Passenger Trains > Reason article on CHSR

http://reason.com/archives/2010/07/13/mystery-train

Lots of good points to discuss. :)

-Mike

Mike Massee
Tehachapi, CA
Photography, Railroading and more..

Point One......Reason....

:))

But here is something to ponder in playing devels advocate.If the United States Of America is willing to consider spending multi billions of dollars for High Speed Rail in this country.Why can't we just build a stand alone Rail Passenger system off of what we have right now?Is there a possibility that a whole lot more trackage can be built to closley shadow the exsisting rail corridors and make for a real national rail passenger system?What i mean is can we build tracks along side the existing freight lines?It seems to me that we can build this for a whole lot cheaper and a whole lot more of it.Also this thing should be grade a separated Double track system as well.A national rail passenger system void of freight might very well be what the doctor ordered.But slowly but surely then can we build it to handle High Speed Rail capabilities later on.I am a proponant of High Speed Rail and do you think this might be a better way to build this thing?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/10 14:29 by msdgbar.

Before there was HSR in other countries, there was a robust system of local and regional rail services in most of them (and on the NEC). For the most part, these services developed and got better after WWII and served populations who could not afford automobiles ("afford" being a function of fuel prices and real estate in the cities). When demand continued to grow, the service frequencies and speeds improved. The highest demand routes led to HSR development. This is quite well discussed in the current issue of both TIME and TRAINS.

In Europe and the orient, there is not simply HSR and slow, local trains. There is a whole spectrum of speeds and frequencies of service. The fastest "classic" network trains go 110-120 MPH and run hourly.

To make a "great leap forward" and create a HSR system where there is little demonstrated demand is very hard to justify from an investment perspective. Incremental investments are much easier to justify and each increment of funding can yield an increment of better utility (speed, frequency, etc.).

The gross economic figures cited to justify the investment in HSR ( total amount of energy used, total amount of investment, total environmental impact) really do justify changing our travel habits from automobiles on Interstates and Boeing 737s to HSR. HSR is a very good outcome, but a huge leap of faith and a huge investment of capital before the benefits begin to accrue.

msdgbar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But here is something to ponder in playing devels
> advocate.If the United States Of America is
> willing to consider spending multi billions of
> dollars for High Speed Rail in this country.Why
> can't we just build a stand alone Rail Passenger
> system off of what we have right now?Is there a
> possibility that a whole lot more trackage can be
> built to closley shadow the exsisting rail
> corridors and make for a real national rail
> passenger system?What i mean is can we build
> tracks along side the existing freight lines?It
> seems to me that we can build this for a whole lot
> cheaper and a whole lot more of it.Also this thing
> should be grade a separated Double track system as
> well.A national rail passenger system void of
> freight might very well be what the doctor
> ordered.But slowly but surely then can we build it
> to handle High Speed Rail capabilities later on.I
> am a proponant of High Speed Rail and do you think
> this might be a better way to build this thing?

In a word, no. True HSR (of which there is some in Europe, a little more in Japan, most in China) demands four things:

1. Straight. Grades can be steep up to a point, curves are killers.

2. Widely-spaced stops. There's not going to be anything high-speed about trains that stop every 20, or even 50, miles.

3. Straight in-out station access. Picking switches through 10 miles of terminal trackage is another killer.

4. Well-developed connecting transit systems at principal stops, whether bus, light rail, commuter rail, or lower-speed intercity rail (and not too far in the future unplug-and-go borrow-return electric car parks). Most people who have to drive 20 miles to get to the HSR line will either drive that 20 miles to the airport or just keep on driving.

The fact of the matter is that "new" passenger rails laid beside almost any main line in the US would still be so limited that it would be a waste of money. Better to just increase the capacity of the existing tracks.

If we are serious about serious HSR it will have to be designed separately from the current network. This DOES NOT mean that there might be area places where that might not be a bad idea -- UP mainline across Iowa and Nebraska being an example. But also the possibility of HSR freight tracks on the new passenger r-o-ws should not be dismissed either.

lowwater

lowater's points are well-taken, and a critical look at the USA shows we fail in almost every aspect of infrastructure that would lead up to HSR. We don't, with few exceptions, have anything that runs anywhere near 110-120 mph here; more importantly, we don't have a good infrastructure of supporting transit systems to make convenient and timely transfers possible. We can't even do that in our metropolitan areas, where instead of collaboration there are turf wars. That mentality has to change. Sadly, I don't think it will, at least in my lifetime.

HSR's point #4 is one I was waiting for someone to say. The last mile problem is critical. What do you do when you get there?

When I get off the plane in Narita, Japan, I go downstairs from the baggage claim, get on the lovely, comfortable and scenic Narita express, and an hour later I'm either at Tokyo or Shinjuku station, and I can change trains once and get to just about every major ward or neighborhood in Tokyo, after which I am at my destination after a maximum of a few blocks of walking. When I went to LAX via Metrolink, it took two train changes and a shuttle, all of which took 3 - 4 hours on often pokey trains with grade crossings, to cover less distance.

Another important point was brought up in that high speed rail is just the top end of an important supporting spectrum of slow locals to medium speed inter-urbans. We had that in many cities. We got rid of it. It's not coming back easily. The old right of ways are occupied by houses, roads and neighborhoods.

The best we could hope for is for ZIPcar to ramp up with enough inventory to handle the influx.

building CHSR in the absence of a wider support network is an exercise in futility, and will result in the poor ridership that everyone claims it will have. And it will be either subsidized heavily or too expensive for most people to use casually.

As it is, systems like Metrolink and Caltrain only serve a very small minority of people who happen to be well situated on both ends to riding it, during the very limited hours both of those run. I've tried planning trips with Metrolink from Lancaster to LA for weekend outings and have utterly failed. Driving the car costs the same and takes 1/4 of the time. Choice is simple.

If Santa Clause plopped down the LA to SF HSR line today, I'm sure it would get a decent amount of use replacing LAX To SJC / SFO flights, but it would need a very large park and ride lot on either end, much like the airports.

If BART were to finally ring the bay and HSR terminated in the same station as BART, Lightrail and Caltrain, well, that will be a big step forward. :)

-M

Mike Massee
Tehachapi, CA
Photography, Railroading and more..

And here I thought all those millions were being spent on studies.

"it recently hired a $375,000-a-year CEO to help get the project on track..."

"...spent $46,000 on furniture for its Program Manager’s use based on an oral agreement.”

"Since 1996—twice as long as the Transcontinental Railroad took from approval to completion in the 1860s—the bullet train project has cost taxpayers more than $250 million, yet not one millimeter of track has been laid."

/Mitch

No EIS or pesky public meetings ad nauseum in the 1860's.

Mgoldman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And here I thought all those millions were being
> spent on studies.
>
> "it recently hired a $375,000-a-year CEO to help
> get the project on track..."
>
> "...spent $46,000 on furniture for its Program
> Manager’s use based on an oral agreement.”
>
> "Since 1996—twice as long as the
> Transcontinental Railroad took from approval to
> completion in the 1860s—the bullet train project
> has cost taxpayers more than $250 million, yet not
> one millimeter of track has been laid."
>
> /Mitch

There are a great many trips which will NOT be end point to end point. Fresneck and B'field, etc in the valley will take the HSR trains to LA or SF too.

lowwater Wrote:

> True HSR (of which there is some in
> Europe, a little more in Japan, most in China)
> demands four things:
>
Actually, there is a fifth: Population Density. Some data:

1. Japan 873/sq. mi.
2. Germany 598/sq. mi.
3. China 352/sq. mi.
4. France 287/sq. mi.
5. United States 80/sq. mi.

There are few routes in the United States with the population density required to support frequent service, a fundamental requirement for the success of the venture. It's also true that the countries mentioned, especially Japan, actively discourage automobile usage through a combination of high fuel prices, high expressway tolls, off-street parking requirements, stringent vehicle inspections, etc. As an example, the per-mile toll on the highway that parallels the Paris-Lyon TGV line is over 4 times that of the Ohio Turnpike.

Also, the Chinese Government (though not the Ministry of Railways - MOR) has concluded that the MOR's "Dedicated Passenger Line" HSR program (DPL) is not financially sustainable after 2015 as currently conceived. The long haul lines to Western China have too little traffic due to low population densities, and the short-haul ones in the heavily-populated areas stop too often, to justify the investment in 350 km/hr service. The trains have to be slower, share right-of-way (though not track) with the existing services, and receive additional operating subsidies to be financially self-sustaining.

illini73 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, there is a fifth: Population Density.
> Some data:
>
> 1. Japan 873/sq. mi.
> 2. Germany 598/sq. mi.
> 3. China 352/sq. mi.
> 4. France 287/sq. mi.
> 5. United States 80/sq. mi.
>
> There are few routes in the United States with the
> population density required to support frequent
> service, a fundamental requirement for the success
> of the venture.

As this post is about the California High-Speed Rail project, it is more appropriate to cite California's population density which is 236/sq. mi. - similar magnitude as France. If one takes out the desert areas east of Los Angeles, Sierra Mountains and the rural areas north of Sacramento, where no rail lines are currently being proposed as part of the CHSR, the density would be much higher.

I appreciate this discussion. Lots of competing ideas expressed quite well, and no flames.

illini73 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

...
> Also, the Chinese Government (though not the
> Ministry of Railways - MOR) has concluded that the
> MOR's "Dedicated Passenger Line" HSR program (DPL)
> is not financially sustainable after 2015 as
> currently conceived....

Sounds like you may have been at Dr. Hongchang Li's presentation at Northwestern U. in May!

Whether or not, it was a pretty good talk, and it was interesting to see how similiar the promotion of HSR is in both the US and China; e.g., the "use it or lose it" mentality in regards to capturing funds, maximus stimulus, etc. Also, I recall that Li contended that the Chinese HSR, for serveral reasons, wasn't having a huge success at competing against air travel at distances over 500 km (310 miles). That's something the advocates of expanding passenger rail services between SF and LA--or even Chicago and St. Louis--might want to consider.

Bandito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whether or not, it was a pretty good talk, and it
> was interesting to see how similiar the promotion
> of HSR is in both the US and China; e.g., the "use
> it or lose it" mentality in regards to capturing
> funds, maximus stimulus, etc. Also, I recall that
> Li contended that the Chinese HSR, for serveral
> reasons, wasn't having a huge success at competing
> against air travel at distances over 500 km (310
> miles). That's something the advocates of
> expanding passenger rail services between SF and
> LA--or even Chicago and St. Louis--might want to
> consider.

SF and LA distances would require at least a Very/Ultra High Speed Rail typical of the best available technology to compete with air. I'm afraid that the <slightly> Higher Speed Rail contemplated for Chicago - St. Louis just won't cut it as far as competing with air. The true HSR proposal for Chicago-St. Louis would have a shot.