Passenger Trains > Some California High Speed Rail Questions

First off my intentions are not for this to be "I'm for" or "I'm against" the project type of discussions. My intent is to question the current plans on the starter line that has been approved. In order to try out the segment from Bakersfield or Corcoran to Madera aka "the future", I will have to do the following. One, board a bus in Los Angeles for at least two hours on existing overused freeways. Possibly have to make several 10-20 minute side trips to pick up people in Newhall and Glendale. Then once arriving in Bakersfield travel 110 MPH thru the southern part of the Central Valley and really get the Concept of High Speed Rail sold to me. After seeing the 100 mile or so line, convert back to normal 79 MPH running. Have a drink, meal in the cafe, arrive in Oakland or Sacramento about 30 minutes sooner than normal.

No I don't mean to sound sarcastic, is this really going to sell Californians on building the rest of the line? If you don't like the bus, you could route a train Via Mojave (Tehachapi) and take 6 hours to get to Bakersfield. I suppose you could put a notice up and say: "Don't worry about this part, we'll tell you when to take the blindfold off". Truth is people want to see an incremental improvement to there travel experience. Something to show off, something to say "this is the future". Traveling for an hour or two thru flat farm land with the same old story at each end does not seem like a very good sales presentation to me. If you asked Joe Schmoe: "wow did you see the difference between that 110 MPH part and this 79 MPH part"? No looks about the same to me. The next question seems obvious. How much did this cost to get to Sacramento thirty minutes sooner? How much will it cost to ever make a real difference? How long will it take?

At that point two things might happen. The project continues its funding to completion. Or the public and the Politicians aren't sold, and the project slowly dies.

I always caution about building capitol projects too quickly. I'd like to focus on the San Gabriel Mountains for a moment. You can drive on this nice mountain road at 45 Miles an hour (not bad for a 2 lane mountain road). However suddenly you hit a gate, you walk a ways down a nicely engineered road bed, even go thru a few tunnels. However in the middle of nowhere it just stops. What is this road, why was it built to such a high standard and then stopped? During the Cold War we really needed a better route to "get the hell out of Dodge" if there was an atomic attack on the Basin. So several very expensive projects were started. Some partially finished, some never started. This idea of going from the Basin to the Desert wasn't a new one, it started back in the 30's as a WPA project, the road washed out, they built a new one. But engineering and funding eventually doomed the project in the late 1960's. Or did it? We built much harder roads before, had funding issues, but why did this project fail? Well the politicians cared about it somewhat because it provided egress after we "ducked an covered", a good project to add to your list of accomplishments. No the real killer was the public themselves. Nobody thought it was important, even the scare tactics about an atomic desert in the LA Basin didn't even convince people. The current routings were good enough for the public, and that is how the project ended.

If the public does not see any significant improvement over what is already there, and that is after significant money was spent, the public wont support it, with very few exceptions.

ats90mph Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
(snip)
If you asked Joe Schmoe: "wow did you see the
> difference between that 110 MPH part and this 79
> MPH part"? No looks about the same to me. The
> next question seems obvious. How much did this
> cost to get to Sacramento thirty minutes sooner?
> How much will it cost to ever make a real
> difference? How long will it take?
(Snip)

You are right. As a frequent former Metroliner rider, I can tell you most passengers were unaware of the 125 MPH speeds and when I questioned them, really could NOT tell any difference. This was particularly true of first time, off corridor riders.

I personally would like to have seen the Bakersfield-LA segment built first, in spite of the huge cost. Ideally, our friendly freight railroads could have put in some $ and the project could have somehow included freight service as well as passenger. Having built this mountain line, even if the rest of the project has to be put on hold, we still have a tremendous improvement in service, and ridership would explode.

Maybe the public would be more sold on HSR if funding is provided and nothing is built.

reindeerflame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe the public would be more sold on HSR if
> funding is provided and nothing is built.

From my perspective that's precisely where we are right now. Over $1B has been spent on 'studies', and nary a shovelful of dirt has been turned. AFAIK the alignment hasn't even been worked out yet, except to a very rough degree, land hasn't been acquired yet, and the railroads have both said that they don't want the high speed trains anywhere near their alignments. Then there's that niggly detail of public-private partnership? OK, businesses, time to step up to the plate.. what?? No takers? Why just imagine MY surprise!

Oh, and let us not forget that the first phase won't be built with all the infrastructure, meaning catenary. Some media reports led me to believe that lack of infrastructure also meant 'no rails, ties, ballast'.

Some people are getting way rich off the public trough here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/10 07:27 by calzephyr48.

There is one caveat here that has gone unsaid. We here are all rail fans and look at train transportation in a slightly different way than members of the general public. For us, it's the train ride, for the business traveler, it's all about time.

Someone mentioned the Metroliners on the NEC. Riders there are all about scheduled time and convenience. As we now know, the "shuttle" air transportation is loosing ridership because the trains on the NEC now take about the same time when you factor in the all the drama at the airport. At the NEC stations, you walk in, get on the train and leave. Simple

Most travelers look at 1.) the time of departure, and 2.) the arrival time, and 3.) a casual look at the "en route time". You can bet your bottom dollar that they may not know that the train is going 125 miles an hour (or more), but you can also bet your bottom dollar that they chose that train because it DOES go 125 miles an hour as reflected in the schedule.

Does high speed rail work? You bet!

I will also venture an opinion here, one that may be somewhat controversial...

Watching the ridiculous maneuverings of the Transportation security Administration, I am beginning to wonder if the government is purposely making air transportation difficult to get people out of the habit of air travel. Remember my background now,(see my screen name) and see if that doesn't fit current events.

Controversial, I know, but...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/10 08:26 by a737flyer.

calzephyr48 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> reindeerflame Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Maybe the public would be more sold on HSR if
> > funding is provided and nothing is built.
>
> From my perspective that's precisely where we are
> right now. Over $1B has been spent on 'studies',
> and nary a shovelful of dirt has been turned.
> AFAIK the alignment hasn't even been worked out
> yet, except to a very rough degree, land hasn't
> been acquired yet, and the railroads have both
> said that they don't want the high speed trains
> anywhere near their alignments. Then there's that
> niggly detail of public-private partnership? OK,
> businesses, time to step up to the plate.. what??
> No takers? Why just imagine MY surprise!
>
> Oh, and let us not forget that the first phase
> won't be built with all the infrastructure,
> meaning catenary. Some media reports led me to
> believe that lack of infrastructure also meant 'no
> rails, ties, ballast'.
>
> Some people are getting way rich off the public
> trough here.


Hmmmn, let's get some facts straight. The BNSF is supportive of use of its alignment for HSR.

In any case, it's hard to identify a major transportation project that received the support of more than 2/3 of the Legislature, including Republicans, and voter approval. These days, there's hardly 2/3 legislative approval for anything, including a state budget.

Given that my whole childhood neighborhood was destroyed to build a freeway, I don't think it's asking too much to simply tell the noncooperative railroads that they WILL cooperate for the benefit of the society that makes them rich. Fair compensation is all that is necessary.

swsf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> These endless negative discussions make me wonder
> if some people, including many here on TO, have a
> realsitic idea of what it takes to construct a
> major project such as HSR in California. People
> seem to expect that as soon as an idea is agreed
> upon, it should be done in few months, if not
> weeks. Get real, people! Any infrastructure
> project of any kind will take years to complete,
> including years of study, planning, coordinating,
> and bidding to even start. Every highway you
> currently drive on took years to be built, and was
> most likely built in stages. Every airport you fly
> out of took years, often more than a decade, of
> planning and construction before the first plane
> arrived. And every new technology was begun with
> small steps, with bigger steps taken on the
> results of successes and failures of those small
> first steps. To expect quick and full completion
> of HSR appears, unfortunately, to be the result of
> our cultural focus on instant gratification, be it
> fast food, 'lightning quick' internet access,
> constant and immediate availability via cell
> phones, and always available, up to the
> split-second 24/7 news, information and
> entertainment. Alas, I fear that patience is
> becoming obsolete.
>
> I write this knowing full well that my comments
> will not influence a single doubter in even the
> slightest way. I just wanted to satisfy my own
> instant gratification by expressing my thoughts,
> even if to an audience of closed minds. :-)


Your point is a good one. Consider BART in the Bay Area. It opened in the early 70s. When I moved to San Jose in 1968, construction was well underway all around the east side of San Francisco Bay, and had been for several years. It was another four years before passengers were being carried on the line. However, BART began just after the end of WWII, in the late 1940s. It took about 2.5 decades to get it built. It did not happen overnight.

There is the continuing misconception that this first segment of HSR is going to carry passengers when it is completed. As of now, I know of no interim plans for passenger trains to use the new section other than if the system is never completed. Only then is there a tentative plan of Amtrak possibly using it, something that is not such an easy task. It would need to be connected to the current BNSF ROW, it would require maintenance (doubtful that either Amtrak or BNSF would be interested), trains would need to be dispatched (since BNSF would not be using it, I doubt they would do it)....there is more involved than just putting trains on the tracks.

As far as building the first section through the Tehachapi Mountains, that would open a long standing bottleneck in the California passenger rail system, no doubt. However, building a high speed line that could also accommodate freight traffic has problems. Electric high speed passenger trains can deal with much steeper grades than conventional diesel freight trains. Building a high speed ROW that could also be used by freight trains would be even more expensive than just building the segment through the mountains. It would require extensive tunneling. I can't conceive of a budget that would allow it, regardless of the participation of the freight railroads.

Can always convert into a nice bicycle(multi-use recreational green pathway for the CA types) trail. Hey, just kidding.

Bob

warren49 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> swsf Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > These endless negative discussions make me
> wonder
> > if some people, including many here on TO, have
> a
> > realsitic idea of what it takes to construct a
> > major project such as HSR in California. People
> > seem to expect that as soon as an idea is
> agreed
> > upon, it should be done in few months, if not
> > weeks. Get real, people! Any infrastructure
> > project of any kind will take years to
> complete,
> > including years of study, planning,
> coordinating,
> > and bidding to even start. Every highway you
> > currently drive on took years to be built, and
> was
> > most likely built in stages. Every airport you
> fly
> > out of took years, often more than a decade, of
> > planning and construction before the first
> plane
> > arrived. And every new technology was begun
> with
> > small steps, with bigger steps taken on the
> > results of successes and failures of those
> small
> > first steps. To expect quick and full
> completion
> > of HSR appears, unfortunately, to be the result
> of
> > our cultural focus on instant gratification, be
> it
> > fast food, 'lightning quick' internet access,
> > constant and immediate availability via cell
> > phones, and always available, up to the
> > split-second 24/7 news, information and
> > entertainment. Alas, I fear that patience is
> > becoming obsolete.
> >
> > I write this knowing full well that my comments
> > will not influence a single doubter in even the
> > slightest way. I just wanted to satisfy my own
> > instant gratification by expressing my
> thoughts,
> > even if to an audience of closed minds. :-)
>
>
> Your point is a good one. Consider BART in the
> Bay Area. It opened in the early 70s. When I
> moved to San Jose in 1968, construction was well
> underway all around the east side of San Francisco
> Bay, and had been for several years. It was
> another four years before passengers were being
> carried on the line. However, BART began just
> after the end of WWII, in the late 1940s. It took
> about 2.5 decades to get it built. It did not
> happen overnight.
>
> There is the continuing misconception that this
> first segment of HSR is going to carry passengers
> when it is completed. As of now, I know of no
> interim plans for passenger trains to use the new
> section other than if the system is never
> completed. Only then is there a tentative plan of
> Amtrak possibly using it, something that is not
> such an easy task. It would need to be connected
> to the current BNSF ROW, it would require
> maintenance (doubtful that either Amtrak or BNSF
> would be interested), trains would need to be
> dispatched (since BNSF would not be using it, I
> doubt they would do it)....there is more involved
> than just putting trains on the tracks.
>
> As far as building the first section through the
> Tehachapi Mountains, that would open a long
> standing bottleneck in the California passenger
> rail system, no doubt. However, building a high
> speed line that could also accommodate freight
> traffic has problems. Electric high speed
> passenger trains can deal with much steeper grades
> than conventional diesel freight trains. Building
> a high speed ROW that could also be used by
> freight trains would be even more expensive than
> just building the segment through the mountains.
> It would require extensive tunneling. I can't
> conceive of a budget that would allow it,
> regardless of the participation of the freight
> railroads.


Amtrak or BNSF wouldn't pay any costs for operating trains on the new line. Indeed, it's unclear that Amtrak pays anything today toward the operation of the San Joaquins. Caltrans would have to pay.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/10 15:54 by reindeerflame.

Regarding BART:

Here is the point about BART. From start to finish BART was popular with the public. It was high tech, it was fast, and did everything people wanted to do, except in one place, Marin County. The whole reason BART is broad gauge is to go across the Golden Gate Bridge into Marin. Oooops, nobody up there wants it, oh well we'll forget we wanted to go up there. In fact now BART is so popular locally, it goes into Counties that never wanted to join BART in the first place. It even charges each customer extra (on top of it's high fare) to go into San Mateo County. So once again no matter how much money or political support goes into something, the popular public vote of opinion is very strong.


Lets see if CA HSR remains popular to the public.

> My intent is to question the current plans on the starter line that has been approved. In order to try out the segment from Bakersfield or Corcoran to Madera aka "the future", I will have to do the following. One, board a bus in Los Angeles for at least two hours on existing overused freeways. ...

I think you are making some mistaken assumptions here:
1) the purpose of the demonstrator line is for YOU to ride it.
2) The purpose of the demonstrator line is for other Angelinos to ride it.
3) No people inherently live inthe central valley; or if they do, none of them are interested in transportation from Fresno to Bakersfield.

From those assumptions you come to the obvious conclusion that the line is mis-designed and useless. It is obvious, IF your assumptions were correct. I suspect they are not, since this is, as best I can tell, intended to be a technology demonstrator. As such, there is probably little interest in having anybody, much less Angelinos, ride it, in its initial years. It could have just as well been built next to the rocket sled track at Jackass Flats Nevada, except that would have been outside of California. In fact that might be better, because it would be harder for protestors to get out there and chain themselves to the track to prevent testing.

lwilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think you are making some mistaken assumptions
> here:
> 1) the purpose of the demonstrator line is for YOU
> to ride it.
> 2) The purpose of the demonstrator line is for
> other Angelinos to ride it.
> 3) No people inherently live inthe central valley;
> or if they do, none of them are interested in
> transportation from Fresno to Bakersfield.
>
> From those assumptions you come to the obvious
> conclusion that the line is mis-designed and
> useless. It is obvious, IF your assumptions were
> correct. I suspect they are not, since this is,
> as best I can tell, intended to be a technology
> demonstrator. As such, there is probably little
> interest in having anybody, much less Angelinos,
> ride it, in its initial years. It could have just
> as well been built next to the rocket sled track
> at Jackass Flats Nevada, except that would have
> been outside of California. In fact that might be
> better, because it would be harder for protestors
> to get out there and chain themselves to the track
> to prevent testing.


I'm not sure you understand the point I'm trying to make. You can disagree with me, but the San Joaquin system even on the best day sucks in getting people from the Valley south to Los Angeles. It's really nobodys fault either, it's just where the mountains are, and will take tons of money and engineering to make it any better. The purpose of starting this HSR system, is in part to get public excitement about the future of a complete HSR system. With the abysmal connection to the south and mediocre at best improvement in running time wont really get pubic support to build the remainder of the route. The purpose of building this starter line is just that, to get it started, not completely for testing, as HSR has really already been tested. Will this starter line get sufficient public support? We'll see. Without public support, any project is doomed.

Some good examples of "starter lines" that got peoples juices going to have the project expanded as planned:

-MOS 1 on the RTD/MTA Red Line from Union Station Los Angeles to Alvarado/McArthur Park. Improved running times to the Westlake area (high public transportation use area) buy 60%.

-Any opening of a California freeway in sections is vastly popular (1950s-70s) It reduces travel times, and reduces surface traffic.

-SCAX Metrolink first lines were vastly popular, especially the Pomona-Los Angeles section. Extensions were vastly popular with the public.


The starter line in the SJ Valley does not have enough "bells and whistles" to rally support from the California public to fund future extensions, although thats my opinion.


Although I find the complete HSR system highly useful, this starter line seems to be poorly planned, and I don't think will be popular.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/10 18:52 by ats90mph.

All things being equal (which they are not) then the first demo line in California probably should have been in some place of high auto density traffic, maybe LAX to Indio with 3-4 intermediate stops. An initial line of LAX to ONT (and I really mean terminals at the airports) with one or two intermediate stops might have been most interesting, especially if designed so it could have stub feeders added from the north and south at some point. You could even have probably 6 stations on the route, given they have passing sidings of appropriate length, so you can run trains that only stop at maybe 2 stations at most, or have whistle stops. They would still be reasonably HSR, but would also be commuter rail at the asme time.

However, I'd give pretty long odds that starting now, it would never get built in our lifetimes. Which reduces its value as a technology demonstrator.

Technology demonstrator: Yes, HSR works in the rest of the world. They know how to build it. But just like you can't import Swiss skis to Japan because "Japanese snow is different" you probably can't really import advanced technology to California and also import the techs to run and maintain the line. We need to import some level of the technology, put our own twists and kinks on it (liks CAL-EPA regs and requirements for "greenness") and then see if the bastard child is still viable, or will die in a year from loss of blood or brain. We also need to find out if California transportation workers can run and maintain such a high-tech piece of equipment without it falling to ruin and only operating at 20MPH. Those are real concerns. So yes, it really is a "new technology" demonstrator, because it is new technology HERE, and it needs to be shown that the foreign technology is strong enough to withstand the damage the local barbarians will do to it. Its perhaps best if that is done in an isolated area. If it fails on first try, it might be possible to recover with a lot of luck. If that failed in downtown LA once, that would probably be the end of it. (I'm hoping like heck that the Orlando-Tampa line is up and running 2+ years before we get our demonstrator built to the point non-revenue trains can move. Their line will work and serve passengers, and even if we can't build and maintain a line, it will be shown that it can be done in the USA.)

I am 61 years old. There is no doubt in my mind that I will never ride a high speed train in California, regardless of where any part of the system is started. Until a high speed train can run from at least San Jose to Los Angeles, I doubt the public will be riding the system. It's possible the system could open between the Bay Area and cities in the central valley such as Fresno or Bakersfield, but doubtful. Other than a faster version of Amtrak, nothing is really accomplished by doing that. I do agree that the big hurdle, and the real news will be passenger rail between Bakersfield and Los Angeles. If things go reasonably well, the system could be running between 2030 and 2040. If that were to actually happen, I would consider it a success. Given my personal health issues, I can assure everyone that I will not see that happen, should it come to pass.

I probably have read and studied HSR as much as anyone out there and have come to the conclusion I don't care where it is in the world HSR and regular freight don't mix. Now if we are going to the expense in the "Golden" State to build a high speed rail line lets build something that is truly high speed.

The latest report I have read states that Meg-Lev can climb a 6% grade without loss of speed and 8 - 10% grade with twenty percent loss of speed. This is far more than any conventional rail system can operate. This means a 300 mph mag lev train should be able to go from Los Angeles to San Franscisco in under two hours.

If we are going to build it lets build something that will show the world what we are capable of doing, if we have to partner with the Japanese or Chinese to build it so be it. The mag-lev can run on private right of way or over the top of existing highways whose right of way we already own. This alone should offset the difference in cost between conventional HSR and mag lev. Mag-lev requires less maintenance than convention HSR by 75% and the reason there is no wear. No wheels to replace, no catenary maintenance,no track maintenance,and the system on the guide paths is virtually maintenance free. If we are going to build a HSR system anyway lets make it a truly HSR system that the world will envy. Building the HSR system will employ many thousands of people in jobs in the US that are badly needed. I am tired of all of these fat cats getting involved in one study or another and the lawsuits by Palo Alto and others. Lets get off our backsides and get to building but please consider the alternative which is mag-lev.

You're wrong about no guideway maint. Quite aside from having to periodically maintain the magnets and sequencers, just think what a couple of 2" rocks sitting on the guideway would do to a train at 300 mph. Someone is likely to have to go out and dust pretty frequently if the guideway is any place that junk can fall on it (like leaves and branches and acrons) or yayhoos can throw stuff onto it.

reindeerflame Wrote:

> Amtrak or BNSF wouldn't pay any costs for
> operating trains on the new line. Indeed, it's
> unclear that Amtrak pays anything today toward the
> operation of the San Joaquins. Caltrans would
> have to pay.

Since this would be a stand-alone venture neither Amtrak nor BNSF would pay any MOW or other infrastructure-related costs, either. It would fall squarely on the farebox, and if that came up short (and it will) then on the taxpayers.

That is a different scenario from the one today. Caltrans doesn't pay full tilt to maintain the tracks its trains run on, just a usage-based percentage, plus some capital money for agreed-upon improvements.

reindeerflame Wrote:

> Hmmmn, let's get some facts straight. The BNSF is
> supportive of use of its alignment for HSR.

If that's true, hows come some of the larger landowners are already lining up protesting that the new alignment will bisect their property and make farming/ranching practically impossible on the isolated segments? If the HSR alignment is on BNSF property then it will be within 50 feet or so of the existing tracks? Otherwise HSR will have to spend megabucks for land acquisition. Am I missing something here?
>
> In any case, it's hard to identify a major
> transportation project that received the support
> of more than 2/3 of the Legislature, including
> Republicans, and voter approval. These days,
> there's hardly 2/3 legislative approval for
> anything, including a state budget.

I wasn't talking about the legislature here. 2/3 agreement on an issue that is probably politically popular is wonderful... but our state is broke and with no light yet visible in the tunnel. I do not recall any private investors stepping up to the plate. Perhaps you could name a few and enlighten me? How much have they put up?