"Billions for High Speed Rail;"

[saxman]

By Deborah HastingsASSOCIATED PRESS

Sunday, April 12, 2009

To many Americans, high-speed trains evoke the gee-whiz factor of a trip to Tomorrowland: Ride futuristic cars that zoom you to a destination in a fraction of the drive time, without having to fight your way through an airport. Read a book, do paperwork, take a nap while you whoosh ahead in high-speed comfort.

To governments, high-speed trains evoke benefits to the common good: reduced freeway traffic, lower carbon pollution and more jobs.

But this country has never built a high-speed "bullet" train rivaling the successful systems of Europe and Asia, where passenger railcars have blurred by at top speeds nearing 200 mph for decades. Since the 1980s, every state effort to reproduce such service has failed. The reasons often boil down to poor planning and simple mathematics.

From the Austin American-Statesman

 

[amtrakwolverine]

why can't the government inlist help from japan or china or the french. they know how to build high speed trains.

 

[PetalumaLoco]

The biggest problem has been money, or the lack of will to spend it. The Japanese couldn't build one here for the amount of money we ever put up, including $14B. I think we're capable of doing it, we just need to make the decision.

 

[Alice]

I have a question about something in this article and others I've seen. It says the California high speed project is 800 miles between Anaheim and San Francisco. Is that an error that keeps getting copied, or do they have an odd way of measuring?

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I have a question about something in this article and others I've seen. It says the California high speed project is 800 miles between Anaheim and San Francisco. Is that an error that keeps getting copied, or do they have an odd way of measuring?

Google Maps thinks it's 407 miles by highway based on whatever Google Maps thinks the city centers are. I can't imagine 800 miles is not an error.

Number of track miles is likely to differ from number of highway miles by a bit, but not nearly that much.

 

[PetalumaLoco]

I have a question about something in this article and others I've seen. It says the California high speed project is 800 miles between Anaheim and San Francisco. Is that an error that keeps getting copied, or do they have an odd way of measuring?

The whole system is 800 miles. The article has a poorly written sentence that reads like it's 800 miles between Anaheim and SF. What they're trying to say is that the complete system is 800 miles, AND it would be a 2 1/2 hr ride between Anaheim and SF.

Here's a proposed map.

 

[Alice]

I have a question about something in this article and others I've seen. It says the California high speed project is 800 miles between Anaheim and San Francisco. Is that an error that keeps getting copied, or do they have an odd way of measuring?

The whole system is 800 miles. The article has a poorly written sentence that reads like it's 800 miles between Anaheim and SF. What they're trying to say is that the complete system is 800 miles, AND it would be a 2 1/2 hr ride between Anaheim and SF.

Here's a proposed map.

Thanks, fun map, and it answers my question of how a 400 mile trip takes 800 miles. For those who don't want to look, that is total track length San Diego to San Francisco plus the branch to Sacramento. In addition, the route is not as direct as the freeway.

 

[Traingeek]

That would be a cool trip to go three hours between LA and San Francisco. I can't wait to see this come to fruition.

 

[birdy]

I'm pretty sure the '800 miles' reference is to the double tracked nature of high-speed rail.

As far as the "half-measures" canard that I keep seeing repeated--Secretary Lahood has been pretty consistent that he means "true" HSR. He said so on the evening news last night.

I don't understand the "Its different here argument" Japan is about as densely populated as New England. Little old half-baked Acela has captured well over 60% of the market since its introduction. A complete capture of all short-haul air traffic is practically guaranteed up to 350 miles or so, so to estimate passenger usage you pretty much, as a baseline, can plan on all of the air traffic between two points, with the exception of through traffic, being converted to rail. Plan on a little capture of road traffic at the margin, plus some internal growth, i.e. passengers who would take rail but not drive or fly, and you have a good idea of your usage patterns on day one. the only real problem with passenger loadings is to plan for the near exponential passenger growth that the European systems have experienced.

Yes, we can easily afford it, at least outside of California and the NE corridor. A typical line of 300 miles costs about 8 billion all in. By way of comparison, we lose $40 billion per year in Swiss and other tax haven bank accounts by high income tax payers. Latest euro trip suggests that those will be shut down, so just by capturing half of that obvious tax evasion we could build two per year if we wanted to.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

The bigger question is not whether there are rich people who are or aren't paying huge tax bills, but whether there are workers available who are looking for jobs. I thought I'd heard some rumors that we had an awful lot of people looking for work lately.

 

[volkris]

Yes, we can easily afford it, at least outside of California and the NE corridor. A typical line of 300 miles costs about 8 billion all in. By way of comparison, we lose $40 billion per year in Swiss and other tax haven bank accounts by high income tax payers. Latest euro trip suggests that those will be shut down, so just by capturing half of that obvious tax evasion we could build two per year if we wanted to.

Speaking of canards

 

[RailFanLNK]

On my homepage from Yahoo today there's a newsclip from Good Morning American and a short interview with CEO Joe Boardman about High Speed Rail in the US. Pretty good story and talks about the NEC and California.

 

[George Harris]

I'm pretty sure the '800 miles' reference is to the double tracked nature of high-speed rail.

No, birdy. It is route miles. You have

Phase 1: San Francisco to Los Angeles:..448 miles

..............Los Angeles to Anaheim:.......... 30 miles

........Total Initial Phase:........................478 mile

Later Phases:

.......Los Angeles to San Diego via Riverside:..172 miles

.......Extension from Anaheim to Irvine:...........24 miles

.......Junction north of Fresno to Sacramento: 160+/- miles

................Total Additional Phases.................356 miles

Total for completed system: 834 miles

This has been quoted as 800 in rounded off numbers as the Anaheim to Irving extension is somewhat iffy and the exact length of the extension to Sacramento is not yet certain. In fact there will be some likely small variations as the exact route is settled upon, particularly in the mountainous areas. The 800 may be left over from the original talking point when Bakersfield to Los Angeles was dotted in as being along the general route of I-5. It is now planned to go through Palmdale, whcih is a few, I think about 15 miles longer, but will require less tunneling and crosses fewer fault lines.

The San Diego line is about 45 miles longer than the current rail route because it first goes east to Riverside before turning South. I think the ridership number are better because it picks up all the eastern areas of the Los Angeles blob. There is also the consideration that several years ago the coastal cities served by the current route screamed loud and long about the planned electrification of the existing line becuase they did not want all that ugly overhead wire blocking their view of the ocean, so why pick, a route that simply asks for organized opposition if you can avoid it. (Absolutely silly, as for a lot of the distance the tracks are along the foot of the bluffs and the towns are on the bluffs.)

 

[BuzzKillington]

I'm surprised that everyone is focusing these high speed rail funds on the problems between WAS and NYP. I think there are worse problems between New Rochelle and New Haven where the top speed is only about half of the Acela's top speed.

 

[birdy]

The bigger question is not whether there are rich people who are or aren't paying huge tax bills, but whether there are workers available who are looking for jobs. I thought I'd heard some rumors that we had an awful lot of people looking for work lately.

Sure, but of course, not every schmoe who used to work residential construction can do HSR. Our Heavy duty contractors, Bechtel, Brown & Root, Kiewet and others, have withered on the vine the past few years. It would be very difficult to build a lot of systems on an accelerated basis.

Its very affordable. I was just pointing out that we could pay for a maximalist program, without raising taxes by a dime.

 

[George Harris]

Sure, but of course, not every schmoe who used to work residential construction can do HSR. Our Heavy duty contractors, Bechtel, Brown & Root, Kiewet and others, have withered on the vine the past few years. It would be very difficult to build a lot of systems on an accelerated basis.
Its very affordable. I was just pointing out that we could pay for a maximalist program, without raising taxes by a dime.

It is not even that complex. Signals, electrification, and such are very specialized and few do it. Non-ballasted track, whichc is what thehigh speed stuff should be is also fairly specialized, but there are quite a few contractors that have done transit system work that can do it. But, the truly big construction money is in dirt moving, tunnels, and bridges, and contractors that have built equivalent size highway works can do that, so it is not just the specialized few.

Now, the basic design, that is truly a specialized thing.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Now, the basic design, that is truly a specialized thing.

Not that I doubt you, but if it wasn't, wouldn't you be out of work?

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Non-ballasted track, whichc is what thehigh speed stuff should be is also fairly specialized,

Is hiring the French an option there?

But, the truly big construction money is in dirt moving, tunnels, and bridges, and contractors that have built equivalent size highway works can do that, so it is not just the specialized few.

How hard is it to retrain a residential construction worker to do this work? I'm not thinking so much about the supervisors (whose skills are presumably more specialized) but the average worker who's actually driving the construction equipment or hammering in the nails or whatever.

 

[George Harris]

Non-ballasted track, which is what the high speed stuff should be is also fairly specialized,

Is hiring the French an option there?

No. Got to be somewhat careful what I say. The French use almost no non-ballasted track, and appear to not like it. In fact, their track used under the TGV is very basic ballasted track, just maintaine very precisely. The big users with long experience in non-ballasted track are the Japanese. The Germans have their own standard for non-ballasted track that may get some use in France, but I really don't know that.

How hard is it to retrain a residential construction worker to do this work? I'm not thinking so much about the supervisors (whose skills are presumably more specialized) but the average worker who's actually driving the construction equipment or hammering in the nails or whatever.

Any problems in this area would be more likely to be instituational rather than skill based.