California High Speed Rail Thread

[1Boston]

For a second, forget about whether its a good investment or not(i think it is), don't you like having nice things? It would be pretty cool if this thing got built.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by jg6544

I do believe we need to rethink the routing and take the approach they took in France and Japan, among other places. Build a dedicated right-of-way for HSR with minimal stops between LA and the Bay Area. I'm not sure why we need HSR in places like Bakersfield or Visalia or Stockton. I would upgrade the existing right-of-way through the SJV, to four tracks allowing for the operation of express trains as well as locals and I'd eliminate grade crossings as well. Should have done that years ago.

Generally, I agree on this. I still think it wouldn't be viable (economically or politically), but it would be better.

[dimondpark]

California Needs a Rail Project, but Not This One

Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis is a co-founder of Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design.

January 26, 2012

California absolutely needs to invest in its transportation infrastructure, including a robust rail network. High-speed rail could help shrink the effective distances between California’s unconnected regions. Voters in 2008 endorsed the vision by authorizing $9 billion of bonds.

At the original price tag of $33 billion and the promise of $55 tickets for a quick trip between Los Angeles and San Francisco, the debate about high speed rail was more about “want” than need. Costs are now closer to $100 billion, ticket prices will be much higher to attract private investment, and the impact on farmland and cities seems far greater than originally anticipated.

There is an adage in construction: “Good, fast and cheap — pick two.” In this case, we have a trifecta with plans that are bad, take decades and are outrageously expensive. The cost to taxpayers to build the project equates to a public contribution of almost $200 for every projected round trip in the first 30 years of operation. The public will pay 90 percent of the building costs and take most of the risk, and yet the private sector will collect 100 percent of any operating profits.

The current project costs too much and delivers too little. But why?

The state auditor just released a scathing report that gives some clues. The project is being run by layers of consultants undersupervised by a skeletal state agency unable to manage the myriad conflicts of interest that are killing high-speed rail. The project’s primary consultant, Parsons Brinckerhoff, does both the cost estimates and the cost-benefit analysis. It is curious how they have moved in lockstep.

The real challenge is not finances or engineering or cranky neighbors. It is finding the political will to step back and figure out how to make sure public projects are designed for public benefit, not private.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate...t-not-this-one

In short, if we're going to do this thing, we don't need to rush in order to meet the timetable and price set by some out-of-state consultant.

[202_Cyclist]

Elizabeth Alexis is an ardent Peninsula NIMBY who showed a remarkable capacity to make up pure BS during her appearance befoe the House Transportation & Infrastrucutre Committee in December. She has advocated for "fixes" that would add hundreds of millions --perhaps billions-- of dollars to the project's cost. She is as credible on high speed rail as Newt is about family values.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Elizabeth Alexis is an ardent Peninsula NIMBY who showed a remarkable capacity to make up pure BS during her appearance befoe the House Transportation & Infrastrucutre Committee in December.

And yet I don't see anything in that article that is necessarily wrong.

[202_Cyclist]

dimondpark:

And yet I don't see anything in that article that is necessarily wrong.

She is complaining about the cost of the investment yet the desire of her and the Peninsula NIMBYs to have extensive trenches throughout the Peninsula will add billions of dollars to the project's cost.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

dimondpark:


She is complaining about the cost of the investment yet the desire of her and the Peninsula NIMBYs to have extensive trenches throughout the Peninsula will add billions of dollars to the project's cost.

Yes, but he wants you to ignore her hypocrisy and take her self-serving NIMBY anti-CAHSR rant as if it were made in good faith.

Meanwhile, we're supposed to look at the consultants' budget projections and ascribe to CASHR officials and supporters wicked, malevolent motives of ruination and thievery. One lenient standard for his side, one harsh standard for the other side. You know, typical "My tribe = good, not my tribe = bad" stuff.

[bmfarley]

Let's not delude ourselves... it will be an expensive project.

Also, let's not convienently forget that not doing this project is going to save California money... if not HSR, that means investing further in other infrastructure expansion projects - highway widenings, airport runways and terminals, etc. etc.

[jg6544]

I'm just wondering, if back in the 1950s, people had looked at the Interstate Highway System solely in terms of cost, would it ever have been built?

[ltsmotorsport]

Bingo. But in the '50s, most people actually understood infrastructure investments and what they do for an economy. Let's hope that a majority still does.

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by ltsmotorsport

Bingo. But in the '50s, most people actually understood infrastructure investments and what they do for an economy. Let's hope that a majority still does.

And moreover, when the Interstates were begun, the arguments could be made (and probably were) that highway building was principally a state responsibility; that we had plenty of perfectly good roads already; that there was infinite expansion potential in air travel; that it would gobble up too much land; divide farms; bypass towns, etc. I have read that it was sold as a "defense" measure for fear the public wouldn't buy it otherwise.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by fflint

Yes, but he wants you to ignore her hypocrisy and take her self-serving NIMBY anti-CAHSR rant as if it were made in good faith.

I still dont know what in that article is necessarily wrong? Could you enlighten me?

Furthermore CA voters voted for one thing but now facts have come to light that warrant rethinking this whole project.

I agree wholeheartedly with the opinion of Californians evidenced by recent polls on the subject, that this rail project in its current form is no longer worth the investment.

If we're going to do this thing, we do it right and on terms that are acceptable to us.

How can anyone disagree with that?

[JDRCRASH]

My problem with the article is that Elizabeth doesn't offer any alternatives to bring down the cost.

[bunt_q]

I only read a couple of pages of this thread, but I have a question: are there any plans to use the HSR infrastructure for freight as well? If not, you should keep that in your minds. People who aren't terribly familiar with transportation tend to not think about that when they compare planes, trains, and automobiles. Airports do both, highways do both, and U.S. freight rail is the envy of the world. Most Americans don't realize that - they look to European and Asian train systems with fawning envy, but it's really the U.S. leading the way on freight, and that is a much larger economic contributor than passenger rail.

I'm not saying anything in particular, I don't know enough about the Cali project specifically to comment intelligently. But I see a lot of politicized highway vs. train banter in here, as if it was somehow a normal liberal vs. conservative issue, which is absurd.

Passenger rail (if it is passenger only) is at an automatic disadvantage when compared to other modes. Partially because it only services a portion of overall transportation needs, and on inter-city routes especially, freight is a significant driver (humans are only one of the many loads we have to move about!). If, for example, I-5 is congested in rural areas because of high intercity traffic, which would be highly unusual - it's rare in the U.S. that expansions are needed outside of metro areas - the better answer might be to divert more freight to rail, rather than focus on passenger transport.

And also the last-mile problem. It's possibly less of a problem in CA (big problem in Colorado), at least in the Bay Area, where non-auto connections would be easy and efficient. Bakersfield, on the other hand...what do you do when you get off the train? Rent a car? Not a deal-breaker, but it reduces ridership in a major way, which reduces the utility/benefit of the investment, relative to other investments. Passenger rail obviously serves denser areas better because destinations are reachable from stations. I don't know about L.A... I do know that a park-n-ride based intercity rail system will lose much of its advantage over air travel.

None of that's deal-breaking in a lot of circumstances. But comparisons to Europe (where more freight moves by road, making passenger movement by rail make even more sense) or Japan (where densities, distances, and connecting passenger transit infrastructure aren't even in the same league) are mostly useless. This "the rest of the world has figured it out" stuff only comes from people with a very rudimentary understanding of the whole transportation picture - different modes/methods work better in different places for different reasons. You really have to look at it holistically, and then decide if a $100 billion passenger-only system is really your best investment (I have no idea whether it is or not). Slogans are a terrible way to plan/design infrastructure.

(Sometimes I wonder to myself what would happen if everybody got as involved and passionate with water/wastewater planning as they are with transportation. Can you imagine the fights about pipe sizes, grades, treatment methods... a random politician screaming about how "that pump isn't needed" - it'd be good fun. And no different from laypeople arguing about runway capacities.)

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Bakersfield, on the other hand...what do you do when you get off the train? Rent a car?

People in Bakersfield will do exactly what they do now; they'll get into their cars and drive to the nearest station or airport. Neither air nor HSR can serve every town directly.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by jg6544

People in Bakersfield will do exactly what they do now; they'll get into their cars and drive to the nearest station or airport. Neither air nor HSR can serve every town directly.

Exactly. But you just cut your potential rail ridership in half - because rail passengers are pedestrians (or local transit riders) once they get off the train, Bakersfield can't be a destination, only an origin. (Or at least, a very limited destination.)

[electricron]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I only read a couple of pages of this thread, but I have a question: are there any plans to use the HSR infrastructure for freight as well? If not, you should keep that in your minds. People who aren't terribly familiar with transportation tend to not think about that when they compare planes, trains, and automobiles. Airports do both, highways do both, and U.S. freight rail is the envy of the world. Most Americans don't realize that - they look to European and Asian train systems with fawning envy, but it's really the U.S. leading the way on freight, and that is a much larger economic contributor than passenger rail.

When will the freight trains use the HSR corridors? Where will they get on and off? Will the catenary wires be hung high enough to clear a double stack container railcar? Will the tunnels be built tall enough? Will the bridges and viaducts be built to hold up a standard heavy freight trains? If you're building light, non FRA compliant HSR trains, why spend more money to beef up the tracks for freights? Why would freight companies want to run on restricted HSR tracks, when they have a perfectly good parallel freight corridor nearby, with industrial sidings, freight yards, port facilities, and everything needed to run their trains already?

[bunt_q]

I didn't say anything about running freight rail on the tracks, did I? The operator, whoever that is, could include limited high value cargo services (sort of like airlines do), or carry the mail maybe. Probably not. But that's the point of what I was saying - if you're spending $100b on HSR, you're doing it for passengers only. If you spend $100b on roads and airports, you're doing it for both passengers and freight (or ports, freight only). It's an inherent disadvantage of high speed passenger rail that shouldn't be overlooked in the ridiculous highways=evil, trains=good discussions that go on sometimes, especially on here. (It goes both ways, of course - new passenger options can free up capacity for the other modes too. But that depends on ridership.)

The discussion is very different in cities. But I think a lot of folks who are accustomed (rightly so!) to laying down in front of bulldozers to stop city-killing urban highways transfer that ethos to intercity rail/road discussions, which are an entirely different thing. Very few people give much though to intercity goods movement (the boring side of infrastructure) - they conceptualize intercity transportation problems the same way they would look at an intracity light rail project.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Exactly. But you just cut your potential rail ridership in half - because rail passengers are pedestrians (or local transit riders) once they get off the train, Bakersfield can't be a destination, only an origin. (Or at least, a very limited destination.)

It can be the exact same destination it is today (if you arrive by anything other than car, you likely need to rent a car). And that's what ridership studies have focused on - they're not assuming that Bakersfield is (or will turn into) a dense city with walkable destinations.

[drifting sun]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I only read a couple of pages of this thread, but I have a question: are there any plans to use the HSR infrastructure for freight as well? If not, you should keep that in your minds. People who aren't terribly familiar with transportation tend to not think about that when they compare planes, trains, and automobiles. Airports do both, highways do both, and U.S. freight rail is the envy of the world. Most Americans don't realize that - they look to European and Asian train systems with fawning envy, but it's really the U.S. leading the way on freight, and that is a much larger economic contributor than passenger rail.

I'm not saying anything in particular, I don't know enough about the Cali project specifically to comment intelligently. But I see a lot of politicized highway vs. train banter in here, as if it was somehow a normal liberal vs. conservative issue, which is absurd.

Passenger rail (if it is passenger only) is at an automatic disadvantage when compared to other modes. Partially because it only services a portion of overall transportation needs, and on inter-city routes especially, freight is a significant driver (humans are only one of the many loads we have to move about!). If, for example, I-5 is congested in rural areas because of high intercity traffic, which would be highly unusual - it's rare in the U.S. that expansions are needed outside of metro areas - the better answer might be to divert more freight to rail, rather than focus on passenger transport.

And also the last-mile problem. It's possibly less of a problem in CA (big problem in Colorado), at least in the Bay Area, where non-auto connections would be easy and efficient. Bakersfield, on the other hand...what do you do when you get off the train? Rent a car? Not a deal-breaker, but it reduces ridership in a major way, which reduces the utility/benefit of the investment, relative to other investments. Passenger rail obviously serves denser areas better because destinations are reachable from stations. I don't know about L.A... I do know that a park-n-ride based intercity rail system will lose much of its advantage over air travel.

None of that's deal-breaking in a lot of circumstances. But comparisons to Europe (where more freight moves by road, making passenger movement by rail make even more sense) or Japan (where densities, distances, and connecting passenger transit infrastructure aren't even in the same league) are mostly useless. This "the rest of the world has figured it out" stuff only comes from people with a very rudimentary understanding of the whole transportation picture - different modes/methods work better in different places for different reasons. You really have to look at it holistically, and then decide if a $100 billion passenger-only system is really your best investment (I have no idea whether it is or not). Slogans are a terrible way to plan/design infrastructure.

(Sometimes I wonder to myself what would happen if everybody got as involved and passionate with water/wastewater planning as they are with transportation. Can you imagine the fights about pipe sizes, grades, treatment methods... a random politician screaming about how "that pump isn't needed" - it'd be good fun. And no different from laypeople arguing about runway capacities.)

So, you claim that supporters of HSR who cite other nation's successful use of rail for passenger transport as not understanding the "holistic" picture of transportation, when it is in fact opinions such as yours that are not understanding the big picture at stake here.

To base your reasoning on the typical business school cost vs. benefits argument is not being very holistic, and it refuses (whether willingly or through ignorance) to acknowledge the other externalities at risk. We know that humans are probably going to continue to procreate at a level that will be unsustainable for the environment, all these present and future humans will need alternate ways to get from place to place, for business, recreation, etc. It takes a massive amount of fossil fuel to suspend an enormous hunk of metal (along with all the obese American passengers) in the sky. Choking our highways (and expanding those highways) with more and more private automobiles is also an insane waste of energy. High-speed rail uses a lot of electricity, but it is from a more centralized source, which can be regulated easier than spending gobs of money trying to make every last automobile owner comply with the latest emission standards. In addition, rail takes up less room for the amount of passengers (and light cargo) that it can accommodate.

You only think HSR supporters are misinformed because you adhere to the classic, market-orientated arguments, ignoring the fact that the environment does not give a damn about our petty notions of economic persuasions. If we, as a global society do not create ways to soften the blow of running up against environmental constraints, now, while we still have a little breathing room, there will be a lot of human (and other species) suffering when crunch time occurs. Laying the infrastructure for a proven, fast, reliable way of commuting passengers now, even though it might not make sense from an "investor's" point of view, is one of those things that needs to be started.