High speed rail in the US.

[TjW]

Double post

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I can't find a reference for this claim (the closest I can find is the smoking ban on airpliners), but my former Aviation Maintenance instructor (and here I must stress that he buys into conspiracy theories, so take it with a grain of salt) claims that Callifornia wants to ban aircraft travel in their state because AVGAS and jet fuels have lead in it and there are no alternatives.

I don't see how it would be practical but if they did it they'd need something to replace it.

Well, there's a number of links (maybe off of other links) in this thread about California's plans and debates to expand airports. If a serious ban was in the works it certainly would have been mentioned.

A long time ago (in www terms), I remember a "google game" that involved constructing a search that would make it appear from the headlines in the search result that California was banning something ridiculous. There is a city named "Banning" in California so it's fairly easy to do.

 

[Mudcat]

Well, aviation gasoline has lead, though some light aircraft are flying with supplemental type certificates allowing them to use unleaded.
Turbine fuels, though, (used in jet and turboprop aircraft) are basically kerosene, or very much like diesel fuel.
Since turbine engines don't typically suffer from knocking, (detonation), there's not much reason I can see to add tetra ethyl lead to a turbine fuel.

It's hard to believe an Aviation Maintenance instructor wouldn't know that.
It's equally hard to believe that he wouldn't know that the federal government has jurisdiction over airspace. I suppose it might be possible for California to shut down every non-military airport in the state, but they wouldn't be able to prevent overflights.

I'm pretty sure a fair chunk of change comes to California one way or another as a result of international travel. It's hard to imagine the legislature making California that business-unfriendly. But Las Vegas would probably benefit if they did.

I know that a large chunk of change comes to California from agriculture. A Central Valley without cropdusters would either increase production costs or lower production. I don't believe either one would be good for the state. And I find it difficult to believe that the agribusiness operators don't know this, and wouldn't bend the ear of the politicians to whom they have contributed, should such a thing be proposed.

Are state legislators and local politicians familiar with the economic benefit of the various types of aviation? Probably not, but I don't see this as a conspiracy. "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

I did mention that my instructor was a person who buys into conspiracy theories, right? And everything you have mentioned (especially the fact that there are STC that allow some small aircraft to use unleaded automotive gasoline and that Jet Fuel is in fact kerosine based, and thus unleaded) plus the fact that the FAA is phasing out AVGAS is evidence that his claim doesn't hold water (I should take a moment to point out that all this is mentioned in my General textbook). But he still makes the claim, none the less.

Conspiracy Theorists are nuts.

 

[balrog666]

ftfy

Thanks!

 

[crimresearch]

Speaking from the New England perspective here, it was only about a hundred years ago that local trolleys and railways dotted the region. Where I lived in the 70's and 80's, Western Connecticut, there was once a street railway that ran all the way up half the state edge and into Pittsfield, Massachusetts. There was also an East-West railway running from Hartford across the top of the state until the 1950's, a North-South railway running along the western edge, and another North South railway across the line in New York, running up the eastern edge of that state until the 1970's. All but the North south line are gone, turned either back to pasture or into bikeways, and the North South has been freight only for about 50 years, except for scenic rides on a seasonal schedule. In addition, every town of any size had trolleys that went through the city and out to the suburbs, all done in by the 1950's and paved over.

Depending on your point of view, the time for rail travel ended, or the automotive culture, and (so I read) the clever act by General Motors of buying up old trolley lines and replacing them with buses, spelled a permanent end to mass rail transit here, or the government made a big mistake by subsidizing highways and letting rail travel wither. It will never be remotely practical now to regain the rights of way that railways gave away or allowed to lapse in past years.

GM didn't just buy them up per se, they used whatever it took to get the local politicians to pave them over and buy fleets of busses... an interesting study would be how many of those same politicians or their cronies got lucrative Chevy and Caddy dealerships.

On the national level... When I was young, my mother and I could walk from the house to a nearby intersection, go up a flight of stairs, and catch a train in midtown that would take us all over the country.

 

[Ladewig]

I'm pretty sure a fair chunk of change comes to California one way or another as a result of international travel. It's hard to imagine the legislature making California that business-unfriendly. But Las Vegas would probably benefit if they did.

Everyone in this thread agrees that such a thing is both impossible and unlikely; but it is a fun thought experiment. One would have to imagine a state willing to give up most of the $88 billion in travel revenues currently generating $5 billion in state and local taxes.

Las Vegas would plotz at all the additional flights and revenue. The Mexican economy would measurably improve as Tijuana International Airport expanded its existing service to Japan, Shanghai and, Hawaii. Virtually all western international travelers starting in the Southern U.S. would have to be routed through Las Vegas, Phoenix, or Tijuana.

The Disney corporation would run the numbers to see if they could build HSR from LA to Las Vegas.

I wonder how many corporations would move away once the top brass saw that they could not fly into or out of coastal cities.

ETA: perhaps L.A. would consider succeeding from California to become its own state. .

 

[Travis]

I was so happy this got through the state senate. I was so busy e-mailing and calling up every senator I thought might vote against it that I'm sure the state now has some sort of file on me.

To answer some questions.


Will it be seismically safe?

Yes. Great effort has been expended to use lessons learned from the Taiwanese and Japanese systems. These include crossing all faults at the surface, using a sophisticated positive train control system that will shut down all trains when an earthquake is detected by the USGS system and special reinforcement of all structures.

Will it be profitable?

Oh lord YES! Every high speed line in the world operates at a profit and the California system very closely emulates the most successful (specifically the system in Germany). So far numerous international operators including JR East and SNCF have analyzed the plan and believe so much that it will be profitable that they are angling to win the contract to operate it.

Another thing to consider is that, contrary to popular opinion, the cities it will connect already are very dense. The Los Angeles metropolitan region is the second largest and second densest in the USA. The SF Bay Area is the sixth Largest and third densest region. Both have large public transport networks that are expanding and both have heavily used airports that are well beyond their design capacity with no room for expansion.

Why did the cost go up then down?

The initial cost estimate was done by a team of mostly European designers who unfortunately made some key mistakes with their assumptions. Their biggest one was assuming that the new California line will be able to share a ROW corridor with existing freight railroads. They were unaware that the freight railroads were privately owned and would not allow passenger trains near their tracks (this was a mistake that should have been caught but the high speed rail authority was operating on a shoestring budget at the time). Once this was realized a new cost estimate in year of expenditure dollars (so roughly year 2018 dollars) was made and it was considerably more than the original. Design changes were instituted to bring down the cost and it now sits almost at the original price.

How was the price dropped?

Mostly through the elimination of viaducts they thought would be required by the EPA through marsh regions. They also decided to use already existing tracks near San Francisco and Los Angeles that are being purchased so they can be dedicated to passenger use.

Why does it need to be on a separate track?

The FRA won't allow high speed trains onto the same track that freight trains operate on.

What is the ICS?

The ICS is the Initial Construction Segment. This is the 130 mile long section authorized to be built. This will also serve as a test track that the FRA requires for several months of dedicated test train operations.

The cost of the ICS is about $6 billion which makes it cheaper than the new Bay Bridge East Span.

How will it be financed?

Governor Brown is going to use carbon tax revenue against Federal grant matches. Additional money will eventually come in from private investors. California is also looking at getting a low interest loan from China.

Why don't people take the train from LA to SF now?

Simple. It doesn't exist. There is no track through the Tehachapi mountains. Instead people are forced onto airplanes and this is why the SF to LA air corridor is the busiest in the United States.

How long will it take to build?

Probably about ten years. There is an enormous amount of complex construction ahead when they close the gap through the Tehachapi Mountains. That will require tunneling. But they are using a system called Quantum to find the cheapest and easiest route to construct.

Who opposes it?

NIMBY's in Palo Alto who don't want poor people near them even on trains and the usual anti mass transit morons. They have no valid points and are not worth listening to.

 

[Travis]

I suppose you are all wondering why this segment in the central valley is the first to be built. It really is simple, the Federal Government came to the high speed rail authority with $4 billion but the catch was that construction had to start before 2012 was over. The only section of the high speed line that had design and environmental clearance completed was the central valley section.

When you combine this with the FRA requirement for a test track that is mostly level and straight that can be used for several months it really made sense to just proceed with building this section.

The next section to be built will go south from Bakersfield to just outside Los Angeles. Once that is built they can start to run actual high speed trains on the line. The next section after that to be built will be from Merced to San Jose.

The plan is to start construction on this 130 mile stretch this year, then start on the Bakersfield to LA section in 2014 or as soon as enough money is secured to construct.

The benefits of this project are huge. Beyond relieving crushing congestion on both the airports and highways it will take planes out of the sky and cars off the road. In California this is a big deal because of pollution problems. The other benefit is that it will allow for a continuation of dense transit oriented housing developments near the planned stations.

It will also save the state a huge amount of money as the cost of expanding the airports and highways dwarfs that of constructing the high speed train.

 

[Puppycow]

Actually there is currently passenger train service between SF and LA, but it takes a whole day to go either way.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/AM_Route_C/1241245648567/1237405732511

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I'd take whatever Travis has to say on this topic with a grain of salt. California right now has problems paying for what it already has and doesn't need and (for most of us) doesn't want a HSR system.

What he hasn't told you (and why public sentiments are against this boondoggle) are numerous. The ridership estimates between SF and LA are way out of whack with reality. As most people are aware cars are almost a necessity in California (even in San Francisco, which has an excellent public transportation system). That means that most people already own a car that they paid for and are far more likely to use them instead of the train (where they'd have to rent a car at the other end anyway).

I live near the BART line that goes to SFO and ride it on a regular basis. I rarely see more than a few people with luggage on a 9 car train heading to or from SFO on any given day or time and many of them are tourists and not locals. If people won't take a train to the airport (a 25 minute ride from downtown San Francisco, arguably just as fast and a lot cheaper than driving or catching a taxi) what on earth makes some people think that they will take a train 4+ hours to LA? The BART system also had high ridership estimates for the airport that were used to justify the extra cost of extending it to the airport. Go to Colma station and see how that turned out. 1/3rd of the station that was intended for the increased volume of riders passing through it is closed off because of non-use. What people say they will do and what they actually end up doing are two different things

The cost of buying the right of way is cheap as hell in the Central Valley where they will be using farm land for the most part, not so much so when you get closer to the Bay Area or greater LA.

The cost to the rider (not the actual taxpayer subsidized cost) will be about the same as a airline fare with at least twice the overall time between destinations (in the door of the airport/train station and out the door of the destination) and about twice what it would cost to drive the same trip.

Comparisons to other, more successful HSR projects are misleading. California is not Japan. Not in population density, not in miles of highways and not in costs.

The budget estimates are way out of synch with reality. When has any large scale government public works project of this scale ever even come close to the final tab? Look at the Big Dig in Boston for an example.

The HSR people want this to go through with the cheapest section first (the train line to nowhere from nowhere) so that they can later say "But we've already spent X$ so we have to continue or it's all been wasted". Good money after bad if you ask me. There's a reason why no business or groups of investors would ever do this on their own and it has nothing to do with raising the capitol or getting the land through imminent domain to do it, it's because it's never ever going to break even much less generate a profit. There's exactly one profitable passenger rail line in this country and that's in the northeast where the tracks were laid long before the EPA, OSHA and a bunch of other alphabet soup agencies were around and when litigation wasn't a national sport. This whole thing just has financial disaster written all over it in a state that's already in deep financial trouble as it is.

 

[BenBurch]

Proper infrastructure is essential to a State's tax revenues.

When you have trouble making a living as a State with the infrastructure that is already not serving the number of moving people, it is about as stupid as it gets to decide that infrastructure needs no change.

 

[TjW]

Yes, the only thing stupider would be to spend billions you don't have on infrastructure that won't be used and can't be moved.

 

[BenBurch]

Yes, the only thing stupider would be to spend billions you don't have on infrastructure that won't be used and can't be moved.

Yeah, that would be stupid.

Do you envision them moving San Francisco, San Jose, LA, or San Diego real soon, then?

 

[TjW]

No. None of them will be in the central valley any time soon.

 

[varwoche]

The cost to the rider (not the actual taxpayer subsidized cost) will be about the same as a airline fare with at least twice the overall time between destinations (in the door of the airport/train station and out the door of the destination)

I was skeptical when I read this but you are correct, and here's what I learned: Ticket price is set at $170 roundtrip, in today's dollars. And Expedia has numerous flights for less than $160.

and about twice what it would cost to drive the same trip.

You underestimate the full cost of a driving trip, though it's not highly relevant to the debate.

 

[Dymanic]

The ridership estimates between SF and LA are way out of whack with reality.

It's certainly the case that some estimates are way out of whack with some other estimates, but there isn't any reality in this instance, because the planned system does not yet exist.

The cost to the rider (not the actual taxpayer subsidized cost) will be about the same as a airline fare with at least twice the overall time between destinations (in the door of the airport/train station and out the door of the destination) and about twice what it would cost to drive the same trip.

Predictions are only as good as the assumptions on which they are based. If you're assuming that fuel costs for travel by either air or highway will be similar in 2030 to what they are now, I see a potential problem with that.

Something I'm curious about is just who these people are who are doing all of this travelling between LA and SF (the nation's second busiest air corridor), and why they're doing it. How many of them are doing it for reasons that are vital to the continued functioning of our economy? If oil prices suddenly tripled or quadrupled (as has happened before), how many of them would find that they no longer needed to make the trip all that badly? How many of them would still be employed? How many of the airlines could continue to operate, and how many people could afford the fares?

California is not Japan. Not in population density, not in miles of highways and not in costs.

And not in domestic oil supplies -- which is much of the reason that Japan got a four-decade jump on the US in building a high speed rail system (and maintained an extensive light passenger rail system), whereas vested interests in the US successfully conspired to insure that passenger transportation infrastructure in this country would strongly favor road over rail, over both long and short distances.

 

[BenBurch]

No. None of them will be in the central valley any time soon.

Whew. Good thing its not planning for them to be there, then!

 

[BenBurch]

I was skeptical when I read this but you are correct, and here's what I learned: Ticket price is set at $170 roundtrip, in today's dollars. And Expedia has numerous flights for less than $160.

...

Airlines are heavily federally subsidized.

Airports and air traffic control and etc are all federally subsidized.

Remove the subsidy by making each landing and each takeoff pay it's cost of the system in proportion, and you'd be talking a ticket at least 25% higher than that.

But that wouldn't be good for the country, now, would it?

 

[Kestrel]

I was skeptical when I read this but you are correct, and here's what I learned: Ticket price is set at $170 roundtrip, in today's dollars. And Expedia has numerous flights for less than $160.

Average airline revenue per occupied seat is somewhere between what the tourist who picks up a deal on Expedia pays and the business traveler who needs to fly on short notice pays. A businessman who decides to hop on the 6:30 pm flight from LAX to SFO today and return later in the week would pay about $500 for a round trip ticket.

 

[BenBurch]

Average airline revenue per occupied seat is somewhere between what the tourist who picks up a deal on Expedia pays and the business traveler who needs to fly on short notice pays. A businessman who decides to hop on the 6:30 pm flight from LAX to SFO today and return later in the week would pay about $500 for a round trip ticket.

Good point.

They do not make any money on discounted seats, they simply lose less money by filling them at a discounted rate.