derailhsr.com Blog

High Speed Rail uses newer types of electric locomotives, cars and
tracks to achieve speeds up to and beyond 200 MPH. It has an excellent,
but not perfect safety record and is an important part of the rail
system in Europe, Japan and other countries. In the US, only the Acela
on the Washington, New York, and Boston route can be called high speed.
However, Acela trains run on older tracks, right-of-ways are shared with
freight, and thus is limited to 150 mph, and that speed is not reached
very often.

This High-Speed Rail project, promoted in one form or another for 20
years, is a proposed 700 mile, north-south high speed rail system for
the state of California, connecting the two major population centers of
the Los Angeles Basin with the Bay Area.

The system is being planned by the California High-Speed Rail Authority,
which will design, build, and operate the system.

A projected first route will go from Anaheim in Southern California,
through the Pacheco pass to San Jose and into San Francisco, a trip of
around 400 miles.

If and when the train becomes profitable, the promoters state that
subsequent connecting sections will be built to Sacramento and to San Diego.

If passed, the ballot measure would provide $9 billion for the
construction of the core segment between San Francisco and Los
Angeles/Anaheim and an additional $950 million for improvements on local
railroad systems, which would serve as feeder systems for high-speed
rail mainline.

However, the project would still depend on federal matching funds, since
a $9.95 billion bond issue would cover at most half of the estimated
cost of the initial core segment. According to a 2004 estimate, the
complete system from Sacramento to San Diego would likely have a cost of
more than $30 billion. That number has risen sharply since then. The
California High-Speed Rail Authority plans to use the projected
operating profit from the initial San Francisco-Los Angeles line to
finance further extensions to Sacramento and San Diego.

The promoters have been quoted using numbers as low as $30 billion and
as high as “under $50 billion.” However, other serious estimates range
up to and beyond $100 billion. There is an extensive literature on
mega-infrastructure cost-overruns. This mega-project will be no exception.

The November 2008 fall election ballot will have a State bond measure to
float a $9.95 billion dollar bond. This would serve as a down payment,
or pump primer for the project. $9 billion will be dedicated to the HSR
route and the other $950 million will be spread around the state to
connecting rail transit services.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority is required to seek additional
funds from the Federal Government and from private sources. They have
not yet indicated success in this endeavor

The CSHRA claims that 117,000,000 passengers per year will ride the train by 2030.

This number of riders is absurd. A train will carry 800 passengers. That would mean in a 10 hour travel day, there would have to be one train leaving one train leaving sooner than every two minutes.

This projected ridership number comes from a study the CSHRA funded which shows you page after page of statistics, and then uses a modeling program with a highly problematic tool called “sensitivity analysis” that generates those numbers.

It appears to be standard practice to over-estimate ridership for a
projected transit system (just as it is to under-estimate development
costs). The Eurail/Chunnel system originally projected 19 million
annual riders. After more than 16 years, they are under 10 million.

The technology uses electricity to power the locomotive. While this is a
more efficient system than the present Diesel powered locomotives,
electric power supplies in California are becoming a serious challenge.
Alternative, renewable energy is presently more expensive than that from
conventional sources. The state grid is “maxed” out. Power
infrastructure development is running far behind growing demand.
Contrary to the implied message from the train promoters, electric power
is neither free nor plentiful.

Travel by rail becomes more competitive in areas of higher population
density or where gasoline is expensive, because conventional trains are
more fuel efficient than cars (though sometimes less fuel efficient than
buses). Very few high-speed trains consume diesel or other fossil fuels
but the power stations that provide electric trains with power can
consume fossil fuels. In Japan and France, where the most extensive high
speed rail networks exist, a large proportion of electricity comes from
nuclear power.

Strong support comes from San Jose, San Francisco and Anaheim. These represent the anchor points of the proposed first segment. These Cities see tremendous economic boom from being the destination points of the train.

The Central valley towns such as Bakersfield, Fresno and other cites
targeted as train stops also see this as an opportunity for economic
expansion.

One CHSRA projection says that 450,000 jobs will be created if the
project is built. Another study says 300,000 man-years of work will be
funded by the construction of project. The CHSRA promises a huge labor
force to serve on and operate the train system.

Labor unions, construction contractors, developers, land owners along
the right-of-way, consultants , lawyers, rail and construction equipment
and materials manufacturers, supply jobbers, and the rail bureaucracies
themselves see this as a bonanza for them.

All of these groups want this built. This is very similar to the
construction of the trans-continental railways by the robber barons in
the 19th Century. Many multi-millionaires were created by those
projects. Additionally, there are state and federal politicians
supporting this project, not because of the train, but because of the
funding that would be pumped into the state economy during a time of
deficit budgets. Although not absolute, there is a political divide,
with many more Democrats supporting the project while Republicans oppose it.

The tax payers in California will pay, contrary to the proponents who
are broadcasting that the proposed bond measure “will not raise your
taxes.”

The accrued interest and the bond principal must all be paid from tax
revenues. Not even CHSRA claims that ridership revenues will ever pay
for the construction of this first segment. There continue to be claims
of matching federal funding and private investments. Those would have to
be seen before they are believed.

The rail promoters promise gross revenues of $4 billion annually and net
returns of $1.3 billion. Furthermore, they claim that revenues would be
sufficient to pay for all future extensions and still provide a profit for the private investors.
There is no historical precedent for such accounting. The British-French Eurotunnel
and high speed train has had to restructure its debt several times,
including in the last two years.

This train will be a debt burden on the state and the taxpayers
permanently since there will not be sufficient revenue to support
operation, maintenance and replacement of worn equipment. The wear and
tear on 220 mph railroads is extremely high.

With the route through the Pacheco Pass now chosen, further north cities like Stockton and Sacramento will not be served. Coastside Cities like Santa Maria, Santa Barbara and Monterey will not be served. Cities further north than San Francisco will not be served. It also appears that cities further south will not be served, since the southern coast seems to be intent on pursuing other technologies.

This is a single line with no flexibility. If you don’t live within a certain distance of a station, you won’t be served. Being a HSR train, stops are few and far between.

There are severe environmental concerns. The route chosen through the Pacheco pass runs trough some very important wetlands. Henry Coe Park is a pristine area that will be severely compromised.

In general Environmental groups would welcome CHSR because they perceive this method of transportation as producing less pollution and think Greenhouse gasses will be reduced relative to other modes of transportation.

In the urban areas there are extreme concerns. In the Bay area, the
route chosen runs along the existing Caltrain tracks and right-of-way.
This means there will be 4 tracks instead of the existing 2 tracks.
Also grade crossings at all intersections must be constructed. Some
areas will demand condemnation of properties.

Several Peninsula towns, such as Atherton and Menlo Park, have signaled
their opposition to HSR because of the destructive intrusiveness it will
be for their communities.

There will be severe impact upon the environment due to the extent of
the construction process itself. Thousands of units of Diesel powered
construction equipment and vehicles will be deployed. Many tunnels will
be drilled; viaducts constructed. Train stations, power relay stations,
maintenance train depots, service roads, and a vast array of support
construction must also be constructed, in addition to the rail beds
themselves. Massive amounts of manufactured goods, constructed through
extensive use of carbon-based power sources, and shipment/transport of
these goods will be involved. The construction process will continue
throughout the state for at least ten years.. Only with full-cost
accounting can there be a complete reconing of the total impact costs.

Part of the $9.95 billion bond funds — $950 million — will go to other
rail transportation agencies, including the San Francisco Cable Cars.
It is possible that this investment assures the continued support of the
state’s rail operators for the continued development of this project
despite its enormous costs.

The net $9 billion from the bonds going to HSR will be a “down payment”
toward the final costs which are presently set at $40 billion but
promise to be several multiples of that.

The CHRSA claims this to be the best alternative. The chosen route
appears to be a meshing of political interests. The Democratic
political leadership, the Silicon Valley Leadership, the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission, mayors of San Francisco and San Jose, all see
this route as beneficial to their economic interests.

Certainly anyone who has driven the I-5 highway in the central valley
knows that this is not a congested traffic artery. The congestion occurs
in the Los Angeles area and in the Bay Area.

So why are they proposing to build the expensive project where the great
majority of the route is not heavily traveled? The answer is power
politics.

The communities see this project as inducing great growth and economic
boom in their area. San Jose and San Francisco see this as funneling
business and tourists into their communities.

A frequently asked question is why not terminate in San Jose? There is
already a Caltrain commuter “bullet” train from San Jose to San
Francisco. The answer here is that Caltrain, which owns the rail
corridor, seeks these additions to their system. In order to lease
rights to the rail corridor, this project would provide all grade
crossings, electrification, corridor widening and the laying of
additional tracks, and other upgrades to become high-speed rail
compatible. Caltrain would also receive leasing fees to cover their own
operating cost deficits.

In addition, San Francisco would get needed funds for the hugely
expensive downtown under-ground transportation station.

The latest business plan shows the CHSRA spending 5 billion dollars for the
route from San Jose to San Francisco. CalTrain which continually runs
deficit operations would essentially be given a free ride on upgrading
to electric power.

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/future/benefits.asp

Benefits Of The California High-Speed Train (HST) System

The CHSRA has a fact sheet on their web site. The fact is that these are
not facts, but claims, some highly subjective and interpretive. Many are
qualified, relative statements using terms such as “more” and “about.”
Here are some of their benefits:

Generating about 300,000 job-years of employment from HST construction.

Note that they don’t say, working on HSR construction. What does
“about” mean regarding this number?

Creating more economic growth for California - over 450,000 more
permanent jobs expected by 2035.

Who is expecting this? In a seriously declining job market, this train
project will not bail out the state economy, contrary to the political
beliefs among those who see the government as a major employer and
provider of “work-fare.” And, what kinds of jobs do they mean?

Carrying up to 117 million passengers annually by 2030.

Taking this fact at face value leaves us with some interesting numbers.
117 million passengers a year equals 320,547 passengers each and every
day. To move that many passengers each day requires 401 trains daily.
A ten hour day is 600 minutes. Will they run a fully loaded train every
minute and a half, every day, every year?

There are 38 million people living in California. To provide the train
with the annual 117 million passengers would require that every man,
woman and child in California ride this train at least three times a year.

In the United States the decades after World War II, cheap oil, coupled
with improvements in automobiles and aircraft and government
subsidization of highways and airports made those means practical for a
greater portion of the population than previously.

In Europe and Japan, emphasis was given to rebuilding the railways after
the war. In the United States, emphasis was given to building a huge
national interstate highway system and airports. Urban mass transport
systems in the United States were largely neglected. The U.S. railways
have been less competitive partly because the government has tended to
favour road and air transportation more than in Japan and European
countries, and partly because of lower population density in the United
States.