California High Speed Rail
gas 2.0 is reporting
the California High-Speed Rail Authority. After getting a green light by State environmental impact assessors, they’ve begun implementation of an 800-mile bullet-train system that will connect Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County and San Diego. Trains traveling at 220 mph on the systems are forecast to carry up to 100 million passengers per year by 2030.
And that is where I got this image from. The site is worth visiting for the huge number of images and videos available for download alone.
Of course, California does take EAs seriously - unlike BC which has reduced the process to a sick joke. And the funding still has to get through a bond measure on the November ballot. But that is also a process I approve of. Actual democracy at work: trusting the people, and allowing them a say in how their tax dollars are spent. Again in very sharp contrast to the way we get told what we are going to be taxed for, whether we approve of it or not.
And I also like the fact that it is an electric train with a very clear association with wind power. BC of course has recently ripped up its only main line electrification and had the locomotives scrapped.
Given where we are now and where the future will be, California’s investment in this mode looks a lot more sensible than its hydrogen highway (which, I suspect, will be left to just wither on the vine) - or BC’s obsession with widening freeways.
Sorry for poopooing your recent posts, Stephen, but I just need to provide the other side of the story.
In my opinion, and based on the few facts I’ve been able to glean from the ridership analyses, the high-speed train is not the best public investment in “public transport”. I’m afraid it will also cannabolize state funding for the operations of actual public transit. The mythical LA to San Francisco morning commute plays to emotion rather than facts and logic.
I’m not so sure the EA process is any better in California, at least for transport. Take the proposed BART to Warm Springs extension and the following discussion of “feasible” alternatives:
“For 2010, the Bus Alternative would generate approximately 4,200 new linked transit
trips daily compared to 4,700 for the WSX Alternative and 5,700 for the WSX alternative with the optional Irvington Station.15 In 2025, the Bus Alternative would generate 6,300 linked transit trips compared to 7,200 for the WSX Alternative and 9,100 for the WSX Alternative with the optional Irvington Station.”
Therefore, the bus alternative was dropped from further consideration.
@ Ray -
no-one ever claimed California’s High Speed Rail system was intended for commuters, least of all for anyone trying to commute between LA and SF.
Also note that while it’s expensive, HSR will have a ton of secondary benefits for local transit services. For starters, $950 million of the $9.95 billion bond is earmarked for feeder services, principally heavy and light rail. In addition, commuter services such as Caltrain will get electrification, grade separation and shared use of the substantially upgraded stations that HSR will serve.
Of course, all of the money about to be poured into HSR *could* be poured into commuter transit services. The projects would be smaller and more manageable. However, neither the state of California, nor the Feds nor private investors are interested in putting money into local rail projects lacking sex appeal. Most counties and cities cannot afford to on their own or, it would already have happened.
As for the BART extension, I agree that it should be canceled in favor of standard gauge service. Also, the ACE corridor between Stockton and San Jose could use a few turnouts for freight trains and double-tracking through Altamont Pass and a refurbishment of the old SP alignment along the north slope of Niles Canyon. Unfortunately, a few SJ politicians have got a bee under their bonnet about giving their city a subway at the highest possible cost.
Ray, why said anything about a San Francisco to LA commute? This is a real need for two reasons. 1. It will cost $80 Billion to expand freeway and airport capacity for the future demand that HSR at $40B would address. 2. The airports in California that get the most demand are landlocked, there is nowhere to expand and they are already over capacity.
This is not to mention the environmental impact of taking that many short flight airplanes out of the sky and replacing it with clean electric transport.
BART to Warm Springs is heavy rail, not HSR and a completely different animal. There are many people that don’t like the project to be fair, but you are comparing apples to oranges here.
Ray - I make no claim to omniscience and welcome comments which expand my knowledge. It seems to me that California’s EA process is at least still rooted in objectivity, which BC abandoned some time ago.
High Speed Rail is not for commuting and does not compete with transit. It is about inter-city travel and competes with airlines. If funding HSR reduces funds for transit that would be a great shame but it seems to me that it is being funded by new bond issues on which Californians have yet to vote. In BC we don’t get to vote nearly as often. Moreover there are federal programs to support transit (which we also do not have in any significant or permanent way) for which HSR would not qualify.
I think it is very unlikely that many people live in LA and commute daily to SF - although that probably does not include the sort of people who own their own jets, who are indifferent to mundane concerns like gas prices.
[...] economist for the major transportation authority in Vancouver, British Columbia. Link to California High Speed Rail on Rees’ [...]
Stephen hits the nail on the head by correctly pointing out that HSR is meant to compete with airlines, which are now facing a serious challenge as liquid petroleum fuels escalate in price and worldwide supplies start diminishing. There are no realistic alternatives to kerosene, and this reveals the Achilles heel of flight.
Given that commercial flight is expected to suffer with the huge price increases around the corner, I would predict that multiple-billion dollar HSR networks will become ever more attractive and feasible. I’d even say they could replace the Trans Canada and Interstae highway systems one day.
The TGV, ICE, AGE and Eurostar HS trains of Europe provide service good enough to attract former air travellers in droves, and they’re only going to get better. Moreover, there was a measureable jump in ridership once the British government got serious and provided non-stop, centre-to-centre London-Paris HSR service in less than 2 1/2 hours via the beautifully renovated St Pancras Station.
I would caution about “government by referenda.” I’ve heard from friends that some quarters in California have yet to fully recover from the decades-ago Proposition 13 where tax-cutting madness cut not just the excess fat, but in some cases went overboard and cut core services like police and fire services.
Just because we Canadians have a parliamentary system where governments are mandated by the people during general elections without an additional plethora of individual financial plebicites that can be twisted by special interests in well-financed parallel campaigns, doesn’t mean we are any less democratic. Only that we have elected politicians currently noted for their lack of vision, or who have not adequately articulated what vision they do possess.
Premier Campbell may already be overwhelmingly influenced by the right-wing Fraser Institute on public finances, but to suggest we should put every major tax measure to a public vote will enable the Fraser Institute (and many other organizations) to run their own campaign in every election in favour of cuts to anything remotely resembling a social program or a hindrance to selling off public services to the private sector. They have enough influence as it is, why give them more?
To me referenda / plebicites should be reserved only for the really big issues, like changing the constitution or voting system. It behooves us to elect the party whose mandate we agree with, and let them know where their policies require revision. If elected, they are expected to follow through using public finances as equitably as possible, and if they don’t, then it’s up to us to tell them or turf them.
Ray has it right. This project will be a disaster. It will cost 3 times current estimated costs. It will never produce the revenue forecasted and it will for years to come be sucking needed funds from the State’s budget to pay off the bond debt.
There are so many other projects that deserve and should have priority. The public should not be swayed by arguments that this project will solve what are not now problems, but are only forecasted problems that will exist in the far far future.
Of course - and all the successful high speed rail projects in the rest of the world are merely optical illusions.
The $130 barrel of oil was supposed to be in the far far future too. The airlines are already going into survival mode
Stephen is right about HSR being aimed at and will compete with the airlines. The problem is that by their own numbers, CHSRA says they will have 117,000,000 passengers per year using the system. That is supposed to be the money engine that will keep the project going.
Today the number of passengers going from LA to SF is around 15,000,000. Major problem. One-tenth the number of riders needed to make the system work.
This major segment is also longer than even the hardware manufacturers say works for effective airline competition. Even at 200 MPH it is still much slower en route than modern jet flight. On relatively short hauls, less than 300 miles it is pretty competitive on actual time to destination, but this route is longer than 300 miles, so the airlines will have a time advantage. HSR is not going to take all the airline passengers. The airlines also have the major advantage of being able to leave and arrive at multiple airports, which may serve the traveler with being closer to their destination.
Stephen should read further if he has “drunk the lemonade” that these systems around the world as so successful. Ikppe reading everyone thinks they make money. They are all tied into government programs, and although they may seem to make money, many of them are heavily subsidized. That may be ok, if the problem they solved makes it cost effective.
To me, not solving the major congestion problems that exist today in our urban areas deserve the funding and not this project.
So who do you represent Mr Johnson?
The system proposed for California will serve many more origin destination pairs than LA to SF. I have no idea what the expression “ikppe” means but making money does not equate to successful in my view. All transportation systems are more or less subsidised, the question to ask are - what does society get in return and is that good value for money?
The domestic airline business in the US has been and is now heavily supported by a wide variety of publicly funded programns - including no tax on fuel. Even so, the airlines are in grave financial difficulties. Air travel is also one of worst modes in terms of greenhouse gas emissions per passenger km.
The major advantage that HSR has had in other places is that stations tend to be better located than airports and are much easier to use. So the travel time overall - without the out of the way trip to the airport and all the hanging around you are forced to do there - is often better. Moreover, you can do what you like on a train - including plugging in your laptop and using your cell phone all the time you are on board.
I agree that congestion problems need to be solved - but so do many others. Politics is about making choices. For far too long in the United States, the choices have favoured the corporate agenda, but the results have impoverished Americans. That is now changing, and a new set of solutions that look further than the bottom line of a few large corporations are coming into being. About time too.
Awesome discussion here as always. Stephen — your blog is great!
An example of the “real” zero sum game of state-level funding of transit:
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/legislation/state_budget-08-may.htm
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/legislation/budget/web_summary_historic-5-08.pdf
Bay Area transit operators stand to lose $274M as a result of the diversion of state transit funds to the General Fund. Lo and behold, close to $20M is allocated for the men and women of consultancy to continue studying the High Speed Train.
Without sounding too esoteric, major investment decisions should be based on a desire to achieve particular goals. Depending on what goals society settles on, certain means become apparent and appropriate.
In the Bay Area, the goals are congestion reduction, emissions reduction, access, livable communities, safety, security, and efficient goods movement. I’m not going to debate the efficacy of these goals here; instead, we should ask what goals would HST support?
Based on this thread, it’s been mentioned that emissions reduction would be the intended goal achieved — as some have put it already, HST is not meant to reduce congestion.
Looking at this in a more systematic way, here is the technical report of the vision or target analysis MTC conducted as part of the early development of the new long range plan: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/2035_plan/tech_data_summary_report.pdf
The results are humbling.
I suspect the demand for air travel may decline, if for no other reason than that there will be a contraction in supply, which we are starting to see. Perhaps, HST may become a justifiably good alternative for the long-haul trip. But then doesn’t the logic for HST hinge on exponentially increasing demand for air travel? Does anyone else also believe imports from China will increase exponentially over the next two decades?
Further, in an age of scarcity, I suspect that what is regionally significant is not, and I repeat, the mythical LA to San Francisco morning commute or weekend family trip, but the 5-10km commute or trip to see the doctor, visit family, or go watch cinema.
In the end, we just have to ask ourselves: what are we trying to achieve?