HSR: Where's the Science; where's the Technology; where's the Innovation?

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN is a respectable monthly magazine that covers the broad spectrum of science and, to make the distinction, technologies.  Here is a piece by Larry Greenemeier talking about high-speed rail in the United States.  He cites a number of facts, or more correctly, claims made by various government agencies, pro-rail groups and organizations.

Mr. Greenemeier has written other HSR related articles for SA. And, there are several other articles by other authors as well in prior editions of SA.  Yet, they all share the same characteristics.  They focus on costs, political will and the likelihood of HSR ever coming to fruition in the US.  Some of those SA articles are cited, below.

What is of interest here is that these broad descriptions avoid all the issues that are, in some sense -- considering the publication -- 'scientific.'  And when they are briefly mentioned, the article merely repeats the marketing rhetoric and platitudes laid out by the rail promoters, with which we have become so familiar. You know, saves fuel, is cleaner, removes automobiles, etc. 

Mostly we have been discussing this HSR in political and financial terms, because we believe that these are paramount.  However, we would expect SA to raise the more technical and scientific aspects of this project as worthy of discussion.  Is HSR really a good idea from a scientific or technological perspective? Perhaps, perhaps not.  After all, humans have an obsession to go faster.  Just what are the human costs, and cost-efficiencies in that quest?  I'm thinking of the Mach -2 'Concorde' (now only in museums) as a prior example.  Just because something is possible, doesn't make it necessary or even desirable.

In short, are there science and technology-related issues connected with this national vision and its particular HSR projects in various states?  You bet.

Here are a few that come to mind. Energy, environment, transportation efficiencies, innovative (or not) technologies. Those with an engineering background can think of many others, I'm sure.

Energy:  The CHSRA Board has issued many claims about the superiority of an electric high-speed train over flying or driving.  If you look at their studies, however, you will see that they are rigged to produce their desired outcome.  They insist on comparing apples and oranges, so to speak, and to not take the entire HSR system and its construction into account.

Although some electric energy sources are truly clean, unlike coal or oil, many aren't despite their renewability. HSR is the most energy intensive mode of rail travel.   A half empty train is not more energy efficient that a fully occupied car.  The technologies of cars and commercial aircraft are undergoing dramatic transformations, but that has never entered into the rail authority's calculations. Forecasting energy efficiencies ten years out is a dangerous game.

The construction process of building the 800 mile long train system will take at least ten years.  That construction process will consume vast amounts of conventional, carbon-based energy, like Diesel.  That can't be overlooked.  In terms of energy consumption, the CHSRA insists on using vague numbers like "riders." They should use a metric that permits empirical validation, like "passenger-miles" which is a unit of one passenger, one mile. Such units are cross-referential and comparable across modalities.

And, since the measurement of motion includes speed, time and distance, a fourth factor, mass or weight ought to also be incorporated.  I don't understand why SA does not solicit academic analyses and studies of these HSR related factors.

Environment: As we have said,  HSR is the most energy intensive version of electric rail.  Much of the energy consumed in the future will come from midwestern coal powered plants.  The train's construction process will produce pollution that will take nearly 100 years to amortize.  The very existence of the rail corridor will inject huge amounts of irretrievable damage into both the national and the urban environment.

The immense amount of concrete required has yet to be calculated.  It should be understood that the creation and use of concrete is enormously harmful to the environment.  So is the manufacture of rail and other steel requirements.  So is the manufacture of rolling stock, as well as other construction and operational materials.

Because the train itself is electric does not mean that its maintenance and support will also be electric powered. If, as anticipated, the train stimulates huge amounts of urban development, yet more environmental damage.

Transportation efficiencies and innovation: Is buying high-speed train hardware off the shelves of China, Japan or France the best we can do?  Are we seeking to run trains in ten or twenty years that are already considered out of date in those countries and the other HSR operating countries?  China has 1,000 mph trains on their drawing boards; and they are not the nation noted for its innovative and creative aspirations, we are.  What would be the break-through equivalent of computers --for which we are the innovative nation -- translated into the mass transit industries, products and services?  

Shouldn't we be far more aggressive in the investigation of maglev, for example, which is still a long way from being 'market ready?'  What are the per capita, per mile fuel efficiencies of various transportation modalities? And, by way of full cost accounting, what are the total costs, per person per mile of constructing,operating and maintaining such transit systems?  We don't know the answer because the only source of such information comes from biased advocates for one modality over the others.

The rhetoric of HSR promotion incorporates terms like competition, getting ahead and being leaders. Yet, what we are pursuing is the creativity and innovation of other countries, not our own.  We have no HSR culture, or even a railroad culture, having relinquished that decades ago. So, where is that innovative spirit, and its venture capital investors? Absent? Why, you might wonder.  You could say, only partly tongue in cheek, that what we propose to build is Un-American; that is, slavishly imitative, highly derivative, and not original, creative, or innovative.  If so, shame on us. 

Please understand that I am a lay person, not a scientist or engineer.  I would expect a much more intelligent discussion of these issues about high-speed rail in publications like SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN.  

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=high-hopes-for-high-speed-rail

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=revolutionary-rail

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=high-speed-train-slideshow

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=high-speed-rail

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=can-americas-trains-go-high-speed-09-06-25

==================================

 http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=obamas-state-of-the-union-the-facts-2011-01-27

Obama's State of the Union: The facts about high-speed rail in the U.S.

By Larry Greenemeier  | Thursday, January 27, 2011 | 2

ADVERTISEMENT

President Obama made several references to the development of high-speed railways in the U.S., during his State of the Union Address, and stated that one of his administration's goals is to, within 25 years, "give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail." In support of this goal—which would go a long way toward alleviating air and road traffic and its associated pollution—the Obama administration last year began doling out the $8 billion it had promised for such projects as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

Yet, the creation of a number of high-speed railways scattered across the U.S., much less one system connecting the coasts, requires key infrastructure and technology commitments in addition to plenty of money—commitments that not everyone is ready to make at this time.

"As we speak, routes in California and the Midwest are already underway," the President said Tuesday night. Yes and no.

In January 2010, the federal government announced how it would spend the $8 billion it allocated to high-speed rail development throughout the U.S. as part of the ARRA. A proposed Los Angeles-to-San Francisco corridor received $2.34 billion (to add to a $9-billion bond approved by voters in 2008). Among other key projects, the government allocated $1.25 billion for an 135-kilometer line dedicated to high-speed trains between Tampa and Orlando, $1.10 billion for rail improvements that would increase top speeds from 127 to 177 kilometers per hour between Chicago and St. Louis, $800 million for new and refurbished stations along the Madison-to-Milwaukee line in Wisconsin, and $400 million for Ohio's Cincinnati-Columbus-Cleveland (3C) route.

Last month, however, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced that $1.2 billion in high-speed rail funds originally designated for Wisconsin and Ohio would instead be redirected to railway projects (high-speed and normal-speed) in 14 different states. Wisconsin has suspended work under its existing high-speed rail agreement and the incoming governors in Wisconsin and Ohio have both indicated that they will not move forward to their ARRA high-speed rail funding. One reason cited is that the high-speed rails would be too expensive to operate. Unfortunately, spreading out the original $1.2 billion means that only a few states will receive a meaningful amount of money—California adds up to $624 million to its coffers whereas Indiana and Iowa are entitled to only about $365,000 and $310,000, respectively.

Florida's high-speed rail project now appears to be in doubt as well as Governor Rick Scott says he is withholding support for the Tampa-to-Orlando line until he sees ridership studies that support the investment.

Still, it's full-speed ahead on the West Coast and some areas of the Midwest. The California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) last week announced it is setting aside $30 million in federal funding for property acquisition and railway development in the Los Angeles area. The CHSRA says it is committed to developing an 1,290-kilometer high-speed train system that will operate at speeds of up to 355 kilometers per hour, connecting the state's urban centers, including the Bay Area, Fresno, Los Angeles and San Diego.

In the Chicago area, a cooperative agreement among the State of Illinois, Union Pacific Railroad and Amtrak announced on December 22 leaves officials there hopeful that Amtrak trains between Chicago and St. Louis could be traveling at 177 kilometers per hour on portions of the corridor as early as 2012.

Amtrak's Acela service along the U.S.'s Northeast Corridor is the only passenger train line in the country that has exceeded the 177-kilometers-per-hour speed necessary to earn the Transportation Department's "high-speed" classification. U.S. transportation officials acknowledge significant room for improvement. While high-speed trains in Europe travel as fast as 300 kilometers per hour, Amtrak's Acela "chugs along" at an average speed between D.C. and New York of 133 kilometers per hour—"a snail's pace by comparison," House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica (R-Fla.) said Thursday at a hearing held in New York City's Grand Central Terminal.

The hearing's purpose was, among other things, to discuss ways to help Amtrak, which owns 584 of the Northeast Corridor's more than 700 kilometers of track, more than double the speed of its trains and help keep the President's promise of extending high-speed rail service to most of the country. Amtrak's current plan to expand high-speed rail within the Northeast Corridor would require $117 billion and would not be completed until the year 2040, behind Obama's timeframe.

© 2011 Scientific American, a Division of Nature America, Inc.

High-Speed Rail in California; from then to now.

It's a slow news week-end in the high-speed rail business. Doing a quickie Google search turned up this article dated April 28, 2008.  At that time, the campaign in support of Proposition 1A for a $9.95 billion bond issue for HSR was well under way.

By mid summer 2008, the rail authority certified the program-level EIS/EIR approving the proposal to run elevated trains on the Caltrain corridor in the Bay Area.  They specified that the train would be used by 117 million annual passengers and would produce an annual $3 billion in surplus revenues.

Although at first Governor Schwarzenegger almost terminated the rail authority by permitting a budget too low for them to produce any meaningful work, he changed his mind and ended up being a champion for this project, thereby having Proposition 1A placed on the 2008 ballot.

In September of 2008, a major review of the high-speed rail project was produced by Wendell Cox and Joe Vranich called The Due Diligence Report.  It spelled out, in great detail, the lack of truthfulness in the HSR language and demonstrated what all the problems are when faced honestly.  They made it clear that this project was a major disaster in the making. Their report, still available on the web, should have received far wider distribution.  It might have made the difference.  

http://reason.org/news/show/the-california-high-speed-rail

Before November, the Palo Alto City Council unanimously passed a Resolution supporting the passing of Proposition 1A.  There was, by and large, little publicly declared opposition to this ballot measure.  Most of the media either ignored or supported it.

Recently, the state's Fair Political Practices Commission and a state appellate court in California finally imposed limits on the Legislature's ability to shape the language of the ballot measures, but too late to help us.  It's kind of like closing the barn door, etc. 

This finding was based on the 2008 ballot measure for Proposition 1A, which was deemed far too promotional in seeking voter support.  All neutral detachment was absent in the writing of the ballot language.  Unfortunately, Prop. 1A, which had been approved by a small majority of the voters, was let stand.

As Dan Walters put it in the Sacramento Bee,

Specifically, the organization challenged how the Legislature presented a 2008 ballot measure authorizing $9.95 billion in bonds for a state high-speed rail system. It contended that the Legislature heaped "lavish praise on its measure in language that virtually mirrored the argument in favor of the proposition."

Unfortunately, the decision does not invalidate the bullet train measure, which was approved very narrowly and likely would have been rejected by voters had ballot language been straightforward, rather than one-sided propaganda.

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/02/04/3376554/dan-walters-two-new-curbs-on-political.html#ixzz1D6dDD46Z

This article, below, was written months before that election.

=====================

http://venturebeat.com/2008/04/11/why-the-california-high-speed-rail-plan-is-fundamentally-flawed/

GreenBeat

Why the California High-Speed Rail plan is fundamentally flawed

April 11, 2008 | Martin Engel

[Note from Eric Eldon: I wrote a rather positive article this week on the proposed $10 billion California High-Speed Rail bond measure. If approved by the state's voters this November, the bond will lead to high-speed trains stretching from Sacramento and the Bay Area all the way down to San Diego. Martin Engel, of Menlo Park, Calif. (a city that the train would run through), thinks its a terrible idea because it's so expensive and because it's solving the wrong problems. Here's his response.]

If I may, I would like to respond, more or less point by point to your article, Eric. Actually, the train ticket price that is most frequently quoted is $55 one way for the SF to LA route. That will be in 2030, according to the CHSRA [Ed. My source on fares is here]. What do you suppose that $55 will have risen to in twenty years, when these trains are finally running?

Train ticket sales today, for regular as well as high-speed trains worldwide, begin at twice the $55 amount for similar distances. Even not-so-zippy Acela (the Washington D.C. to Boston commuter train) is more costly. Many bloggers who’ve visited Europe or Japan will convey that information; that is, it’s expensive to ride those trains. And you doubtless know, all passenger rail systems are massively subsidized; so their expectations of profits are highly hypothetical.

You talk about the “value” of this project. A better way would be to talk about the “cost/benefit” ratio. You have to acknowledge that the costs will be staggering, regardless of where the money comes from. There are many examples of under-pricing (lowballing) infrastructure projects (Bay Bridge; Boston Big Dig; the Eurotunnel, for example). A Danish researcher, Bent Flyvbjerg, has published findings about this practice. My point is this: Is there a cost point for this project that makes it no longer worthwhile? Say, like the Iraq war. And, if so, what would that be?

If you become a student of this practice, you will discover that you cannot disagree with a cost projection of $100 billion (not the currently projected $42 billion). It will be all borrowed money, both from public state and federal treasuries and private ones. These debts require not only interest payments, but also a return on principle, like a mortgage. When you say that it will not all come from California, you are probably right. However, it is California that will have to repay these loans. Some say that it will help our economy. What if many of the investors are from overseas? Is being in hock to overseas investors such a good thing for the state’s economy?

Given the fare cost and the limited connections, the likelihood of lower income workers using this train as a mode of commuting is actually rather slim. Those people would prefer slower and lower cost modes of transit. Let us be clear here, whatever this train is, it is not mass transit. In large high-density areas such as the LA basin, it could serve commuters, but that is not the rhetoric or the intention of the developers.

Yes, they claim that it will create 450,000 new jobs and will require 300 thousand man-years to construct. The fact is, there is no way of predicting this. Half a million jobs will be created in the next fifty years — or not — based on large, macro-economic forces, the nature of the global and national economy, the well-being of California’s industrial and agricultural capacity and similar basic sea-changes. Were such job growth to take place, it would be presumptuous to give credit for such expansion to the creation of a north-south railroad system.

Speed of travel, the CHSRA claims, will be faster by train than plane. No matter what the obstacles are, that’s nonsense. Indeed, airports are becoming more efficient at moving people through the terminal obstacle course. At the same time, it is naive to believe that this train, and others, will not require far greater security measures than are now in place. We have been blessed by not having a post 9/11 terror attack. I suggest that with the next one, there will be a major clampdown, trains included. 

Back to the $42 billion cost. Construction, which won’t begin for another several years, will take 10 years, more or less, to complete. Do you want to predict the construction costs 10 to 15 years out? You already know about sinking dollars, rising inflation world wide, fierce competition for construction materials, decline in credit availability, etc. The $42 billion is a number like the $55 train ticket. Even if it were true today, which it isn’t, these numbers will skyrocket. I say again, $100 billion total costs are not unreasonable.

A word about environmental benefits of the train. I suggest that they will not be anywhere near as great as claimed. Comparing “the train of the future” with the automobiles of the present is unfair. Planes and cars in the future will be more ecologically friendly. Electricity, on the other hand, may become dirtier (fossil-fuel powered plants) as our demands increase exponentially. This is a domain where it is almost too easy to overstate benefits in politically correct language.

Eric, you mention the increase in riders on other rail carriers. The CHRSA frequently predicts 117,000,000 passengers annually. They even paid a consulting firm to come up with those numbers. 117 million people is over a third of the entire U.S. population. How rational is that?

There are many more issues that need to be seen through lenses other than those provided by the train developers. Amazingly, very few people have been willing to seek out alternative perspectives or to challenge the rail authority’s assumptions.

Martin Engel was born in Germany, received an M.A. from Harvard, and a PhD from Syracuse. He served in the US Air Force. He has held faculty positions at Wayne State University, Carnegie-Mellon University and most recently at Stanford University. He was also a senior program officer at the US Department of Education, and a program director at Apple.

Altamont redux

There's a lot going on in California.  The CHSRA has stated that they intend to delay further design and CEQA work for the two population regions, the Bay Area and the LA Basin. That's so the Central Valley can get all their attention (and all the available money.)  We discussed this in conjunction with Mike Rosenberg's article in prior blog entries.

In addition, and that's what this San Francisco Chronicle article by John Wildermuth is about, the perennial pre-occupation with the alternative Altamont route into San Francisco is being addressed by the rail authority in such a way that it will not replace the current Pacheco Pass route to and through San Jose, up the Peninsula to San Francisco.  The Altamont corridor already runs several commuter trains and the CHSRA wants to upgrade those as a connector to the HSR main route through San Jose.

Let's make this point clearly.  There have been two proposed routes for the HSR line into the Bay Area, Atlamont and Pacheco Pass.  Each route has their advocates and opponents.  The rail authority made its decision some time ago, selecting the Pacheco Pass route.

The Altamont promoters have not given up, however.  Nonetheless, it should be clear by now that the Altamont route, being promoted to come through the Altamont Pass to Union City and from there across a new Bay Rail Bridge to Redwood City on the Peninsula, is not going to happen as the advocates wish.  And if it did, contrary to the Altamont promoters' promises, it will still do great harm to the Peninsula.  From our point of view, both routes -- Pacheco and Altamont --  are unacceptable.

The consequence for the rail authority to change its mind would first of all downgrade the importance of the San Jose station, through which all HSR traffic is now intended to be channelled. It would reduce San Jose (a strong HSR supporter) to secondary status on the main line.

Second, a new and required seismically up to date bridge across the Bay needs to be built.  The existing ruins of a 100 year old rail trestle cannot be restored. Therefore, a new high-rise bridge will cost vast amounts of additional funding that's not in the plans or available.  The rail authority has already made extensive plans for upgrading commuter rail along the Altamont corridor, using funds from the $950 million part of the Prop. 1A bond issue earmarked for commuter service to support the HSR.  There's no additional bridge money in that package.

Perhaps most important to me is the fact that Altamont supporters favor high-speed rail; they just want it to go their way.  That's not good enough.  We do not want high-speed rail in California, regardless of routes.  No matter where it goes, it will be devastatingly harmful.  We can't afford it.  We don't need it.  The Altamont route won't change any of that.

It is no small irony that some of the most articulate supporters of the Altamont route alternative are also among the most eloquent spokesmen who identify the corrupt and incompetent nature of the CHSRA and its staff. How can they have it both ways?
=================================

Please note that the proposed Altamont route does not go across the Bay to the Peninsula, it serves the towns along the route to Stockton and Manteca. This is not high-speed rail, but would connect to the intended high-speed rail route into San Jose through the Pacheco Pass.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2011%2F02%2F03%2FMN051HIHS1.DTL

San Jose-Stockton train route may improve

John Wildermuth, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, February 4, 2011

Commuters riding the train from Stockton to San Jose could see their travel time cut in half under a plan to reroute the passenger trains that now rumble over the Altamont Pass on their way to the Silicon Valley.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority met Thursday in Sacramento and approved a trimmed-down list of potential routes and stations for an upgraded Altamont Commuter Express, which now runs eight trains a day between the two cities.

While 2008's Proposition 1A provided $9 billion in bonds for a high-speed rail system stretching from Anaheim to the Bay Area, it also authorized $950 million for improvements to regional and commuter rail systems. Some of that money is earmarked for the Altamont project.

The $6 billion-plus project is a long way from shovel-ready, however. Plans now call for preparing an environmental impact report that won't be completed until 2013. Because financing is a major question mark, no date has been set for the start of construction.

Because the 87-mile corridor is divided into sections, the improvements don't all have to be done at once, said Brent Ogden, the project manager.

"Once we get the EIR done, we can pick parts out and get started," he said.

The trains now share Union Pacific tracks, where they can be delayed by the company's freight trains, which have priority. The upgraded system would put the commuter trains on their own new tracks, which would allow them to run at speeds up to 150 mph, rail officials said.

It now takes the passenger trains more than two hours to run from Stockton to San Jose, longer than it takes to drive during the jam-packed commute hours. But the rail project would cut that trip to 55 minutes.

Rail officials will look at several routes and stations as they meet with local leaders before beginning work on the environmental review. Each presents its own set of benefits and problems.

Pleasanton officials, for example, have made it clear they don't want the rail line to run through the city's downtown, while Livermore has concerns about the effect an aerial line would have on the downtown area.

Rail officials already have eliminated routes that would have run trains through environmentally sensitive wetlands in Santa Clara County and agreed to tunnel under Sycamore Grove Park in Livermore if needed.

The need to link with BART and other regional transportation systems also will play a major role in the decisions.

The Altamont Pass has been the scene of a long-running battle over the route of the intrastate bullet train.

The approved route now sends the train over the more southerly Pacheco Pass to Gilroy and San Jose and then along the Peninsula to San Francisco.

But Peninsula residents want to block rail construction in their towns and people in Central Valley towns like Modesto and Stockton argue that the Altamont Pass route would better serve their growing communities.

"We believe the choice of Pacheco Pass is flawed," said Richard Tolmach, president of the California Rail Foundation, a nonprofit group that promotes passenger rail. "The Altamont corridor has not been properly considered for high-speed rail."

While rail officials say that fight is over, they insist that plans to upgrade the commuter rail system are far more than a consolation prize for the area.

The need for the improvements stem "from the social and economic ties and travel demand that bind together the northern San Joaquin Valley, the Tri-Valley area and the South Bay, as well as high levels of existing population and future anticipated growth, travel demand and congestion," according to the report on the project.

"The Altamont Corridor is a little bit special, since it will connect a lot of main transportation lines," said Will Gimple, the regional manager for the project. The final route must "maximize revenue, maximize ridership and maximize connectivity with other transit."

altamont plans

More information about plans for the Altamont Corridor Rail Project can be found on the California High-Speed Rail Authority website at links.sfgate.com/ZKVU. Information on the site includes the time and date for public meetings on the project in Pleasanton, Livermore and Santa Clara, as well as a link to the new report of proposed routes for the ACE commuter trains.

E-mail John Wildermuth at jwildermuth@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/02/04/MN051HIHS1.DTL

The Trains in Spain Give Spain a Pain

Just look at China.  Why can't we have high-speed rail like China?  This blog has been trying to answer that question with articles that suggest that China having high-speed rail is not all it's all cracked up to be, and they are beginning to have serious second thoughts.

Now, here's a similar story from Spain, reprinted in THE WEEK.  What we're learning is the answer to a similar question, Why can't we be more like Spain with all their high-speed rail? Look how wonderful that is.

Well, no.  Not so wonderful.  Spain, a nearly bankrupt country seeking to be bailed out by the European Community, threw billions of euros at their high-speed rail project.  I suspect that they were just as intoxicated with this glitzy rail pornography as we are in California. 

Can't we learn from them also?  Isn't it obvious that these grandiose infrastructure dreams should be no more than that, dreams?  Even the Chinese oligarchy will come to realize what a foolish mistake the are making (or maybe not; after all, it's China) and Spain is now coming to this same realization. 

High speed rail costs too much. It becomes an enormous drain on the entire economy and then there is always infrastructure builders' remorse.  Perhaps not too much if there is already in place a fully developed rail network that is highly integrated into the culture of that country, like France or Germany or Japan. In those countries, HSR is the icing on a fully baked rail system cake and furthermore, those countries don't mind subsidizing these trains since they perform a tourism and premium/first class travel service for that high-density populated region. In Spain, they are commuter trains, but only for the professional middle manager business classes who can afford it.  What about everybody else?

To start from scratch, as Spain did, as China did, and as we intend to in the US, is a huge mistake.  Isn't that obvious yet?

---------------------------

THE WEEK 

January 28,2011

A bankrupt country with snazzy trains

Cristina Vazquez

To look at our infrastructure, you'd never guess that Spain was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, said Cristina Vazquez.  

Over the past few years, we've "spent unprecedented sums" on transport improvements.  The results are impressive.  We now have the most miles of highways in any European country, and with the opening of the Madrid-Valencia high-speed train service, we've just beaten out France to boast Europe's largest high-speed rail network.  But there's a downside to winning those bragging rights.  We "wasted a fortune" of 6 billion euros on a train that will carry only 3.5 million people a year, mostly to and from Madrid.

Compare that, for example, with the 400 million people in Spain who use commuter rail each year. The problem, sustainable-development advocates say, is that Spain has been acting "like a nouveau riche country," throwing money at flashy projects rather than figuring out how to get the most out of its transport budget. Proponents argue that trains would be better for the environment, but since the tickets for high-speed rail cost so much, most people still take their cars.  "the big difference between Spain and other European countries," says one developer, "is that the others plan services, while we just plan spending."

Today's High-Speed Rail Lesson: from China and Cornell

First article is from The Economist.  The second, short one is from a Cornell University Professor of Policy Analysis and Management. 

The Economist article talks about China and why, just maybe, they have overbuilt their high-speed rail system. Oops.  Only the well to do can afford to ride it.  Many trains are half empty.  But, the government heads don't care.  

They are doing this for the PR and the employment. In a top-down economic system, you can do whatever you want. They don't have to listen to anyone. What they're building is to impress the rest of the world.  Remember the dazzling Bejing Olympics? Their HSR will be just as practical. 

Wow, does all that sound familiar!

Prof. Geddes makes all the same observations that you have been reading here in this blog, only with more authority.   He says we can't afford it. It's a waste of money.  It won't accomplish anything the promoters are trying to make us believe.  

His per-mile cost estimates are an average and don't mean that much.  Some areas are obviously less costly than others. Running new rail corridors through urban areas is the most expensive, unless it's through mountains. There it could be twice as much as the $50 million per mile average, or more.

There is very little experience based speculation about the real costs for HSR construction although we know that those numbers can triple or more all the forecasts.  Even now, in California, the tab for various segments and sections increases daily. 

Then there's the freight compatibility issue. The freights don't want HSR anywhere near their corridors. That's going to be a huge problem.  And, Prof. Geddes thinks that there are some corridors, presumably the NEC, that are HSR worthy.  Well, maybe, although certainly not on a cost/benefit basis.

So, my question for today is, how long will we continue to be stupid?

Attention CHSRA. Want us to be impressed about high-speed rail in China?  Well, here's a lesson from China for you!

=====================================

THE ECONOMIST

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/02/high-speed_rail_china

On the wrong track?

Feb 3rd 2011, 16:12 by M.A. | BEIJING

JUDGING from the votes they have cast with their bottoms, China's business travellers need little persuading of the merits of high-speed rail. Since the high-speed link between Wuhan and Guangzhou opened in December 2009, for instance, over 20m have chosen the zippier trains, while the number of competing daily flights between Guangzhou and Changsha (on the route to Wuhan) has dropped from over 11 to three. 

Yet whether plans to double high-speed coverage by 2020 are an unmitigated good thing for China, which already has more high-speed rail than any other country, is a different question.

It is one that decision-makers have largely sidestepped thanks to the peculiarities of China's political system. But of late debate has spilled over into the public realm. 

Detractors complain that high-speed rail is too expensive for the Zhang in the street. Migrant labourers, 230m of whom are expected to make the journey home during Spring Festival, are not in enough of a hurry to pay a premium for speed, they argue. 

(Or as Patrick Chovanec of Tsinghua University puts it with a dose of economese, "The bulk of the long-distance passenger traffic, especially during the peak holiday periods, is migrant workers for whom the opportunity cost of time is relatively low.") While some travellers are having such a hard time getting tickets home this holiday season that they have unveiled their underpants in protest, it is reported that on one line $352 luxury sleeper tickets are going begging.

This mismatch raises questions about the $300 billion being thrown at high-speed rail this decade. Many newly added lines are making hefty losses and many are thought to be operating at under half capacity The Chinese Academy of Sciences, an influential official think-tank, seems to be in the sceptics' corner: fretting about unsustainable levels of debt, it was reported in November to have recommended the government reconsider its plans. Chinese leaders were said to have ordered a review, and construction of a Maglev line between Shanghai and Hangzhou has since been reported "shelved".

Some economists make even more dismal arguments. Mr Chovanec attacks one of the main legs of the economic case for high-speed rail in China, that transporting passengers thus would free up track desperately needed for shifting coal. Much of China's fuel travels by road: a 62-mile traffic jam outside Beijing lasting 10 days last August was only the most visible sign. But if fast trains are out of reach for the masses, there will be little or no relief for either rail or road networks. Critics say the proliferation of expensive trains has pushed poorer travellers back onto the roads, clogging them with 70,000 more buses this Spring Festival, although hundreds of extra trains have also been laid on. Improving China's languishing logistics network for freight would be a better use of the cash, Mr Chovanec posits.

Yet it would be premature to assume that China will not hit or even exceed its stratospheric targets. The Shanghai-Hangzhou Maglev was reported "shelved" in 2007, too, so its difficulties are not new; compounding them, there is now a separate high-speed (though slightly slower) connection between the two cities. China's mandarins are clearly not insusceptible to economic sense, and individual projects could bite the dust. But Chinese Communist Party leaders' economic priorities are defined by a different kind of cost-benefit analysis than that familiar to politicians in capitalist democracies.

What if some investments in whizzy rolling stock are loss-making? Famously unconstrained by electoral time horizons, they may be counting on demand for high-speed rail travel to rise with their citizens' wealth. And, as in industries like telecoms before, China's national railway-equipment champions will use the revenues drawn from the world's biggest market—where they are making decent profits—to support their move into overseas markets. It is a move already visible in recent export deals with the US.

Then there are the political payoffs. Even uneconomic construction work creates employment, enhancing social stability at a time when the global economy remains fragile. High-speed locomotives look jazzy, and offer yet more glittering evidence of the Communist party's modernisation of China. 

And the promise of placing China at the heart of a Eurasian rail network, as officials hope to do, hurts neither China's prestige, nor its ruling party's. Any trouble down the tracks would have to look pretty dire to derail all that.

====================

http://www.newswise.com/articles/u-s-high-speed-rail-plans-are-on-the-wrong-track

U.S. High-Speed Rail Plans Are on the Wrong Track

Released: 2/3/2011 12:40 PM EST 

Source: Cornell University

Newswise — R. Richard Geddes, associate professor of policy analysis and management at Cornell University and author of “The Road to Renewal: Private Investment in U.S. Transportation Infrastructure,” comments on President Obama’s call for the development of an intercity high-speed rail network in the United States.

Geddes says:  “President Obama is calling for a high-speed passenger rail to connect our major cities, but the devil is in the details."

“For one, such a system would not be as green as advertised. To achieve the desired high speeds, the entire line must be electrified, requiring enormous amounts of energy, presumably from coal or nuclear sources. And existing freight tracks are not suitable for high-speed rail trains, meaning a new network of tracks must be installed, which, by current estimates, would cost more than $50 million per mile. Moreover, if freight train tracks are used, freight traffic would be disrupted, placing a larger burden on long-haul trucks, increasing environmental, infrastructure and safety harms.

“It is doubtful that the social and economic benefits of high-speed rail can justify such high costs, except in a few very high-density areas.”

Delaying HSR planning for California's two population regions

THIS JUST IN. The Rail Authority is meeting today in Sacramento and they have come up with the following:  They intend to delay the planning for the section from San Francisco to San Jose, "for at least a year."  They will also delay engineering design work for the LA to Anaheim section.

It's no surprise.  They need all the help they can get to finish the Central Valley planning work on time, by September 2012, or they stand to lose the ARRA stimulus award funds. So, pulling staff off the work for the two population regions and putting them on the design work for ruining San Joaquin Valley farmland is now their highest agenda.

Also, while they don't have to be honest with us about costs, they do have to calculate what they can actually accomplish with the funding they have, and they don't want to waste it on segments that they can't build without the likelihood of lots more funding.

So, should we breathe a sigh of relief?  NO.  First of all, when they start construction in the CV, it will do a huge amount of harm.  People there are getting the message and are mad as hell.  Second, it's the train to nowhere.  Whether there will ever be further funding for connecting the CV section to either of the population regions is highly questionable. 

Third, what they intend to build will not -- pay attention -- will not be a high-speed rail capable length of tracks.  It won't be used by Amtrak since it's intended for the much lighter HSR.  It won't be electrified so that it can't be used by HSR. So, you are asking, what's the point?  The answer is that they will get their foot in the door.

The agenda for us now must be to stop the construction in the Central Valley.  A lot of us believe it's illegal by California law, if not by federal law.

Note that the CEO, Roelof Van Ark, says that when they get around to it, they will build the SF to SJ in stages.  That's what they intend to do in the CV.  Is that OK? Not according to AB3034, which requires "usable segments."  A 'stage' is merely a part of a segment and is not usable by HSR and that's what the law requires.

=============================

http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county/ci_17285866?nclick_check=1

High-speed rail leaders delay Bay Area project for at least a year

By Mike Rosenberg

mrosenberg@bayareanewsgroup.com

Posted: 02/03/2011 04:20:07 PM PST

State leaders on Thursday hit the pause button on the Bay Area section of the California high-speed rail project, and won't resume planning that portion of the massive undertaking until at least 2012.

California High-Speed Rail Authority CEO Roelof van Ark announced to board members during a meeting in Sacramento that the San Francisco-to-San Jose section of the project would take a back seat to the Central Valley.

The rail authority in December decided to spend virtually all of its available money, some $5.5 billion, to start the rail line near Fresno and Bakersfield. The full line will reach San Francisco and Los Angeles and cost $43 billion, but state officials do not have enough money to extend the tracks to either the Bay Area or Southern California and are not sure when they will get additional funding.

Officials said they still have no timetable for starting construction on the section of track between San Francisco and San Jose, which will run along the Caltrain corridor. As a result, the planning document required to start construction, a draft of which was slated for release in December, will now not be available until at least 2012.

The same delay will apply to the Los Angeles-to-Anaheim section of the project.

 will allow all stakeholders to participate in the further investigation and development of the alignments, and some of the technical complexities of the operations and alignments can be further analyzed," van Ark said.

Also as part of the plans, van Ark said they would consider building various sections of the project, such as the San Francisco-to-San Jose leg, in stages instead of all at once.

The rail authority still hopes to have trains running on the statewide line by 2020.

Contact Mike Rosenberg at 650-348-4324.

Spinning John Mica on High-Speed Rail

Let's get right to it.  This article comes from a pro-HSR blog. Actually, it's a Democratic/campaign/PAC/ lobbying group.  So, it has a lot of spin.  That is, it shows Republican John Mica to be the best friend high-speed rail ever had.

OK, "Transportation for America," let's not get carried away.  We already 'have Mica on tape' several times being very skeptical of most of the so-called HSR projects that were awarded ARRA stimulus dollars and are now grovelling for further funds. Acknowledging the highest population density and most heavily travelled corridor, Mica  has said numerous times that the only high-speed rail that is justifiable for federal support is the Northeast Corridor (NEC). 

He's much less enthusiastic about all the other projects.  Furthermore, he disagrees with the Obama/LaHood aproach of handing out dribs and drabs of funding as if they were earmarks to any applicant who wants to make their passenger trains go faster.  That's usually called 'pork.' 

You understand that when you talk with Democratic Senators and Congressmen or their staff, they will (reluctantly) acknowledge that the CHSRA is a big mess.  But they will persist -- against all reason -- to tell that they support the HSR "in principle."  

What they actually mean is they don't give a damn one way of the other about HSR; what they do care about is getting federal dollars into their state.  And, they certainly don't want to cross the President and his HSR love affair. That stance pleases the Unions and the corporate interests that stand to benefit from HSR development. It's also a 'vehicle' for getting those politicians re-elected. Let's just consider high-speed rail not so much an appropriate transit opportunity as a pipeline for federal funding to the states. 

The crucial issue for Mica and the other Republicans who will be in the decision-making loop is the matter of private investments, such as Public Private Partnerships. When that subject comes up, the companies named are either foreign HSR manufacturers like Siemens and Bombardier, or American companies (GE, Bechtel) with a large stake in this development for the sake of profits.   It's like Parsons Brinckerhoff lending $43 billion to the CHSRA so that they can pay PB's contract obligations.  

Forgive my naivete, but I fail to understand why Bechtel or GE would fund something, especially in the huge amounts necessary, in order to get a contract to build it.  It would, of course, be a loan, not a gift.  So, where are their profits?  We already know that these rail systems will be subsidy-dependent money losers, the tab picked up by the government as they are elsewhere in the world. But that's only for operational expenses, not investment interest. That's how Amtrak works.

Where's the return on investment?  Will that burden also fall on the states that will be obliged to guarantee those private investments?  In which case, it's really a very lousy deal for the rest of us who have to cover all those perpetual costs with our taxes.  Let's just say that most of us taxpayers will not be riding this high-speed train in California.  Therefore, who gets to make the money on this money loser?  The investors who's return is covered -- unwittingly -- by the voters, and those who can afford the high-priced ticket to ride, since that's subsidized.

The Republicans would do well to terminate this boondoggle.

==================================

http://t4america.org/blog/2011/02/02/florida-republican-john-mica-could-be-a-key-ally-on-high-speed-rail/

TRANSPORTATION FOR AMERICA

Florida Republican John Mica could be a key ally on high-speed rail

February 2, 2011

By Sean Barry

When President Obama last week set the ambitious target of giving 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail within 25 years, many of the usual suspects were ready with the cold water. But away from the ideological fray, the people who need to be won over – Republicans on Capitol Hill – were sending largely positive signals.

Today, the Orlando Sentinel profiled Congressman John Mica, the powerful Republican chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and perhaps the person most crucial to President Obama’s success at infrastructure investment.

Mica is an 18-year veteran of the House and longtime advocate for rail, particularly in his home state of Florida. He told PBS’ Blueprint America in 2009:

If you’re on the Transportation Committee long enough, even if you’re a fiscal conservative, which I consider myself to be, you quickly see the benefits of transportation investment. Simply, I became a mass transit fan because it’s so much more cost effective than building a highway. Also, it’s good for energy, it’s good for the environment – and that’s why I like it.

As the Sentinel noted, one of Mica’s first acts as chairman was convening a field hearing in New York City on how to bring high-speed rail to the Northeast corridor:

Mica and his industry allies hope to use a proposed train between Orlando and Tampa to show that private companies are willing to invest their own money in high-speed rail. If it works, Mica hopes the playbook could be repeated across the country, including the Northeast.

With President Obama calling for transportation investments to be fully paid for – and many House Republicans favoring deep cuts – Mica’s focus on leveraging private investment becomes crucial. 

That’s the approach he is taking for the 61-mile, $1.2 billion SunRail system set to run from DeLand to Poinciana, with a stop in downtown Orlando. Florida’s newly elected Republican governor remains a rail skeptic, but Mica may be able to plow forward without state funds. From the Sentinel:

Rather than press Tallahassee, however, Mica wants to put the burden on the private sector — eight multinational consortia, led by companies such as Siemens, General Electric, Bombardier and Bechtel — that have expressed interest in bidding on the project.

“I don’t think any more state, federal or local money should go into it,” Mica said. “Let’s get the private sector to chip in.”

Mica is well positioned to work with both his colleagues and the Obama administration. The Congressman has reportedly been meeting with his Senate counterpart – California Democrat and Environment and Public Works Committee chair Barbara Boxer – and has a strong relationship with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, himself a former House Republican.

Whether Congress this year is able to pass a reauthorization of the surface transportation bill – and how much funding is available for rail and other travel options – will depend a lot on what happens in Mica’s committee and how he chooses to lead.