Do The Hustle
The California legislature is in a winter lull right now, but things will pick up soon and one of the main topics will be whether or not to agree to Governor Jerry Brown’s request to spend Prop 1A bond money to begin high speed rail construction. And according to Daniel Borenstein of the Contra Costa Times, three Democratic state senators might not be inclined to do so:
Republicans are uniting in opposition, and three key Democratic state senators — Joe Simitian, of Palo Alto, chairman of the budget subcommittee overseeing transportation; Alan Lowenthal, of Long Beach, chairman of the Select Committee on High-Speed Rail; and Mark DeSaulnier, of Concord, chairman of the transportation committee — have started applying the brakes.
The three have supported high-speed rail and voted to put it before the electorate in 2008. But in separate interviews last week, they indicated that the current plan could not win their vote.
If these three legislators are going to buck the will of the voters as expressed in November 2008, they had better have a damn good reason. If they’re going to turn their backs on thousands of immediate jobs in a place with some of the state’s highest unemployment, they better have a damn good reason. If they’re going to side with right-wing extremists like Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and California Republicans like Jeff Denham, they better have a damn good reason.
As it turns out, they don’t.
They voiced concerns about plans to start in the Central Valley with a 130-mile link that will not attract enough riders and could become California’s version of the Alaskan “Bridge to Nowhere.”
“This is an albatross potentially,” Lowenthal said.
What Borenstein doesn’t mention is that Senator Alan Lowenthal has been an opponent of this high speed rail project since at least 2009, and has been pushing since that time to gut the project and spend the money only on upgrades to local rail. That’s all he cares about. You’d think that would be important context, but it’s not given here.
More importantly, Lowenthal is deliberately ignoring the construction phasing plan. Nobody is talking about operating HSR from Fresno to Bakersfield alone. Lowenthal knows this. Instead the plan is to start construction in the Valley but have the Initial Operating Segment connect either to the Bay Area or to LA. The Authority’s business plan indicates that riders will use that and that the private sector will be interested at that point.
That distinction is lost on Lowenthal, who is deliberately using right-wing framing to undermine President Barack Obama, job creation in California, and intercity rail. And remember, this guy wants to become a Democratic member of Congress!
We know Lowenthal is a hater. But it is sad to see Senator Mark DeSaulnier, who I respect a lot, join in:
Instead, they are pushing to begin in urbanized areas. “You need to spend the money where the need is and where it will attract private-sector funds,” DeSaulnier said. “You need to put it where the ridership is.”
And the ridership, Senator, is in a statewide system that goes from San Francisco to Los Angeles. It’s not in the small pieces within those regions. After all, does Caltrain generate a profit? Does Metrolink? Does the Pacific Surfliner? None of them do. To be absolutely clear, those are all excellent passenger rail systems that do not need to generate a profit to be valuable, and they each deserve more investment (which they will get under the provisions of Prop 1A).
But the ridership comes with the Initial Operating Segment, which provides the intercity service that California currently lacks.
After all, if simply investing in regional rail was the secret to building high speed rail, we’d already have done so. But we’ve made those investments and it has not led to high speed rail. You have to fill in the missing link, and the Central Valley is a key part of that missing link.
But it’s Senator Joe Simitian’s quote that made me the most annoyed:
“Whether they are federal funds or not, they should be used wisely,” Simitian said. “Whenever someone tries to hustle you into a quick decision, that should give you pause. I feel like we’re getting jammed by the threat of losing the federal funds.”
As he points out, the state should not “make a $100 billion mistake to save $3 billion” from Washington.
A quick decision, Senator? California has been debating high speed rail for 30 years – since the last time Jerry Brown was governor. The current high speed rail plan has been under development since 1996. Californians heard the debate and voted in favor. This project has been developed for 15 years. The plans are solid and detailed and have been subject to endless scrutiny. An independent peer review found the ridership projections were sound.
So who’s husting and rushing who here? Looks to me like the hustle is coming from Simitian and Lowenthal, with (the mark) DeSaulnier falling for it. They’re the ones rushing to act, insisting that California side with right-wing extremists to abandon its high speed rail project and abandon federal stimulus funds. They’re making these claims based on flawed interpretations and in ignorance of the evidence.
Looks like a hustle to me.
Hopefully the rest of the Democratic caucus in Sacramento will side with President Obama, Senators Feinstein and Boxer, and Governor Brown rather than follow Lowenthal and Simitian’s lead and side with Scott Walker and Jeff Denham.
Sorry Robert, but as someone who voted yes for Prop. 1A in 2008 and who still supports HSR in theory, I have to say I wholeheartedly agree with the three Democrats. Build in the urban areas first, connect via the Central Valley later. This has nothing to do with the “will of the voters” or turning down jobs and federal funds; its about being smart and building our system right.
Wdobner Reply:
January 16th, 2012 at 10:24 pm
The urban segments are undoubtedly going to be the most expensive to build, and they’re also going have the smallest differential between the new maximum allowable speed and the current speed, so they’re going to provide the least benefit in terms of travel time reductions between the anchor cities. Building in the urban areas will only result in the project raking its soft underbelly on the razorwire of NIMBYs, regulations, and the authority’s own grandiose vision of their installed infrastructure, killing the project and leaving the state with a disjointed pair of very expensive, underutilized commuter rail lines.
Build the central valley first because it allows flexibility in the mountain passes and potentially allows a very early service start-up. Service via a minimally upgraded Altamont, and a completed Bakersfield-Palmdale/Sylmar should be investigated. The train may only do 79mph San Fran to Tracy via San Jose, and from Palmdale/Sylmar down to LA, but it’ll be doing 220mph from somewhere just east of Tracy down to Palmdale or Sylmar, which based on BOTE schedule counting, should allow for a 6 hour trip, at least initially. Later they can make the determination as to whether Altamont+Dumbarton or Pacheco is the right alignment (or, Tejon vs Tehachapi, but that decision must be made earlier), and upgrade the Penninsula accordingly. Similarly route into LAUPT would also be upgraded in order to get travel times down under the two and a half promised by Prop 1. But the key is that a high speed service between LA and SF would begin as soon as possible, with upgrades allowing greater usability while not requiring that they be on the critical path to implementation.
Elizabeth Reply:
January 16th, 2012 at 10:42 pm
You do know that the the track is unelectrified from San Jose to San Francisco?
Wdobner Reply:
January 16th, 2012 at 11:08 pm
Of course. The tracks are also unelectrified from Tracy or Stockton down to San Jose, and from Palmdale or Sylmar down to LAUPT. Electrification would be a viable option, and this approach could potentially enable Caltrain’s electrification on an accelerated schedule compared to what is currently contemplated. But it’s also worth noting that Talgo is now marketing a ‘hybrid’ dual mode version of their Talgo 250 HST. However, with a top speed of just 250km/h, it would fall far short of the performance the CHSRA has assumed. I do not know whether a variant of their Talgo 350 could be adapted in the same manner. I’m also not sure if the diesel generators can be removed when the line is fully electrified to yield fully electric, 350km/h EMUs for use on a completed high speed rail line, or used elsewhere in the country. Unfortunately platform heights could be a problem with the Talgo rolling stock.
My apologies for not linking this, but I’m not sure what is valid on this blog:
http://www.talgoamerica.com/pdf/Talgo_250_hybrid.pdf
Most of the benefit derived from the urban segments will likely be more in terms of capacity than travel time reduction. While there is some demand for increased Caltrain and Metrolink service, their potential use when combined with the initial utilization to be expected from the HSR simply does not justify the outrageous costs the CHSRA will be forced to pay implementing high speed rail lines from LA to Palmdale and from San Fran to the northern mountain crossing. Better to get the service up and running with the segments that deliver the biggest bang for the buck, even if that service is sub-par compared to the promised travel times, then provide the capacity upgrades at the endpoints as they are required.
Tim Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 1:10 am
If I remember correctly, the new Talgo series VIII cars are fully FRA compliant and rated up to 125 mph… with the ability to be modified into a “Talgo 250 or 350″ (150-220 mph) train set with modification. That coupled with the ability to use low platforms seems like a decent interim solution if the ICS is stretched to Palmdale. Maybe California could even lure Talgo to open the canceled because of Teabagging Gov Scott Walker of Wisconsin factory in this state. This coupled with our new “fast accelerating” 125 mph diesel locomotives could help form a sorta-operating initial system. Would love to see some Talgos also used on the Coast Starlight (/Daylight).
Howard Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 12:05 am
The IOS will most likely be Merced to Palmdale, with Metrolink connecting to LA and San Joaquin’s connecting to Sacramento and Oakland (and possibly an extended ACE to San Jose and Oakland).
Emma Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 10:30 am
That’s also the reason why we shouldn’t built a completely new track in urban areas but rather upgrade already existing track by electrifying them and using a viaduct or tunnel here and there to reduce traveling time.
And as Wdobner mentions, the huge advantage of urban sections is the dramatic increase in capacity and thus a higher return.
Wdobner Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 9:27 pm
No, that’s not what I mentioned. In fact that’s the exact opposite of what I said. Capacity in the urban areas is worthless without the high speed trains there to utilize it. Without the Central Valley segment there are no high speed trains, and thus there is nothing to provide the the impetus to utilize that additional infrastructure. Neither Caltrain nor Metrolink are going to fully utilize the grade separated triple and quadruple tracked corridors between the anchor cities and the beginning of the dedicated HSL (say, Sylmar and San Jose). So if you build the end points before you build the Central Valley segments (or, worse, the mountain passes), you will only end up with an outrageously expensive, extremely underutilized pair of commuter railroads. It is only when the Central Valley alignment and the two mountain crossings have been constructed that there is a case to be made for the capacity enhancements into the anchor cities. You would never think of buying bookends before you bought the books, and so it is with the HSR.
IMHO it is far better for the HSR project’s future to get service started as soon as possible, even if that service does not deliver on every promise of what the service would be. It’s easier to go to the legislature at the Federal and State level and request funding for the construction of the endpoints when you’re hauling passengers between LA and SF in 4-5 hours and those funds will go to halve that travel time. By contrast, investing in the end points requires politicians to continue sinking funds into the project on the promise that “Someday” it will provide revolutionary transportation while the only appreciable public benefit is to construction workers and a few commuters on selected corridors. There are a few faster ways to get the project shelved, but that may be one of the more effective ways to do so.
The first part of your post seems to describe exactly what the CHSRA’s plan is with respect to the approaches to the anchor cities. In Fresno, LA and San Fran the HSR will largely utilize an existing ROW but with improvements to both increase capacity (quadruple tracking and electrification) and reduce the impact of the trains on the surrounding communities (grade separation and electrification). Nobody at the authority is discussing new-build right of ways into either the LA or San Fran terminals. By the time the grade separation, electrification, and quadruple tracking are completed for the stretches that will require them the ROW may look new, but it will certainly have less impact than a new-build ROW, and it will indeed still lie roughly in the Caltrain/Metrolink corridors.
I would agree with Mr Tillier’s Caltrain-HSR compatibility blog in its statement that tunnels and viaducts need to be kept to an absolute minimum. It’s bad enough you’d force the project into it’s destruction by forcing the extremely expensive urban construction on it right off the bat, but to blindly endorse the current, needlessly expensive tunnel and viaduct intensive design would only guarantee that just one of the end points is ultimately constructed.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 10:07 pm
Unmitigated nonsense!
Intercity is a small fraction of potential regional traffic.
6 trains per hour of Caltrain is easy to justify, while 6tph of HSR is smoking crack. (Or outright systematic crack-addled fraud by PBQD. And as for their 9tph…)
A well-designed integrated system arranges things so that the minority user of expensive publicly-financed infrastructure does not have disproportionate impacts.
It’s a backwards accident of porktastic earmarky financing, institutional incompetence and cravenness, and private consultant rent-seeking that we’re looking a tens of billions spent exclusively on a flight level zero airline while local transit users are supposed to crawl along in Olde Tyme historical replica Commuter Trains right beside the shiny and mostly empty new HSR tracks.
In a less stupid or less corrupt environment, one builds capacity into a system and allocates it according to the needs (social, economic, whatever) of human beings. On the SF Peninsula, this means to Caltrain riders, with high speed trains fitted in to public’s dearly bought tracks and stations to the extent that doing so is good public policy.
If some private corporation wanted to finance and construct its own private train line for its own private trains using its own money, well, more power to it. But to believe the public should plonk down tens of billions and then not demand or expect the highest public utility is an entirely different affair.
Brsk Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 10:35 pm
You are new to this planet aren’t you? Here on this planet we spend Trillions for guns and not a cent for transit operations. Fiscal austerity means cut schools, hospitals, infrastructure, public safety, everything but arms purchases and military spending.
Do you know how many trillions we collectively as country spend every decade on new rural superhighways and 6- 8- 10-lane sub-urban/exurban arterials of negative economic value?
Hell our climate chaos policy is “Deep Fry the kids! Those little bastards deserve it!” or some such equivalent.
And in the midst of all this you are upset that their may be too many HSR trains and not enough Caltrains per hour as the most important issue? Really?
Get out more.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 10:49 pm
Nach Auschwitz ein Blog zu schreiben, ist barbarisch.
Word, dude.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 1:12 am
You’re not going to solve global warming just with HSR. If you want to solve it, then focus on the big-ticket items: coal plants, natural gas plants, Big Oil, cars, house sizes, residential insulation, energy use. Most of the problem is not intercity transportation. If you want the government to do something, push for a $400/ton carbon tax, not for building just one kind of infrastructure, useful as it is by itself.
Nathanael Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 5:54 pm
Pushing the federal government to do something has proven to be practically worthless. It’s not even clear that the combined forces of all the worlds’ technology companies, Google, Wikipedia, and enough individuals to shut down the Capitol Hill switchboards, are going to prevent the US Congress from passing the stupidest bills ever.
I speak of SOPA and PIPA, which would order the destruction of the Internet (no, I am not exaggerating) in the name of “preventing piracy”, without actually preventing piracy. If enacted, and if the courts were stupid enough to allow them to go into effect (they’re blatantly unconstitutional, but lots of unconstitutional stuff seems to happen all the time in recent years), they would be unenforcable, but would at best drive all Internet businesses overseas. In other words, STUPID AND IGNORANT. (Call your Senators and tell them to not be stupid, by the way.)
And yet a huge outpouring of massive pressure may not be enough to get them to avoid being massively stupid.
We already know the federal government is “fiddling while Rome burns” on the climate. At this point, I’d suggest pushing *California* to pass a carbon tax, because that might actually work.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 6:32 pm
First, re SOPA/PIPA, at a blogger meeting in Providence, there were a few local politicos, plus staffers from the local Congressman. When the person running the meeting announced that there were Congressional staffers in attendance, one person yelled, “No on SOPA!” to wide applause.
Second, re California carbon tax, I don’t know what California is allowed to charge. Globally, border adjustments are normal and WTO-legal, but the sort of free trade that goes on within the US is based on an 18th century agreement and may not allow this.
J. Wong Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 7:03 am
I totally disagree @Tony d. Starting at the endpoints will take us longer to get true HSR. All we’ll get will be upgraded commuter rail. The next step after the ICS (and announced certainly before the end of construction) will be electrification and a test train for less than a billion. Before 2020 we’ll have true HSR running on the ICS. And once the voters see that even without passenger service they’ll back completion of the IOS.
Peter Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 7:25 am
No one is going to electrify and run HSR trainsets until you have the IOS at least under construction, if not near completion. There’s no point. And no, “testing” is not going to be enough of a reason to spend money early on electrification and trainsets. Testing won’t take more than a couple of years.
J. Wong Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 7:36 am
The political benefits of doing so far outway any practical benefits.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 9:34 am
The original plans or a reasonable facsimile of them – the ones they used when planning the Central Valley sections – was to have SF-LA in operation by 2020.
jim Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 8:02 am
The ICS as planned will have two stations about twenty miles apart with extremely long tail tracks. You can’t run HSR on that.
Even if it’s extended to Bakersfield and Merced, that only provides essentially three stations (since Visalia really doesn’t count) so there’s very little trip affordance. I’d be surprised if a Merced-Bakersfield IOS attracted a million riders a year. At hourly service, that translates to on the order of 7% average load factor. No-one is going to be able to stand up and say with a straight face that such a service won’t require subsidy.
J. Wong Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 8:47 am
I’m not suggesting actual service. Running an HSR train-set full bore on the ICS without passengers will have immense political benefit. In fact, more political benefit than upgraded commuter rail at the end-points. Beginning ICS construction in the CV also gets us closer fiscally to the IOS, which construction at the endpoints doesn’t do. No matter what, the CV will have to be built out as part of an IOS. The endpoints are irrelevant to an IOS.
Peter Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 8:50 am
If you begin running HSR trainsets on the ICS without passengers all you will get is more “boondoggle” and “white whale” cries.
J. Wong Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 11:51 am
? Really? So its a “boondoggle” and “white whale” to actually test the equipment? I don’t think they’ll get any traction with that. Voters will see trains running at high-speed (journalists both print and video will be invited to ride up front), and will see what true HSR looks like and promises.
Peter Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 11:59 am
And then people will be told that they have to wait another 5 years before they can actually ride a train? How long exactly do you think they’re going to need to test these trains?
No way they will start testing electric HSR trains on the ICS until the remainder of an IOS is well under construction.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 1:09 pm
Well… remember though that the likelihood is pretty low that the Authority buys off-the-shelf technology.
Right now, about the best we can do is buy THSR trainsets and hope the heavier bogies work as well as the regular Shinkasen do.
As a result, there’s no telling what other technology or contractors might get involved. Nor would I be surprised if the “test track” becomes a lucrative tool for the Authority to showcase new HSR products. Even if Bombadier, Talgo, etc. have no chance in the world of landing the CHSRA order, they can still use the exposure and get other American systems and developing world parties involved.
Peter Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 1:38 pm
Why do you think the CHSRA would go with anything “lighter” than UIC-compliance? So far only Caltrain has received a waiver from the FRA “crashworthiness” requirements, and that by stating they would use UIC-compliant trainsets. No Shinkansen is UIC-compliant, and with track-sharing more than likely at both ends of Phase 1, nothing less is likely to be permitted.
Why, therefore, would anything be purchased that hasn’t already been tested elsewhere (likely in Europe, on their test tracks)?
Also, we already have a test track in Colorado for everything other than 350+ km/h.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 3:43 pm
A couple things:
1) The lighter the trainset, the more you offset considerations for speed. Even if we don’t have Prop 1A restrictions, the faster the train goes, the more money it makes.
2) I don’t think track sharing is what anyone wants except for the CalTrain-istas…. I think PB wants a hermetically sealed monorail because BART has proven to be, um, successful doing that. Also, I think that BART and Metrolink want to delay HSR entering into the urban areas as long as possible because they want to finish their build outs. Merced to Palmdale is exactly where the big guys want to be in 2020…
3) Merced to Bakersfield is superior to any test track in Colorado. And like the NFL Combine, it forces guys into an environment that is not going to be favorable necessarily. That’s going to be huge for the Brazil’s, Russia’s, etc… They know how TGV works in France…but how will it work in a different environment that is hotter, full of harsh terrain, and can go straight for long distances… Moreover, because the US doesn’t have a hometown favorite, the testing done by CHSRA will be seen as a lot more objective than what is currently done.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 3:50 pm
Is the Central Valley really hotter than southern Italy and Spain?
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Oh God, are you really asking this?
Italy and Spain are dry countries that get hot for about four months a year. The Central Valley is a furnace in the summer (long stretches of 100+ days). And the humidity in Sacramento and Fresno is not fun.
Secondly, and more importantly, Americans aren’t as stoic as Europeans about using air conditioning. It’s not just if the train works in 110 degrees but if the air conditioners work. And let me tell you, those foreign buyers in Saudi Arabia, Brazil, and Australia are keen to know the answer to that question too…
Alon Levy Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 4:28 pm
Spain is a dry country. Italy isn’t. The humidity in Naples in July is high; there’s no precipitation, but the humidity is high, just like in coastal LA, or for that matter in Seattle.
The TGV is air-conditioned. I can’t speak for high-speed trains in Italy or Spain; I’m pretty sure they are, too.
Finally, the Saudis are going to get HSR before California (and have much higher temperatures), so they’re not really going to care much about what California finds.
All trains must be tested on all tracks they use. That’s the extent of a test track. There’s nothing special about having one piece of test track for general use, and there’s nothing special about requiring that the first test track be flat and full-speed.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 5:16 pm
Tom appears to have some assumption that “testing” means everybody will ship a sample of their train to Cal-i-form-aye-ai for a bake-off. It’s all very exciting, like a World’s Fair, and people come from all corners of the globe to admire the Test Track and window shop for new trains with the shiniest paint and biggest tailfins.
Finally the judges scratch their heads and tugs on their beards, deliberate, and choose the model that has been shown to Best Suit Unique Local Conditions on the Central Valley Test Track. The then losers take their test trains home and work hard on improving them before the next big test-off somewhere else in the world, other places where they can only hope to encounter less discerning judges and less exotic weather.
It’s one big global train party and jamboree. In Fresno.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 5:52 pm
shiniest paint and biggest tailfins.
We had a ’59 Impala, jet black paint job with a lipstick red interior. There is no truth to the rumors that it would begin to lift over 100. Was perfectly stable up to 110-115.
shown to Best Suit Unique Local Conditions on the Central Valley Test Track.
Ya don’t think that the vendors are going to um um encourage.. the World’s Finest Railroad Professionals to spec out the brightest and shiniest new stuff that no one anywhere has used yet?
I see IGBT cooling systems that fail, software that can’t talk to the other software… two years of acceptance testing, easy….
joe Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 6:14 pm
Alon
Naples ain’t a county. That’s a selected counterexample. Spain has humid coastal areas and relic humid semi-tropic forests. Both fall into the same climate classification zone with Italy also having a colder mountain region than Spain.
While not identical, for the purpose of comparison I think the point is the southern CV is hotter and drier than Italy and even central Spain. Madrid has a max summer temp of 91, Bakersfield 97. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Subtropical.png
Alon Levy Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 7:07 pm
Naples isn’t a country, but it’s a city that hosts high-speed trains. (Though, it’s cooler than Bakersfield – I thought it was warmer than Rome, and it’s not.)
But why specialize to Bakersfield’s heat? Other parts of California have their own issues. The High Desert is hot and high, and the Grapevine alternative is windy. Both Altamont and Pacheco Passes are windy, though maybe not as much in the HSR tunnels as in the above-ground passes. Los Angeles has particulate matter in the air.
There’s nothing special about the southern Central Valley climate-wise; that’s why every train needs to be tested on every piece of track it runs on, regardless of speed class. If you think that an operator that gives a flying fuck about safety is going to buy the trains, test them on Bako-Merced only, and then immediately press them into Merced-LA revenue service and hope they don’t stall on 3.5% grades, you’re delusional.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 8:09 pm
Joe,
I don’t pretend that I can convince Alon, Peter, Richard and others to embrace controversial, almost-batshit ideas.
But as amusing as Richard’s cynicsm is, I think everyone missed the point.
Unless we buy existing trainsets as-is. We will have to do significant testing to make sure that our desires are achievable. What’s annoying is that Taiwan specifically had Japan modify its N700 trains to fit larger seats inside and expand its HVAC capability and yet I’m being dismissed out of hand.
Although none of us want to admit it, there’s probably no existing model that will meet the project’s needs. It’s likely that the Authority will have to test several separate custom-ordered locomotives to meld attractive technology. The point is, other nations that are in the process of developing HSR will be keen to find out how we do because they are more like us and less like the European nation and Japan that already use the technology.
The US, Russia, Australia, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Saudi Arabia are less dense and contain rough and demanding terrain. Sure Europe has the Alps and the Hautes Fagnes, but the next generation for HSR is going to test the limits because that’s what will be asked of it.
You are still thinking Erie Canal, I’m thinking Panama Canal…
joe Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 8:55 pm
IMHO that route to Bakersfield and on to the high desert is going to have hotter, more extreme and persistent heat than Italy or central Spain.
Autoblog tells me that VW execs made a mistake and learned the hard way they needed to adapt/modify their climate systems for the more demanding NA climate & market. expectations I think that adaption will have to happen for the trains selected for the CAHSR system.
I agree, all trains will need validation testing on tracks – validation tests for tracks too.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 1:00 am
Tom, Joe, the trains can be tested by the manufacturers to be built to specs. For example, when Russia ordered the Velaro RUS, Siemens delivered a Velaro that could withstand temperatures down to -40; of course the trains did test runs on the tracks before starting revenue service, but Siemens did not need to conduct tests on a Russian test track while developing the train. Nor did it need to conduct tests for a broad gauge train on a Russian test track (and neither do vendors of regional trainsets whenever they sell to Finland). It really isn’t a big deal.
I think it’s expected that some trivial modifications will have to be made. For one, there do not exist high-speed trains built to US loading gauge – UIC gauge is narrower, and Shinkansen gauge is a bit wider. The signaling will be pure ETCS, without such legacy systems as TVM and LZB. Like weatherproofing, these things are well within how the vendors tweak the same product to each market. Modern trains are designed to be modular this way; nowadays the big vendors even make their subway trains modular and sell the same essential product to cities with a wide variety of loading gauges, track gauges, signaling systems, and capacity requirements on their subway systems.
StevieB Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 1:21 am
Van Ark testified before congress that for trains to run at 220mph in regular service they would be first tested at 250mph. A long flat section of track such as in the Central Valley would be ideal for this test.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 9:55 am
I think it’s much more likely that the San Joaquins will be spun off into a joint powers authority comprised of SJ Regional Rail Commission and FCCOG. Then, you can build the Merced to Fresno section and with very minor rail upgrades switch the San Joaquins to that track.
No electrification, no new trainsets.
Meanwhile, ACE can go ahead and build its bypass around Stockton to serve Merced as well. Once Livermore and Warm Springs are complete for BART, you can have transfers seamlessly even though it won’t be a one-seat ride.
Meanwhile, the JPA will decide what to do about service beyond Merced and Fresno, perhaps curtailing service to the south and/or north. ACE could even conceivably buy lighter Talgo rolling stock that could also be used on the San Joaquins.
Emma Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 10:31 am
Exactly!
J. Wong Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 7:30 am
To restate my point: Starting the ICS in the Central Valley gets us both fiscally and politically closer to HSR than starting at the endpoints where we will still have to complete both a mountain crossing and the CV section to get HSR.
VBobier Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 10:48 am
Then You would build unjustified Gold Plated Transit that can never exceed 125-150mph, It will never do 220mph in urban areas, unless one builds a proper route that is long & straight enough, so drop the “Urban 1st junk” as that would be very expensive to acquire & build by themselves. It’s build in the CV 1st or It’s not going to be HSR anywhere, just more Metrolink/Caltrain mass-transit & Gold Plated at that.
Well Robert, on this very rare occasion, I find I totally agree with the key point of your article, that Simitian, Lowenthal and DeSaulnier will make sure the project doesn’t start in the CV to build the ICS.
They have the power to work their will and there is no doubt the ICS is not their will.
The whole project is now in complete chaos. This may well be what Gov. Brown wanted, since he will claim he has started a new beginning and will clean this all up and thus cleanse the project for all the abuse it has taken. The mantra will be “this is a new start — forget about the old management.”
Nevertheless from a political perspective, the ICS does not have the support of the large population areas of LA and the Bay area. Simitian’s game is to gain a delay, in which time they will produce plans to shift most, if not all the funding to the “bookends” of the project.
This may not go over well with Brown, who most likely was looking forward to a great groundbreaking ceremony in the fall just before the Nov 2008 election Wont make Costa happy either.
VBobier Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 10:51 am
No they do not have the power, As they are not the Legislature or the Governor, nor will they ever be so in fact.
Mike Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 11:08 am
Agreed (sorry Morris).
Lowenthal’s only power is his bully pulpit; he has exactly zero direct power over the project. (Well, okay, he has the power of having one out of 40 votes in the Senate. Big whoop.)
DeSaulnier too has zero direct power over the project. He does chair the Senate Transportation Committee, but that Committee has no jurisdiction at this point.
Simitian is the only one with any power, since he chairs the subcommittee that has to approve the appropriation of Prop 1A construction funds. But the budget that gets written in the subcommittees is NEVER the one that gets approved; it is ALWAYS rewritten by leadership and their allies. Who are those people? Steinberg, Perez; Brown; organized labor.
If Simitian, Lowenthal, and Desaulnier get their wish, it won’t be because they had the “power” to make it so. It will be because Brown and the unions decided that they want the same thing.
Joe Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 11:23 am
Lowenthal is declared his intention to run for the open 47th district seat. His possible opponent (D) is Joe Dunn.
If elected he’ll have to ask the party minority/majority leader for committee assignments and cooperate with the delegation.
Killing 3B in ARRA funding would undo a lot of hard work from the delegation.
Nathanael Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 5:57 pm
I believe from rumor that Dunn is already considered to be ahead. No idea how this affects Lowenthal’s psychology.
morris brown Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 11:38 am
@Mike
You don’t understand how the legislature works and I’m not about to get into a discussion with you about it. Robert knows how things go in Sacramento and if he wishes he can write an article about the process.
Why do you think Robert keeps writing Lowenthal hates HSR if this one senator only has the power of 1 vote of 40? Same true of Simitian and DeSaulnier
Mike Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 12:24 pm
Oh please Morris, do explain what direct power Lowenthal has over California’s upcoming HSR funding decision; you would be doing a mitzvah for my wee little uninformed brain.
As I acknowledged, Lowenthal certainly has a bully pulpit (i.e., the power to make mischief and thereupon to attempt political gamesmanship), but such power is small in comparison to that of Brown, Steinberg, and organized labor.
So pretty please Morris, don’t be modest. Go ahead and unleash your deep understanding of the California Legislature to explain what formal power Lowenthal and DeSaulnier have.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 1:03 pm
This is nothing more than a fascinating game of political “chicken”.
What’s happening is that Mica in DC is using the same strategy as Lowenthal is in California: divide and conquer. NIMBYs can’t stop this project, but the dwindling New York delegation can if it wants to try and poach federal dollars for Amtrak. BART can, if it wants to band together with Metro and other transit agencies.
Note that the only reason for the dissent is that the NY delegation and BART are worried that they may get (seriously) chumped in the Highway Reauthorization bill floating in Congress. Take that anvil away and this wouldn’t happen. But if the Democrats stonewall too much, Mica might elect to force a shut down like what we saw with the FAA last summer.
I wouldn’t be surprised if all this magically gets resolved on November 7th….
Arthur Dent Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 2:57 pm
@Mike:
Have you never heard of a little thing called budget subcommittees? Educate thyself.
Mike Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Heh, you’re right; I overlooked Lowenthal’s membership on Simitian’s budget subcommittee. But I think you’re overlooking the fact that on issues of major political significance, and issues of major concern to Democratic constituents (i.e., organized labor, and in 2012 the DNC), budget decisions are not made in subcommittee.
joe Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 6:24 pm
The subcommittee could possibly stall the legislation in committee – that would put both in the cross hairs of a sitting Governor.
Lowenthal harbors dreams of moving to the US House of Representatives in the 47th District. I bet Joe Dunn could challenge him and raise enough money to send Lowenthal to a Think Tank.
Mike Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 9:07 pm
Nah; the “legislation” in question is the Budget Act, and it really doesn’t matter at all if one rogue subcommittee decides to sit on its hands. All Senate rules can be waived (as happens every day); the Budget Committee can act in place of the subcommittee, and the Senate can act in place of the Budget Committee. And Steinberg, Perez, and Brown can act in place of the entire Legislature.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 3:49 pm
Have you ever worked in a budget office? Once the Governor, Speaker, and President have a deal, the budget passes.
@ Robert:
You will just love reading the latest from the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bullet-exaggeration-20120117,0,4293248.story
So now you can attack both the LA Times and the Peer Review Group for clearly stating the 171 Billions you and the Authority have repeatedly claimed as the “cost of doing noting” is without substance.
I guess you should add Samer Madanat of the Berkeley institute to your list of people to attack as well.
Daniel Krause Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 12:17 am
I love how the machine of FUD spins their arguments. Existing excess capacity is not an issue and should NOT be in the calculations. Why? Because we are comparing a simple matter of increasing transportation capacity. We will need to expand the capacity of highways/airports and HSR to meet ALL future demand in the long run. Today’s excess capicity in the highways/airports will soon be used up by population growth and more demand from continued sprawl. When that is used up, we will STILL need ALL the additional capacity that HSR will provide. Therefore, the numbers being compared are for that point in the future. We will need THEN to either build the equivalent amount of highways/airports or HSR. It is so easy to produce doubt and cast acquisations with an uncritical media. Our democracy is in trouble.
Daniel Krause Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 12:31 am
This coordinated attack is really becoming blantant and it is really disturbing. All the biased and often bogus calculations of cost comparison is one thing. But the total lack of acounting of the environmental and health benefits is what is truly disgusting and stomache turning by these purveyors of FUD. Democrats who narrow their view to dollars in the SHORT-TERM, are violating all their supposed values. They have bought into the hard right view of the world that the “public good” has no intrinsic value. And that is sad.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 8:24 pm
You mean like a vast right-wing conspiracy?
Nathanael Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 5:59 pm
Well, there is one, everyone who’s actually paid attention knows that. The Koch Brothers, ALEC, Heritage, honestly, like most real conspiracies, the consipiring is right out there in the open.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 7:02 am
When the people pimping the numbers (CAHSRA) keep moving the bar, what do you expect? Solidarity?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 1:03 am
Utah is busy widening I-15. Deseret News in Salt Lake City calculated that it is costing 27 million dollars a lane mile when all the costs, from the time Utah decided to begin studying new lanes to the time the first car drives over the new lane. Let’s keep the math simple. It’s 400 miles between LA and SF, add a lane for 400 miles is 800 lane miles. 800 times 25,000,000 is 20 billion dollars. It’s going to cost more than 25 million a mile to build lanes in metro LA and the Bay Area. How much is it going to cost to add one measly lane between LA and SF?
Peter Baldo Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 6:15 am
And like most highways, this one will remain at-grade, dividing one desert bio-region into two fragments. If interstates were held to the same standard as California’s high speed rail project, long grade-separated sections, either aerial or underground, would be required, making costs astronomical.
VBobier Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 11:09 am
Another thing that most critics here fail to mention is that We here in California live on the edge of the ring of fire, the part that makes earthquakes & that has created California’s varied terrain & geology, this is one of the ingredients that makes building anything in CA fairly expensive, more so when the I5/CA14 interchange fell for a 2nd time in an earthquake, besides the fact that CA also imports a lot of supplies & that good qualified labor, whether blue or white collar is not cheap, so stilts as Syno says are needed here & there, should they be used everywhere? I say no, just where needed in the man made environment(farms/cities/other RR’s), on the other hand in the mountains unless they are absolutely required they should not be used & the stilts should only be as high as needed & no more than that. At grade the whole way or even a lot of the time would be nice, but CA is not a blank sheet like It was in the 1850′s, Freeways use stilts, no one objects, yet God forbid that HSR should ever use Stilts…
Hypocrites.
We are assuming, probably correctly, that Brown will ask the legislature to appropriate the currently negotiated matching funds from the Prop. 1A authorization.
There remains a possibility, though, that he need not. The federal legislation does not require the matching funds that the previous California administration offered. The ARRA funds do not need any matching funds. The FY10 funds need only a 20% match. It is quite possible that a minimal match could be found within Caltrans’ existing budget. Brown could renegotiate to keep the entire federal allocation, match it minimally and build the original plan of Borden to Corcoran.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 5:28 am
I think you are on to something…
Borden to Corcoran is a “train to nowhere” though, so I think we will see Merced to Fresno revived. That will peel off DeSaulnier. Lowenthal and Simitan are lame ducks, if I recall correctly.
VBobier Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 11:23 am
Of course It’s the ICS(Initial Construction Segment), Not a train to Nowhere which is a LIE that the Losers like to preach, Borden to Corcoran are the end points of construction just outside Bakersfield & Fresno respectively. And Yes to some it’s that they want nothing to do with HSR, they’d rather have more & more 10-12 lane Freeways built which take up a lot of land & land last I looked isn’t being made anymore in this state & is therefore always going up in price or they’d rather take no action thinking that the population isn’t growing in CA, when in fact it is & 50 million people living in CA soon is not impossible or improbable, just inevitable.
morris brown Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 8:05 am
@Jim
You write:
“The federal legislation does not require the matching funds that the previous California administration offered. The ARRA funds do not need any matching funds. The FY10 funds need only a 20% match.”
Wrong conclusion. The grant agreements between the FRA and the Authority do require the State matching funds. The was emphasized in the recent Mica committee hearing.
So matching is currently required. The FRA could agree to change the agreement terms without congressional action, but the FRA shows no signs of doing that, just as they show no signs of allowing the funds to be spent elsewhere.
Incoming Chair Richard in all his statements repeats that the ICS in the Central Valley is where the project will be started and Gov. Brown also states that position.
jim Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 8:07 am
The FRA could agree to change the agreement terms without congressional action
Precisely.
jim Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 8:26 am
I should have resisted the urge to the one word reply.
Any change to the plans requires change to the grant agreements. Sending the money to the end-points requires a change. Shifting to a mountain crossing requires a change. Reducing the California match requires a change.
We know that Feinstein has already talked to LaHood, has suggested that getting the match through the California legislature for the ICS will be a hard slog, has said that some want redirect the money to upgrade commuter rail (she will not have put it in those terms, but the point will have been made). Feinstein has also urged Brown to talk to LaHood. If Brown reinforces the point about the legislative difficulties, but suggests a match reduction to bypass the legislature and keep the funds from being dissipated on commuter rail, he may find LaHood receptive.
I do not say that this will happen. I do not say that Brown is even likely to want to do this. I do not say that if Brown tries this, LaHood will agree. But if Brown wants to do this and LaHood agrees, there is, as far as I am aware, no legal bar.
Nathanael Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 6:00 pm
LaHood’s record says to me that he’d accept a change in the matching requirements, but would not accept a redirection of money to commuter rail.
Slightly off topic–commentary from Capt’n Transit on Spain and California HSR:
http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2012/01/population-density-to-support-my-ass.html
While there are arguments to begin in the central valley first. It goes against political reality in California. There are arguments to begin in LA and bay area first also. Political power and money in this state are in Los Angeles and the bay area. It is therefore not surprising to be getting all of this backlash. If funding would have been in place along with set timetables for constructing each segment – then fine. But since there is no set funding and we are looking at a 20 -30 year timespan, it may have been wiser to begin where the power and people are – in LA and bay area. I hate to admit this, but if they had begun there first, you would not be reading most of the generated criticism and backlash. Now unfortunately much damage has done, perhaps self inflicted.
VBobier Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 11:35 am
The main problem with the set funding argument is, It is false, Freeways have never had complete funding for their entire length, just for their segments, HSR is no different in this respect. Building at the end points speaks of Bigotry of those who live in the CV, saying no one lives there, so Why should HSR be built beyond the endpoints? If You really want HSR, then HSR must have the running room of the CV. I say build as agreed & stop squabbling about where to build 1st, as that has already been decided, it’s that or HSR may be set back for a long time, just like in Florida. To object to HSR is to be one of the Losers from 2008.
Jo Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 2:33 pm
Actually I agree with you, and I hope you are right. The point that I was trying to convey is that I am afraid that building in the CV first may not be able to overcome political reality and public ignorance about high speed rail. Building in the CV first is a cold turkey approach when thinking about the state as a whole. Perhaps we should start by educating the masses first, which are located in LA and bay area. Electrify Caltrain, and LA to Anaheim – maybe even LA to San Diego too, also the Capital route to Sacramento. Use clean sleek – not to mention efficient and economical to run Talgos vs the heavy lumbering fuel hog equipment that Amtrak uses. I believe this is pretty much the approach that they are taking in Washington state. This may be a more sophisticated approach.
Nathanael Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 6:02 pm
Washington State is spending nosebleed amounts to BNSF for track access, and has to put concrete weights in its trains to meet the FRA requirements. And hasn’t even gotten up to 90 mph yet, with a final target of 110 mph. (Which is OK for the specific Portland-Seattle corridor, but would suck for LA-SF.)
So there are some problems with the Washington approach, even though it had some major upsides.
Maybe its just me, but I believe running electric trains at 90-125 MPH from SJ-SF, SJ-Stockton and along Metrolink lines would also get Californians (and private investors) excited about true HSR in the Central Valley. You would also be taking more cars off the roadways and generating real revenue sooner with this bookend approach.
jim Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 9:24 am
Do you have any ridership studies to support this belief?
And where did SJ-Stockton come from? Along what route? Funded with what money?
Tony d. Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 2:06 pm
No studies Jim, but I would think upgrading current commuter rail corridors would attract more riders and enjoy greater revenues than building an ICS in the Central Valley. Have you ever seen traffic on 580, 101 SJ-SF, and LA freeways? Much greater volumes then 99 between Fresno and Bakersfield. As for SJ-Stockton, that’s ACE, and it would be paid for with the same mechanisms supposedly to be used to get beyond the currently planned ICS (future federal, local and private funds).
Joe Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 4:06 pm
Tony d.
What private investor would invest in commuter rail service given they all lose money and require a subsidy?
Want more riders? Cut ticket prices and you’ll see more riders. More Subsidy and lower ticket prices.
All operate at a loss. No need to improve anything but if you do, it will still be on systems that lose money year after year. ICS has the plan to evolve into a cost recovery system for operations.
Caltrain recovers about 67% at the fare box. ACE would require adding dedicated track for improved Diesel train service between Stockton and San Jose.
The argument for Caltrain electrification is somewhat faster service for riders many benefits are not for the riders: Lower operating costs, noise and pollution, better grade separations. These benefit the public and surrounding community more than attracting the greatest ridership per buck spent.
Commuter systems should be subsidized. We subsidize commuter driving and there are lower external costs with rail.
I disagree that the ICS is a loser – it’s a step towards connecting SF and LA and with a service that can recover operating costs.
Tony d. Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 9:03 pm
So a private investor won’t invest into intercity commuter rail a la Caltrain, ACE or Metrolink but somehow will invest in the ICS? please explain.
Mike Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 9:15 pm
I don’t think joe is claiming that private investors will invest in the ICS. Even the authority doesn’t claim that private investors will throw in anything until the IOS is completed (with 100% public funding) and (in the Authority’s version) shows an operating profit. Something that commuter rail can never do.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 9:39 am
You don’t need electric trains to run at 90 miles an hour. Even Amtrak does that with diesel trains.
Emma Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 10:51 am
Of course. jim and adirondacker12800 simply don’t want to understand that signs of progress are also attracting potential riders. The old un-electrified system is associated with chronical tardiness, uncomfortable cars, 50 year old locomotives making noise and killing “innocent people who just tried to cross the rails.”
In contrast you have the electrified system which is associated with being on time, silent, air-conditioned cars, quiet or even no locomotive, modern stations. This is why California signed up for Prop 1A. If they knew they would keep the Diesel trains, that plan would have died.
jim Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 11:00 am
I don’t pretend to know why California signed up for Prop. 1A. But I think it might have had something to do with high speed rail.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 12:59 pm
So do minor upgrades to Metrolink and Caltrian for a few tens of billions of dollars and then come back in 2020, rip it all out and put in HSR. Sounds like a great plan.
Riders don’t give a flying leap if the locomotive electric or diesel or runs on unicorn farts. All they care about is if it’s faster than driving and dependable.
Joey Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 1:17 pm
If you have an ounce of common sense you would build upgrades in a way that would be compatible with future HSR.
Tony d. Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
Exactly!
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 2:32 pm
How do you make moving the tracks from above ground to a tunnel “compatible”? Or even easing a curve a few hundred feet away?
I think both Robert and the senators are incorrect.
Robert is right that the missing link should be filled first, but the missing link is not the Central Valley.
First is the Tehachapi pass. With it filled, we’re looking at Oakland to Los Angeles in about 8 hours without transfers. That could be the initial construction AND initial operating segment. Next we have two options – Pacheco or Central Valley. There can be debate about which one should come first, but a one-seat ride between San Francisco and Los Angeles sounds important so that the people start using it and trying to improve it.
If San Francisco to Los Angeles could be done in 8 hours it would be very well used, as it’s only 2 hours slower than a car-ride, which puts it in the realm of usable, though not ideal. This is where the Central Valley comes in. This is where the Central Valley comes in. The Fresno to Bakersfield HSR would cut the whole trip to 6.5 hours, which is really competitive with the automobile now, and people would clamor for more (extending to Merced which would cut it to 5, upgrading Palmdale to LA, and San Jose to San Francisco).
I could also see the Central Valley as the second step, where Oakland to Los Angeles is cut to 6 hours. With a transfer to BART in Richmond, the full trip to San Francisco would be 7 hours, which is faster than filling the Pacheco pass, but requires a transfer which I think is worse.
But either way, the Tehachapi should come first to establish some ridership base, to whet appetites and to clearly motivate the next spending phase.
StevieB Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 1:06 am
As there is not enough money to build over the Tehachapi mountains then it is just as reasonable to wish for building the Central Valley and Tehachapi segments at the same time. That would give you an Initial Operating Segment and provide funds to build out additional segments. The momentum that would give the project would be unstoppable.
Nathanael Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 6:03 pm
Again, the EIRs were much easier to finish for the Central Valley than for the LA-Bakersfield mountain crossings. Honestly, if the EIR work had been ready, I feel sure they would have gone for the mountain crossing, but it’s far from done even now.
All I can say is that I am glad that people finally begin to realize that starting with the end points is simply the smarter way of getting this project started than beginning with the ridiculously expensive CV segments. The end segments could be built independently from one another allowing one segment to begin service be the other. It would also require less money per mile since it would be a combination of upgrades to existing rails and new dedicated HSR track. However, that dedicated track could be “rented” out to commuter rail in the meantime which would provide additional revenues for the CHSR fund. But most importantly: Shorter traveling times, more reliable schedules by using HSR track that avoid at-level crossing and thus higher ridership.
J. Wong Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 10:57 am
@Emma “ridiculously expensive CV segments”? The end segments are even more ridiculously expensive the the CV segment even with just upgrades to existing rails, and there will not be any new dedicated HSR track in those segments, i.e., it will always be shared in some fashion with commuter rail. And you’re not going to be getting any revenue out of such an arrangement. There will be no “rent” since commuter rail will have rights to use the track or if not will just use their own tracks.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
If the costs — urban, suburban, exurban, farmland — can’t be reduced by circa 50% then there is no chance whatsoever for this turkey to proceed. With excellent reason. With fifty billion excellent reasons, in fact.
Sputter about peak oil and highway subsidies all you want, but one hundred million of your earth dollars is more than anybody is going to stomach, politically or electorally.
As it is it’s DOA.
jim Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 1:58 pm
I don’t know that it’s the final cost that’s actually the killer. It’s that there aren’t affordable intermediate operational configurations.
The relatively cheap potential IOSs are ruled out by the terms of AB3034. The cheapest possible IOS is probably Sacramento-Fresno. It would likely lose money, but, especially if operated at 300 km/h, not that much. Sacramento may not be LA, SF or SD, but it’s enough of a real destination to anchor a line. And Sacramento-Fresno can probably be built for on the order of $10B. Sacramento-Bakersfield is $6B or $7B more expensive but very likely to generate a surplus, even running at 350 km/h. Sacramento-San Francisco (via Altamont) would cost somewhere between those two (though there’s always risk in crossing mountains) and, as long as it was significantly faster than the Cap Corridors, attract more ridership than either.
Those three and Merced-Palmdale are the only potential IOSs which can be brought in under $20B and it would only take one gotcha in the twelve miles of tunnel through the Tehachapis for Merced-Palmdale to exceed that. We are also permitted to doubt that Merced-Palmdale would attract enough ridership to cover its operating costs.
What’s hard is not the final system cost. What’s hard is you have to spend over $20B before you even see a train.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 8:12 pm
You could use existing Rail Rehabilation fund dollars to buy the BNSF railway between Bakersfield and Fresno and then construct HSR track between Merced and Fresno and have the San Joaquins use articulated Talgos for less than $20 million, I’m pretty sure.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 8:26 pm
That would require BNSF to sell it which they would have no intention or reason to do so.
O.T. but probably of interest to @Sobering Reality:
On the Horizon Planes Powered by Plant Fuel
Alon Levy Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 3:08 pm
I think everyone who has any involvement in fuel crops has to be made to pay the same proportion of their discretionary income on food as people in food-importing countries like the Philippines. If people making $500 a year can take the food price inflation resulting from reduction in cropland, surely there’s no harm in asking people making $50,000 a year to take the same burden, right?
Joe Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 4:10 pm
Considering grain production in the US is subsidized, we’d quickly find that biofuel solution both expensive and non-sustainable. I see some value in alternative fuels R&D but not as a economic substitute for our current BTU intensive economy.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 4:31 pm
I think the opposite, honestly. Biofuel is expensive and unsustainable to the world, but if you’re in the global top 20% or so, you can shrug off the increase in food prices, and might even welcome the tradeoff of more expensive food and cheaper fuel, if you live in rural areas. It’s a minor annoyance, compared with the major benefits Iowa gets from this.
J. Wong Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 4:32 pm
The blog posting mentions non-food crops as being the source not grains and certainly not corn. There may be an issue with land being used that could otherwise be used to grow food, but the article doesn’t talk about that.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 4:45 pm
Do the maths, people.
Nathanael Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 6:05 pm
Until *really* high-energy-density lightweight batteries become available, there’s simply no alternative to fuel-burning for planes. Which is one reason plane travel is simply going to become less and less common.
StevieB Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 8:32 pm
At present ethanol from corn is the only biofuel. Ethanol production has become less profitable and one company has turned from ethanol production to chemicals, mainly butanol, for profitability.
The main effect of the ethanol mandate has been to increase the price of corn and other foods reliant on corn for feedstock and foods in less supply because they have been displaced by cornfields.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 5:12 pm
While on the subject of alternate sources of energy, the military is looking at solar-generated electricity again–this time as large fixed installations at bases in California. Supposedly the potential is quite considerable:
http://www.ecogeek.org/solar-power/3683-military-bases-in-california-desert-could-generate?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+EcoGeek+%28EcoGeek%29
Alon Levy Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 6:55 pm
No. Just no. California is busy industrializing vast tracts of desert for centralized solar installation (wiping out endangered species in the process), instead of encouraging people to put solar panels on their rooftops and have personal control over clean energy generation.
It’s worth remembering that Big Oil does not view itself as Big Oil, but rather as Big Energy. BP and Shell are top producers of solar panels. Likewise, Texas supports local wind and solar power installments, since it views itself as a leader in energy of all forms. Those enormous installations mean that the same companies that enrich themselves at everyone else’s expense will keep enriching themselves at everyone else’s expense, only in a more sustainable manner. Better than oil, much worse than rooftop solar.
Nathanael Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 6:06 pm
“BP and Shell are top producers of solar panels.”
Citation please. I believe you’re wrong about this.
Shell put its money into algae biofuel (they own the largest fleet of tankers in the world and want to have something to transport in them). BP *was* going into solar, but it divested at the last CEO change.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 6:20 pm
It could be a few years out of date – I read this on Life After The Oil Crash (yes, I know) around 2005 or so.
The bit about Texas is much more recent. I forget whose profile of Rick Perry it comes from, back when he was leading in the polls – Ezra Klein’s, maybe.
“Inter-City” rail is an alternative to flying or taking a car between Socal and the Bay Area. Marginal improvements to the Pacific Surfliner, San Joaquins, or Capital Corridors does not address the long-term need. I can’t believe that the California that I moved to over three decades ago has lost it’s nerve. We get millions of tourists every year from Asia and Europe who are used to taking fast inter-city trains between major cities and we have what exactly? The Coast Starlight – one train a day that dawdles between Oakland and Union Station. Flying? Have you seen what $100/bl oil does to airfares? The airlines aren’t agitating for more flights between LA and SFO because it’s not a good use of their equipment when landing and take-off slots are resticted. Get a grip!
joe Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 9:01 pm
LATimes gets letters from Readers
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2012/01/california-cant-afford-the-bullet-train-most-commented.html
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 9:10 pm
The only way you can get from LA to SF in under an hour is if you live at the airport – on the airside of security and want to go to a baggage carousel at the other airport. Anybody else is going to have a much longer trip.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 9:47 pm
“*For clarity purposes, spelling errors in the above comments have been corrected.”
I wonder what the posts would have looked like without these corrections! Most people here write and spell decently, but look at what even we get without the chance to spell check or edit!
Then some people apparently haven’t heard of Amtrak’s and Acela’s operational surpluses in the NEC, nor about how Amtrak has most of the air-rail travel market:
Too much to pay for nostalgia
This utter waste of taxpayer money can never compete with the airlines. There is a fast Amtrak train between DC and NYC, yet the airlines fly full. Who is going to spend 2 hrs and 40 min on a train when an airliner makes the trip in 1 hour and can take you to San Jose, Oakland or San Francisco? It sounds like a wonderful nostalgic thing to ride the train but passenger trains are on the way out.
–byron.m.allen
I read these and the other comments, and I wonder about the generational factor, and the Fox News factor. And the sour attitudes! Geez, some people might not like us or what we want to do, but why do they have to sound so hateful to the project? As noted, nobody raises anything like this sort of stink about road construction, which costs multiples of what this rail project will, even with the cost “blow-outs” so decried here, and incurs those externalities such as oil dependence.
Then there are the characters who call this “18th century technology.” Really, did we have railroads in the Washington administration? Were they around in the colonial era of the 1700s? Or are they confusing the 1800s with the 18th century? If that’s the case, how come the 1900s were the “20th century,” and our current era of the 2000s is the “21st century?”
And how come they all call it a “boondoggle” all the time? Can’t they come up with different words? Are they that uncreative? To keep saying “boondoggle” makes them sound sillier and sillier to me.
StevieB Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 10:19 pm
Trains were invented in the 19th century as were automobiles.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 9:48 pm
Yep, trains were critical for troop movements in the Revolutionary War, but were kind of old-fashioned by 1900.
StevieB Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 10:10 pm
You have your wars wrong. No trains in the Revolution. Train movements of troops were crucial to Thomas Jackson in the Valley campaign of 1862 were they were used to outmaneuver the more numerous Union troops. In the 20th century train movement also allowed Germany to ship its army from Poland to France at the beginning of the second world war in short order. Very important as Germany had few divisions with trucks for transporting infantry and supply in the field was overwhelmingly moved by horses at the time.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 12:47 am
I’m just mocking the letter writer for calling trains 18th century technology. I know very well that trains were at their most critical for troop movements in the period when they dominated transportation, that is (in American wars) the Civil War, WW1, and WW2.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 11:03 pm
Stevie, Stevie, you need to turn your sarcasm detector on. . .:-)
About trains and wars:
The combination of industrial might, a larger population, and a much more dense and networked rail system was what enabled the North to prevail in the War Between the States.
In reference to the War Between the States, this year will be the 150th anniversary of the Great Locomotive Chase, also known as the Andrews Raid, in which Northern spies stole a train to cut a rail link to Chattanooga. The raid failed, and eight of the 22 raiders would be executed, but the daring and colorful episode remains legendary today, and its raiders were the first recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor. This incident was also the subject of two films–a wonderful comedy called “The General,” starring Buster Keaton, and a more serious variant of it, called “The Great Locomotive Chase,” a Disney film that starred Fess Parker as James Andrews, the leader of the raiders.
WW I was also a war of rail movement–and that included “trench railroads” on both sides, tiny, 60-cm narrow-gauge lines to haul supplies almost up to, and in some cases into, the fixed trench fortifications used in that conflict.
You’ve mentioned the efficiency of rail in moving troops WW II Germany (and we must acknowledge that same efficiency employed to dark purposes in the Holocaust), but the Allies put rail service to good use, too, notably in Iran and in occupied Europe. Most notable of all for us may be the domestic rail service in that conflict. It was invaluable–and heavily strained–in a time when rail traffic literally multiplied due to both the military demands and the call for civilian travel in a war when most people got an “A” sticker on their cars that was good for a gasoline ration of four gallons per week–and that was later reduced to three! This was to conserve rubber used for tires; we didn’t have a synthetic rubber industry then, and the Japanese had captured all the rubber plantations in the Pacific.
We should have remembered some of the hazards of auto dependence. . .
It’s a fascinating period, if a bit grim at times. . .I’ve had some material here before about rationing in that time and how trains were essential because of restricted oil supplies (shades of embargoes and peak oil decades later!), and if you’re interested or didn’t see it before, I’ll set it up again.
Emma Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 10:08 pm
All I can say is that 30 years is a lot of time for innovation and improvements. By that time, some major airlines might have switched from kerosin to some “green” fuel or even Plug-in planes. They might invent a completely new niche model of commercial planes that covers shorter trips in smaller planes. Cars will also make significant progress. As the oil prices rise, companies will be forced to invent more efficient cars. Back in 2005 a plug-in EV was considered pure “geek fantasy.” Well, who’s laughing now?
By 2033, the problems of 2012 might be completely history rendering the $100 billion of inferior HSR as useless addition that will rot like Amtrak, BART, Caltrain and whatnot. That the system will be outdated by 2033 is also a given when you look at Chuo Shinkansen and new European High Speed Trains able to travel at speeds up to 360 km/h already!
Just to illustrate how much 30 years really are. 1980-2010 were 30 years. Look at the progress. Not to mention, if this plan doesn’t manage to go back to under $50 billion by this year, it will get killed by a Proposition. That’s a given.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 11:42 pm
Yes in the past 40 years the time it takes to get from NY to DC by train has gone from 2 hours and 30 minutes to 2 hours and forty minutes. If they keep this up they should be able to get it over three hours by 2050 or so.
Nathanael Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 6:12 pm
Plug-in planes are a really hard problem. The engines are no problem, but the batteries are a very serious problem. I mentioned earlier that I know some folks with a super battery design. It *may* make it possible to have plug-in planes, but it’s questionable — it’s on the borders of being lightweight enough.
Plug-in cars are great, but even after they all switch to using super batteries, they’ll be *expensive*. There will be no cars with long-distance capability in the <$50K range.
High-speed train travel will be cheap by comparison. *And still faster* than car travel.
"1980-2010 were 30 years. Look at the progress. "
Let's see — we have a destabilized, boiling climate, an economy which is more dependent on oil and coal, substantially worse airline service in the US, and slower train service in most of the US… what was your point again?
Progress doesn't happen by magic, it happens because we *make* it happen. We have to actually build the HSR in order to progress on that. We have to actually invest in solar panels in order to make progress on that. Et cetera.
Nathanael Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 6:17 pm
To be clear, there was progress from 1980-2010 — *on the things we invested in*. Al Gore got Congress to fund the design of the Internet (really), and that progressed quite nicely.
synonymouse Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 6:29 pm
@ Emma
You are certainly correct in insisting 30 years can be a long time in terms of innovation. Bechtel used all of its influence and political leverage to impose proprietary tech on BART in the mid-60′s that it touted as revolutionary but which we now regard as hopelessly retrograde and gratuitously expensive.
A couple of items of note from “Destination: Freedom,” the newsletter of the National Corridors Initiative.
One item (actually from last week’s edition) that Alon will be interested in: A segment of last week’s edition on FRA regulations by Richard Beadles, who was once a vice-president on the RF&P:
More Planes than Trains: Why
Virginia Rail Observations And Commentary
By Richard L. Beadles Volume III, No. 24
Financially struggling AMR, parent of American Airlines, finally filed for bankruptcy protection and reorganization at the end of November. A December 3 AP article in the RTD indicated that this was the 189th time a U. S. airline had done so since deregulation in 1978. The same article reported that in the past decade U. S. airlines have lost a combined $54.5 billion. Yet, airlines keep ordering new jets. Less than six months ago, American announced an order for 460 new planes, from Boeing and Airbus, the delivery of which is set to begin in 2013. Reequipping the fleet is a cornerstone of American’s near-certain exit from bankruptcy and, hopefully, of the company’s return to at least marginal profitability. How could this be?
Contrast this with Amtrak, arguably no less “profitable” than American. Amtrak transports ever-increasing volumes of Virginia passengers in rail cars that are about forty years old. Much like the old American planes being replaced by the new Boeing and Airbus jets, Amtrak’s Amfleet, to which we refer, is high maintenance, and replacement of such equipment by new state-of-the art coaches could save Amtrak a bundle. Why then does Amtrak not do as American is doing? Just order, via an equipment leasing company, a replacement fleet.
An adequate answer would require a more detailed explanation than space here permits, but in a phrase, it is “U. S. industrial policy”, something that economic free-market theorists decry, and something that many would deny exists! Going back to World War II, the U. S. prohibited production of new and better rail passenger cars and of most diesel locomotives as result of the War Department’s effort to ration resources and channel them into making ships, guns, trucks, tanks and planes. That is why the WWII GI generation traveled around the U. S. in rattle-trap WWI-vintage rail coaches and sleepers, with the result that most of those veterans resolved never to ride a train again if they could avoid it! In addition, virtually all resulting rail profits were confiscated by war taxation policies. There was no Marshall Plan for U. S. railroads.
The federal government’s WWII-related aviation R&D assets provided a superb launch platform for our modern commercial aviation industry. There was nothing comparable in rail. In fact, there was only worn out track and equipment. Private railroads, seemingly oblivious to not-so-subtle policy changes in Washington, made one last costly effort to reequip themselves with streamlined passenger trains after the War. The passenger car-building industry in America responded with mostly pre-war designs. It proved to be too little too late. Introduction of commercial jets, and the Interstate Highway System, ended any hope of revival. U. S. rail car builders folded. They are no more! Not so with European and Japanese high-speed train builders.
World-wide standardization of aviation operations and the mass production of compatible aircraft were essential. U.S. passenger rail operations and designs are often not compatible abroad. Public financial support for the builders, owners, and operators of aircraft was also critical. The result is a single world-wide market for planes, but not for trains. If AMR goes broke again, their new planes can be repositioned anywhere in the world. Not so for Amtrak equipment, designed to meet AAR/FRA (freight) rail standards. That’s just part of the challenge. More in another column later. In the meantime, Happy New Year!
Also of interest are an insider’s story of the cancellation of the ARC tunnel project, some info on the Shenzhen–Guangzhou line’s opening, and a photo of the 500 km/hour experimental trainset.
http://nationalcorridors.org/df3/df01092012.shtml
Background information on Mr. Beadles:
http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/studies/files/REF-Richard-Beadles-Bio.pdf
The current edition has an article on the private rail systems of Tokyo:
http://nationalcorridors.org/df3/df01162012.shtml
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 7:09 pm
More opinions and comments by Mr. Beadles, courtesy of the Virginia Rail Policy Institute:
http://www.varpi.org/
http://www.varpi.org/beadlesblog.htm
Alon Levy Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 12:23 am
I swear that I’m going to talk about funding when my backlog of posts about MBTA Commuter Rail ends. Hopefully the last one will be today (Wednesday), and if not, then tomorrow.
Andre Peretti Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 2:31 am
Contrary to the FRA, the FAA doesn’t work in isolation. It works in close collaboration with its foreign counterparts, notably the EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency). Have you ever heard of a plane certified in Europe and not in the US, or vice-versa?
Regarding Amtrak, do you imagine the company filing for bankruptcy and then starting anew with re-negotiated salaries & benefits and streamlined staff? That’s how airlines rise from the ashes.
Nathanael Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 6:15 pm
Airlines are very good at funding themselves (via bankruptcy) on the backs of cheated employees and cheated stockholders and bondholder. Obviously, with high unemployment, the employees will just suffer, but one wonders how long stockholders and bondholders will stand for this nonsense.
(Actually, the employees will probably start developing bad attitudes, which will filter through to the customer reaction. Will filter? HAS filtered.)
Nathanael Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 6:15 pm
In contrast, Amtrak staff generally get praised by customers. That’s the result of paying them decently.