The California High Speed Rail thread

[spa 970]

Why is it that rail and public transit is always expected to pay for itself yet roads are free? The money spent on building and maintaining roads and highways is huge and is subsidized by everyone, users and non-users. Rail, on the other hand, collects fares leaving users to cover a large proportion of the costs. It's a horribly unfair system to have roads paid by everyone while leaving users to pay for rail. No wonder the automobile is king in North America! We need to level the playing field. Put tolls on the roads (more than just the token ones out there now) or be more open to subsidizing rail.

[skyliner22 16]

I agree, but this is a stepping point for infastructure. For now it will have to pay for itself but hopefully more government funding can be made throughout the nation.

[patriots_1228 51]

point is, this area has the worst car situation possible and this will help lighten it.

[hamsterTK 93]

I presume a lot of people will rent cars or catch shuttle buses at the station.

I think it should be a priority to make sure most stations that are not in urban areas have ground transport similiar to airports such as rental cars and long-term parking lots

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: skyliner22

And Duke I couldn't disagree with you more. How does HSR not turn a profit? Look at other countries, in Japan the Tokaido Shinkansen payed for itself within a few years. It is the most heavily used corridor in Japan and is getting so crowded, a new line may be required. If HSR is not profitable why does France have TGV? Why is the Chinese investing so much into CSHR? And prices are so far estimated to be around $50, the point is to compete with airplanes and cars. I don't know about Acela, but this isn't Acela, it s going to go 220 not 125...quote>

No mass transit system in this country has turned a profit in decades. That's why all the commuter rails and subways are run by public or semiprivate agencies. Without subsidation, they'd go bankrupt overnight. The fact of the matter is that these days the operation and maintenance costs of running a railroad far exceed what you can reasonably expect to collect in fares from people riding it. The numbers just don't work out.

In other countries it's different for two key reasons. First, because in Europe and Asia using a car tends to be less convenient and practical in many cases (and more expensive, since they tax their gas so much more and put tolls all over their highways), so there is more of a tendency towards using mass transit. Second, because those other countries are overall smaller and more densely populated. The Tokaido Shinkansen is about 320 miles long, and it passes through several major cities along its route. San Francisco and LA are about 380 miles apart and, Bakersfield and Fresno notwithstanding (and they're off the most direct path anyway), there's little between them but farm field after farm field. Lack of population density really chokes the cost efficiency of a rail line, since it has to cover more distance to pick up the same number of people.

Really, the only place in the US where you have a significant conglomerate of population density comparable to what you see in most other parts of the developed world is in the northeast. And our Acella ain't exactly performing stellar. Although the fact that it's travelling mostly on tracks and alignments well over a century old certainly doesn't help its practicality. If I understand correctly, this project would involve cutting a completely new right of way and laying brand new track. That certainly lets it go a lot faster, but doesn't really help its efficiency all that much.

Why is it that rail and public transit is always expected to pay for itself yet roads are free? The money spent on building and maintaining roads and highways is huge and is subsidized by everyone, users and non-users. Rail, on the other hand, collects fares leaving users to cover a large proportion of the costs. It's a horribly unfair system to have roads paid by everyone while leaving users to pay for rail. No wonder the automobile is king in North America! We need to level the playing field. Put tolls on the roads (more than just the token ones out there now) or be more open to subsidizing rail.quote>

There are several reasons for this. For one thing, tolls on roads, at least in the traditional sense, slow things down and cause traffic jams. With high speed electronic toll collection, that problem is alleviated, but installing such systems takes time and costs money and agencies have been slow to embrace it since it doesn't make them any extra money and only helps those who have signed up for the electronic toll service.

But really, the key reason you don't see too many tolls on American highways is that there is a political barrier to it. You have to understand a bit of the histroy here: in 1956, the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 (commonly known as the "Interstate Highway act") was signed into law by president Eisenhower. Besides establishing the Interstate system, it also established a funding mechanism for its construction. Construction and maintenance would be the responsiblity of state departments of transportation. 90% of the construction cost would be paid by the federal government. This federal money comes from a highway trust fund, which draws revenue from federal taxes on gasoline and on motor oil - the idea being that this would be how those using the system would be the ones paying for it. By tax, not by tolls. In fact, the law expressly banned the instalation of tolls on any highway constructed with that 90% federal money. Highways which were not built to be part of the Interstate system but were later incorporated into it are exempt from this restriction ("grandfathered in", as it were), which is why you for instance still see tolls on the New Jersey Turnpike.

Point being, the state of California couldn't put tolls on I-5 if they wanted to. It's illegal.

There is a fundamental difference between tolls on roads and fare on trains, though. Even if the roads aren't tolled, driving isn't actually free. First of all, you have to pay for the car. Then you have to pay for insurance for it. And then you have to pay for the gas and for maintenence of it. But if there is no fare to board a train, it is actually 100% free to the rider. This is another reason for the apparent discrepancy. A lot of trains seeming more "tolled" than cars is a false perception. A difference not in cost but in where the money is going (it's going to private companies that provide materials and services, not to the government). In other countries where they have high gas taxes and lots of tolls, they haven't leveled the playing field, they've sloped it in favor of mass transit. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing when mass transit is a practical aternative. Problem is that in a lot of this country it isn't and can't be, because the distances are too large and the population is too sparse.

Keep in mind that we're only talking about going between two cities on the west coast and we've already traveresed enough distance to (for instance) travel clear across France. If you now want to, say, go from Los Angeles to New York, you're now covering enough ground to go from Madrid to Moscow. The difference is that the former is all in one country and travels through mostly empty open space, while the latter crosses at least five international borders and travels through much more developed areas.

You can acuse politics and culture as being barriers to why rail is less popular in the US, and they certainly are, but the fact of the matter is there's a very practical issue of scale involved, too.

[Deathtoall 28]

I am not from California or the US but i would have voted Yes on 1A. You need to build it to take pressure of your roads and i think Duke that you are just a continous nay-sayer. I think you should get a little bit of FDR into you "It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something." Atleast we would have tried and the infrastructure is there for the eventual fall of fossil fuels. Or unless your pessimistic ideals persist. Want an example of a "fail" project which was actually a small miracle? Look at Minneapolis-ST Paul Light Rail. The system was may more popular than expected.

I know that a proposed high speed rail that has been talked about here for ages should go ahead anyway, even if it won't recover the loss for a while, not every government project is destined to make them money and infact i believe most government services are run at a loss. The proposed Sydney-Canberra- Melbourne route would be a great step (great future expansion) even if it doesn't quite match up to airlines as of yet, the idea is to build for the future, not short term little ad-hoc which seems to have been the continous idea of Western Governments for too long. Pay of the debt and such when you should have been investing it for the future. Want a good example? Take a look at my state of New South Wales in Australia. Enough to scare the hell out of you when almost all of the infrastructture is falling apart of funding neglect, after only 5-8 years, some services can't even get money to pay bills that have skyrocketed with no funding and massive backlogs.

Build the rail and they will come. Improve the links in the city aswell(like LA's metro) and

1 Less traffic

2 Less emissions + Greener Economy

3 Greater productivity(for those who believe everything is money), Less time in traffic.

4 The flow on effects into other sectors of the economy like the Great Depressions works, which in the current climate will help.

Also Duke, the class is half-empty.

[Red1530 1]

I am glad that the proposition passed.

[PhilsCafe 8]

@ Duke87: Of course it probably wouldn't make sense to connect the East coast with the West coast with HSR. Fact is though that railroads in the U.S. are outdated and to run a network effectively, it has to be modernized. As for California... I think the distance between LA and SF is perfect for rail... I guess there's a lot of traveling between the two cities. And rail is the safest and most environmental friendly way to do so. Even if it shouldn't pay for itself, what has yet to be seen, it will pay back with less CO2 emmissions and investment in other infrastructure such as airports and highways. For passengers it is the most dierct Downtown-to-Downtown connection without searching for parking space or standing in line for check-in.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion and maybe you didn't make very good experiences with Acela, but maybe this just shows that railway in the U.S. still has to go a long way for gaining acceptance.

[Nardo69 51]

Mass transit makes no profit? That depends mainly on your point of view.

As for micro ecoonomy that's true; as a company their income - cost - ratio is somewhere between 0.10 and 0.65.

The biggest benefit of mass transit in general but especially railway-based mass transit doesn't pay off for the mass transit companies directly.  In "the old world" commerce booms with mass transit connection, real estate price are significantly higher if there is a railway/tramway/lightrail conenction, without railways real estate price went down, with railways they stayed stable or even increased. Because a working mass transit system is a big plus for life quality.

The economical benefit of mass transit can be seen every time when the mass transit systems don't work - be it strike, earthquake etc. Traelling times are exploding, productivity is sinking. Urban areas above a certan density just can't live without mass transit.

[Yoman3 5]

I enjoy the fact that my area has the Acela very much. It may be a little expensive, but its still over capacity and they are trying to buy more trainsets. I find the service to be fast, efficent, and more feasible than taking that ungodly shuttle, or driving along I-95, which anyone who has knows sucks The Acela is preforming quite well actually, the fact that it shares the tracks with 5 different commuter systems, the catenary is 85 years old, and its tied to the rest of Amtrak drag it down.

Why does everyone think that going through the Central valley is a bad idea? Generally its much easier to build straight level track on straight level land instead of mountains......

[sstyrnol 21]

It may be easier and cheaper to go through flat land. However, where there is flat land, there are also many other competing uses as well. If you look at high speed rail in Germany, you will find that even quite steep grades are no problem for trains at those speeds because of the momentum.

[PhilsCafe 8]

Originally posted by: sstyrnol It may be easier and cheaper to go through flat land. However, where there is flat land, there are also many other competing uses as well. If you look at high speed rail in Germany, you will find that even quite steep grades are no problem for trains at those speeds because of the momentum.quote>

You can only go through flat land when there actually is flat land. Take Switzerland for example... to create a north-south link, you inevitably have to go through the Alps, that's why Gotthard Base Tunnel costs so much. If you want to link certain cities in California, you might have to cross mountain ranges too... of course there are cheaper and more expensive options, but these have to be calculated and the costs have to be put in relation with the benefits.

What I try to say is, if you want to go through flat land, maybe you'll get a route from LA to Sacramento, but SF is left out... the benefit for a LA-SF link is zero. But that's obviously not what state officials wanted, so that's why it will also go through mountains, which is more expensive, but inevitable.

[skyliner22 16]

Actually LA isn't flat either. You have to go through a mountain pass, Tehachapi or the Grapevine to get to the basin. So the flat land method would be Sac to Bakersfield. Great plan eh?

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Deathtoall You need to build it to take pressure of your roads and i think Duke that you are just a continous nay-sayer. quote>

Perhaps I am a bit of a naysayer but I have my reasons whenever I dissent.

I think you should get a little bit of FDR into you "It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something." Atleast we would have tried and the infrastructure is there for the eventual fall of fossil fuels.quote>

Try something, yes. I'm not saying nothing should be done. But do something that would be more effective and more necessary. Taking pressure off roads is a necessary measure in urban areas. In rural areas it's not. You don't have traffic problems in rural areas.

Which is why, for instance, I would much rather see that money go towards expanding BART and the LA metro. That's much more necessary and much more useful. And more practical.

I know that a proposed high speed rail that has been talked about here for ages should go ahead anyway, even if it won't recover the loss for a while, not every government project is destined to make them money and infact i believe most government services are run at a loss. quote>

If it could turn a profit, a private company would do it. If it's a government project, by nature it's not going to make money. Still, you have to weight how much money it'll cost with how much benefit there is. When I see something like this with a huge price tag but not an equally huge benefit, I don't like it because it's not a cost-effective way of using money.

Build the rail and they will come. Improve the links in the city aswell(like LA's metro) and

1 Less traffic

2 Less emissions + Greener Economy

3 Greater productivity(for those who believe everything is money), Less time in traffic.

4 The flow on effects into other sectors of the economy like the Great Depressions works, which in the current climate will help.quote>

Like I said, this all works and is perfectly valid within cities. Inter-city, traffic isn't an issue.

Also, here's another "inconvenient truth" for you: most mass transit systems are actually less energy efficient than cars when you look in terms of joules per passenger mile. A train is a lot heavier than a car. It takes a lot more energy to get it going and to stop it. Granted, they can carry more people, but the fact that they can carry more people isn't enough, they need to actually do it. Unless you can get a significant number of people to ride a train, it's actually a highly inefficient mode of transit. Running a train half empty is downright wasteful. A lot of trains don't exactly crowd up off hours or out towards the end of the line. There is only one mass transit system in the entire country that's actually more energy efficient than cars: the New York City subway (semi-shameless brag, I'm proud of that being a New Yorker.).

Now, granted, energy efficiency isn't the only part of the picture. There's also efficiency of space (which is at a premium in urban areas), for instance.

But it's worth remembering that mass transit is not necessarily "greener" than cars. It can be, but it isn't always. 

Also Duke, the class is half-empty.quote>

What class? Maybe you meant "glass"?

Originally posted by: PhilsCafe Of course it probably wouldn't make sense to connect the East coast with the West coast with HSR. Fact is though that railroads in the U.S. are outdated and to run a network effectively, it has to be modernized. As for California... I think the distance between LA and SF is perfect for rail... I guess there's a lot of traveling between the two cities. And rail is the safest and most environmental friendly way to do so. quote>

Rail is generally safer than highways, that's true. But as for environmentally friendly, see above.

Even if it shouldn't pay for itself, what has yet to be seen, it will pay back with less CO2 emmissions and investment in other infrastructure such as airports and highways. quote>

Except that the energy to run those trains doesn't come from nowhere. It runs on electricity, most likely. Which, guess what? Generating involves CO₂ emissions.

For passengers it is the most dierct Downtown-to-Downtown connection without searching for parking space or standing in line for check-in. quote>

Searching for a parking space isn't really an issue. Your hotel will almost always have parking. They may even have a valet.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion and maybe you didn't make very good experiences with Acela, but maybe this just shows that railway in the U.S. still has to go a long way for gaining acceptance.quote>

I've never ridden the Acela. Too expensive, not worth it.

[Deathtoall 28]

WHAT? More expensive? I fail to understand, if a train isn't "profitable" then trams, busses, shuttles. Get people out of their cars! If no profit what so ever then just find the mass transit that is least expensive and subsidies it.

If, as i have been told that LA and SF airports have little more room and the car route is congested build it. In gact just build anyway, it's ther for when fossil fuels run out.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Deathtoall

I fail to understand, if a train isn't "profitable" then trams, busses, shuttles. quote>

Um... what exactly were you trying to say with that sentence fragment?

In gact just build anyway, it's ther for when fossil fuels run out.quote>

You know, it's perfectly possible to power cars on things other than fossil fuels.

[skyliner22 16]

Good luck finding parking in downtown San Francisco, there isn't even sufficent parking for Westfield Shopping Centre. Cities should not have parking lots in their core, see other countries for example and compare to a city say like OKC that relies on cars to get around even the core.

[PhilsCafe 8]

Generating electricity still produces less emissions than cars. 50% of California's electricity is generated by natural gas power plants (including natural gas from landfill) which is still cleaner than oil or coal, the rest is generated almost exclusively by renewable energy sources and nuclear power plants.

Also, cars are not more energy efficient than trains, especially not American cars (no offence, most of them are just not designed yet to be energy efficient). And trains are definitely more efficient than airplanes. Considering the thousands of people that travel each day between LA and SF by plane, I think there will be a market for HSR to gain the required utilization.

Your opinion is based on the perception that people won't use rail... I think they will if there is a competitive choice.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: PhilsCafe

Also, cars are not more energy efficient than trains, especially not American cars (no offence, most of them are just not designed yet to be energy efficient).quote>

Again, it depends on the train and how well it's used.

In 1995, the number was 2427 kJ/passenger km for cars in the US. It's probably a bit lower now that cars have gotten more fuel efficient.

Point being, many rail systems have a higher energy expenditure than this. It would be wrong to say that trains are more energy efficient than cars, but at the same tie it would be wrong to say that cars are more energy efficient than trains. Like a lot of things in planning and engineering, it depends.

[Resender 18]

a HST train can allso carry as much passenger as a jet liner for less costs

benifits

*less CO2 emissions, yes it requires power but instead of having hunderds of engines burning fossil fuels you have a few

*fast relaible transport

*less waiting times

Both the EU and Japan have extensive high speed links making cheap travel at high speeds possible

[writingliberty 0]

Oh, another point on the "generating electrictiy causes CO2"...

California - especially southern California - has a lot of non-polluting renewable energy already being generated. There are several large wind farms near Bakersfield and near Palm Springs, and several hydroelecric plants along the Colorado River. So at least in terms of our local situation, electric is much greener than gasoline, diesel, etc. and does NOT necessarily pollute inherently.

Also, in response to our German friend's comment on the alternative uses of flat land - California, especilly the Central Valley, actually has much lower population density than most of Europe. And we were settled during the rail age, so much of the area was built around rail lines. There are existing passnger and freight rail lines all over, especially in the LA-Sacramento corridor. The HSR might (I don't know the engineering) be able to be built mostly or completely within the footprint of the current rail system, and in cases where that is not possible the land values (and uses) are not as high as an obstacle as they might be elsewhere.

I voted no only because my reading of it looked like they were ignoring geography and building the main north-south line between the two big cities - which may make sense for usage numbers, but not for construction costs, because it forces crossing a *second* mountain range.

[skyliner22 16]

If you made a high speed rail line from Sacramento to Bakersfield, who would take it? Isn't it logical that the terminus are two of the West Coast's most important cities?

[hamsterTK 93]

To me high-speed rail is an alternative to plane travel, not a normal train service. Even if it isn't hugely efficient over a car, planes definetely aren't either, but most importantly...show me a jet that runs on electricity.

But for transit, yeah duke is right, and yeah it depends. Things that skew it are empty return trips and lousy feeder buses.

[Fresh Prince of Wmbg 44]

YTH did the just passed it in Californina. This bill should have been voted thoughtout the nation.
All of America  should have High Speed Rail.

[skyliner22 16]

no, it would only work in Corridors so not all of America should have it....

[PhilsCafe 8]

Originally posted by: Duke87

[...]

Point being, many rail systems have a higher energy expenditure than this. It would be wrong to say that trains are more energy efficient than cars, but at the same tie it would be wrong to say that cars are more energy efficient than trains. Like a lot of things in planning and engineering, it depends.quote>

I won't disagree on that. Public transport isn't supposed to replace all car traffic anyway, I suppose in NYC people still use cars for different reasons. It can pose a real alternative to cars in some cases though, if it is well-planned. The HSR has many advantages against air traffic however.

Originally posted by: writingliberty

I voted no only because my reading of it looked like they were ignoring geography and building the main north-south line between the two big cities - which may make sense for usage numbers, but not for construction costs, because it forces crossing a *second* mountain range.quote>

I respect your opinion. However, usage numbers is the main criteria for a network to work efficiently isn't it? Like skyliner22 said, it wouldn't make sense to build a High Speed rail line from Bakersfield to Sac only because it's flat and therefore cheaper to build. Again, it's always balancing between costs and benefits, a bigger benefit can justify higher costs. You said yourself that the Central Valley doesn't have a very high population density, so who would use it? Why would someone want to throw money out of the window for a network nobody uses, only to have cheaper building costs?

[Shadow Assassin 336]

Okay, this is a good idea, at least.

But is the demand there? What's the air traffic, road traffic situation between SF and LA?

Still, there's no way it's ever going to turn a profit. Mass transit systems are incapable of that. It's going to cost the state money every year to operate it.quote>

In America, maybe, but I've generally found that in many other parts of the world, it's extremely profitable.

Take the bus service from the Hills to the CBD in Sydney. It makes money hand-over-fist because there's constant demand for services from the Hills to the CBD. This is a situation I'm familiar with - tickets are definitely very cheap ($11.60 for a return trip - round trip of 60km)... far cheaper than travelling by private transport, though (you pay around $20 in tolls on the motorway).

So, toll the hell out of the major interstate links. Encourage the rail line to take all that demand. Make it competitive to flying. Most people would rather catch rail than fly - since you're able to just hop on, hop off, whereas with flying there, you have to go through all that tedious bother of checking in.

You know, it's perfectly possible to power cars on things other than fossil fuels.quote>

That's not the point. The point is getting people off the roads and reducing congestion. I'm sure many Americans will go "ew, no, I'm not catching PT"... but to put it bluntly, the US is going to [Marc- Language] itself sideways if it does not put in alternative means of transport.

Except that the energy to run those trains doesn't come from nowhere. It runs on electricity, most likely. Which, guess what? Generating involves CO₂ emissions.quote>

But that CO₂ is being released from the power plant, not from the private vehicle. See the difference there? Overall, it's better for the environment.

But for transit, yeah duke is right, and yeah it depends. Things that skew it are empty return trips and lousy feeder busesquote>

...and most of that has to do with attitude. Many "planners" (and I use that in the loosest sense of the word possible) just throw in bus services and think "There, they've got buses, now I don't have to worry about how crap they are".

If LA's metro and SF's streetcar system could be linked up to this high-speed rail line, then it would work quite nicely. Add buses for areas that aren't currently serviced, encourage people to take up public transportation.

The simplest way would be subsidising public transport, but in my opinion, that's like using a sledgehammer for open-heart surgery... the best way is to make sure that the car is dethroned from its position as king - if you put in enough services, people will use it.

As an example of how high speed rail could work very nicely for California - look at Italy. They expanded their rail system to the point where it virtually destroyed domestic air travel, and their system is excellent, particuarly travelling between cities.

At least California has balls to try something a little different. I say "good luck".

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Shadow_Assassin

Still, there's no way it's ever going to turn a profit. Mass transit systems are incapable of that. It's going to cost the state money every year to operate it.quote>

In America, maybe, but I've generally found that in many other parts of the world, it's extremely profitable.

Take the bus service from the Hills to the CBD in Sydney. It makes money hand-over-fist because there's constant demand for services from the Hills to the CBD. This is a situation I'm familiar with - tickets are definitely very cheap ($11.60 for a return trip - round trip of 60km)... far cheaper than travelling by private transport, though (you pay around $20 in tolls on the motorway).

So, toll the hell out of the major interstate links. Encourage the rail line to take all that demand. Make it competitive to flying. Most people would rather catch rail than fly - since you're able to just hop on, hop off, whereas with flying there, you have to go through all that tedious bother of checking in. quote>

Did you read what I said earlier? You can't "toll the hell out of" interstate highways. It's illegal.

And I'm not really in favor of changing that. Taxing the hell out of gasoline on the other hand, that you can do and I would be very much in favor of doing - since, unlike tolls, it doesn't punish all cars equally and indiscriminately. It punishes gas guzzlers severely, is lighter on cars which are more fuel efficient, and has no effect whatsoever on alternative energy cars. So it encourages cars to embrace the future and become greener and more sustainable rather than just trying to squelch cars out of existence - which is a much better goal to aim for.

Except that the energy to run those trains doesn't come from nowhere. It runs on electricity, most likely. Which, guess what? Generating involves CO₂ emissions.quote>

But that CO₂ is being released from the power plant, not from the private vehicle. See the difference there? Overall, it's better for the environment. quote>

How exactly is it better? Heat doesn't care where the CO₂ molecule came from, it has the exact same greenhouse effect regardless.

[torontotransit 2]

Good going Califonia!! I'm glad this passed. I Think this will definetly pave the way for other areas of North America to receive HSR, and hopefully improve the Acela LOL. This also helps create lots of jobs, and i think infrastructure projects will just skyrocket during this recession/slowdown/whatever, and give jobs to many people. Congratulations, I finally don't have to go to France to go 200mph, which I've always wanted to. Oh, and their official video was amazing, i like how they show the tunnels. Enjoy:

[Godzillaman 21]

The wheel is old. Magnets will overpower all...