California High Speed Rail Thread

[202_Cyclist]

Nope, nobody rides rail in California.

Amid trans-Hudson fuss, Amtrak touts ridership

Railway Age
April 11, 2012
Written by Douglas John Bowen

"...In the West, ridership rose 11.5% on the San Joaquin service (Sacramento-Oakland-Bakersfield), and up 6.7% on the Capitol Corridor (San Jose- Oakland-Sacramento- Auburn). Amtrak Cascades (Vancouver, B.C- Seattle- Portland-Eugene, Ore.) saw a more modest 0.5% increase."

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/....html?channel=

Remember, the San Joaquin, Capital Corridor, and Surfliner routes are already some of the busiest, most successful routes in the US.

[pesto]

I see HSR has added back the Anaheim link, although it's unclear what they plan to spend the money on in this corridor. It looks like it may be relatively minor improvements that allow them to "include" Anaheim without raising the overall price much.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by pesto

I see HSR has added back the Anaheim link, although it's unclear what they plan to spend the money on in this corridor. It looks like it may be relatively minor improvements that allow them to "include" Anaheim without raising the overall price much.

With the new "Bookends" approach, the Anaheim corridor will probably just get electrification and other improvements to the existing "shared" tracks to increase the maximum speed up to 110 mph. CHSR was never planning on 200 mph max speeds on that short corridor anyways - but they were thinking about using separate, dedicated tracks in that corridor.

They should only build dedicated HSR tracks imho where they plan and need to go faster than 125 mph. At that speed and higher, FRA compliant standards for railcars change. Commuter trains will just get in the way because they'll be limited to a max speed to 125 mph. I believe the need for separate, dedicated tracks for lighter weight HSR train sets at the slower speeds will disappear in the future, with the FRA being more friendly to trains with collision management systems (more engineered crush zones).

Using much more shared tracks with reduce construction costs considerably. Think CalTrain operations on both ends of the "Bookends".

[pesto]

Originally Posted by electricron

With the new "Bookends" approach, the Anaheim corridor will probably just get electrification and other improvements to the existing "shared" tracks to increase the maximum speed up to 110 mph. CHSR was never planning on 200 mph max speeds on that short corridor anyways - but they were thinking about using separate, dedicated tracks in that corridor.

I believe the need for separate, dedicated tracks for lighter weight HSR train sets will disappear in the future, with the FRA being more friendly to trains with collision management systems (more engineered crush zones).

Using much more shared tracks with reduce construction costs considerably. Think CalTrain operations on both ends of the "Bookends".

Thanks for the info and comments. That thinking does make some sense and seems to alleviate some local issues. But the safety one is going to be a hard sell I would think.

[M II A II R II K]

High-speed rail board approves final plan for California bullet train


04/13/2012

By Mike Rosenberg

Read More: http://www.mercurynews.com/californi...ifornia-bullet

Even as the California High-Speed Rail Authority unanimously approved the massive project's final blueprint Thursday, supporters led by Gov. Jerry Brown began a fast-and-furious sales campaign to convince skeptical lawmakers to jump on board. And the clock is ticking. Only two months remain before the Legislature votes on whether to start building the railroad, a decision that will seal the train's destiny after 16 years of preparation. The hearing in San Francisco, a rare Bay Area board meeting for the project, carried little drama, since the rail authority produced the plan. But it provided the agency its only opportunity to defend the latest plan before it begins a gauntlet of what promises to be a grueling series of legislative hearings starting next week.

- But the most recent business plan is seen as a significant improvement over last year's strategy, which envisioned a larger, $100 billion railroad that would open in 2034. Some swing-vote lawmakers, particularly, have been at least somewhat impressed, yet it remains to be seen if they can be swayed to support the vision. In June, the Legislature will vote on whether to start building the $6 billion first leg of construction in the Central Valley this winter, knowing the overall project still has a $55 billion shortfall. The Democratic leaders of both legislative chambers, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Assembly Speaker John Perez, and many rank-and-file Democrats support the project as a jobs creator and the transportation option of the future, while most Republicans consider it a waste of money. Also on Thursday, the board unanimously approved a deal to split with the Bay Area the $1.5 billion cost to electrify the Caltrain line after local agencies endorsed the partnership weeks ago. If the Legislature signs on, construction would begin soon, with electric Caltrains barreling between San Francisco and San Jose by the end of the decade and state bullet trains joining the line some 10 years later.

.....

[pesto]

Start building with a 55B shorfall? This sounds reminiscent of the last HSR deal or the latest deal out of Sacto: the Kings arena. You sell your parking revenues for 30 years (itself a financially horrible act) to build an arena but still need AEG, the NBA and the tenants to kick in a couple of 100M in building costs. The most objective economists to look at it called it a disaster for both the city and the team.

So who funds the 55B for HSR? Well, obviously the taxpayers. And who funds the over-runs? Same folks. And who funds the operating losses. Yep. That's 55B that would otherwise have gone to schools, social programs, law enforcement, road repairs, etc.

[mfastx]

Originally Posted by pesto

So who funds the 55B for HSR? Well, obviously the taxpayers. And who funds the over-runs? Same folks. And who funds the operating losses. Yep. That's 55B that would otherwise have gone to schools, social programs, law enforcement, road repairs, etc.

And? I don't understand how this is any different than highways. And how do you know there will be operating losses?

[Busy Bee]

^I think the answer to that is obvious. Unlike the rest of us, pesto can see into the future. I sure wish I had powers like his.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by mfastx

And? I don't understand how this is any different than highways. And how do you know there will be operating losses?

I didn't say it was different from highways; but this is immaterial because the ones that perform the functions of HSR (connecting LA to Bay) are aleady built. I would vigorously object to a 55B additional road building project connecting areas already well served.

I hate to remind you again, but HSR passed on the claim it would take peanuts to build and would run a profit. And not one auditor (seriously, NOT ONE) has believed that there is the slightest chance this will happen.

[dimondpark]

Please listen to reason Governor Brown.

Stop California bullet train, state's top analyst urges
By Mike Rosenberg
mrosenberg@mercurynews.com

Posted: 04/17/2012 04:11:57 PM PDT
April 17, 2012 11:25 PM GMTUpdated: 04/17/2012 04:25:27 PM PDT

The state's top analyst has urged lawmakers to pull the emergency brake on California's $68 billion bullet train, saying the recently revised plan carries way too much risk of failure.

The Legislative Analyst's Office report released late Tuesday may give the Legislature political cover if it decides to ax the polarizing rail line as it begins debating whether to approve high-speed rail Wednesday.

"Specifically, funding for the project remains highly speculative and important details have not been sorted out," the report concludes, noting there is a $55 billion shortfall.

The report follows the California High-Speed Rail Authority's approval last week of a final business plan to build the project connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles by 2029. The Legislature faces a decision in June on whether to approve Gov. Jerry Brown's request for $2.7 billion in bond funds to match $3.3 billion in federal grants to start building in the Central Valley. Otherwise, the state risks losing the federal grants, which officials say would essentially spell the end to the bullet train.

The LAO does, however, recommend the Legislature fund a small amount to continue planning operations in a hope to revive the project in future years.

The rail authority planned to comment later in the evening.

http://www.mercurynews.com/californi...-analyst-urges

[mfastx]

Originally Posted by pesto

I didn't say it was different from highways; but this is immaterial because the ones that perform the functions of HSR (connecting LA to Bay) are aleady built. I would vigorously object to a 55B additional road building project connecting areas already well served.

Well, many, many flights per day peform the "same functions" as highways (connecting LA to Bay) don't they? So you're advocating that all flights between LA and the Bay area cease to operate!?

Originally Posted by pesto

I hate to remind you again, but HSR passed on the claim it would take peanuts to build and would run a profit. And not one auditor (seriously, NOT ONE) has believed that there is the slightest chance this will happen.

Costs have gone up because of delays in construction and NIMBY's.

[SnyderBock]

So, do you think they will approve the go ahead? Are they also allowing unsolicited bids, in hopes of landing private financing in the form of a DBFOM?

[M II A II R II K]

Debunking NIMBY Math on California HSR


April 25, 2012

By Angie Schmitt

Read More: http://streetsblog.net/2012/04/25/de...alifornia-hsr/

“California High Speed Rail will forever need an operating subsidy.” That is the latest claim from an anti-HSR group called the Community Coalition on High Speed Rail. The group recently assailed CAHSR’s estimates that the system will cost 10 cents per passenger mile to operate, saying the figure is far too low and questioning the official math that the $81 San Francisco-to-LA fare would cover the costs of the trip.

- CC-HSR extrapolated a 10-cent operating cost per passenger mile based on the the published $81 LA-SF premium fare, and assuming 50% profit. They compared this 10-cents number to a study done in 2007 that reports a per-mile operating cost of around 30-50 cents per mile for European high-speed rail operators. So according to the CC-HSR, the LA-SF fares are too low, and would have to be at least triple the $81 fare just to break even. Does this argument make sense?

.....

SNCF fares for Paris-Avignon, which is exactly same distance as LA-SF.

[jg6544]

Article on Huffpo about how the San Joaquin Valley contains several of the most polluted regions in the country. Do we really want more cars on the 5 and the 99?

[pesto]

Originally Posted by mfastx

Well, many, many flights per day peform the "same functions" as highways (connecting LA to Bay) don't they? So you're advocating that all flights between LA and the Bay area cease to operate!?



Costs have gone up because of delays in construction and NIMBY's.

Without belaboring the distinction between operating costs and capital expenditures, please note that the analogous argument is that I am arguing that no new airport infrastructure would be needed. And this is essentially true (Burbank, Ontario, OC, Oakland, SJ have plenty of excess capacity; LAX is undergoing huge expansion as is).

The real reason for the changes in estimates is easy to find if you read the auditors comments: bad estimates, over-estimation of private investment, etc.; more than one auditor has commented that there was no plan to audit, just invention and guesswork. That's why is has gone through two major revisions.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by jg6544

Article on Huffpo about how the San Joaquin Valley contains several of the most polluted regions in the country. Do we really want more cars on the 5 and the 99?

Cars driving form LA to Bay consitute a percent of total CV traffic so small as to be well beyond unimaginably small. The 10M or so people living there plus ag business are the real polluters; don't try to give them lame excuses.

In any event, the LA to Bay drivers are going to be using ELECTRIC cars by the time that HSR is done (except for trucks, emergency vehicles and people going to the mountains, etc., who obviously wouldn't use HSR in the first place).

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by pesto

the LA to Bay drivers are going to be using ELECTRIC cars by the time that HSR is done

I always admire youthful optimism.

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by pesto

Without belaboring the distinction between operating costs and capital expenditures, please note that the analogous argument is that I am arguing that no new airport infrastructure would be needed. And this is essentially true (Burbank, Ontario, OC, Oakland, SJ have plenty of excess capacity; LAX is undergoing huge expansion as is).

The real reason for the changes in estimates is easy to find if you read the auditors comments: bad estimates, over-estimation of private investment, etc.; more than one auditor has commented that there was no plan to audit, just invention and guesswork. That's why is has gone through two major revisions.

The "massive" expansion at LAX consists principally of a new terminal for international flights and making some of the terminals less cesspoolish than they are now. And for the umpteenth time, the biggest obstacles to LAX growth, after the neighbors, are getting there and finding a place to park your car when you do.

How do you feel about building the runway in the Bay at SFO?

[fflint]

Originally Posted by pesto

The 10M or so people living there plus ag business are the real polluters; don't try to give them lame excuses.

Stop diverting attention from the huge role petroleum-based transportation plays in Central Valley pollution:

"Cutting through the valley are the state's two main north-south highway corridors, the routes for nearly all long-distance tractor trailer rigs, the No. 2 source of particulate pollution in the valley." http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/r...tland-15311690

In any event, the LA to Bay drivers are going to be using ELECTRIC cars by the time that HSR is done (except for trucks, emergency vehicles and people going to the mountains, etc., who obviously wouldn't use HSR in the first place).

You employ such interesting and self-serving double-standards: one rigorous and unforgiving standard for any claim made about any aspect of HSR, and then another standard of unquestioning acceptance for any claim that you think can work against HSR, like this faith-based conjecture about 'the electric future' you're promoting. Maybe that won't happen. And maybe you're okay with that--because above all, you are against HSR no matter what--but the rest of us aren't.

It is a bad idea to today commit our state's future to a petroleum-based transportation system because we really, really believe the unenforceable but feel-good promise that full electrification is just around the corner. Remember when everyone said we'd have flying cars? Sometimes the promises aren't kept, which is why it's a bad idea to gamble our future on them.

[DJM19]

Dont tell LAX they are expanding...they will shoot that argument down. They are renovating.