As I've written several times before, there is a persistent bias in how we talk about transportation infrastructure in this country-- the bias towards "commuters" and "commuting." Good transportation infrastructure requires a commitment to all-day, daily service-- especially when it comes to public transit-- while a focus on "commuters" tends to lead to anemic peak-only service or overgrown roadway infrstructure.
Now I'm getting comments on my Facebook page about how California HSR should serve "commuters," and lamenting the fact that the poor will not be able to afford the fare to commute from depressed Central Valley cities to coastal urban areas... presumably every day, for work.
That is insane.
High speed rail, both here and abroad, serves intercity travel markets. Intercity travel is sometimes business-related, but it is rarely related to the daily commute. More often, it is the college student returning home to visit their family, or the vacationing couple on their way to somewhere sunny, or the grandparents going to meet their grandson for the first time, or the academic on their way to a conference, or, yes, the salesman on his way to a meeting to snag a new client. Intercity carriers rarely, however, serve the fry cook on his way to a distant burger shack. HSR will be a great opportunity for Central Valley residents, but it will be an opportunity for them because it will create jobs in the Central Valley, first through construction and later through maintenance and operations.
While I'm sure that some well-off coastal workers may decide that they would rather buy a mansion in Fresno than a condo in San Francisco, and who will be enabled in that hope by HSR, they are not the design users of the system. HSR can be completely successful even if there isn't a single person who uses it every day. HSR trips should be an infrequent thing for most people, just as Southwest trips or long drives up I-5 are today.
HSR is both valuable to our transportation system and completely useless at getting people from home to work. It can be both things at once.
Showing posts with label high speed rail. Show all posts
Showing posts with label high speed rail. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
Wednesday, January 7, 2015
Ground-breaking
I am not an unequivocal supporter of the California HSR project-- I really don't like what they have planned for the "Riverside" station in particular-- but I am very happy to see that the project broke ground yesterday in Fresno. The first construction phase will go north, from Fresno to Modesto. Future phases will bring the train all the way down to just outside of Bakersfield, and still further future phases will bring it in to the Bay Area and Los Angeles.
I've ridden HSR in four countries now, and it is the way to travel 500-ish-mile distances. We need this. We're finally seeing some progress, 7 years after Prop 1A. Let's hope this train keeps rolling.
I've ridden HSR in four countries now, and it is the way to travel 500-ish-mile distances. We need this. We're finally seeing some progress, 7 years after Prop 1A. Let's hope this train keeps rolling.
Friday, August 16, 2013
The New Factor, or, The Choo-Choo Problem
The recent discussion of the Hyperloop brought up a common criticism that one hears often enough about rail transit of all types: it's based on "19th century technology." The critic will argue that streetcars are relics of the past, best left in the dustbin of history where we tossed them during the rise of motordom, or they will say that high-speed rail is based on technology from a bygone era and that obviously mag-levs or monorails or hyperloops are the future. They may even derisively refer to HSR as a "choo-choo train."
First off, the time that a particular piece of technology has been around does not imply obsolescence. When we human beings find a good idea, that idea doesn't come with a shelf life-- we keep tinkering with it and improving it as long as it makes sense to do so. Door hinges, for example, were invented so long ago in antiquity that we can't even accurately date it. Examples of them appear at least as early as 5,500 years ago, and the basic concepts behind the metal barrel hinge haven't change much since timeless antiquity. The flush toilet has been observed in archaeological excavations of the 26th-century BCE Indus Valley civilization, and recognizable modern examples can be found as early as the 16th century. This sets aside the fact that the electricity that allows these critics to put their words out onto our gloriously modern Internet was most likely generated via steam power, as most modern power plants, even nuclear and solar-thermal ones, are ultimately driven by steam turbine.
Even in the area of transportation, some of the best ideas are rather old. The diamond-frame bicycle, which is the most efficient form of passenger transportation known to man (in the physics sense of efficiency-- energy expended per kilo of payload moved), is unchanged since 1885. And, of course, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that automobiles are also 19th-century technology, their birth dated to the Benz Patent-Motorwagen in 1886. Aircraft are only slightly younger-- a modern pilot would find the controls of the 1909 Curtiss June Bug familiar.
These critics would no doubt argue that automobile technology has advanced significantly since the 19th century-- but then again, so has rail. Nobody who has ever ridden a modern high-speed train would confuse it for a second with a 19th-century model. The advances in technology and engineering to allow a rail vehicle to reach 300km/h are just as impressive as the leaps from early automobiles to the Prius, and a modern streetcar is rather different from its 1920 ancestors. There is a perception of trains as dated, and cars as modern, that likely stems from the advertising efforts of the motor industry in the mid-20th century-- and that has somehow invaded our national consciousness.
But in another sense, the fact that railways are old technology is really relevant. The question is, how can we best organize our cities and our lives, how can we best move people from place to place in a world that is warming and running out of oil? The answer is renewable, electrified public transport, supplemented by active transportation, regardless of when the technology for that transport came about. While research is always nice, we don't need a shiny new tech breakthrough in order to implement these things. The technology is already there-- our problems are political.
First off, the time that a particular piece of technology has been around does not imply obsolescence. When we human beings find a good idea, that idea doesn't come with a shelf life-- we keep tinkering with it and improving it as long as it makes sense to do so. Door hinges, for example, were invented so long ago in antiquity that we can't even accurately date it. Examples of them appear at least as early as 5,500 years ago, and the basic concepts behind the metal barrel hinge haven't change much since timeless antiquity. The flush toilet has been observed in archaeological excavations of the 26th-century BCE Indus Valley civilization, and recognizable modern examples can be found as early as the 16th century. This sets aside the fact that the electricity that allows these critics to put their words out onto our gloriously modern Internet was most likely generated via steam power, as most modern power plants, even nuclear and solar-thermal ones, are ultimately driven by steam turbine.
Even in the area of transportation, some of the best ideas are rather old. The diamond-frame bicycle, which is the most efficient form of passenger transportation known to man (in the physics sense of efficiency-- energy expended per kilo of payload moved), is unchanged since 1885. And, of course, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that automobiles are also 19th-century technology, their birth dated to the Benz Patent-Motorwagen in 1886. Aircraft are only slightly younger-- a modern pilot would find the controls of the 1909 Curtiss June Bug familiar.
These critics would no doubt argue that automobile technology has advanced significantly since the 19th century-- but then again, so has rail. Nobody who has ever ridden a modern high-speed train would confuse it for a second with a 19th-century model. The advances in technology and engineering to allow a rail vehicle to reach 300km/h are just as impressive as the leaps from early automobiles to the Prius, and a modern streetcar is rather different from its 1920 ancestors. There is a perception of trains as dated, and cars as modern, that likely stems from the advertising efforts of the motor industry in the mid-20th century-- and that has somehow invaded our national consciousness.
But in another sense, the fact that railways are old technology is really relevant. The question is, how can we best organize our cities and our lives, how can we best move people from place to place in a world that is warming and running out of oil? The answer is renewable, electrified public transport, supplemented by active transportation, regardless of when the technology for that transport came about. While research is always nice, we don't need a shiny new tech breakthrough in order to implement these things. The technology is already there-- our problems are political.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Hyperloop? Seriously?
Okay, so I leave y'all alone for two weeks, and I have to watch as everyone sings the praises of the Hyperloop? I feel obligated to respond.
For those who don't know, the Hyperloop is an idea that Elon Musk, founder of Paypal and Tesla Motors and current CEO of SpaceX, decided to do a bar-napkin sketch of. Similar proposals have existed in science fiction and futurist ramblings for quite some time. (RAND published a report on them in 1972, and Heinlein was writing about "vactubes" as early as 1956. I seem to remember that Niven's Ringworld was ringed with trains that took advantage of the exterior vacuum, although to be fair, these didn't need to run in tubes.) The reason Musk brings this up is that he claims such a system would be a significantly cheaper alternative to the current California High-Speed Rail Project.
This claim is wrong on so many levels that it's hard to address them all, and yet Musk is getting showered with media plaudits and the CA HSR project is getting attacked from all corners.
Okay, so what's wrong with the hyperloop project? First off, anyone serious should understand that Musk's "proposal" is, as I said, basically a sketch on a bar napkin. The cost estimates included sound authoritative, but they are extraordinarily high-level and rest on so many assumptions that the uncertainty involved in them is very high. The reason that the headline cost of the HSR project has basically doubled is that estimates and reality don't often coalesce. FTA wants year-of-expenditure accounting rather than 2010 dollars, NIMBYs fight you in court and you have to hire tons of lawyers, you get more precise estimates of materials and land costs that always seem to end up a little higher than your estimates, etc. etc. etc. Musk's project has the added uncertainty of being something that has never been built before, so the costs involved here are really just wild-ass guesses. (I mean, yeah, steel is a known quantity, but people are saying that he's wildly underestimating the cost of capsule environmental systems, for example.) Not to mention that he doesn't actually include the costs of prototyping and testing in his budget. Oops?
Second, he is woefully naive about the cost of right-of-way acquisition. He assumes that right-of-way is almost a non-issue because such a project could just use the median of I-5, and anyway it would be built on elevated structure so you wouldn't have to acquire so much land. Except that HSR is already planned to be built on elevated structure, and right-of-way acquisition is still a bitch. Oh, and I-5 isn't free, Caltrans will want to take their pound of flesh just like the farmers will. Oh, and that if you run it on I-5, you won't serve any of the towns that I-5 doesn't go to, like Fresno and Bakersfield, which have a million and damned near a million people in their metro areas each. And, of course, this ignores the central problem of ROW acquisition-- the cities.
The California HSR project is not expensive because it's being built over farmland in the middle of nowhere. Land acquisition and construction in the Central Valley, while somewhat contentious, is pretty cheap overall. On the ends of the project, on the San Francisco Peninsula and in urban Los Angeles, where there is no extra room down the middle of the freeway or relatively cheap farmland, and where every few feet of progress must be bought by demolishing a building or digging an expensive tunnel, is where right-of-way costs come in. And they are huge costs. More than the entire cost of Musk's proposal. So how does he avoid them?
Oh, that's the next problem. His proposal doesn't go to LA or San Francisco. It goes from Sylmar to Pleasanton. Funny how they left that out. Add in local transit times to actually get to LA proper, and that 30-minute ride actually becomes closer to a 3 hour ride. Toss in the security "similar to airports" that Musk proposes, and we all know how much that sucks, and you're looking closer to 4 hours. Also known as worse than CA-HSR. He also doesn't budget anything for station buildings, maintenance shops, or the storage areas that would be necessary for the kinds of capsule headways he proposes. Or the parking lots, because a lot of people are going to drive (their Teslas?) to these suburban stations, making Hyperloop a contributor to the problem of urban auto congestion.
And a brief moment again to discuss one of the major limitations of the technology. It's a point-to-point service. If the hyperloop had to accelerate and decelerate into stations en route, it would slow way down and the costs would go way up. You could get from LA to SF, or from SF to LA, but people from San Jose or Fresno or Bakersfield or Palmdale would be good and screwed. That leaves out millions of potential riders and, more importantly, millions of potential political supporters.
There are a lot more problems with Musk's proposal, but I think this is enough to show that the Hyperloop is a futurist fantasy, not a serious alternative to HSR. And therein lies the danger of these kinds of proposals. Now, HSR opponents have a smokescreen they can hide behind. They can say "Oh, I support the idea of having an LA-SF train, but this specific project isn't a good one. Why don't we do this Hyperloop thing that Elon Musk is talking about?" This is, in effect, the same as opposing an LA-SF train. The Hyperloop will never be built, and knowing that, HSR opponents can use it to look reasonable while still getting their desired outcome, which is killing the project.
For the record, I don't think that the Hyperloop as a technology is entirely without merit. I think we're going to see a post-petroleum future, one in which long-distance passenger aviation becomes either economically or ecologically unsustainable. I'm not nearly as sanguine as Musk is about the future of hypersonic transport. Some sort of evacuated tube train may well be the way we cross trans-continental or intercontinental distances in 2075 or 2100, where it'd be impractical to stop frequently anyway. (Either that, or maybe we'll use conventional HSR sleeper trains, much like China presently does on some of their longer HSR lines.)
Nor do I have any sort of personal vendetta against Elon Musk. SpaceX is doing way cool things, especially since NASA kind of gave up on doing a lot of cool things, and despite my feelings about electric cars, I wouldn't mind taking a Tesla for a spin up to Big Bear or Idyllwild (when it's no longer on fire). I just think this is a half-baked idea that will do more to harm the cause of intrastate transportation than help it.
For those who don't know, the Hyperloop is an idea that Elon Musk, founder of Paypal and Tesla Motors and current CEO of SpaceX, decided to do a bar-napkin sketch of. Similar proposals have existed in science fiction and futurist ramblings for quite some time. (RAND published a report on them in 1972, and Heinlein was writing about "vactubes" as early as 1956. I seem to remember that Niven's Ringworld was ringed with trains that took advantage of the exterior vacuum, although to be fair, these didn't need to run in tubes.) The reason Musk brings this up is that he claims such a system would be a significantly cheaper alternative to the current California High-Speed Rail Project.
This claim is wrong on so many levels that it's hard to address them all, and yet Musk is getting showered with media plaudits and the CA HSR project is getting attacked from all corners.
Okay, so what's wrong with the hyperloop project? First off, anyone serious should understand that Musk's "proposal" is, as I said, basically a sketch on a bar napkin. The cost estimates included sound authoritative, but they are extraordinarily high-level and rest on so many assumptions that the uncertainty involved in them is very high. The reason that the headline cost of the HSR project has basically doubled is that estimates and reality don't often coalesce. FTA wants year-of-expenditure accounting rather than 2010 dollars, NIMBYs fight you in court and you have to hire tons of lawyers, you get more precise estimates of materials and land costs that always seem to end up a little higher than your estimates, etc. etc. etc. Musk's project has the added uncertainty of being something that has never been built before, so the costs involved here are really just wild-ass guesses. (I mean, yeah, steel is a known quantity, but people are saying that he's wildly underestimating the cost of capsule environmental systems, for example.) Not to mention that he doesn't actually include the costs of prototyping and testing in his budget. Oops?
Second, he is woefully naive about the cost of right-of-way acquisition. He assumes that right-of-way is almost a non-issue because such a project could just use the median of I-5, and anyway it would be built on elevated structure so you wouldn't have to acquire so much land. Except that HSR is already planned to be built on elevated structure, and right-of-way acquisition is still a bitch. Oh, and I-5 isn't free, Caltrans will want to take their pound of flesh just like the farmers will. Oh, and that if you run it on I-5, you won't serve any of the towns that I-5 doesn't go to, like Fresno and Bakersfield, which have a million and damned near a million people in their metro areas each. And, of course, this ignores the central problem of ROW acquisition-- the cities.
The California HSR project is not expensive because it's being built over farmland in the middle of nowhere. Land acquisition and construction in the Central Valley, while somewhat contentious, is pretty cheap overall. On the ends of the project, on the San Francisco Peninsula and in urban Los Angeles, where there is no extra room down the middle of the freeway or relatively cheap farmland, and where every few feet of progress must be bought by demolishing a building or digging an expensive tunnel, is where right-of-way costs come in. And they are huge costs. More than the entire cost of Musk's proposal. So how does he avoid them?
Oh, that's the next problem. His proposal doesn't go to LA or San Francisco. It goes from Sylmar to Pleasanton. Funny how they left that out. Add in local transit times to actually get to LA proper, and that 30-minute ride actually becomes closer to a 3 hour ride. Toss in the security "similar to airports" that Musk proposes, and we all know how much that sucks, and you're looking closer to 4 hours. Also known as worse than CA-HSR. He also doesn't budget anything for station buildings, maintenance shops, or the storage areas that would be necessary for the kinds of capsule headways he proposes. Or the parking lots, because a lot of people are going to drive (their Teslas?) to these suburban stations, making Hyperloop a contributor to the problem of urban auto congestion.
And a brief moment again to discuss one of the major limitations of the technology. It's a point-to-point service. If the hyperloop had to accelerate and decelerate into stations en route, it would slow way down and the costs would go way up. You could get from LA to SF, or from SF to LA, but people from San Jose or Fresno or Bakersfield or Palmdale would be good and screwed. That leaves out millions of potential riders and, more importantly, millions of potential political supporters.
There are a lot more problems with Musk's proposal, but I think this is enough to show that the Hyperloop is a futurist fantasy, not a serious alternative to HSR. And therein lies the danger of these kinds of proposals. Now, HSR opponents have a smokescreen they can hide behind. They can say "Oh, I support the idea of having an LA-SF train, but this specific project isn't a good one. Why don't we do this Hyperloop thing that Elon Musk is talking about?" This is, in effect, the same as opposing an LA-SF train. The Hyperloop will never be built, and knowing that, HSR opponents can use it to look reasonable while still getting their desired outcome, which is killing the project.
For the record, I don't think that the Hyperloop as a technology is entirely without merit. I think we're going to see a post-petroleum future, one in which long-distance passenger aviation becomes either economically or ecologically unsustainable. I'm not nearly as sanguine as Musk is about the future of hypersonic transport. Some sort of evacuated tube train may well be the way we cross trans-continental or intercontinental distances in 2075 or 2100, where it'd be impractical to stop frequently anyway. (Either that, or maybe we'll use conventional HSR sleeper trains, much like China presently does on some of their longer HSR lines.)
Nor do I have any sort of personal vendetta against Elon Musk. SpaceX is doing way cool things, especially since NASA kind of gave up on doing a lot of cool things, and despite my feelings about electric cars, I wouldn't mind taking a Tesla for a spin up to Big Bear or Idyllwild (when it's no longer on fire). I just think this is a half-baked idea that will do more to harm the cause of intrastate transportation than help it.
Monday, April 2, 2012
The New HSR Plan: Smart Move
The California High-Speed Rail Authority has released a new construction plan, proposing a "phased approach" to building HSR. Basically, this means building a high-speed railway in the Central Valley, and connecting it at the ends to existing conventional track in order to finish the trip to LA and SF. Done properly, this can mean a one-seat ride between LA and SF (with the high-speed trains running at reduced speeds along conventional track at each end). The best part of it is that the Authority has committed to building south from Bakersfield to Palmdale and the Valley before building north to San Jose. (See my earlier post for how a phased system might work, and why BFD-Palmdale matters.)
The HSR critics are shaking out of the woodwork, pointing out that this isn't the all-HSR system that voters approved under Prop 1A. Well, of course it isn't. This is the first phase of that system. Threading HSR through built-up urban areas is hard, and the phased approach is a way to give Californians a real alternative to driving I-5 or flying between our state's major metro areas BEFORE tackling the difficult task of finishing the true HSR system on both ends. Think of it this way- wouldn't you rather have a 5-hour train to ride in 2018 while waiting for the 2-hour train in 2030?
The HSR critics are shaking out of the woodwork, pointing out that this isn't the all-HSR system that voters approved under Prop 1A. Well, of course it isn't. This is the first phase of that system. Threading HSR through built-up urban areas is hard, and the phased approach is a way to give Californians a real alternative to driving I-5 or flying between our state's major metro areas BEFORE tackling the difficult task of finishing the true HSR system on both ends. Think of it this way- wouldn't you rather have a 5-hour train to ride in 2018 while waiting for the 2-hour train in 2030?
Monday, January 16, 2012
Why You Should Support California High-Speed Rail, Part Two
Jobs.
Jobs.
Let me say it again: JOBS.
Construction of the initial high-speed rail segment would create literally tens of thousands of jobs. Moreover, those jobs would be targeted at a particularly depressed area of the state (the Central Valley) and a particularly depressed sector of the economy (construction).
Here is the choice we are presented with: In this economic crisis, we are faced with millions of people who find themselves out of work, and who are spending their time chasing after such menial employment as fast-food and retail jobs-- and, even then, largely not finding them. As things sit today, we as a society are supporting them through unemployment insurance, food stamps, and (if they have children) a host of other social safety net programs. It is altogether proper for us to do so, and to try to reduce human misery among us.
However, at the same time, these programs do cost money, and while they do get that money flowing through the local economy, they produce little long-term social benefit. During the Depression, we understood this, and we chose to employ millions of people constructing things that would produce just such a lasting benefit. The Works Progress Administration built thousands of publicly useful projects around the nation, including roads, bridges, water systems, and the bulk of the South Carolina library system. You can still find WPA stamps on sidewalks and curbs in older parts of Riverside. Instead of paying people to look for scarce, menial work in the private sector, public works projects pay people to build something that will yield dividends for years to come.
So we find ourselves again in a massive economic crisis, even though the recession "officially ended" some years ago. We have mass unemployment, and our social programs cost more even as our tax base shrinks-- made worse in California, because we are so reliant on sales taxes, which hew very closely to economic conditions. How do we recover?
Well, the way we got out of the Depression was by building stuff: roads, bridges, sewer systems, parks, and eventually tanks and bombs. People get jobs, they can pay the people who provide them services, pay taxes, those people then hire more people, and so on and so forth. It's called a "multiplier effect" in economics, and public works projects have a huge multiplier effect.
Really, we could build damned near anything and have this effect on the economy. The Obama stimulus bill spent quite a lot of money on highway projects, and all indications say that it kept us from further economic decline. However, I'd much rather use this fantastic opportunity to gear up for the post-petroleum economy. Right now, people need jobs, companies need work, suppliers need customers, and prices are low. The time to invest in the infrastructure that will drive our economy for the next century is now. High-speed rail is one big, worthy project, and building it will help put our state on the road to employment and economic recovery.
Jobs.
Let me say it again: JOBS.
Construction of the initial high-speed rail segment would create literally tens of thousands of jobs. Moreover, those jobs would be targeted at a particularly depressed area of the state (the Central Valley) and a particularly depressed sector of the economy (construction).
Here is the choice we are presented with: In this economic crisis, we are faced with millions of people who find themselves out of work, and who are spending their time chasing after such menial employment as fast-food and retail jobs-- and, even then, largely not finding them. As things sit today, we as a society are supporting them through unemployment insurance, food stamps, and (if they have children) a host of other social safety net programs. It is altogether proper for us to do so, and to try to reduce human misery among us.
However, at the same time, these programs do cost money, and while they do get that money flowing through the local economy, they produce little long-term social benefit. During the Depression, we understood this, and we chose to employ millions of people constructing things that would produce just such a lasting benefit. The Works Progress Administration built thousands of publicly useful projects around the nation, including roads, bridges, water systems, and the bulk of the South Carolina library system. You can still find WPA stamps on sidewalks and curbs in older parts of Riverside. Instead of paying people to look for scarce, menial work in the private sector, public works projects pay people to build something that will yield dividends for years to come.
So we find ourselves again in a massive economic crisis, even though the recession "officially ended" some years ago. We have mass unemployment, and our social programs cost more even as our tax base shrinks-- made worse in California, because we are so reliant on sales taxes, which hew very closely to economic conditions. How do we recover?
Well, the way we got out of the Depression was by building stuff: roads, bridges, sewer systems, parks, and eventually tanks and bombs. People get jobs, they can pay the people who provide them services, pay taxes, those people then hire more people, and so on and so forth. It's called a "multiplier effect" in economics, and public works projects have a huge multiplier effect.
Really, we could build damned near anything and have this effect on the economy. The Obama stimulus bill spent quite a lot of money on highway projects, and all indications say that it kept us from further economic decline. However, I'd much rather use this fantastic opportunity to gear up for the post-petroleum economy. Right now, people need jobs, companies need work, suppliers need customers, and prices are low. The time to invest in the infrastructure that will drive our economy for the next century is now. High-speed rail is one big, worthy project, and building it will help put our state on the road to employment and economic recovery.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Why You Should Support The California High-Speed Rail
It's been three years and change since Californians approved Proposition 1A, permitting the sale of $9bn in state bonds to finance the initial stages of a high-speed rail system that would eventually link the four major metro areas of the state together. When Prop 1A passed, albeit narrowly, the enthusiasm among the alt-transport community was almost universal. Now, after several years and several iterations of the HSRA's business plan, enthusiasm is dimming, even among those who are nominally pro-transit. The headline, of course, is the significant increase in the project's "price tag," from $43bn to $99bn. Many people think that the money that would be spend on HSR could be much more beneficially used to build better, more comprehensive local transit systems within the state.
There are two responses to this criticism. One is that, while local transit is critical to our state's future, so is improved intercity travel. HSR and local transit are not an either-or proposition; rather, we need to build and fund both of them if we are to stave off the challenges of the 21st century and emerge as a stronger, more vibrant civilization on the other end. HSR is a complement to local transit in a way that airports and highways are not, allowing for the concentration of transit modes and development around HSR stations, and providing for a center of gravity that will facilitate the densification of sprawling suburban cities. I don't think that the HSR authority's claim of increased commuting between, say, the Central Valley and coastal employment centers is necessarily a good thing for the environment, but I also doubt that it'll be the "killer app" of HSR.
The second criticism, and I think the more damning one, is that we are constrained in our choices by our governing institutions. Simply moving the ~$11bn from HSR to local transit is not presently a choice available to transit activists. Moving the federal portion of the monies to local transit would literally take an act of Congress, and there's a reason that that phrase is synonymous with impossibility. (Considering the current political predilections of the Republican House, it's unlikely that money would move anywhere. It'd either be used for deficit reduction or funneled in to defense or corporate subsidies.) The only place that the federal HSR money can go is into HSR, and if it isn't spent in California, it'll likely be spent on the Chicagoland system currently in development. As I told a friend on Facebook, the choice is between a train in Bakersfield and one in Peoria-- and the one in Peoria won't have state matching funds.
Moving the California portion of the money is even trickier. Technically speaking, there is no California HSR money at present. The bonds have not yet been sold. Their sale is authorized by a ballot initiative, which means that, to stop their sale, we would have to have another ballot initiative to overturn it. That, in and of itself, might work- public opinion towards HSR has not exactly been all that great lately. However, good luck trying to convince Californians to give up their bullet train in exchange for local bus and rail improvements, or to authorize the sale of bonds without matching funds. Prop 1A worked because it provided a very specific framework within which the HSR system had to be built, down to mandating trip times. I strongly doubt that they'd approve an initiative that moved that money into unspecified local public transit, especially when only a tiny minority of them use said transit.
The choice between HSR and local transit is wrong on two levels. First, it's wrong on a conceptual level: we shouldn't be choosing between them, as we need both, and they work together beautifully. Second, it's wrong on a political level, as there is no way that killing HSR will result in beneficial effects for local public transit.
If you balk at the $99bn cost figure-- which has been inflated by the actions of NIMBYs, both in the accounting process of the HSRA and the physical design of the railway-- please see my earlier post on a plausible Minimum Operating Segment of the California HSR system, which could be built for much less cost and attract the support and investment needed to build the full system. But please, if you care about alternative transportation in this state, don't give up on the entire HSR project. This is a critical piece of infrastructure for our state's future, and it will go a long way towards alleviating our dependence on oil-fueled intercity travel
There are two responses to this criticism. One is that, while local transit is critical to our state's future, so is improved intercity travel. HSR and local transit are not an either-or proposition; rather, we need to build and fund both of them if we are to stave off the challenges of the 21st century and emerge as a stronger, more vibrant civilization on the other end. HSR is a complement to local transit in a way that airports and highways are not, allowing for the concentration of transit modes and development around HSR stations, and providing for a center of gravity that will facilitate the densification of sprawling suburban cities. I don't think that the HSR authority's claim of increased commuting between, say, the Central Valley and coastal employment centers is necessarily a good thing for the environment, but I also doubt that it'll be the "killer app" of HSR.
The second criticism, and I think the more damning one, is that we are constrained in our choices by our governing institutions. Simply moving the ~$11bn from HSR to local transit is not presently a choice available to transit activists. Moving the federal portion of the monies to local transit would literally take an act of Congress, and there's a reason that that phrase is synonymous with impossibility. (Considering the current political predilections of the Republican House, it's unlikely that money would move anywhere. It'd either be used for deficit reduction or funneled in to defense or corporate subsidies.) The only place that the federal HSR money can go is into HSR, and if it isn't spent in California, it'll likely be spent on the Chicagoland system currently in development. As I told a friend on Facebook, the choice is between a train in Bakersfield and one in Peoria-- and the one in Peoria won't have state matching funds.
Moving the California portion of the money is even trickier. Technically speaking, there is no California HSR money at present. The bonds have not yet been sold. Their sale is authorized by a ballot initiative, which means that, to stop their sale, we would have to have another ballot initiative to overturn it. That, in and of itself, might work- public opinion towards HSR has not exactly been all that great lately. However, good luck trying to convince Californians to give up their bullet train in exchange for local bus and rail improvements, or to authorize the sale of bonds without matching funds. Prop 1A worked because it provided a very specific framework within which the HSR system had to be built, down to mandating trip times. I strongly doubt that they'd approve an initiative that moved that money into unspecified local public transit, especially when only a tiny minority of them use said transit.
The choice between HSR and local transit is wrong on two levels. First, it's wrong on a conceptual level: we shouldn't be choosing between them, as we need both, and they work together beautifully. Second, it's wrong on a political level, as there is no way that killing HSR will result in beneficial effects for local public transit.
If you balk at the $99bn cost figure-- which has been inflated by the actions of NIMBYs, both in the accounting process of the HSRA and the physical design of the railway-- please see my earlier post on a plausible Minimum Operating Segment of the California HSR system, which could be built for much less cost and attract the support and investment needed to build the full system. But please, if you care about alternative transportation in this state, don't give up on the entire HSR project. This is a critical piece of infrastructure for our state's future, and it will go a long way towards alleviating our dependence on oil-fueled intercity travel
Thursday, June 16, 2011
You want to put my train station... where?
Mead Valley, that's where. Don't know where Mead Valley is? That's okay, you're not alone. Happily, I've provided a map:
View HSR in Riverside in a larger map
When we last left the HSR saga, the Riverside station was proposed for the Orangecrest neighbourhood of Riverside, at Alessandro and the I-215. The site was, shall we say, sub-optimal-- surrounded in every direction by single-family housing, much of it literally walled-off from the nearby streets. Also nearby is a large, typically suburban shopping centre, anchored by a K-Mart, and a trailhead for the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park. Not exactly a thriving, mixed-use urban paradise well-suited for an HSR station, which is why I opposed the site.
Bad enough, but it gets worse. You see, I went out to an open house put on by the Authority a few weeks ago, at the Orange Terrace Community Centre. The engineers have refined their station locations a bit more, and the old location was unsuitable for the station. Turns out that you can't built a station- or even track- off the end of a runway, so the train has to go below grade at Alessandro. So the engineers decided to move it down the track a bit... to here:
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, that is the proposed site of the new "Riverside" high-speed rail station. As you can see on the map above, it's not in Riverside, nor even Moreno Valley. It's in the unincorporated community of Mead Valley, just across the freeway from Perris. There is no transit nearby, no houses nearby, no meaningful commerce nearby- unless, of course, you'd like to buy surplus building materials or ship a few tons of air freight. Here's another view:
I even caught a few panoramic shots of the location, so you could see the abject nothingness of it all:
And, by the way, the site eschews the most populous and vibrant city in the Inland Empire for a community that looks like this:
Now, I mean no disrespect to those who live in rural communities, but this is not a place for a high-speed rail station. If you want to bring infrastructure here, try bringing sewers and gas lines- most residents are on septic tanks and have to purchase propane from the local general store. Oh, yeah, there's a local general store:
This is not the sort of downtown-to-downtown service that the Authority promised us.
There is an alternative. While the authority never considered a downtown Riverside station (and for good engineering reasons- turns out they need to build the system so that trains can pass through all but the termini at speed), they did consider two others in Riverside proper: one at Watkins and Blaine St. and one at I-215 and MLK. The one at Watkins and Blaine was removed from consideration due to expected community opposition- the University Neighbourhood Association killed a rather-minimal Metrolink station at the site, so an HSR station would probably be unthinkable- but the I-215/MLK station was removed for much shoddier reasons.
You see, both the Mayor and UCR's Executive Vice-Chancellor wrote letters to the Authority specifically requesting that the station be put at March Field. I don't know about the Mayor's reasoning, but UCR asked that the station be put at March Field instead because the UCR 20-year plan calls for PARKING STRUCTURES, not a high-speed rail station, around the overpass where the station would be.
Now, if I'm a student at UCR in 2031, when gas prices are so high that only the well-off can afford to drive, I wonder what would be more useful to me: a bunch of parking structures, or a high-speed rail link to the rest of the state? Also, while UCR has literally acres of land on which to build more parking, the HSR station can only go in a few places. If it's a choice between right on campus (full disclosure: literally steps from my office) and Mead Valley, I say we convince the campus to move their parking structures.
UPDATE: I should probably mention that the photos that weren't taken at the station site were taken on the bike ride to the site, as it is 1.5 miles from the nearest transit line (the 22).
View HSR in Riverside in a larger map
When we last left the HSR saga, the Riverside station was proposed for the Orangecrest neighbourhood of Riverside, at Alessandro and the I-215. The site was, shall we say, sub-optimal-- surrounded in every direction by single-family housing, much of it literally walled-off from the nearby streets. Also nearby is a large, typically suburban shopping centre, anchored by a K-Mart, and a trailhead for the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park. Not exactly a thriving, mixed-use urban paradise well-suited for an HSR station, which is why I opposed the site.
Bad enough, but it gets worse. You see, I went out to an open house put on by the Authority a few weeks ago, at the Orange Terrace Community Centre. The engineers have refined their station locations a bit more, and the old location was unsuitable for the station. Turns out that you can't built a station- or even track- off the end of a runway, so the train has to go below grade at Alessandro. So the engineers decided to move it down the track a bit... to here:
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, that is the proposed site of the new "Riverside" high-speed rail station. As you can see on the map above, it's not in Riverside, nor even Moreno Valley. It's in the unincorporated community of Mead Valley, just across the freeway from Perris. There is no transit nearby, no houses nearby, no meaningful commerce nearby- unless, of course, you'd like to buy surplus building materials or ship a few tons of air freight. Here's another view:
I even caught a few panoramic shots of the location, so you could see the abject nothingness of it all:
And, by the way, the site eschews the most populous and vibrant city in the Inland Empire for a community that looks like this:
Now, I mean no disrespect to those who live in rural communities, but this is not a place for a high-speed rail station. If you want to bring infrastructure here, try bringing sewers and gas lines- most residents are on septic tanks and have to purchase propane from the local general store. Oh, yeah, there's a local general store:
This is not the sort of downtown-to-downtown service that the Authority promised us.
There is an alternative. While the authority never considered a downtown Riverside station (and for good engineering reasons- turns out they need to build the system so that trains can pass through all but the termini at speed), they did consider two others in Riverside proper: one at Watkins and Blaine St. and one at I-215 and MLK. The one at Watkins and Blaine was removed from consideration due to expected community opposition- the University Neighbourhood Association killed a rather-minimal Metrolink station at the site, so an HSR station would probably be unthinkable- but the I-215/MLK station was removed for much shoddier reasons.
You see, both the Mayor and UCR's Executive Vice-Chancellor wrote letters to the Authority specifically requesting that the station be put at March Field. I don't know about the Mayor's reasoning, but UCR asked that the station be put at March Field instead because the UCR 20-year plan calls for PARKING STRUCTURES, not a high-speed rail station, around the overpass where the station would be.
Now, if I'm a student at UCR in 2031, when gas prices are so high that only the well-off can afford to drive, I wonder what would be more useful to me: a bunch of parking structures, or a high-speed rail link to the rest of the state? Also, while UCR has literally acres of land on which to build more parking, the HSR station can only go in a few places. If it's a choice between right on campus (full disclosure: literally steps from my office) and Mead Valley, I say we convince the campus to move their parking structures.
UPDATE: I should probably mention that the photos that weren't taken at the station site were taken on the bike ride to the site, as it is 1.5 miles from the nearest transit line (the 22).
Friday, April 1, 2011
DesertXpress Final EIR Released
No, this is not an April Fools joke. The Federal Railroad Administration today released the final Environmental Impact Report for the DesertXpress HSR from "southern California" to Las Vegas. It's a huge document, but it describes a pretty timid plan- most of the train is going to be located within the existing envelope of I-15, and most of the land to be acquired is either useless bits of freeway-adjacent desert, or low-intensity industrial use on the Vegas side. Unfortunately, that "useless bits of freeway-adjacent desert" description applies equally well to the preferred Victorville station, to be located off I-15 at Dale Evans Parkway on the fringes of Apple Valley.
View DesertXpress HSR stations in a larger map
I mean, I knew that a station in Victorville wasn't going to be a mixed-use miracle, but I was hoping it'd be at least close to an existing VVTA line. (The nearest is on SR-18, some eight miles south. The Amtrak and Greyhound station is similarly distant.) Lest you protest that nobody is going to ride a bus from Los Angeles to Victorvlle, note that the people who work at the facility (including ticket agents, hotel agents, baggage handlers, maintenance-of-way personnel, and probably train operators, conductors and on-board services staff) will have to get there every day, and might like a way to do that besides driving.
View DesertXpress HSR stations in a larger map
I mean, I knew that a station in Victorville wasn't going to be a mixed-use miracle, but I was hoping it'd be at least close to an existing VVTA line. (The nearest is on SR-18, some eight miles south. The Amtrak and Greyhound station is similarly distant.) Lest you protest that nobody is going to ride a bus from Los Angeles to Victorvlle, note that the people who work at the facility (including ticket agents, hotel agents, baggage handlers, maintenance-of-way personnel, and probably train operators, conductors and on-board services staff) will have to get there every day, and might like a way to do that besides driving.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
CA-HSR Makes Bad Decision
The Authority has narrowed down the alignment through Riverside, and that pretty much means downtown is not an option. The Watkins Drive station (originally proposed by the Authority and shot down by neighbourhood groups) was withdrawn as well, but another station that I hadn't heard of- the Martin Luther King Blvd. station (at MLK/Chicago) got shot down. The two stations under consideration for the Riverside area are Corona (at Cajalco Road near the Dos Lagos shopping centre) and March Field (at I-215 and Alessandro Blvd.). The main factor to decide between the two will be whether the I-15 or I-215 alignments are chosen.
The thing is that other station options in the San Gabriel Valley were rejected for poor intermodal connections or unsuitability for TOD. The only reasons listed against the MLK option? "City and UC Riverside support March Field." The defense for March? You guessed it- "City of Riverside and UC Riverside expressed a preference for this site." Oh, and it's got easy access from the freeway- 'cuz don'tcha know that's what matters out here?
Even the Temecula-Murrieta station is being chosen based on intermodal accessibility- to the point that, at some times of day (commute hours), it'd be easier for me to get to the proposed Murrieta station car-free than the Riverside station. (A quick bike ride/walk/2 stops on the 16 to lot 30, then the 208 straight to HSR vs. 16 downtown to connect to 22 to connect to 20, all local and the latter two only hourly.) Probably easiest for Riverside transit riders will be the San Bernardino station, located at their new downtown transit center, with easy connections on Metrolink and Omni 215.
CAHSRA, City of Riverside, UCR... all I have to say is fuck you very, very much.
(EDIT: Sorry, in my rage I forgot to tell you that the Transit Coalition has the alignment analysis for your perusal.)
The thing is that other station options in the San Gabriel Valley were rejected for poor intermodal connections or unsuitability for TOD. The only reasons listed against the MLK option? "City and UC Riverside support March Field." The defense for March? You guessed it- "City of Riverside and UC Riverside expressed a preference for this site." Oh, and it's got easy access from the freeway- 'cuz don'tcha know that's what matters out here?
Even the Temecula-Murrieta station is being chosen based on intermodal accessibility- to the point that, at some times of day (commute hours), it'd be easier for me to get to the proposed Murrieta station car-free than the Riverside station. (A quick bike ride/walk/2 stops on the 16 to lot 30, then the 208 straight to HSR vs. 16 downtown to connect to 22 to connect to 20, all local and the latter two only hourly.) Probably easiest for Riverside transit riders will be the San Bernardino station, located at their new downtown transit center, with easy connections on Metrolink and Omni 215.
CAHSRA, City of Riverside, UCR... all I have to say is fuck you very, very much.
(EDIT: Sorry, in my rage I forgot to tell you that the Transit Coalition has the alignment analysis for your perusal.)
Friday, March 4, 2011
Norco Opposes I-15 HSR Alignment
Norco, self-proclaimed Horse Town USA, where "complete street" means asphalt and a horse trail, has decided to stand in the way of the Corona/1-15 HSR alignment. While I'm not usually a fan of HSR opposition, in this case I welcome their opposition. Riverside wants this train, and any opposition on the I-15 alternative will make it more likely that we get it. I still have my reservations about the proposed station location here in Riverside, but I'd still support March Field over Corona.
I have to wonder, though, why Norco wouldn't want a railroad through their town? It seems like it'd help out that whole "Wild West" feel they're trying to cultivate.
I have to wonder, though, why Norco wouldn't want a railroad through their town? It seems like it'd help out that whole "Wild West" feel they're trying to cultivate.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Trains Are Evil Behaviour-Modification Devices!
So says conservative columnist (and, apparently, conspiracy theorist) George Will at Newsweek. I urge you to read the column- it is grade-A insane. Really, saying that is an insult to the community of people with mental disabilities. Of course, it's just the typical "cars mean freedom!" argument taken one step further, and seen through a virulently anti-Obama lens.
The real story here is that the article has gotten such wide press. Even New York Times economist Paul Krugman devoted a few columns to it on his inestimable blog. The second of those columns sums up many of my feelings on the subject: neither air travel nor driving seems particularly liberating, especially in urban settings, and properly-run trains afford their riders more freedom of time than either of the above modes.
I would, however, like to add that the level of freedom afforded by transportation modes isn't necessarily contingent just upon the characteristics of that mode. True freedom comes from having a choice in the mode of travel you use. Even if cars were the ultimate expression of the rugged individualist American ethos, even if they afforded their occupants all the freedom that Will imagines, how free are car owners if they live somewhere where car ownership is the only option? How free are those of us, stuck in the suburbs by circumstance, who would rather not own, operate and maintain a multi-ton piece of heavy machinery? How free are those of us who would rather put our money towards travel than car insurance? Furthermore, how free are those of us who, through poverty or disability, are unable to own or operate such a piece of equipment?
My answer to all of the above? Not very.
The real story here is that the article has gotten such wide press. Even New York Times economist Paul Krugman devoted a few columns to it on his inestimable blog. The second of those columns sums up many of my feelings on the subject: neither air travel nor driving seems particularly liberating, especially in urban settings, and properly-run trains afford their riders more freedom of time than either of the above modes.
I would, however, like to add that the level of freedom afforded by transportation modes isn't necessarily contingent just upon the characteristics of that mode. True freedom comes from having a choice in the mode of travel you use. Even if cars were the ultimate expression of the rugged individualist American ethos, even if they afforded their occupants all the freedom that Will imagines, how free are car owners if they live somewhere where car ownership is the only option? How free are those of us, stuck in the suburbs by circumstance, who would rather not own, operate and maintain a multi-ton piece of heavy machinery? How free are those of us who would rather put our money towards travel than car insurance? Furthermore, how free are those of us who, through poverty or disability, are unable to own or operate such a piece of equipment?
My answer to all of the above? Not very.
Monday, January 3, 2011
2010: The Year in Transit
You know I had to. Here's a look back on Riding in Riverside's second full year of raging against a very specific machine.
In January, I covered the slashing of IE-OC Line Metrolink service (and got in the LA Times for it), wrote about how green and automobile ought not be used in the same sentence, and found a still-elusive feature of LA's TAP card.
In February, I asked why, in my relatively walkable neighbourhood, people don't walk, celebrated the first Zipcars in the IE, and noted the differences between those who cycle for fun and those who cycle to get around.
In March, I noted the experience of fellow UCR students heading home from the March Forth Rally, approvingly noted the approval of both a new transit centre and mixed-use development, and I had a moment of bike-related frivolity.
In April, I took a personal tour of RTA's Third Street operations and learned a bit while I was at it, shared my perspectives on biking San Francisco, and proposed a liquor tax to fund late-night transit.
In May, I ranted about auto addiction, ranted about the state of American social services, and the persistent-but-irritating myth of empty buses.
In June, I reported on residential obstruction on the Perris Valley Line, tried to encourage others to give up their car, and contrasted the airport transit experiences of LA and New York.
In July, I mused on what a sustainable civilization would look like, suggested a few ways to make Riverside more bike-friendly, and pitched the Eco-Pass to city leaders.
In August, I tried to find balance in a bike-crazy blogosphere, pointed out why March Field is a lousy site for HSR (and got featured on the CA HSR blog), and told our city officials to take the cars off welfare, starting with their own.
In September, I wrote about Riverside's illegible network, celebrated San Bernardino County's Google Transit victory, and suggested local preference policies for Riverside.
In October, I ranted about skaters in the bike lane and cyclists on the sidewalk, reported on an eventful Bicycle Advisory Committee meeting, and an election of some kind garnered mention.
In November, I called for riders to stop calling themselves commuters, reported on some disappointing electoral results, and relayed the sad story of a parking lot owner whose subsidized parking was stolen from him.
In December, I was mostly quiet- thanks a lot, parents who refuse to drive on highways served by cell service. However, I did manage to review Metrolink's new fleet, defend the initial CA-HSR segment in the Central Valley, and tell you why you should care about the difference between the federal and California MUTCD's.
That's 2010, the year that was. May 2011 bring you less suckage and more transit!
In January, I covered the slashing of IE-OC Line Metrolink service (and got in the LA Times for it), wrote about how green and automobile ought not be used in the same sentence, and found a still-elusive feature of LA's TAP card.
In February, I asked why, in my relatively walkable neighbourhood, people don't walk, celebrated the first Zipcars in the IE, and noted the differences between those who cycle for fun and those who cycle to get around.
In March, I noted the experience of fellow UCR students heading home from the March Forth Rally, approvingly noted the approval of both a new transit centre and mixed-use development, and I had a moment of bike-related frivolity.
In April, I took a personal tour of RTA's Third Street operations and learned a bit while I was at it, shared my perspectives on biking San Francisco, and proposed a liquor tax to fund late-night transit.
In May, I ranted about auto addiction, ranted about the state of American social services, and the persistent-but-irritating myth of empty buses.
In June, I reported on residential obstruction on the Perris Valley Line, tried to encourage others to give up their car, and contrasted the airport transit experiences of LA and New York.
In July, I mused on what a sustainable civilization would look like, suggested a few ways to make Riverside more bike-friendly, and pitched the Eco-Pass to city leaders.
In August, I tried to find balance in a bike-crazy blogosphere, pointed out why March Field is a lousy site for HSR (and got featured on the CA HSR blog), and told our city officials to take the cars off welfare, starting with their own.
In September, I wrote about Riverside's illegible network, celebrated San Bernardino County's Google Transit victory, and suggested local preference policies for Riverside.
In October, I ranted about skaters in the bike lane and cyclists on the sidewalk, reported on an eventful Bicycle Advisory Committee meeting, and an election of some kind garnered mention.
In November, I called for riders to stop calling themselves commuters, reported on some disappointing electoral results, and relayed the sad story of a parking lot owner whose subsidized parking was stolen from him.
In December, I was mostly quiet- thanks a lot, parents who refuse to drive on highways served by cell service. However, I did manage to review Metrolink's new fleet, defend the initial CA-HSR segment in the Central Valley, and tell you why you should care about the difference between the federal and California MUTCD's.
That's 2010, the year that was. May 2011 bring you less suckage and more transit!
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Why the initial HSR segment isn't a "Train to Nowhere"
So many opinion pages have been decrying the California High-Speed Rail Authority's choice of a stretch of the Central Valley from Borden to Corcoran (now extended to Bakersfield- thanks Ohio and Wisconsin!) as the first constructed segment. Many are calling the project a "train to nowhere" that will never attract riders.
They're wrong, and this is why.
First of all, this is the initial construction segment. Nobody anywhere actually expects to run a modern, profitable high-speed rail operation from Bakersfield to not-quite-Madera. We're going to start building the train here, and while we're building it we'll keep designing and planning the rest of the system, and then when we're done in the Central Valley we'll build the rest. The idea that we would spend several billion dollars on new track for the already-quick San Joaquins is laughable, and is plainly not going to happen. I fully expect that California will figure out the funding issues with this project and will build it, all $43bn of it.
However, I might be wrong. We might run out of money, and resistance to the rail in populated areas might never be overcome. Even if that's the case, a substantial investment in high speed tracks in the Central Valley is still more than warranted, though we will need to build something more like Palmdale-Stockton, not just Bakersfield-Madera.
Let me paint you a scenario. It's 2018, and you want to go visit your family in the Bay Area from Riverside. You grab a morning Metrolink into Union Station. Once there, you pick up your HSR ticket and walk to Platform 14. Up into the light of day you go, and there before you sits a shiny, sleek, hideously blue-and-gold high speed train. Overhead, though, you notice no electrical wires, and at the front of a train is a road-weary diesel engine. You board the train anyway, and soon you are on your way. The train follows the Metrolink Antelope Valley Line, making no stops between LA and Palmdale. You look out the window at the 5 and 14 freeways and laugh. Even though you're not riding on high speed track, you're still managing a consistent 79 M/h. 1:45 later (just 15m faster than the current 2hr Metrolink run time), you're in Palmdale, and the train is stopped at the station for quite some time. You look out the window, and you notice that electric wires have appeared overhead. The diesel locomotive has pulled away onto a siding, and as your train leaves the station it transitions to the new California High Speed Rail track.
The train smoothly accelerates up to 250M/h, and in just over two hours (that's a hair under 4 since leaving Los Angeles) you're in Modesto. You notice a rather long stop here as well. A new diesel engine has hooked up to your train, and you're being pulled back onto conventional rail. Your train still clips along at 79M/h as you cross the Altamont Pass and pull in to San Jose. 5:45 after you've left Los Angeles, you've been treated to views of the San Francisco Bay. From Diridon station, you can take a VTA light rail train all over the Santa Clara Valley, catch Caltrain to the Peninsula, or (hopefully) ride BART to anywhere in the East Bay. However, you bought a ticket to San Francisco, and that's exactly where you're going. A 45-minute ride up the existing Caltrain alignment and you're at the new Transbay Terminal in downtown San Francisco, 6 and a half hours after leaving LA.
Now, 6:30 isn't exactly record timing, and you could probably fly it faster if you get through security quickly. You could also probably drive it faster if you do the drive overnight, but you won't manage it in traffic. I believe that such a time would pull many folks from the roads and skies to the rails- not as many as the 3 hour time, of course, but enough. The point of this sort of system would be to demonstrate that Californians will, in fact, ride trains. Once you build up ridership and show the public that rail can work here, you can gain support to complete the system all the way to LA and SF. Oh, and by the way, it's not unrealistic. The times I gave are slightly shorter than the schedules for Metrolink, ACE and Caltrain on existing rail (because they make all stops, while HSR wouldn't), plus the time that CHSRA gives for travel between Palmdale and Stockton. Also, French national rail operator SNCF regularly hauls TGV trains past the reach of electric wires using diesel locomotives. TGV trains also run on conventional electrified track at conventional speeds, and such a strategy would also make this scheme possible.
The cost of high-speed track from Palmdale to Modesto will be significantly lower than the cost of track from San Francisco to LA. A lot of the cost of building this project is in right-of-way acquisition, and that is serious money in populated areas. Also, most of the resistance to the project is down here where people live. Of course, the initial segment doesn't quite go where it needs to go- yet. We need to push for the construction of rail between Bakersfield and Palmdale, the biggest present gap in our state's rail system. Currently, the only rail between the two is via winding Union Pacific trackage that includes the Tehachapi Loop. This stretch of track has never hosted passenger traffic, and UP is unlikely to be receptive to passenger trains along it- not to mention that the time to ascend and descend the mountains would be prohibitively long, and the line is presently the busiest single-track freight line in the world. While the long tunnelled stretches of HSR track from Bakersfield to Palmdale may not look to be the most cost-effective investment in the system, they connect a critical gap in our state's present rail network and will be essential for future operations.
In summary, if somebody tells you we're building a train to nowhere, they have no idea what they're talking about. If somebody tells you they need to build track anywhere else, suggest Bakersfield-Palmdale, and explain why.
They're wrong, and this is why.
First of all, this is the initial construction segment. Nobody anywhere actually expects to run a modern, profitable high-speed rail operation from Bakersfield to not-quite-Madera. We're going to start building the train here, and while we're building it we'll keep designing and planning the rest of the system, and then when we're done in the Central Valley we'll build the rest. The idea that we would spend several billion dollars on new track for the already-quick San Joaquins is laughable, and is plainly not going to happen. I fully expect that California will figure out the funding issues with this project and will build it, all $43bn of it.
However, I might be wrong. We might run out of money, and resistance to the rail in populated areas might never be overcome. Even if that's the case, a substantial investment in high speed tracks in the Central Valley is still more than warranted, though we will need to build something more like Palmdale-Stockton, not just Bakersfield-Madera.
Let me paint you a scenario. It's 2018, and you want to go visit your family in the Bay Area from Riverside. You grab a morning Metrolink into Union Station. Once there, you pick up your HSR ticket and walk to Platform 14. Up into the light of day you go, and there before you sits a shiny, sleek, hideously blue-and-gold high speed train. Overhead, though, you notice no electrical wires, and at the front of a train is a road-weary diesel engine. You board the train anyway, and soon you are on your way. The train follows the Metrolink Antelope Valley Line, making no stops between LA and Palmdale. You look out the window at the 5 and 14 freeways and laugh. Even though you're not riding on high speed track, you're still managing a consistent 79 M/h. 1:45 later (just 15m faster than the current 2hr Metrolink run time), you're in Palmdale, and the train is stopped at the station for quite some time. You look out the window, and you notice that electric wires have appeared overhead. The diesel locomotive has pulled away onto a siding, and as your train leaves the station it transitions to the new California High Speed Rail track.
The train smoothly accelerates up to 250M/h, and in just over two hours (that's a hair under 4 since leaving Los Angeles) you're in Modesto. You notice a rather long stop here as well. A new diesel engine has hooked up to your train, and you're being pulled back onto conventional rail. Your train still clips along at 79M/h as you cross the Altamont Pass and pull in to San Jose. 5:45 after you've left Los Angeles, you've been treated to views of the San Francisco Bay. From Diridon station, you can take a VTA light rail train all over the Santa Clara Valley, catch Caltrain to the Peninsula, or (hopefully) ride BART to anywhere in the East Bay. However, you bought a ticket to San Francisco, and that's exactly where you're going. A 45-minute ride up the existing Caltrain alignment and you're at the new Transbay Terminal in downtown San Francisco, 6 and a half hours after leaving LA.
Now, 6:30 isn't exactly record timing, and you could probably fly it faster if you get through security quickly. You could also probably drive it faster if you do the drive overnight, but you won't manage it in traffic. I believe that such a time would pull many folks from the roads and skies to the rails- not as many as the 3 hour time, of course, but enough. The point of this sort of system would be to demonstrate that Californians will, in fact, ride trains. Once you build up ridership and show the public that rail can work here, you can gain support to complete the system all the way to LA and SF. Oh, and by the way, it's not unrealistic. The times I gave are slightly shorter than the schedules for Metrolink, ACE and Caltrain on existing rail (because they make all stops, while HSR wouldn't), plus the time that CHSRA gives for travel between Palmdale and Stockton. Also, French national rail operator SNCF regularly hauls TGV trains past the reach of electric wires using diesel locomotives. TGV trains also run on conventional electrified track at conventional speeds, and such a strategy would also make this scheme possible.
The cost of high-speed track from Palmdale to Modesto will be significantly lower than the cost of track from San Francisco to LA. A lot of the cost of building this project is in right-of-way acquisition, and that is serious money in populated areas. Also, most of the resistance to the project is down here where people live. Of course, the initial segment doesn't quite go where it needs to go- yet. We need to push for the construction of rail between Bakersfield and Palmdale, the biggest present gap in our state's rail system. Currently, the only rail between the two is via winding Union Pacific trackage that includes the Tehachapi Loop. This stretch of track has never hosted passenger traffic, and UP is unlikely to be receptive to passenger trains along it- not to mention that the time to ascend and descend the mountains would be prohibitively long, and the line is presently the busiest single-track freight line in the world. While the long tunnelled stretches of HSR track from Bakersfield to Palmdale may not look to be the most cost-effective investment in the system, they connect a critical gap in our state's present rail network and will be essential for future operations.
In summary, if somebody tells you we're building a train to nowhere, they have no idea what they're talking about. If somebody tells you they need to build track anywhere else, suggest Bakersfield-Palmdale, and explain why.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
HSRA Meeting in LA
Well, we all missed the boat on the "public" hearing for high-speed rail at the Chamber of Commerce last month. However, there is going to be a huge public meeting at Metro Headquarters in Los Angeles, adjacent to Union Station, next Tuesday. Project staff from all of the Los Angeles segments (LA-Palmdale, LA-Anaheim, and LA-San Diego) will be on hand for questions and will be making presentations with updates. I plan on attending and asking, with all of the benefits, just why Riverside's HSR station isn't being planned downtown.
The "open house" portion of the meeting begins at 16:30 and ends at 21:00, with presentations between 17:30 and 19:30. For those who don't want to make the pilgrimage to Los Angeles, online streaming of the presentations will be available at http://bit.ly/CAHighSpeedRail. For more information, see Metro's web invitation.
The "open house" portion of the meeting begins at 16:30 and ends at 21:00, with presentations between 17:30 and 19:30. For those who don't want to make the pilgrimage to Los Angeles, online streaming of the presentations will be available at http://bit.ly/CAHighSpeedRail. For more information, see Metro's web invitation.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Featured on the HSR Blog!
Daniel Krause, vice-chair of Californians for High-Speed Rail, asked me to write a blog post about the situation that we find ourselves in, with city leaders arguing for a distant greenfield station for HSR, rather than the natural downtown location that ought to be chosen.
Also, while I re-hash many of the issues I have previously addressed here, the post is NOT a re-post of anything I've previously written. Go read it!
Also, while I re-hash many of the issues I have previously addressed here, the post is NOT a re-post of anything I've previously written. Go read it!
Friday, August 20, 2010
Another reason to build HSR downtown: to beat Corona.
Back in this post, I talked about some of the reasons to build the HSR station downtown, rather than in bumblefuck nowhere near March Field. (By the way, you should read the comments- the spirited discussion is a vindication of my decision to allow anonymous comments.) Here's another: so we can ensure that we get the station instead of Corona. The High-Speed Rail Authority is required to evaluate potential alignments and station sites in terms of the potential they hold for dense development and connections to existing transportation infrastructure. Well, let's take a look, shall we?
As you can see, the most credible argument that we, as a city, can make to the Rail Authority about why they should choose a Riverside alignment over a Corona alignment is the thing that we have and that Corona lacks- a dense, urban downtown.
Also, many have argued that the Riverside station is a better bet for ridership from the populated areas of the Inland Empire- that Corona, situated on the edge of a mountainous wilderness and a nearly impassible canyon, would be too far away for San Bernardino residents to get to. They're right, of course, but March Field is only better if you believe that people will still be driving well into the 21st century- which I do not. For transit riders, especially from San Bernardino and Rubidoux, a downtown Riverside site is a significant improvement over Corona, with connections via both Metrolink and local bus services. However, getting to a March Field site will be yet another transfer to undoubtedly lousy service on either the Perris Valley Line or infrequent RTA bus service- these riders might find a Corona site much simpler.
In summary, the tension between a downtown Riverside station and a March Field station may be a moot point. It may be a choice between a downtown Riverside station, and one in Corona.
| Site | Potential for Density | Transportation Connections |
|---|---|---|
| March Field | None- Greenfield set in suburban sprawl | 1 local bus line, 1 (to-be-built) commuter rail line |
| Corona (Downtown) | Some- I-15 skirts downtown, with potential for infill | 5 bus lines, one of them express, 2 commuter rail lines |
| Corona (Dos Lagos) | None- Greenfield set in suburban sprawl | 1 bus line |
| Riverside (Downtown) | Explosive- urban downtown undergoing significant investment | 10 local bus lines, 5 express bus lines, a planned BRT line, and 4 commuter rail lines |
As you can see, the most credible argument that we, as a city, can make to the Rail Authority about why they should choose a Riverside alignment over a Corona alignment is the thing that we have and that Corona lacks- a dense, urban downtown.
Also, many have argued that the Riverside station is a better bet for ridership from the populated areas of the Inland Empire- that Corona, situated on the edge of a mountainous wilderness and a nearly impassible canyon, would be too far away for San Bernardino residents to get to. They're right, of course, but March Field is only better if you believe that people will still be driving well into the 21st century- which I do not. For transit riders, especially from San Bernardino and Rubidoux, a downtown Riverside site is a significant improvement over Corona, with connections via both Metrolink and local bus services. However, getting to a March Field site will be yet another transfer to undoubtedly lousy service on either the Perris Valley Line or infrequent RTA bus service- these riders might find a Corona site much simpler.
In summary, the tension between a downtown Riverside station and a March Field station may be a moot point. It may be a choice between a downtown Riverside station, and one in Corona.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Killing the Benefits of HSR
Some days I think that our city officials get it. Going to the Bicycle Advisory Committee meeting and listening to the City's plan for bikes-as-transportation was inspiring, and then to learn that they'd already started implementing that plan was downright incredible. Watching the implementation of programs like Riverside Go Transit gives me the warm fuzzies, even if the program hasn't yet been expanded to all those who could benefit. I'm always glad to see an article like this one in the local paper, pointing out just how hard City officials are fighting for a high-speed rail station in Riverside.
And then I read that their definition of "Riverside" is March Field.
For those of you who aren't familiar with the area, here's a map:
View HSR in Riverside in a larger map
The train station to the west is the current station downtown. The train station to the east is the proposed March Field station. Just by looking at it, you can tell that it's in the middle of freakin' nowhere. There is literally nothing within walking distance of those railroad tracks, unless we believe that HSR passengers are going to ride to Riverside to hike in Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park. So let's go take a look at the benefits of the HSR project, and see just why this location is so very, very bad.
In conclusion, I am strongly in favour of high-speed rail. California wants it, and California needs it. We've needed it for decades. I'm also strongly in favour of HSR in Riverside- the Corona alignment makes absolutely no sense, as it doesn't actually get close to the people who live in the Inland Empire. However, with a $40bn price tag, we need to be actively involved in the project and make sure that it gets built properly. We won't get another shot at this. High-speed rail, by its very nature, is a creature of dense, urban downtowns. It therefore follows that we must ensure that the Riverside station gets built in OUR dense, urban downtown, rather than a greenfield site in the middle of sprawl central.
UPDATE: I've added some lines to the map above so folks can visualize what an approach to downtown would look like, as opposed to March Field. To me, it looks like the alignment through Rubidoux and the current UP alignment would be less technically challenging than the I-215 alignment, and both of them will consist of substantial aerial structure, so they should cost in the same neighbourhoods.
And then I read that their definition of "Riverside" is March Field.
For those of you who aren't familiar with the area, here's a map:
View HSR in Riverside in a larger map
The train station to the west is the current station downtown. The train station to the east is the proposed March Field station. Just by looking at it, you can tell that it's in the middle of freakin' nowhere. There is literally nothing within walking distance of those railroad tracks, unless we believe that HSR passengers are going to ride to Riverside to hike in Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park. So let's go take a look at the benefits of the HSR project, and see just why this location is so very, very bad.
- HSR provides quicker trips than flying, because of the mess of airport terminal procedures.
- HSR allows for convenient downtown-to-downtown travel.
- HSR allows for car-free travel, because it can be tied in to local transportation infrastructure.
- HSR is a development tool, allowing cities to encourage development and density where they are most needed.
Well, this one still works. Airports haven't gotten better, and the speed of the train is going to be about the same no matter where we put the station.
Putting the HSR station at March Field completely destroys this advantage. Even on a traffic-free day, that site is 20 minutes outside of downtown in a residential development with a K-Mart. Unless business travellers need to get on the HSR for a new pair of socks and a Twinkie, the March Field site is a bad idea. By contrast, a downtown site would put riders within blocks of major state, county and city offices, as well as major business firms, a federal courthouse, and the bulk of the court apparatus of Riverside County.
Currently, only one bus route serves the March Field site- the 20. The 20 is a relatively low-patronage hourly route that runs along Alessandro and then stops a mile short of downtown at Magnolia & Jurupa. It is so poorly-patronized because of the areas through which it runs- once it passes the Riverside Plaza, it travels through a cemetery, and then plies its way through low-density suburban housing, most of which is literally walled-off from the main street. In Moreno Valley, the route isn't much better, flying past mostly vacant lots, with the occasional suburban strip mall. Don't get me wrong, the 20 is a valuable link in the transportation system, but it will never be a frequent one. Of course, even if the 20 ran frequently, it would place a significant hardship on riders from other areas- think Corona or Perris- who want to get to the train.
City officials posit that HSR riders can utilize the future Perris Valley Line, which will also use that station site, to get into downtown. However, the PV Line is only scheduled for six runs a day. It's not as if we're talking about a rapid transit line with departures every ten minutes or so. The PV Line will, like all Metrolink lines, be timed to serve commuters, so it is inevitable that it will not do a very good job of serving HSR travellers most of the time. The lack of real intermodal connections at the March Field site will turn it into a sea of parking lots and rental car counters, much like Ontario Airport is today.
City officials have also argued that the presence of the HSR station will cause more frequent transportation service to call on the area. This is simply untrue. Local transit routes are not supported by single destinations along the line, but by ridership throughout the route. The old streetcar companies knew this so well that they would actually build attractions on their lines to ensure continuous ridership- many of the early amusement parks were built in this manner. The Alessandro corridor is low-density sprawl, and it will not attract enough ridership to support a route frequent enough to meet the needs of HSR riders.
By contrast, the downtown site is directly linked to the current transportation infrastructure, with dozens of departures an hour to destinations throughout the city and county. It, too, will be a stop on the Perris Valley Line, so if riders from Perris or the Alessandro area would use the PVL to get to HSR, they would still be able to do so. It will also benefit from the extensive CommuterLink express route system, as well as local buses to the entire city and surrounding area.
Don't get me wrong- I think that HSR will generate development wherever it is placed, be it March Field or downtown. The question is, what sort of development do we want to encourage? The City has done well in recent years by investing heavily in re-developing downtown Riverside, parking gaffes notwithstanding. The area has the potential to become a bona fide urban downtown, with jobs, restaurants, and housing all within walking distance. A high-speed rail station would be a boon to all of the new residents and employees downtown will see in the coming decades, and would spur even more dense, walkable urban development.
A station at March Field, by contrast, is an investment in sprawl, by definition. It's a greenfield site, surrounded by single-use auto-dependent development for miles in every direction. There's no reason to build densely- there's plenty of land, and no reason not to use it. There's plenty of space for more parking lots, nice wide arterials nearby, and freeway access immediately adjacent. Density begets density, and sprawl begets sprawl. To site an HSR station in sprawl will only invite more.
Mayor Loveridge really ought to know better. He was just reading Richard Florida's The Great Reset, in which Florida argues EXACTLY this- that HSR is a tool designed to connect dense downtowns in a larger region. The HSR blog has a great summary of that argument today.
In conclusion, I am strongly in favour of high-speed rail. California wants it, and California needs it. We've needed it for decades. I'm also strongly in favour of HSR in Riverside- the Corona alignment makes absolutely no sense, as it doesn't actually get close to the people who live in the Inland Empire. However, with a $40bn price tag, we need to be actively involved in the project and make sure that it gets built properly. We won't get another shot at this. High-speed rail, by its very nature, is a creature of dense, urban downtowns. It therefore follows that we must ensure that the Riverside station gets built in OUR dense, urban downtown, rather than a greenfield site in the middle of sprawl central.
UPDATE: I've added some lines to the map above so folks can visualize what an approach to downtown would look like, as opposed to March Field. To me, it looks like the alignment through Rubidoux and the current UP alignment would be less technically challenging than the I-215 alignment, and both of them will consist of substantial aerial structure, so they should cost in the same neighbourhoods.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Hat Tip to Mayor Luv
Riverside Mayor (and UCR Professor of Political Science) Ron Loveridge has always been a steadfast supporter of high-speed rail, as long as I've been involved in the cause at least. He spoke at several Prop 1A rallies here on campus, where yours truly was engaged in the usual rabble-rousing. In Sunday's Press-Enterprise, he wrote an editorial in support of the fast trains, and it deserves your perusal.
Friday, July 9, 2010
California Low-Speed Rail
There's been a lot of controversy in the news about the coming California High-Speed Rail system, which you all can follow over at the CA-HSR Blog. The detractors insist that this system will be a "boondoggle" of epic proportions, running empty trains because Californians will simply not leave their precious automobiles, and we should instead focus on building more highway lane-miles on I-5 and CA-99 for our intrastate transport needs.
One thing that doesn't get said enough is that California ALREADY boasts a successful intrastate rail infrastructure. To get an idea of rail ridership in the state, we should look at the trains that are already running here, today. With that in mind, let's take a look at Amtrak California, the partnership between Amtrak and Caltrans' Rail Division that runs trains throughout the state.
The most familiar Amtrak California route to Riversiders and Southern Californians is the Pacific Surfliner. It runs from San Luis Obispo to San Diego, though not all trains travel the entire route. And it is a WILD success- the Surfliner is the third-most-travelled train in the Amtrak system, and the most used outside of the Amtrak-owned Northeast Corridor (which runs from DC to Boston). The trains get so full that during heavy travel seasons, Amtrak California requires reservations, and even then often pulls in idle trainsets from either Coaster or Metrolink to provide additional capacity. (I wish I had gotten a photo of the Coaster trainset running relief for the Surfliner at Irvine the last time I saw it.) It travels with a station-to-station average speed of around 45 mi/h, making it very competitive with cars during rush hour, and positive train control technology (due to be installed on all SoCal railroads in short order) will improve the running speed of the line dramatically. In Orange and San Diego counties, which utilize Automatic Train Stop technology, the Surfliner can already break 90 mi/h track speeds. With substantial infrastructure improvements, 60-70 mi/h average speeds are not out of the question.
The Capitol Corridor route in Northern California is a similar success. It is the fourth-most-travelled train in the Amtrak system, just behind the Surfliner. Running from San Jose to Auburn, though once again not all trains run the full route, it provides a quick, quiet and comfortable ride between the two metropolitan areas. The Capitol Corridor is slightly unique, because commuter passes are available for the service, and many do use the train as a commuter rail system, but it is still an excellent example of intercity rail done properly.
Last, we come to the red-headed stepchild of the Amtrak California system, the San Joaquins. Southern Californians will be familiar with this route as "the train that only goes to Bakersfield... then you have to take a bus." Despite its poor standing among Angelenos, the San Joaquin is the fifth-busiest train in the Amtrak system, behind the Capitol Corridor. The primary ridership for this train is between the various cities and towns of the Central Valley, and from the Central Valley to the Bay Area, and ridership abounds indeed. All 12 of the daily departures are reserved trains, year-round, and I can testify from personal experience that it is often difficult to find a seat. On my last trip to San Francisco, there were two empty seats in my car for much of the journey, and I have seen times when people have been forced to ride in the Cafe Car because none of the conventional seating options were available. All of this is happening despite long bus connections and relatively high fares- if you book soon enough, it's often cheaper to fly than take the train.
So what lessons are we to take from California's already expansive conventional rail system? Well, for one, Californians are happy to ride trains. They're clamouring on to those routes that we already have, even in car-dependent Central Valley rural areas and Orange County. And it is important to keep in mind that none of these routes serve the big travel market- Los Angeles to San Francisco. Only one train per day offers a 100% rail ride on that route, the Coast Starlight, and it does so unreliably and slowly. I don't doubt that, if the San Joaquins actually ran to Los Angeles via the Tehachapis, we would have a very different opinion about them than we currently do. Also, there is NO intercity rail service to San Francisco at all- all train passengers bound there have to change to a bus at Emeryville. Amtrak has a ticketing office at the Ferry Building in San Francisco, which is notable because it lacks any sort of train tracks nearby, excepting the F Market & Wharves trolley service. A high-speed rail service that serves the San Joaquin route, via the Central Valley, and then actually goes to San Jose, San Francisco and Los Angeles will be an unparallelled success.
Rail detractors will counter that all three of these routes enjoy public subsidy, and that is true. However, as readers of this blog know, so do automobiles. VTPI estimates that highways are subsidized at around 50-60%, and this doesn't include the subsidies that go into gasoline extraction and production, or automobile construction. The Pacific Surfliner is subsidized at 37%, well below highway subsidies. Rail critics demand that trains make money while they don't mind that automobile infrastructure bleeds money from our public purse like a sieve. I don't have the expertise to know that the CA-HSR system will make an operating profit, though there are credible studies that suggest it will. I do, however, know that it will shuttle Californians around the state using clean energy, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and encouraging dense, walkable development, all while saving the government the cost of constructing yet more highway and airport infrastructure, and it might even bring redevelopment of struggling Central Valley downtowns. It will also probably destroy the short-haul LA-SF airline market, saving the environmental degradation that those constant daily flights cause. High speed rail is a good deal for the people of California, and it needs to be built as quickly as possible.
One thing that doesn't get said enough is that California ALREADY boasts a successful intrastate rail infrastructure. To get an idea of rail ridership in the state, we should look at the trains that are already running here, today. With that in mind, let's take a look at Amtrak California, the partnership between Amtrak and Caltrans' Rail Division that runs trains throughout the state.
The most familiar Amtrak California route to Riversiders and Southern Californians is the Pacific Surfliner. It runs from San Luis Obispo to San Diego, though not all trains travel the entire route. And it is a WILD success- the Surfliner is the third-most-travelled train in the Amtrak system, and the most used outside of the Amtrak-owned Northeast Corridor (which runs from DC to Boston). The trains get so full that during heavy travel seasons, Amtrak California requires reservations, and even then often pulls in idle trainsets from either Coaster or Metrolink to provide additional capacity. (I wish I had gotten a photo of the Coaster trainset running relief for the Surfliner at Irvine the last time I saw it.) It travels with a station-to-station average speed of around 45 mi/h, making it very competitive with cars during rush hour, and positive train control technology (due to be installed on all SoCal railroads in short order) will improve the running speed of the line dramatically. In Orange and San Diego counties, which utilize Automatic Train Stop technology, the Surfliner can already break 90 mi/h track speeds. With substantial infrastructure improvements, 60-70 mi/h average speeds are not out of the question.
The Capitol Corridor route in Northern California is a similar success. It is the fourth-most-travelled train in the Amtrak system, just behind the Surfliner. Running from San Jose to Auburn, though once again not all trains run the full route, it provides a quick, quiet and comfortable ride between the two metropolitan areas. The Capitol Corridor is slightly unique, because commuter passes are available for the service, and many do use the train as a commuter rail system, but it is still an excellent example of intercity rail done properly.
Last, we come to the red-headed stepchild of the Amtrak California system, the San Joaquins. Southern Californians will be familiar with this route as "the train that only goes to Bakersfield... then you have to take a bus." Despite its poor standing among Angelenos, the San Joaquin is the fifth-busiest train in the Amtrak system, behind the Capitol Corridor. The primary ridership for this train is between the various cities and towns of the Central Valley, and from the Central Valley to the Bay Area, and ridership abounds indeed. All 12 of the daily departures are reserved trains, year-round, and I can testify from personal experience that it is often difficult to find a seat. On my last trip to San Francisco, there were two empty seats in my car for much of the journey, and I have seen times when people have been forced to ride in the Cafe Car because none of the conventional seating options were available. All of this is happening despite long bus connections and relatively high fares- if you book soon enough, it's often cheaper to fly than take the train.
So what lessons are we to take from California's already expansive conventional rail system? Well, for one, Californians are happy to ride trains. They're clamouring on to those routes that we already have, even in car-dependent Central Valley rural areas and Orange County. And it is important to keep in mind that none of these routes serve the big travel market- Los Angeles to San Francisco. Only one train per day offers a 100% rail ride on that route, the Coast Starlight, and it does so unreliably and slowly. I don't doubt that, if the San Joaquins actually ran to Los Angeles via the Tehachapis, we would have a very different opinion about them than we currently do. Also, there is NO intercity rail service to San Francisco at all- all train passengers bound there have to change to a bus at Emeryville. Amtrak has a ticketing office at the Ferry Building in San Francisco, which is notable because it lacks any sort of train tracks nearby, excepting the F Market & Wharves trolley service. A high-speed rail service that serves the San Joaquin route, via the Central Valley, and then actually goes to San Jose, San Francisco and Los Angeles will be an unparallelled success.
Rail detractors will counter that all three of these routes enjoy public subsidy, and that is true. However, as readers of this blog know, so do automobiles. VTPI estimates that highways are subsidized at around 50-60%, and this doesn't include the subsidies that go into gasoline extraction and production, or automobile construction. The Pacific Surfliner is subsidized at 37%, well below highway subsidies. Rail critics demand that trains make money while they don't mind that automobile infrastructure bleeds money from our public purse like a sieve. I don't have the expertise to know that the CA-HSR system will make an operating profit, though there are credible studies that suggest it will. I do, however, know that it will shuttle Californians around the state using clean energy, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and encouraging dense, walkable development, all while saving the government the cost of constructing yet more highway and airport infrastructure, and it might even bring redevelopment of struggling Central Valley downtowns. It will also probably destroy the short-haul LA-SF airline market, saving the environmental degradation that those constant daily flights cause. High speed rail is a good deal for the people of California, and it needs to be built as quickly as possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
