Obama administration cuts 90 minutes off Amtrak trip from Chicago to St Louis

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://reason.com/archives/2012/07/02/5-reasons-the-california-high-speed-rail

5 Reasons the California High-Speed Rail Project Shouldn’t Get More Money

Gov. Brown asks for billions in borrowing even as train system gets slower, shorter, and more expensive.

Adrian Moore, Joseph Vranich & Wendell Cox | July 2, 2012

Despite California’s budget deficit rising to $16 billion recently, Gov. Jerry Brown is asking state legislators for $6 billion in bonds to launch construction on the proposed high-speed rail system. Voters approved a $9.95 billion bond package for the “bullet train” in 2008, but just about everything about the rail system has changed since then.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) issued a revised business plan in April that calls for a 130-mile segment running from Bakersfield to Madera in the state’s Central Valley. If the Central Valley leg is built, the plan says the system would eventually share tracks with commuter trains in the Bay Area and Los Angeles, in what it is calling a “blended” approach. Not exactly the bullet train from San Diego to Los Angeles to the Bay Area and Sacramento that voters were sold back in 2008.

The last thing California should do right now is add billions more in bond debt. Beyond the most obvious—the state simply cannot afford it—there are at least five major reasons California shouldn’t move forward on this rail project.

1. Broken Proposition 1A Promises: The Costs Look Nothing Like What Voters Approved

The text of Proposition 1A asking California voters to approve $9.95 billion in bonds for the project in 2008 said: “The total cost to develop and construct the entire high-speed train system would be about $45 billion.”

Now the High-Speed Rail Authority says the price tag for a scaled down system will be $68.4 billion. Last year, the HSRA actually estimated the costs would be over $98 billion but to lower the sticker shock by $30 billion they’ve shifted to a “blended” plan that uses slower, existing rail tracks instead of building the exclusive tracks capable of handling high-speed trains that they originally planned on.

The official proponent's argument in the Proposition 1A ballot pamphlet also promised voters that ticket prices would be “about $50 a person.” Now, they are saying tickets would cost an average of $81 each way, with “express” tickets for the fastest trips costing $123 one-way.

The costs have changed so much from what voters were promised that funding should be halted until the HSRA fulfills its 2008 promises to voters, or until voters get to approve the changes. Several groups, including popular KFI radio talk show hosts John and Ken in Los Angeles, are starting to get the signatures needed to put a re-vote of the high-speed rail initiative on the ballot.

2. There’s Still No Legitimate Funding Plan

The California High-Speed Rail Authority says it will need $53 to $62 billion to build the Phase 1 Blended System, which would run from Los Angeles to San Francisco. Sacramento and San Diego appear to have been dropped from the plan. The state currently has the $9.95 billion in taxpayer-backed bonds originally approved by Proposition 1A plus an additional $3.5 billion in federal grants. But where is the remaining $40-$50 billion going to come from?

In April, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office wrote, “We find that HSRA has not provided sufficient detail and justification to the Legislature regarding its plan to build a high–speed train system. Specifically, funding for the project remains highly speculative and important details have not been sorted out. We recommend the Legislature not approve the Governor's various budget proposals to provide additional funding for the project.”

If the state starts building a high-speed train system somewhere between Bakersfield and Fresno it will run out of money well before the system is finished. That’s okay with many train advocates, who figure once construction begins the government will be forced to find the rest of the money to avoid having a partially built $10 billion train to nowhere sitting in the Central Valley. But the legislature can’t afford to be so fiscally reckless. It needs to demand a detailed plan showing how the full rail system will be funded before approving the bond money to start construction.

3. The Train Trip That Keeps Getting Longer

When voters approved the bonds in 2008 they were promised a train trip from Los Angeles to San Francisco in 2 hours and 40 minutes or less. The new business plan is surprisingly silent on travel times but an HSRA document circulated to the board of directors says the fastest “express” trip will take three hours.

Even that time is highly unlikely because it depends on trains operating at a peak speed of 220 mph, faster than any train in the world, and an average speed of 198 mph. Such average speeds are going to be next to impossible to reach because trains won’t always be running on dedicated tracks designed for high speeds and, as the plan admits, they would be forced to slow down to 100-150 mph in Los Angeles and the Bay Area for safety reasons. Hence, it’s likely that non-stop express trains will take three hours and 40 minutes.

Travelers will also find that most of the trains will make local stops and be slower than that. The business plan doesn’t provide times but it’s likely that San Francisco-Los Angeles travel times would be between four and six hours, depending upon the number of stops made.

4. Shrinking Ridership Numbers

The estimated costs have gone way up since 2008 but the HSRA keeps lowering the number of people it claims will ride the trains.

As the Legislative Analyst’s report notes, “Specifically, the HSRA estimates that the projected ridership would be about 30 percent lower than estimated in the November 2011 draft business plan.” For example, the earlier plan projected between 29.6 million and 43.9 million one–way trips per year in 2040 while the latest plan assumes between 20.1 million and 32.6 million one–way trips per year.”

The Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California at Berkeley says the HSRA ridership estimates are way off the mark. “We found that the model that the rail authority relied upon to create average ridership projections was flawed at key decision-making junctures,” said study principal investigator Samer Madanat, director of ITS Berkeley and UC Berkeley professor of civil and environmental engineering. “This means that the forecast of ridership is unlikely to be very close to the ridership that would actually materialize if the system were built.”

The current plan claims people will choose the trains over driving. It makes this assertion by arbitrarily doubling the real costs of driving from Northern to Southern California. But the new rail plan’s reliance on blended tracks would mean slower travel speeds. Add in the time it will take getting to and from train stations and to final destinations, and it’s clear that the trains would not offer a significant time or cost savings for people driving.

Similarly, even factoring in airport security hassles and the time it takes to get to and from airports, air travel will continue to offer most travelers a faster trip from LA to San Francisco—and there won’t be a major cost difference. The rail system would find it difficult to attract large numbers of people who would normally fly between Northern and Southern California.

5. The Train Won't Reduce Greenhouse Gases

Proponents often say the high-speed rail system is needed to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. The United Nations has estimated that effective greenhouse gas reduction efforts should cost $20 to $50 per ton. The California high-speed rail system’s emission reductions would come at a monstrous cost of $1,800 a ton.

Just as troubling, research at UC Berkeley concluded that if rail ridership met HSRA’s mid-level estimates, it would take 70 years for the rail system just to negate the emissions created by its own construction. If rail suffers lower ridership the system would “never” negate its construction emissions.

California is drowning in debt and deficits. State leaders like Gov. Brown are calling for major tax increases. The California High-Speed Rail Authority keeps raising costs, lowering rider estimates, and lengthening travel times. Its current business plan reneges on promises made to voters in Proposition 1A. It would be a major mistake for California legislators to borrow billions of dollars to start building a train system that is far inferior and far more expensive than the one voters were promised when they approved Proposition 1A in November 2008.

[^_^ 5,021]

Breaking VJ News: Why_Me suddenly cares about greenhouse gases.

Edited October 22, 2012 by ^_^

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Bolded above is ironic isn't it? American Airlines and their congressional allies in Tarrant County spent years fighting to keep the Wright Amendment in place.

Southwest could move to DFW and put the final nail in the coffin of American Airlines tomorrow. I think the saying is something like "Be careful what you wish for"

Why wouldn't they is the question too. American moved here from NY after DFW opened. Braniff and the City of Fort Worth, along with DFW had done all the dirty work prior to them arriving, so they knew what laws were in place and was probably part of their decision in moving their Corporate HQ here.

I don't really care who survives and who doesn't Competition is good for consumers and that's all I really care about. I don't fly Southwest because i don't do Dallas unless I'm going to the AAC for something. If Southwest were at DFW, I'd consider using them, that's for sure.

[Karee 4,191]

[quote name=' timestamp='1350925211' post='5772086]

Breaking VJ News: Why_Me suddenly cares about greenhouse gases.

[JohnR! 5,495]

[quote name=' timestamp='1350925211' post='5772086]

Breaking VJ News: Why_Me suddenly cares about greenhouse gases.

:rofl:

[natty bumppo 297]

That ought to tell you how far behind we are, as a nation in our rail infrastructure.....

yup ... the technology was there and it's now in on showcase in museums or was sold for scrap.

what was done at amtrack was only crowing about reinventing the wheel

[JohnR! 5,495]

yup ... the technology was there and it's now in on showcase in museums or was sold for scrap.

what was done at amtrack was only crowing about reinventing the wheel

And yet, high speed rail is really popular in congested routes the world over, for it provides a feasible alternative to airplanes and congested airports. Go figure!

[^_^ 5,021]

the only part of america where HSR makes sense is Boston-DC. Maybe Boston-Charlotte one day but not today.

[JohnR! 5,495]

[quote name=' timestamp='1350925790' post='5772122]

the only part of america where HSR makes sense is Boston-DC. Maybe Boston-Charlotte one day but not today.

Why do you say that?

[natty bumppo 297]

And yet, high speed rail is really popular in congested routes the world over, for it provides a feasible alternative to airplanes and congested airports. Go figure!

the ill amtrack team should at least be honest in their chest thumping proclamations and give credit to the trains of yore that set the standards for which amtrack is finally getting up to ...

hsr is a good thing ... we need more where it makes sense

Edited October 22, 2012 by natty bumppo

[^_^ 5,021]

Why do you say that?

because it's densely populated. not even cali comes close. the nyc-wash corridor rivals europe in density.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

And yet, high speed rail is really popular in congested routes the world over, for it provides a feasible alternative to airplanes and congested airports. Go figure!

High speed rail systems in Europe and Japan are losing money not to mention they are being government subsidized in order to operate.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Bad_Daddy

[natty bumppo 297]

High speed rail systems in Europe and Japan are losing money not to mention they are being government subsidized in order to operate.

install a hsr from San Diego to Tijuana ... think of the possibilities

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

install a hsr from San Diego to Tijuana ... think of the possibilities

[JohnR! 5,495]

[quote name=' timestamp='1350925919' post='5772135]

because it's densely populated. not even cali comes close. the nyc-wash corridor rivals europe in density.

That is where you need to gauge the benefits or HSR. It only works if there are long stretches of rail for it to build up speed, otherwise you are better off with another model.

If you look at the Eurostar, it can take you from London to Paris in three hours flat - and that is because on the GB side it doesn't do over 50mph - with one stop and that is it because there are no largely populated cities in between and it can actually get up to its cruise speed and maintain it to cover the distances involved. Same goes for the Shinkansen in Japan.

In a more congested area you would not want a HSR, but rather move to a InterCity model where you have trains in speeds up to 125 mph that can stop easily and serve stations in between. If you had express rails laid down between the major stops between DC and Boston HSR would serve well for through passengers.

The same goes for California. There are in excess of 7500 persons a day who travel between LAX and SFO and those are the target market for a HSR line in that area, quite possibly going further south to San Diego and northwards through Jefferson state towards Portland and Seattle.