 billion a year in new business sales, producing up to 55,000 new jobs and $3 billion in new wages.
The Times should support that growth. Nobody will save HSR by destroying it.
Times want to to reallocate money for central valley infrastructure to … LA. Amazing coincidence that the right thing is also the self-serving thing.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
I don’t know what is more pathetic and lame.. the LA Times editorial or the LAO report written by a thirtysomething egghead that has actually no high speed rail design experience.. people on this board are more informed about it. I cannot believe the Times stooped to such a low sleaze ball attempt at taking the money away from the central valley where true high-speed rail will begin knowing full well that the blended systems that are proposed for the two end segments are not high speed whatsoever but simply improve commuter rail that will give the high-speed trains access to the major endpoints. This silly editorial is being parroted around by the media news group. This kind of provincial attitude and interference by the Lowenthal Senate types is exactly why the authority was set up and created to stop this kind of nonsense as there will be a snowballs chance in hell LaHood or the FRA is going to let the money go to either of these sections.. The San Francisco to San Jose is not even intercity rail and unless they put all the money LA to San Diego is not worth it down there either.
Dan Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
HEY! Los Angeles to San Diego has a lot of merit in it’s own right…
YesonHSR Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Yes it does and that’s why said Los Angeles to San Diego… and not an LA to Anaheim commuter line that doesn’t connect to any high-speed rail connections if this is it.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
San Francisco and Sacramento don’t connect to anything either.
Wad Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
Wonder if they know that L.A. to San Diego won’t have the pretty ocean views of the Surfliner.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
Well at the rate we’re going in is going to be along the surfliner route…” blended” and electrified the whole way down.!
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
Hell would freeze over before you managed to electrify the LOSSAN corrdor. It will still be a necessary and important route even after the inland HSR is built, in order to connect OC and San Diego however.
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Do I see flakes outside my windowless office? Ultimately the Authority is going to have a hell of time getting access east from Los Angeles except for the LOSSAN corridor. It’s true that some of the route cannot support HSR, but there have already been EIRs prepared for toll roads down there, and the cost is probably not prohibitive.
LA won’t like it because it diminishes Ontario Airport and creates a potential rival in El Toro. It cuts off UC Riverside and all those people that live out east. But (I stress the but part) it gives LA a reason to get Palmdale and makes Desert Xpress more viable.
Joseph E Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
El Toro? You mean the OC Great Park? http://www.ocgp.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_County_Great_Park
A connection from LA to Riverside and San Bernardino is needed (if not for commuters then for travel from the inland empire to SF and Sacramento), but I do like the idea of upgrading the Surfliner, now. It would be almost as fast as the inland HSR route, with 110 top speeds everywhere except San Clemente
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Oh excuse me, I forgot. Looking at this aerial photo, how could I ever have mistaken the Great Park for an airfield: http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=pmbz3455pqnh&lvl=15&dir=0&sty=b&where1=Irvine%2C%20CA&q=irvine%2C%20ca&form=LMLTCC
In any case, the current LA to SD alignment ain’t going to be worth it. Metrolink can and will give Inland Empire residents access to HSR fast enough to not make much of difference (don’t act like it can throttle through the San Gabriel Valley at 220mph). The freight companies are going to be none too happy if HSR takes a valuable ROW away from them going east from L.A.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 7:41 pm
LOSSAN simply cannot be electrified down to San Diego due to NIMBY pressure. That approach was already tried sometime back a few decades ago if memory serves. It will make for a doable 125mp diesel route, especially with tilting trains, but that is it.
El Toro was rejected as a potential airfield more than a decade ago, it is not going to somehow be brought back into the picture.
As for Metrolink to LAUS and then LOSSAN south, that is absolutely ridiculous. You are talking about replacing a sub-hour journey, and eliminating several SD county stops, in place of one ranging 2-3 hours.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
LA – SD is at about 1:20.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
And IE-SD is somewhat less.
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
The NIMBYs got nothing on BNSF and UP who will stop at nothing to preserve the most valuable track in their system, the one that goes from the Port of Los Angeles to the Colton Crossing. In addition, the Inland Empire adds very little to the speed of the system. With some minor modifications, Metrolink could serve the IE stations and provide fairly quick transfers for HSR passengers.
I mean keep in mind, the CAHSR website presumes LA to Riverside or LA to Irvine in half an hour. Given the ROW they will have to use, that might not be realistic.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 10:09 am
The UPRR alignment was withdrawn awhile back.
It does, however, add significantly to the population of the system, especially if the Surfliner is retained in an upgraded fashion from Irvine south. Additionally, it’s a far easier construction than trying to fight NIMBYs along the beach. Compared to the old plan for 1987, it’s about twenty minutes slower than the straight LOSSAN run. Not a big deal, especially when you compare to current Surfliner and driving speeds, not to mention predicted driving speeds in the future.
I’m sorry, but in what fantasy world is a 90 minute journey from Riverside or 60 minutes from San Bernardino a fairly quick transfer?
And what, in particular, is unrealistic about it?
synonymouse Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 10:54 am
Something is going on quietly in the hinterlands of Socal:
http://temecula.patch.com/articles/high-speed-railway-coming-to-temecula
Joey Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 10:58 am
Quite quietly. This isn’t the first we’ve heard from Temecula, but it has yet to develop into any serious opposition.
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
There are only four complete and intact ROW from LA that get you to Colton IIRC.
Metro owns one and intends to extend the Gold Line to Afghanistan (I mean, Claremont, my bad).
UPRR owns one and leases out for Metrolinks
BNSF owns another one that is leased but also carries freight too.
The fourth one might be owned by Metro, but it is used for Metrolink along the spine of the 10 freeway.
The alignment presented in March effectively uses two of the four; the 10 freeway in the San Gabriel Valley and the UPRR ROW in the Inland Empire until it reaches the 15 and head south on that alignment until San Diego.
Needless to say, this is going to blow up Metrolink as we know it. It also isn’t going to help Steve Soboroff build the Alameda Corridor West. By contrast, Metro already wanted to triple track the LA to Irvine ROW because of its own needs. Also, because it doesn’t head east there’s much less use for freight. Thus, the Surfliner alignment will be a whole lot cheaper because already you are talking about building an overhang on the 15 (or some huge ass viaduct) and a tunnel to get from the SGV into the Inland Empire.
One tunnel through San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente probably is all you need too.
Moreover, lots of people are going to have to connect for an hour or so to reach HSR via local or regional rail. Any living along the 680 in Contra Costa and Alameda County is guaranteed a BART ride of at least 45 minutes without Pacheco. (Walnut Creek might be the exception.) Light rail riders in Sacramento may face a long transfer too, given that it takes almost an hour to reach Folsom from downtown. And let’s not forget the guy in Santa Monica who will have to take the Expo Line or even the Subway to the Sea for an hour to get to LAUS. Or even, someone in Pasadena who has to travel a good half hour to reach Union Station….
How is 45 minutes to 2.5 million people a deal-breaker and 45 minutes to 5 million people not a deal-breaker????
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
ANYONE LIVING along the 680 is guaranteed a long ride if they stick with Pacheco….
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 6:13 pm
ANYONE LIVING along the 680 is guaranteed a long ride if they stick with Pacheco…
So? The first phase can’t go everywhere. Some people are going to be far way. Tough.
The first phase has to go somewhere. Some people are tearing their hair out thinking they are going to be too close. Tough.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
But but but San Jose is bigger than San Francisco!!! !!!
YesonHSR Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
And we need Daniel Krause to run that same opinion piece in the LA Times
Daniel Krause Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
Thanks. We tried but were rejected.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
It is amazing that the Reason foundation/ Cato and every other nonsense think tank is allowed to post opinions at will in these papers.. do they pay for it? And on what grounds were you rejected for?
Dan Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 9:42 pm
You don’t pay for it directly, but you do hire a PR firm with the contacts to get your ghost-written opinion pieces published. There’s an entire ecosystem of such companies specializing in different niches. I’ve used them extensively in the past to get technical articles published in trade magazines. (NOTE: these are articles, not “peer reviewed” papers)
VBobier Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 10:24 am
What about a Rebuttal?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
CA4HSR has a board member with extensive PR experience who helps us get these things placed.
Arthur Dent Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 6:34 pm
That must be Ryan Stern’s letter which the LA Times printed tonight with this introduction:
Ryan Stern, who serves on the board of Californians For High Speed Rail and lives in downtown Los Angeles, responds to The Times’ May 16 editorial, “California’s high-speed train wreck.”
snogglethorpe Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 9:42 pm
The Reason Foundation / Cato / etc know how to play the game. They are very patient, and very persistent, know how to appear “professional” and “academic,” and are very experienced at hiding what are essentially dishonest and misleading arguments behind a reasonable sounding facade.
Newspapers that really don’t have any knowledge of the domain absolutely eat this stuff up which is why the Reason Foundation are so successful at fooling them…
They are paid very well for this service.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
How do we go against this? They have resources, including people who just sit around and come up with this stuff, and they get paid for it. Most of us here have jobs or other occupations; we’re the good guys, but in truth, we’re good for nothing.
What we need is some support from firms in the HSR business. I can easily imagine Robert, myself, Alon, Clem, and perhaps others who could be paid, full-time, to watch for and respond to such articles, in a way a sort of rapid response unit. I don’t picture it having to be real big; maybe only two or three well-versed people along the lines mentioned above.
Who do we get to pay for this, and who gets the job?
Anthony Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 1:52 am
I was sent a video from the Reason Foundation – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIG0M4WT0s0&feature=digest. Maybe the Reason Foundation made sense on some other topic but this one? He says Europeans are moving from Rail to Cars. Well, I don’t think that’s quite the case. According to several sources rail ridership (when not on strike…) is up in Germany and has been so. That is because, wait for it – Fuel Prices are high, on the order of 8-9 dollars a gallon US, we start whining at $4 a gallon and it will continue to go up with a combination of demand, supply and speculation by Wall St.
At the END of the day California’s HSR Project with all its FLAWS will get done. Some of it will be a smashing success, other parts of it less so and Right Winger will focus on that. What makes our state special compared to other projects is that we have THREE major cities on the rail route. The Reason Foundation made fun of the fact that the first section of the system will be in the Central Valley. Likely there are two reasons for this, actually one – JOBS! for a part of the state with higher unemployment than either LA/Bay Area/DC.
joe Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
What about the collective attitude towards the residents of the Central Valley? More citizens than many states but still considered “no where”.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
It’s terrible their attitude about the Valley and its needs for high-speed rail and jobs at this point and for the LA Times and the Lowenthal so-called green liberal crowd to do that to them is despicable.
datacruncher Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
Probably an age thing again. ;) The median age in San Joaquin Valley counties is the youngest in the state.
Interesting demographic map and info at this link.
“The state’s median age of 35.2 jumped from 33.2 in 2000……Tulare and Merced counties, for example, had the state’s youngest average age, at 29.4 years, and Fresno County wasn’t far behind, at 30.6.”
http://fresnobeehive.com/news/2011/05/californias_population_graying.html
wu ming Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
we’re used to it, but it’s worth remembering that this is part of why the valley tends to have a persecution complex, and tends to be skeptical of tax money for infrastructure, since it seems (not entirely accurately, but you’re talking about emotion and perception) like the bay area and LA get all the goodies. that the valley voted for HSR bonds was itself somewhat of a tidal shift in CA politics; if that trust is betrayed (and i do not expect that it will, because the project benefits far more powerful regions as well), people are going to take it very personally, and it will entrench the (currently waning) antitax conservative strain. it would be a disaster.
wu ming Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 9:17 pm
hey, go easy on the thirtysomething eggheads, several of us are rather active on this blog, and one of them founded it.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
Yes he’s smarter and likes high-speed rail though!!
wu ming Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
most of us do, even the non-egghead thirtysomethings.
Dan Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 9:44 pm
My wife nicknamed me Calimero a few years back….
LINK: http://www.google.com/search?q=calimero&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
Although I was in my 20′s when I founded it…heh.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 7:13 am
Eggheads are an awful thing. Apparently, it’s a bad thing that the Secretary of Energy is a physicist. Newt Gingrich says so, so it must be true.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 10:51 am
Do you have a quick link to that? It might be good for a laugh. . .
Alon Levy Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/05/newt-gingrich-oil-subsidies-are-good-because-liberals-want-all-of-us-to-live-in-big-cities-i-high-rises-taking-mass-transit/
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 7:27 pm
Thanks–and Gingrich sounds even worse than I remembered him.
How do I get to be a radio announcer to interview Gingrich, and ask him questions about the road system’s poor financial showing, about oil reserves versus oil consumption, about where the jobs will come from, etc., etc.,–the announcer in the video clip is even worse at understanding these things than the analyst at the LAO.
My parents raised me to be a proper Christian (Catholic), and a gentleman I’m beginning to think they brought me up wrong.
I know Gingrich has decided to join my denomination. I can only quote Chester A. Riley, the title character of the old radio show, “The Life of Riley,” who when confronted with something that went wrong, would exclaim “What a revolting development this is!”
On the other hand, maybe Gingrich is what we need to defeat the Repugnant Ones. Let’s hope he scares enough people!
Jerry Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 2:00 am
Digger O’Dell might have a good place for him.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 4:24 am
Indeed he would! And he’d have a great line or for the occasion, too!
YESonHSR Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
And the Reason Foundation is full of PHD.. SO all types can for money and can twist facts..
Peter Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
It’s kind of ironic that people with PhD’s are often referred to as “Phuds”. Given that that’s the same way that “FUD” is pronounced…
Alon Levy Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
I’ve never heard anyone refer to a Ph.D. as phud. Maybe it’s a private-sector derogatory term?
And for the record, the people running transportation for Reason do not have Ph.D.s in the relevant fields. If you want to see what people with degrees in transportation-related fields say, look up Vukan Vuchic, Anthony Perl, and Jeffrey Zupan.
Peter Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 5:57 am
As far as I can tell, it is a private sector thing, you are correct. Mostly referring to academics who don’t understand how to relate their education and knowledge to the real world.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 6:35 am
Another one from industry is BullShit, MoreShit, PiledHigherandDeeper.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 7:43 am
Piled Higher and Deeper is also an academic term nowadays… but it’s not used commonly.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 8:18 am
That was the point of the LAO report ~ to raise the false hope that there is money dedicated to one purpose to be raided for another purpose (is that a California tradition, or just a Bay Area tradition?). The fact is there is no Prop1a(2008) bond funds to be tapped without the Federal funding, and with $10b’s unfunded applications for the Rapid Rail HSR projects, better than even chance of losing the Federal Funding if it is not going to an actual Express HSR corridor, but instead is going to commuter rail projects.
Gilroy Dispatch, HSR open house.
“The California High-Speed Rail Authority will host an open house Thursday night in Gilroy to review the authority’s Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Report, which identifies alternatives and refinements of the proposed rail alignments in the Morgan Hill-Gilroy, Pacheco Pass and San Joaquin Valley Crossing sections.
The open house will run from 6 to 8 p.m. at the Gilroy Senior Center, located at 7371 Hanna Street
At the event, residents will be able to view proposed alignments that will be evaluated in the project’s Draft Environmental Impact Report.”
More crap.
http://www.sbsun.com/editorial/ci_18076019
Money quote:
“Some argue that throwing the project in the lap of Caltrans, an agency tied to the cash-strapped state, is questionable. But Caltrans knows how to build projects.”
Runner up.
“Finally, whatever agency is in charge, all the rights-of-way should be settled before the first rail spike is driven.”
Honorable mention:
“Not another penny should be spent until the Legislature has a clear idea of how much it will cost and whether it has the funding to build the whole thing. ”
(The answer is no, the legislature has not allocated the funding to build the whole thing. Send the 4.2 Billion back to the Feds.)
YesonHSR Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 10:02 pm
A MediaNewsGroup puppet paper..the LA Times is much more irritating and irresponsible.
VBobier Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 10:30 am
A bunch of narrow minded fools.
“I don’t know what is more pathetic and lame.. the LA Times editorial or the LAO report written by a thirtysomething egghead that has actually no high speed rail design experience.. people on this board are more informed about it.”–YesonHSR
I was in my 30s when I was proposing (at different times) both a state-wide tourist rail network and a light rail line as an alternative to a 4-lane road in my section of West Virginia. The latter in particular was approached with considerable trepidation. Suppose everyone was right that rail operations cost too much, and cars and roads were really the way to go? Was I excessively biased by being a rail enthusiast?
As I went into the research, which included the costs of constructing a highway (much of which would be very similar to what you have to do for a railroad, the only difference being the rails/wires/signal system superstructure vs. pavement), the results surprised even me. My numbers began to make sense! This was years before finding out about the poor cost recovery ratio and high subsidy levels of the highway system, and also before observing the generational aspect (which has since been confirmed by that Advertising Age article). Not even my state’s Department of Tar really argued against my numbers or research by pointing out any horrible errors there.
Instead, what I got (via their environmental impact study) was comments like “although rail is energy efficient, it will not serve the transportation needs of,” “although rail is very safe, it will not serve the transportation needs of,” “although rail can be time competitive, it will not serve the transportation needs of”. . . I’m working from memory here, so the first half of each statement is more than likely a paraphrase, but the second half is correct. I still have that EIS around here somewhere, and can eventually look up each argument by the DOT, which sounds like they said “Rail cannot work because it cannot work.”
Richard, you’re not alone. . .but you should still be among friends here, and treat them as such. . .
Anyway, it is discouraging that the young analyst didn’t have the sense to do more research–and he has more available to him, and more that is readily available, than I did. I was doing my work in the late 1980s or early 1990s, and the internet wasn’t anything like it is now–heck, I’m not even certain it was available then. I can tell you that my own papers were done with typewriters and copy machines, I didn’t own a computer then. . .
Which brings up something else. All these “professional” writers who are supposedly “unbiased” should have the research materials easily available that anyone else here has. What is the apparent problem these people have in finding appropriate material in regard to both the pros and cons of rail service, and the pros and cons of more highways? Why is everyone, including the fellow at the LAO, so sloppy on research?
Good grief, this isn’t like it’s still the 1980s, when Reagan was in office, and the knowledge wasn’t all there, and what was out there wasn’t as handy. . .sheesh!
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it. Upton Sinclair
Good grief it’s not like it’s 1965 and Lyndon Johnson was president and after lots of research Congress came to the conclusion that the way to avoid congestion along the Northeast Corridor was to build High Speed Rail. Though they avoided calling it that and called it the High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965.
Jack Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
The LA Times, and the LAO just show there complete lack of understanding of this project, what needs to be done, and how we get it there. It baffles my mind how these people get to be PAID to do this stuff.
Where do I sign up???
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 10:21 pm
“It baffles my mind how these people get to be PAID to do this stuff.
Where do I sign up???”–Jack
Hey, take me along if you get in!!
On a lighter note–how do you take a train to Morrow today?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp88oumRQvs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEilPR1PXko&feature=related
wu ming Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
it’s not lack of understanding, it’s being a mouthpiece to misinform the populace on behalf of powerful interests. this pattern is pervasive, and crops up anytime there’s a major entrenched interest in threat of losing to popular opinion.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
Good grief, is the elephant really that fearful of the mouse?
Amazing, simply amazing. . .now if I could only get some money out of this, which I can use. . .
wu ming Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 10:08 am
when you’ve got swimming pools of money to throw around, it’s a modest investment.
Off topic, but perhaps of note: the current edition of “Trains” has an interview with van Ark, and also an editorial about Amtrak and the TSA by Don Phillips. Might be worthwhile for readers here to check out.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
Also of interest, particularly the comments about rail history from Mr. Beadles, an ex-RF&P man:
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df3/df05162011.shtml
What seriously concerns me is the way people fixate on the termini. Do they not understand how trains work? Does the concept of serving stops along the way blow their minds? Can they not sit down and maybe with the help of a diagram, realize that a single seat can serve 5 different travelers?
Lets extend the train to nowhere talk…
The northeast regional is a train to nowhere. I mean seriously, Springfield to Lynchburg? No name towns! How many people want to travel from Springfield to Lynchburg? Nobody! It’s an enormous boondoggle! Idiocy at its finest. And it’s like 8 hours too. I mean seriously, if it’s so important to travel between these two points, than fly!
You see this all the time. People throw out stupid comments like “Who would ride a train from Chicago to LA?” without taking a moment to think about how you can ride the damn train for 4 hours and not go anywhere near Chicago or LA.
And the whole idiotic Borden thing again. The train doesnt magically teleport past Fresno.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 5:07 am
It’s not just here (have had these up before, have’em here again so they’re handy):
http://www.midwesthsr.org/amtrak-empire-builder
http://www.midwesthsr.org/want-to-cut-passenger-train-costs-run-more-trains
Age thing? Racism? (Black people on bus=black people on trains?) Deliberate misinformation from oil and road interests? (See Adirondacker, Jack, and Wu Ming above.)
Alon Levy Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 7:20 am
I just wrote a post about it, and had tried to track down the second article you’re linking to. On rereading it’s worse than I remember, because it doesn’t mention the success of the extra trains on Chicago-St. Louis, but it’s still somewhat useful.
The majority of the American populace has never ridden on an intercity train. They have no concept of how a train service works, so they equate it with what they do know- a point to point airline service.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 8:26 am
Precisely, they do not understand how trains work. Their experience is driving and flying, and the time penalty for a stop along the way when flying is extreme. More public information campaigning has to stress that point.
VBobier Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Yep, I think I understand a bit, As I think when the Conductor Yells All Aboard! The Conductor in charge is saying that the train is about to leave and If Yer not aboard, You wait for the next train as the Conductor has a schedule to keep, Hence the watch, As time at a stop at a station probably isn’t very long, Of course since I’ve never been on a passenger train like Amtrak, I have no idea as to how long the Train will be there for before It has to leave…
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
I once had on loan a copy of the “Official Guide of the Railways,” from 1952. Station stops could vary in length, depending on whether it was a major stop in which there would be head-end traffic working (i.e., loading and unloading mail cars), or if there was any switching involved (cutting sleepers or diners in or out, combining or splitting trains at junctions), the latter could take up to an hour of schedule time, considering that you didn’t just couple two trains together, but usually had to sort the cars to be in the correct order (all sleepers in back, all coaches forward, diner in the middle). You won’t have that in this operation, however, so you can use the time differential the B&O had for station stops, which added 4 minutes to through schedules for each additional stop, on a mountainous railroad still partially worked with steam engines.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
And one or two doors leading to low level platforms. HSR measures station time – from the time th automatic doors open until the time they close – in seconds not minutes.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
Forgot about that door sequence and high-level loading.
A thought just came to me: there are a number of YouTube videos that show trains coming into a station and leaving (the ones I recall were from Japan). Might not finding one of these and timing it (assuming the footage is continuous, giving you a real time station stop) be worthwhile?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
Something else to consider: That 4-minutes of extra time essentially includes the whole stop, including braking and acceleration for the train.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 9:52 pm
Which is what the NYDOT study done for the Albany-Montreal corridor used. 4 minutes from the time the train starts to decelerate, stop, passengers board and alight, then gets back up to speed. They were using 150 MPH top speed.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 10:03 pm
Only if you have a continuous view of the cab, so that you can compute the time penalty.
Better would be to use published figures for train performance, or if possible schedules. But be careful, since published figures tend to be more idealized, and schedules include wait time for overtakes.
CAHSR is assuming a time penalty of 7 minutes in full speed territory, and 3 minutes in lower-speed territory (still much faster than those steam trains ran). Both numbers assume conservative train performance.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
You’d need to see the odometer too. Very nice to know it take X minutes but compared to what? You’d then need a cab view of the same class of train passing through the same stretch of track and not stopping.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 7:42 am
Yes, I’m talking about odometer views. There are some of the FLIRT on YouTube.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 10:10 am
You watch the stopping train stop and then get back up to speed. If that takes 6 minutes and the non stop over the same track does it in 2 minutes that’s a 4 minute penalty. If the stopping trian does it in 5 and the non stop does it in 3 that’s a 2 minute penalty. If there’s no station sidings and it’s a busy line the express has to loiter around outside the station, so from the point of view of the local there’s no penalty.
Very nice to know that it takes X minutes to make a stop. Compared to what though.
Neville Snark Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 2:39 pm
I’d love to see the result of a poll that asked (a) have you ever ridden hsr (in europe, asia); (b) do you support chsr, or hsr in the northeast or midwest? I expect the percentage of those americans who have had a taste of hsr who support american hsr would be 75% or higher.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 9:16 pm
If we had true HSR they would love it ..put an American on a TGV or Eurostar/ICE and they feel /act like they went into the future and ask why dont we have this.
ks Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
According to this article, only 37% of Americans have passport. So you can bet that not many Americans have even set foot on Europe or Asia, let alone ridden HSR.
http://www.theexpeditioner.com/2010/02/17/how-many-americans-have-a-passport-2/
wu ming Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 12:14 am
my mom’s response to her first trip on taiwanese HSR, when visiting me a few years back, was “how soon can they get that thing built in CA?”
Anthony Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 2:18 am
Actually most Californians that have never traveled anywhere want HSR. Frankly I couldn’t give too shits about what the rest of the country thinks. They believe cars are the way forward. While cars as we currently know them will be IN USE on a regular basis for at least another 50-100 years, HSR just gives as an OPTION! Right now, your options are walking (slowest), riding the bus (slower), riding the regular train (slow), driving/renting a car (fast, only when there’s no heavy traffic, accidents, road repair, road construction, debris in the road, pot holes, etc, etc,etc) and flying (fastest, but also the MOST EXPENSIVE!)
Building HSR does not mean ignoring the infrastructure though with some of the anti-car bs coming from the far left is a bit concerning as an auto enthusiast. I will say they’ll be be beaten back as they’ll get the electric only cars they’ve always wanted from Toyota, Nissan, Ford, Volvo and GM. But for the rest of us not interested in short commutes we’ll buy more standard cars for years to come because even local bus is a joke, some routes take have an average wait time of 7 mins, but some as long as 20-45 mins between the next time the bus comes back around. That will not improve anytime soon I don’t think and its not the greatest option if you’re in a hurry. I have been using the bus since I lost my car(s) in the last two years. While its an affordable option (especially with the student discount) its still not ideal and limits your mobility. Also WOMEN WON’T DATE YOU, at least viable women won’t. Don’t pretend that usually the poor, disabled and mentally challenged RIDE THE BUS as their only form of transportation. Not really a place you want to strike up random conversations though, you do find a diamond on the bus every so often…
Although merging CAHSRA into Caltrans is not a good idea, there might be some benefit to the idea of spinning off Amtrak California from its current location within Caltrans and merging with CAHSRA as an independent public corporation, with the profits going to general improvement of the intercity rail system in the state.
Joey Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
A reminder: the CHSRA will NOT be the operator of the system it builds.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 1:22 pm
Doesn’t mean it can’t, however, make a profit on what it charges the operator, or simply collect all the revenues and pay the operator a flat fee.
synonymouse Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
A blithe assumption not supported by recent California experience.
Forget Branson’s enterprises – the hsr will not be profitable.
Forget the Veolias of the world – a few strikes and some unpleasant experiences with stacked courts will drive them outta here.
So you have either Amtrak or the BART-Amalgamated-TWU management model. To achieve the latter you simply morph the existing CHSRA board of directors into a BART-style board, either appointed, or even juicier, elected.
political_incorrectness Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
BART oriented board? LOL! Can we get the cash with that too considering BART to San Jose and Livermore are giant boondoggles?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 8:36 pm
the hsr will not be profitable.
California is unique in some respects. But it’s not exceptional when it comes to transportation. People will use the method that is fastest. In California that will be HSR.
HSR makes profits everywhere else in the world. There’s no reason to think it won’t in California. Stomping around while jumping up and down repeating “it won’t make money, it won’t make money” doesn’t make it true.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
The trains will be packed ..syn is just nut ranting
synonymouse Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
Even with Tejon profitability will be elusive due to bloated payroll, a certainty if the BART model is followed.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Yes yes yes. SNCF pays their employees starvation wages, no benefits and works them to the bone.
synonymouse Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 11:58 pm
Yeah, to make money, to set ticket prices low enough to compete with the private automobile, you will need Wal-Mart wages. Sorry.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 6:40 am
Numbers: assumed wages, assumed employees per train, assumed ridership per train, show how much $1/hr impacts cost per passenger.
Save this one for trolling the online newspaper comment sections, there’s no troll opportunity on this topic for an audience comfortable with basic arithmetic.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 7:00 am
Which is why Amtrak pays Wal-Mart wages on the routes that make money.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 7:41 am
Before Toei redesigned its website and broke all the links, it had a factsheet breaking down costs and revenues as of 2005. It paid about $103,000 per year per employee then. And it nearly broke even, and became profitable the next year due to lower depreciation charges.
synonymouse Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 10:47 am
You are ignoring the massive subsidies these rail systems are receiving in the form of grants for construction, maintenance, new rolling stock, etc. from all levels of government.
The truth is that if the public wished it so, the highway system could be made wholly self-sustaining by imposing tolls. The public prefers the existing tax-subsidized “free” road system but if they had to they would accept and use toll roads.
That’s because private autos are diy. The driver doesn’t have to pay any baksheesh to any union. *** the TWU – let Muni go on strike forever.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
You are ignoring the massive subsidies toll roads get. And “profit” making airports. The price f the alternatives to HSR are much higher. It’s the cheapest way to reach the goal of mobility in 2030.
synonymouse Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Yes, road and airports do receive massive subsidies, which apparently the taxpayers approve. The point is that if they didn’t receive the subsidies the public would be willing to pay the extra price of having automobiles and airplanes. Not so with passenger trains. That’s why the rr’s got out of the passenger business, which was profitable before the advent of the internal combustion engine.
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
That’s an idea, but not for another decade or so when revenue service is possible on CAHSR. Then taking over the Amtrak California routes makes sense depending on what expansion opportunities exist. I’ll be surprised though, if HSR doesn’t eventually make all of Amtrak California’s services obsolete.
Still, at some point it may make sense to take the cross-jurisdictional agencies (Metrolink, BART) and merge them into said corporation so that all the trains “run on time” at the state level. VTA, Muni, Metro, SACRT, and MTS would keep their light rail or subways and do with them whatever they want.
thatbruce Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
Why include BART (a glorified subway) in the list, when you exclude other subway/light rail operations?
BruceMcF Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
I think the dividing line there was “cross-juisdictional”. One thing BART is, is cross-jurisdictional. Some harsher critics might characterize it as metastazing like a cancer.
VBobier Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
So is Metrolink as It travels from Los Angeles County into San Bernardino County and vice-versa every day, If I have Your “cross-jurisdictional” correct that is.
Jon Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
Surely the dividing line should be technical interoperability? It makes sense for (say) Caltrain and the HSR operator to be combined as their trains will share each other’s tracks, so a certain amount of cooperation is required. HSR trains will never run on BART tracks so there is less need to bring BART into the fold.
joe Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
Interoperable Coordination will require clear lines of responsibility and authority.
As trains pass from the HSR to shared track (and out) their needs to be a hand off with a local coordinator responsible for safety.
I’m skeptical that coordination can happen between orgs. It’s a risk and there’s no good model to follow. You’d need a “FAA” kind of role to manage the traffic.
Jon Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 12:13 am
I would be in favor of an ‘FAA’ type organisation that would own and maintain all the passenger track in California, as well as acting as dispatcher. This organisation (let’s call it ‘Caltrack’) could also plan to build new track and/or purchase freight track and upgrade it to passenger standards. The operators (Caltrain, Metrolink, whoever operates HSR) would just own and maintain their trains and stations; shared stations would be owned by Caltrack with areas allocated to the different operators as necessary.
This model has the advantage of allowing both for-profit and subsidized operators to operate on the same infrastructure whilst retaining separate business models, enabling true ‘shared use’ corridors. Caltrack should be owned and run by the State of California, possibly as a division of Caltrans. Network Rail (UK) is a similar sort of idea.
Caltrack could also operate an integrated ticketing system- if your journey requires travel on more than one operator’s trains, you should be able to buy from one ticket for the whole journey, and then Caltrans behind the scenes would divide the correct portions of your fare between the various operators.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 7:39 am
Railroads have been sharing track since the first two met well over 150 years ago. There’s one dispatcher. One dispatcher for the four railroads that share Penn Station in New York. One for the three railroads that share 30th Street Station in Philadelphia. One for the three in Union Station in Washington DC. One for the three that share Union Station in New Haven…… Works that way all over the world. It’s not brain surgery or rocket science. They’ve been doing it for over 150 years.
Jon Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 10:41 am
So either ‘coordination between orgs does not work’ (joe) or ‘railroads have been sharing track since the first two met well over 150 years ago’ (adirondacker12800). Which is it?
Well, both are true. Railroads have been sharing track for 150 years, with one dispatcher, but if both are separate entities with different financial priorities then it’s not an optimal situation. You just need to look at how freight railroad dispatchers routinely prioritize their own trains over Amtrak trains on their own lines. And why shouldn’t they? They have no financial incentive to be nice to Amtrak.
What happens when a Caltrain Express and a HSR train both want to use the express track at the same time? If Caltrain is the dispatcher, the HSR train will have to wait. If the HSR operator is the dispatcher, the Caltrain will have to wait. Someone’s gonna get screwed. A neutral dispatcher could make the decision objectively based on the needs of all the passengers on the railroad- i.e. if delaying the HSR will greatly screw things up further down the line, the HSR gets priority, or visa versa.
It’s not the only way of doing things but it’s one to consider. The State of California is going to own the HSR track after construction anyway, it makes sense to formalize that ownership under an agency.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Dispatching doesn’t work that way, you show up on time for your slot or you are SOL.
Amtrak on the other hand has the right to fine railroads that don’t give them priority, Amtrak chooses not to pursue it.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 6:47 am
Technical interoperability makes more sense than “cross-jurisdictional” ~ which can include a sub-urban-area local service if the jurisdictions are a group of municipalities cooperating on a cluster of border neighborhoods, but omits a regional service that happens to be the responsibility of and lie within a single oversized county.
But its for naught if there is not a stable funding source. The yield back to the public authority for the CHSRA Stage 1 is to go to funding Stage 2, so it cannot at the same time go to subsidizing regional services that it is interoperating with. That runs into the “you get to spend one dollar once” rule.
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
Yes, the issue is not a technical one but a jurisdictional one. Right now, voters in San Francisco county pay the same amount to BART as someone in Contra Costa county. Now, the guy in SF probably barely uses BART compared to your East Bay commuter, but they pay the same. In L.A. County, it’s residents pay the full freight of the tax burden for Metrolink, while it’s passengers often live outside its limits.
Counties have limited power to raise the sales tax to pay for transit, and in L.A. there’s plenty that money could be going towards, and likely in San Jose, SF and San Diego too. So by making all cross-jurisdictional rail a state enterprise, you could still tax empower the counties to collect a tax for its operations, but it would have to be part of a larger “plan”.
Wad Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 2:49 am
Risenmessiah, each county that has Metrolink service is responsible for the service within its borders. L.A. County only pays for its share, not the entire system.
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 8:26 am
Right, but Metro is the one who signs the contract I believe and ultimately has to pay Amtrak.
Wad Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
The agency responsible for Metrolink is called the Southern California Regional Rail Authority. It’s independent of Metro.
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 2:51 pm
I think you are evading the point. Metro is the one that signs the contract with Metrolink and the other jurisdictions reimburse it for whatever portion Metro assumes they must pay. Metrolink then bids on a subcontractor to provide the actual service. The cities pay for their own stations, and the ROW is either shared or owned by someone other than Metrolink.
thatbruce Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
@Risenmessiah:
Your original point has been lost. You started out by saying that LA County residents pay the full freight of the tax burden for Metrolink, and you’ve ended up saying that each county though which Metrolink operates also contributes.
Wad Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 12:47 am
@Risenmessiah, I don’t know what you’re getting at.
Here’s the SCRRA’s joint powers agreement.
http://www.metrolinktrains.com/documents/About/JPA_agreement.pdf
Off topic, but perhaps something of interest–an electric locomotive at a museum in France, opened up so people can look inside and get an idea of how the thing works:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=363531&nseq=2
General photo thread of the above museum from Railpictures.net:
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?location=Cit%E9%20du%20Train
A magnificent locomotive, but how does one explain the European preference for those squeaky “peanut” whistles on locomotives, as opposed to nice, throaty chime whistles that were more common in America?
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=362466&nseq=2
The more things change…
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 9:48 pm
Now if I could just get the Popular Science article from 1966 to do that. All the excitement about the Metroliners and how by 1980 it would be possible to get from New York to Washington DC in two hours…. Things have improved the crack express trains of the time made it between NY and DC in 3:35. Acela does it in 50 minutes less.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
Let’s see what I can find:
http://books.google.com/books?id=RkeRDMj1r2kC&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=popular+science+metroliner+article&source=bl&ots=glkP2rbqEZ&sig=cofyuE_gN5Vd5E7_vWJsOE3Vqxg&hl=en&ei=qmTTTZ6YKsGcgQfmhMTOCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
We’ll try again. . .
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 11:38 pm
This one
http://books.google.com/books?id=mikDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=popular%20science%201966&pg=PA88#v=onepage&q&f=false
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 11:48 pm
We both found it, though in different places.
Funny to look at some of the things of the future back then; some worked out, a whole lot didn’t . . .and for some things, you wonder if the inventor wasn’t an escapee from an asylum. . .
Here it is; of note are the illustrations by Henry Comstock, a former editor and writer for Railroad magazine (which went back to 1906!), who was also an artist of some talent:
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2008/11/24/due-this-year-trains-that-can-go-150-mph/
Below is his cover artwork for Railroad in April of 1948, featuring the B&O’s Cincinnatian:
http://www.philsp.com/data/images/r/railroad_194804.jpg
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 11:38 pm
Another example, this one in California (is this Sullivan’s Curve?):
http://www.philsp.com/data/images/r/railroad_194707.jpg
Delaware & Hudson below, Erie up on the great stone bridge at Lanesboro, Pa. that’s still in use:
http://www.philsp.com/data/images/r/railroad_194704.jpg
Back in time to the 19th century on the Reading:
http://www.philsp.com/data/images/r/railroad_195111.jpg