California Bullet Train Breaks Ground

[lpetrich]

The Hyperloop is a vactrain, a sort of system proposed every now and the for the last half century at least. It has daunting technical challenges, and it would take a LOT of R&D to get it working safely. For instance, its entire tube would have to be evacuated, and stay evacuated reliably. A leak anywhere would shut down the whole line. Also, crossovers would be awkward.

The pressure is reduced but the tube isn't completely evacuated ...

That does NOT make the problem go away. The trains will suffer unacceptable amounts of drag unless the tubes' interiors have much lower pressure than the surrounding air. So the tunnel has to be kept evacuated to that standard along its entire length.

My estimated speed: 400 mph

The proposed max speed is ~750 mph (for straight stretches of track), and the max acceleration they are proposing is actually 0.5g, which is still less than a commercial airliner.

But the sideways acceleration ought to be much lower than that, or else passengers will get tossed back and forth by the line's curves.

(For cars at full speed, a road's radius of curvature should be at least 1 km)

Minimum radius of curvature, to be consistent with car standards:
High-speed train: 9 km
Hyperloop: 41 km

So the Hyperloop line won't be able to follow highways.

This is simply wrong - see the article http://blogs.mathworks.com/seth/2013/11/22/hyperloop-not-so-fast/

Except that that study finds a lot of departure from the chosen highways' rights of way.

It will likely be built on a viaduct or extended bridge, two tubes about 16 ft / 5 m across. Expect the NIMBY's to howl with outrage at the prospect of seeing that. The California HSR system has already gotten a lot of NIMBY objections, like between San Francisco and San Jose, and this system would be even worse.

I can't imagine the NIMBY issues to be any worse than the HSR - as no substantial additional rights of way will be required.

Why don't you look at conceptual pictures of the Hyperloop track some time? Compare those conceptions to some of the more recent rail viaducts. The Hyperloop has even more visual obstruction. This is likely to happen at many of the more urbanized areas: Palo Alto residents march for high-speed rail tunnel - San Jose Mercury News

After unanimously endorsing the high-speed rail plan last fall, Palo Alto officials are struggling with its potential impacts. One possible alignment would put the tracks on a 20-foot-high concrete platform so the trains wouldn't intersect with cross streets. Residents, inflamed by the prospect of a "Berlin Wall" dividing their neighborhoods, have been packing public meetings on the topic.

This, in reference to a proposed viaduct that will likely look similar to BART's viaducts elsewhere in the Bay Area.

 

[maxparrish]

Mr. lpetrich and Mr. Higgins missives are among the several posts expressing dewy-eyed longings and gushing sentiments for HSR, singing praises to its "healing" of America's transport infrastructure hypochondria. Before you drink their snake oil (or let them lay hands upon you) perhaps you ought to look at the ingredients?

As Robert Samuelson pointed out four years ago, if you can do fourth grade math you would know that for this massive investment, California gets next to nothing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/31/AR2010103104260.html

He points out that high speed rail that can travel 250 mph are potentially the most competitive over planes and cars for distances of less than 500 miles. The Congressional Research Service examined the 12 corridors of 500 or fewer miles in 2007 and the LA-SF corridor led the list with 13,838 passengers. If every one of them switched to trains the total number of California daily air passenger drop would be a minuscule 2.5 percent. (The total fuel savings would be less than that, as trains also use energy).

Of course, most inter-city passengers will not switch to a rail system that takes 4 to 4.5 hours when driving from Oakland/SF to LA only takes 6 to 6.5 hours (and you arrive with your own car to use, essential for LA).
Even in places with much higher urban densities such as Europe and Asia high speed rail does not earn enough revenue to cover capital and operating cost.

The reason report highlights many of the other realities studiously ignored by the HSR hired "experts" (the same folks who produced the 2010 report that was excoriated by UC Berkeley's Transportation Group Report). http://reason.org/files/california_high_speed_rail_report.pdf

First, the train speed projection of peak speeds of 220mph is unrealistic. The fastest trains that operate at a peak speed are the French TGV peak at 199mph. The average peak speeds for world high speed rail is 192mpg.

Second, the original 2hr 40 min projection is no longer valid. The blended system will use existing urban rail. The average rail speed in rural areas is 150 mph (with 200 mph peaks). In Urban areas the Transportation Research Board said maximum speed estimates are 60 to 100. Taking into account lower speeds in urban areas (60 to 100mph) then the travel time increases to 3hr 50 minutes to 4hr 30 minutes.

Third, while California HSR did not seemingly adjust its ridership projections downward to reduced attraction of a downgraded speed, even so its latest forecast suffers from classic government "optimism bias" and the usual project booster misreprestantion (aka lying).

(In) research by European academics Bent Flyvbjerg, Nils Bruzelius and Werner Rothengatter: an extensive examination of 258 transportation infrastructure “megaprojects” covering 70 years in North America, Europe and elsewhere, they have noted significant, recurring and even gross projection errors in capital cost projections.
Flyvbjerg et al found that projected ridership on passenger rail projects averaged 65% above actual patronage. In particular, they noted: there is a massive and highly significant problem with inflated forecasts for rail projects.For two-thirds of the projects, forecasts are overestimated by more than two-thirds.

For example:

Eurostar was projected in 1996 to reach nearly 25 million riders by 2006. In 2011, ridership remained under 10 million (9.7 million), more than 60% below the forecast. Interestingly, CHSRA predicts about 25 million riders in 2035, and there is little reason to expect that estimate to be more accurate that Eurostar’s.

You see, "international experience indicates that most high speed rail ridership comes from two sources, former rail passengers and former airline passengers." For example:

In France, the Paris to Lyon and Marseille intercity travel market had a rail market share of 40% before high speed rail service. High speed rail increased the rail market share to 72%, Most of the high speed rail ridership was transferred from the previous train service and the airlines. Only 11% of the ridership was from automobiles (Figure 4).

In Spain, the Madrid to Seville intercity travel market had a rail market share of 16% before high speed rail service. High speed rail increased the rail market share to 51%. Most of the high speed rail ridership was transferred from the previous train service and the airlines. Only 16% of the ridership was from automobiles (Figure 5).

However, California is relying on 75% of its ridership from former automobile commuters. Only 3 percent of California passenger transport is currently by rail.

In California, forecasts call for three or more times as many riders to be attracted from cars as from the airlines, virtually the reverse of the ratio of automobile to air passenger attraction in Europe (Figure 6).

But HSR does not compete against cars, it competes against air travel. Like air travel, it requires travel to the SF station or airport, leaving one's car, and arriving with the need to rent a car. People currently take cars because they will not have to rent an automobile, they may be traveling with a companion (or family) to distribute costs, etc.

The CHSRA California high speed rail automobile attraction forecasts are considered implausibly high. Based upon the experience in France and Spain, the passenger attraction from cars would be far less than forecast, at 90% lower. If the ridership model were adjusted to reflect this experience, intercity ridership in 2035 would fall from 21.1 million to 7.6 million, a reduction of 64% (Figure 7).46 Even this forecast could be considered optimistic, because the higher cost of fuel in Europe would tend to result in a higher rate of diversion from automobiles than in California This Due Diligence Update estimates that the cumulative effect of the ridership miscalculations and other factors outlined above could be substantial, as follows (Table 2 and Figure 8):

§ The “European Ridership Profile” assumes CHSRA-projected speeds, but applies the
European ratio of car trips diverted to high speed rail. Moreover, as noted above, if the
European automobile passenger attraction experience were applied to the California
forecasts, ridership would be substantially lower, even assuming the likely unattainable
higher CHSRA speeds. Ridership would be 64% lower (Figure 8).

§ Estimated Higher Speed Ridership Projection: Assuming the optimistic travel time
projection of 3:50, the 2035 interregional ridership would be approximately one-third
(67%) below CHSRA-projected levels at 6.9 million annually.

§ Estimated Lower Speed Ridership Projection: Assuming realistic automobile costs and
more-plausible outside-the-corridor ridership, the 2035 interregional ridership would be
77% below the CHRSA-projected forecast, at 4.8 million annually.

Given that the financials are dependent upon ridership for just O&M the fact that ridership will likely be 1/3 (or less) than that projected then those without train infatuation should face up to the reality: it's a boondoggle.

http://reason.org/files/california_high_speed_rail_report.pdf

 

[Nice Squirrel]

(Psst Max. You do know that Reason.org is funded by the Koch Bros.)

 

[maxparrish]

(Psst Max. You do know that Reason.org is funded by the Koch Bros.)

Yep. Glad of it. And, by the way, let us not forget the summary:

http://reason.org/files/california_high_speed_rail_summary.pdf

 

[Jarhyn]

Mr. lpetrich and Mr. Higgins missives are among the several posts expressing dewy-eyed longings and gushing sentiments for HSR, singing praises to its "healing" of America's transport infrastructure hypochondria. Before you drink their snake oil (or let them lay hands upon you) perhaps you ought to look at the ingredients?

As Robert Samuelson pointed out four years ago, if you can do fourth grade math you would know that for this massive investment, California gets next to nothing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/31/AR2010103104260.html

He points out that high speed rail that can travel 250 mph are potentially the most competitive over planes and cars for distances of less than 500 miles. The Congressional Research Service examined the 12 corridors of 500 or fewer miles in 2007 and the LA-SF corridor led the list with 13,838 passengers. If every one of them switched to trains the total number of California daily air passenger drop would be a minuscule 2.5 percent. (The total fuel savings would be less than that, as trains also use energy).

Of course, most inter-city passengers will not switch to a rail system that takes 4 to 4.5 hours when driving from Oakland/SF to LA only takes 6 to 6.5 hours (and you arrive with your own car to use, essential for LA).
Even in places with much higher urban densities such as Europe and Asia high speed rail does not earn enough revenue to cover capital and operating cost.

The reason report highlights many of the other realities studiously ignored by the HSR hired "experts" (the same folks who produced the 2010 report that was excoriated by UC Berkeley's Transportation Group Report). http://reason.org/files/california_high_speed_rail_report.pdf

First, the train speed projection of peak speeds of 220mph is unrealistic. The fastest trains that operate at a peak speed are the French TGV peak at 199mph. The average peak speeds for world high speed rail is 192mpg.

Second, the original 2hr 40 min projection is no longer valid. The blended system will use existing urban rail. The average rail speed in rural areas is 150 mph (with 200 mph peaks). In Urban areas the Transportation Research Board said maximum speed estimates are 60 to 100. Taking into account lower speeds in urban areas (60 to 100mph) then the travel time increases to 3hr 50 minutes to 4hr 30 minutes.

Third, while California HSR did not seemingly adjust its ridership projections downward to reduced attraction of a downgraded speed, even so its latest forecast suffers from classic government "optimism bias" and the usual project booster misreprestantion (aka lying).



For example:

Eurostar was projected in 1996 to reach nearly 25 million riders by 2006. In 2011, ridership remained under 10 million (9.7 million), more than 60% below the forecast. Interestingly, CHSRA predicts about 25 million riders in 2035, and there is little reason to expect that estimate to be more accurate that Eurostar’s.

You see, "international experience indicates that most high speed rail ridership comes from two sources, former rail passengers and former airline passengers." For example:

In France, the Paris to Lyon and Marseille intercity travel market had a rail market share of 40% before high speed rail service. High speed rail increased the rail market share to 72%, Most of the high speed rail ridership was transferred from the previous train service and the airlines. Only 11% of the ridership was from automobiles (Figure 4).

In Spain, the Madrid to Seville intercity travel market had a rail market share of 16% before high speed rail service. High speed rail increased the rail market share to 51%. Most of the high speed rail ridership was transferred from the previous train service and the airlines. Only 16% of the ridership was from automobiles (Figure 5).

However, California is relying on 75% of its ridership from former automobile commuters. Only 3 percent of California passenger transport is currently by rail.

In California, forecasts call for three or more times as many riders to be attracted from cars as from the airlines, virtually the reverse of the ratio of automobile to air passenger attraction in Europe (Figure 6).

But HSR does not compete against cars, it competes against air travel. Like air travel, it requires travel to the SF station or airport, leaving one's car, and arriving with the need to rent a car. People currently take cars because they will not have to rent an automobile, they may be traveling with a companion (or family) to distribute costs, etc.

The CHSRA California high speed rail automobile attraction forecasts are considered implausibly high. Based upon the experience in France and Spain, the passenger attraction from cars would be far less than forecast, at 90% lower. If the ridership model were adjusted to reflect this experience, intercity ridership in 2035 would fall from 21.1 million to 7.6 million, a reduction of 64% (Figure 7).46 Even this forecast could be considered optimistic, because the higher cost of fuel in Europe would tend to result in a higher rate of diversion from automobiles than in California This Due Diligence Update estimates that the cumulative effect of the ridership miscalculations and other factors outlined above could be substantial, as follows (Table 2 and Figure 8):

§ The “European Ridership Profile” assumes CHSRA-projected speeds, but applies the
European ratio of car trips diverted to high speed rail. Moreover, as noted above, if the
European automobile passenger attraction experience were applied to the California
forecasts, ridership would be substantially lower, even assuming the likely unattainable
higher CHSRA speeds. Ridership would be 64% lower (Figure 8).

§ Estimated Higher Speed Ridership Projection: Assuming the optimistic travel time
projection of 3:50, the 2035 interregional ridership would be approximately one-third
(67%) below CHSRA-projected levels at 6.9 million annually.

§ Estimated Lower Speed Ridership Projection: Assuming realistic automobile costs and
more-plausible outside-the-corridor ridership, the 2035 interregional ridership would be
77% below the CHRSA-projected forecast, at 4.8 million annually.

Given that the financials are dependent upon ridership for just O&M the fact that ridership will likely be 1/3 (or less) than that projected then those without train infatuation should face up to the reality: it's a boondoggle.

http://reason.org/files/california_high_speed_rail_report.pdf

If California built the rail, and charged NOTHING for its use, and funded it entirely with tax dollars, California would still get benefits from the rail. You seem to be confusing price and profit with cost and value.

 

[maxparrish]

Mr. lpetrich and Mr. Higgins missives are among the several posts expressing dewy-eyed longings and gushing sentiments for HSR, singing praises to its "healing" of America's transport infrastructure hypochondria. Before you drink their snake oil (or let them lay hands upon you) perhaps you ought to look at the ingredients?

As Robert Samuelson pointed out four years ago, if you can do fourth grade math you would know that for this massive investment, California gets next to nothing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/31/AR2010103104260.html

He points out that high speed rail that can travel 250 mph are potentially the most competitive over planes and cars for distances of less than 500 miles. The Congressional Research Service examined the 12 corridors of 500 or fewer miles in 2007 and the LA-SF corridor led the list with 13,838 passengers. If every one of them switched to trains the total number of California daily air passenger drop would be a minuscule 2.5 percent. (The total fuel savings would be less than that, as trains also use energy).

Of course, most inter-city passengers will not switch to a rail system that takes 4 to 4.5 hours when driving from Oakland/SF to LA only takes 6 to 6.5 hours (and you arrive with your own car to use, essential for LA).
Even in places with much higher urban densities such as Europe and Asia high speed rail does not earn enough revenue to cover capital and operating cost.

The reason report highlights many of the other realities studiously ignored by the HSR hired "experts" (the same folks who produced the 2010 report that was excoriated by UC Berkeley's Transportation Group Report). http://reason.org/files/california_high_speed_rail_report.pdf

First, the train speed projection of peak speeds of 220mph is unrealistic. The fastest trains that operate at a peak speed are the French TGV peak at 199mph. The average peak speeds for world high speed rail is 192mpg.

Second, the original 2hr 40 min projection is no longer valid. The blended system will use existing urban rail. The average rail speed in rural areas is 150 mph (with 200 mph peaks). In Urban areas the Transportation Research Board said maximum speed estimates are 60 to 100. Taking into account lower speeds in urban areas (60 to 100mph) then the travel time increases to 3hr 50 minutes to 4hr 30 minutes.

Third, while California HSR did not seemingly adjust its ridership projections downward to reduced attraction of a downgraded speed, even so its latest forecast suffers from classic government "optimism bias" and the usual project booster misreprestantion (aka lying).



For example:



You see, "international experience indicates that most high speed rail ridership comes from two sources, former rail passengers and former airline passengers." For example:

In France, the Paris to Lyon and Marseille intercity travel market had a rail market share of 40% before high speed rail service. High speed rail increased the rail market share to 72%, Most of the high speed rail ridership was transferred from the previous train service and the airlines. Only 11% of the ridership was from automobiles (Figure 4).

In Spain, the Madrid to Seville intercity travel market had a rail market share of 16% before high speed rail service. High speed rail increased the rail market share to 51%. Most of the high speed rail ridership was transferred from the previous train service and the airlines. Only 16% of the ridership was from automobiles (Figure 5).

However, California is relying on 75% of its ridership from former automobile commuters. Only 3 percent of California passenger transport is currently by rail.

In California, forecasts call for three or more times as many riders to be attracted from cars as from the airlines, virtually the reverse of the ratio of automobile to air passenger attraction in Europe (Figure 6).

But HSR does not compete against cars, it competes against air travel. Like air travel, it requires travel to the SF station or airport, leaving one's car, and arriving with the need to rent a car. People currently take cars because they will not have to rent an automobile, they may be traveling with a companion (or family) to distribute costs, etc.

The CHSRA California high speed rail automobile attraction forecasts are considered implausibly high. Based upon the experience in France and Spain, the passenger attraction from cars would be far less than forecast, at 90% lower. If the ridership model were adjusted to reflect this experience, intercity ridership in 2035 would fall from 21.1 million to 7.6 million, a reduction of 64% (Figure 7).46 Even this forecast could be considered optimistic, because the higher cost of fuel in Europe would tend to result in a higher rate of diversion from automobiles than in California This Due Diligence Update estimates that the cumulative effect of the ridership miscalculations and other factors outlined above could be substantial, as follows (Table 2 and Figure 8):

§ The “European Ridership Profile” assumes CHSRA-projected speeds, but applies the
European ratio of car trips diverted to high speed rail. Moreover, as noted above, if the
European automobile passenger attraction experience were applied to the California
forecasts, ridership would be substantially lower, even assuming the likely unattainable
higher CHSRA speeds. Ridership would be 64% lower (Figure 8).

§ Estimated Higher Speed Ridership Projection: Assuming the optimistic travel time
projection of 3:50, the 2035 interregional ridership would be approximately one-third
(67%) below CHSRA-projected levels at 6.9 million annually.

§ Estimated Lower Speed Ridership Projection: Assuming realistic automobile costs and
more-plausible outside-the-corridor ridership, the 2035 interregional ridership would be
77% below the CHRSA-projected forecast, at 4.8 million annually.

Given that the financials are dependent upon ridership for just O&M the fact that ridership will likely be 1/3 (or less) than that projected then those without train infatuation should face up to the reality: it's a boondoggle.

http://reason.org/files/california_high_speed_rail_report.pdf

If California built the rail, and charged NOTHING for its use, and funded it entirely with tax dollars, California would still get benefits from the rail. You seem to be confusing price and profit with cost and value.

And you seem to be confusing economics with magic.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Mr. lpetrich and Mr. Higgins missives are among the several posts expressing dewy-eyed longings and gushing sentiments for HSR, singing praises to its "healing" of America's transport infrastructure hypochondria. Before you drink their snake oil (or let them lay hands upon you) perhaps you ought to look at the ingredients?

You must be reading a different thread.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

(Psst Max. You do know that Reason.org is funded by the Koch Bros.)

Yep. Glad of it. And, by the way, let us not forget the summary:

http://reason.org/files/california_high_speed_rail_summary.pdf

Glad to hear. I just wanted to let you and others that big energy concerns are behind this report.

 

[Medicine Man]

This is a jolly good joke by Gov. Brown at the expense of all of California.

....And, will more-than-likely be one o' the...​

...BIGGE$T Touri$m Drawing-Cards In The State!!!
January 6, 2015​

​

 

[TSwizzle]

Given that the financials are dependent upon ridership for just O&M the fact that ridership will likely be 1/3 (or less) than that projected then those without train infatuation should face up to the reality: it's a boondoggle.

An epic boondoggle that will last for decades. It will do nothing to alleviate the chronic traffic congestion in Los Angeles/SFV. A Jerry Brown vanity project.

 

[arkirk]

Yep. Glad of it. And, by the way, let us not forget the summary:

http://reason.org/files/california_high_speed_rail_summary.pdf

Glad to hear. I just wanted to let you and others that big energy concerns are behind this report.

Max just doesn't think we are smart enough to have this thing, like the Chinese and Japanese are. Where does he look...reason.org...aka Koch. This type of infrastructure is the future. Max wants us to continue living in the past.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Glad to hear. I just wanted to let you and others that big energy concerns are behind this report.

Max just doesn't think we are smart enough to have this thing, like the Chinese and Japanese are. Where does he look...reason.org...aka Koch. This type of infrastructure is the future. Max wants us to continue living in the past.

Well, the Electric Air Line Railroad failed, so this is doomed to fail too!

 

[Toni]

I used to live in the eastern part of the US and made good use of commuter trains and much more often, subway/light rail for daily commutes. I've also utilized subway systems and light rail in Chicago and as a tourist on the east coast. I really like it. It's convenient, cost effective for commuters, safe. It allows the riders to read, listen to music, tend to other tasks or just to take a break. Of course one must pay attention and be alert but not in the same way that one must be when one drives an automobile.

Currently, I live in an area with very, very little public transit and none that is useful to me in the least. This translates into a long daily commute which I hate. I wish every single day that there was an option for public transportation, probably light rail, between the town where I live and the one where I work.

Now, some will point out that I could/should simply move to the town where I work. I could do that, even though it doesn't make a lot of sense for me to sell my current home and purchase a new home at this point in my life. And more importantly, doing so would mean that my husband would have the same commute I now have, only in reverse. It's not a winning situation.

It's not always possible for two people in a relationship to have jobs which are both conveniently close together and close to convenient and suitable places to live.
I'm always in favor of ways to reduce reliance on automobiles and to improve commute times for people.

 

[TSwizzle]

This type of infrastructure is the future. Max wants us to continue living in the past.

The people of California have been sold a bill of goods. It will all end in tears, if it ever ends that is.

 

[Jarhyn]

This type of infrastructure is the future. Max wants us to continue living in the past.

The people of California have been sold a bill of goods. It will all end in tears, if it ever ends that is.

You forget that after work is done to make a thing, you have the thing. That's why we build infrastructure in the first place. a bill of goods and a train. If people don't use the track, that's on them. They have also purchased food and jobs for a lot of engineers and construction workers. It's a lot better than a lot of ways that money could be being spent. I'll admit I'd rather see it spent to upgrade all the telecommunications infrastructure nationwide to fiber, but one thing at a time.

 

[lpetrich]

Mr. lpetrich and Mr. Higgins missives are among the several posts expressing dewy-eyed longings and gushing sentiments for HSR, ...

Here is a tiny bit of bullet-train video.

From outside:
▶ Eurostar Run By's in Kent - YouTube
▶ Primeras circulaciones directas de alta velocidad entre España y Francia - YouTube -- First direct high-speed traffic between Spain and France (Google Translate)
From inside:
▶ TGV running parallel with highway - YouTube
Kaelyn Whaley on ICE High Speed Bullet Train Passing Cars at 180 mph, 300 km/h, 8/2012 Germany - YouTube

That's more like the Jetsons than the trains of a century ago.

He points out that high speed rail that can travel 250 mph are potentially the most competitive over planes and cars for distances of less than 500 miles.

So what? That's good enough for HSR to be very successful.

Even in places with much higher urban densities such as Europe and Asia high speed rail does not earn enough revenue to cover capital and operating cost.

I'm sure that you have oodles of HSR financial statements on hand.

Second, the original 2hr 40 min projection is no longer valid. The blended system will use existing urban rail.

That's to pinch pennies and appease NIMBY's.

Third, while California HSR did not seemingly adjust its ridership projections downward to reduced attraction of a downgraded speed, even so its latest forecast suffers from classic government "optimism bias" and the usual project booster misreprestantion (aka lying).

How is that supposed to be a bias specific to government? Has no business ever done that?

 

[lpetrich]

(Psst Max. You do know that Reason.org is funded by the Koch Bros.)

I think that one ought to evaluate their claims rather than to dismiss them because of their source.

They are trying to claim that HSR systems don't usually pay back their capital costs, therefore HSR is worthless. However, by that criterion, flat roads and airports are equally worthless.

 

[Jarhyn]

Mr. lpetrich and Mr. Higgins missives are among the several posts expressing dewy-eyed longings and gushing sentiments for HSR, singing praises to its "healing" of America's transport infrastructure hypochondria. Before you drink their snake oil (or let them lay hands upon you) perhaps you ought to look at the ingredients?

As Robert Samuelson pointed out four years ago, if you can do fourth grade math you would know that for this massive investment, California gets next to nothing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/31/AR2010103104260.html

He points out that high speed rail that can travel 250 mph are potentially the most competitive over planes and cars for distances of less than 500 miles. The Congressional Research Service examined the 12 corridors of 500 or fewer miles in 2007 and the LA-SF corridor led the list with 13,838 passengers. If every one of them switched to trains the total number of California daily air passenger drop would be a minuscule 2.5 percent. (The total fuel savings would be less than that, as trains also use energy).

Of course, most inter-city passengers will not switch to a rail system that takes 4 to 4.5 hours when driving from Oakland/SF to LA only takes 6 to 6.5 hours (and you arrive with your own car to use, essential for LA).
Even in places with much higher urban densities such as Europe and Asia high speed rail does not earn enough revenue to cover capital and operating cost.

The reason report highlights many of the other realities studiously ignored by the HSR hired "experts" (the same folks who produced the 2010 report that was excoriated by UC Berkeley's Transportation Group Report). http://reason.org/files/california_high_speed_rail_report.pdf

First, the train speed projection of peak speeds of 220mph is unrealistic. The fastest trains that operate at a peak speed are the French TGV peak at 199mph. The average peak speeds for world high speed rail is 192mpg.

Second, the original 2hr 40 min projection is no longer valid. The blended system will use existing urban rail. The average rail speed in rural areas is 150 mph (with 200 mph peaks). In Urban areas the Transportation Research Board said maximum speed estimates are 60 to 100. Taking into account lower speeds in urban areas (60 to 100mph) then the travel time increases to 3hr 50 minutes to 4hr 30 minutes.

Third, while California HSR did not seemingly adjust its ridership projections downward to reduced attraction of a downgraded speed, even so its latest forecast suffers from classic government "optimism bias" and the usual project booster misreprestantion (aka lying).



For example:



You see, "international experience indicates that most high speed rail ridership comes from two sources, former rail passengers and former airline passengers." For example:

In France, the Paris to Lyon and Marseille intercity travel market had a rail market share of 40% before high speed rail service. High speed rail increased the rail market share to 72%, Most of the high speed rail ridership was transferred from the previous train service and the airlines. Only 11% of the ridership was from automobiles (Figure 4).

In Spain, the Madrid to Seville intercity travel market had a rail market share of 16% before high speed rail service. High speed rail increased the rail market share to 51%. Most of the high speed rail ridership was transferred from the previous train service and the airlines. Only 16% of the ridership was from automobiles (Figure 5).

However, California is relying on 75% of its ridership from former automobile commuters. Only 3 percent of California passenger transport is currently by rail.

In California, forecasts call for three or more times as many riders to be attracted from cars as from the airlines, virtually the reverse of the ratio of automobile to air passenger attraction in Europe (Figure 6).

But HSR does not compete against cars, it competes against air travel. Like air travel, it requires travel to the SF station or airport, leaving one's car, and arriving with the need to rent a car. People currently take cars because they will not have to rent an automobile, they may be traveling with a companion (or family) to distribute costs, etc.

The CHSRA California high speed rail automobile attraction forecasts are considered implausibly high. Based upon the experience in France and Spain, the passenger attraction from cars would be far less than forecast, at 90% lower. If the ridership model were adjusted to reflect this experience, intercity ridership in 2035 would fall from 21.1 million to 7.6 million, a reduction of 64% (Figure 7).46 Even this forecast could be considered optimistic, because the higher cost of fuel in Europe would tend to result in a higher rate of diversion from automobiles than in California This Due Diligence Update estimates that the cumulative effect of the ridership miscalculations and other factors outlined above could be substantial, as follows (Table 2 and Figure 8):

§ The “European Ridership Profile” assumes CHSRA-projected speeds, but applies the
European ratio of car trips diverted to high speed rail. Moreover, as noted above, if the
European automobile passenger attraction experience were applied to the California
forecasts, ridership would be substantially lower, even assuming the likely unattainable
higher CHSRA speeds. Ridership would be 64% lower (Figure 8).

§ Estimated Higher Speed Ridership Projection: Assuming the optimistic travel time
projection of 3:50, the 2035 interregional ridership would be approximately one-third
(67%) below CHSRA-projected levels at 6.9 million annually.

§ Estimated Lower Speed Ridership Projection: Assuming realistic automobile costs and
more-plausible outside-the-corridor ridership, the 2035 interregional ridership would be
77% below the CHRSA-projected forecast, at 4.8 million annually.

Given that the financials are dependent upon ridership for just O&M the fact that ridership will likely be 1/3 (or less) than that projected then those without train infatuation should face up to the reality: it's a boondoggle.

http://reason.org/files/california_high_speed_rail_report.pdf

If California built the rail, and charged NOTHING for its use, and funded it entirely with tax dollars, California would still get benefits from the rail. You seem to be confusing price and profit with cost and value.

And you seem to be confusing economics with magic.

See, you're doing it again, confusing profits with value. All money is spent in exchange for what I'll call 'value'. I value having food taste good. I value havin a warm house. These are highly mutable and entirely arbitrary. there is value in a HSR to the residents of California, and for that matter, there is a value in just DOING HSR somewhere. That value is not in the money gotten from tickets or shipment, it is in the mobility and decreased reliance on gasoline. It's value that originates from the learning experience of building the rail and applying technology. It is the value of having many engineers and construction workers, a good deal of physicists, and boatloads of miners, factory workers, and educators fed and clothed and sheltered, with them all getting years of practical experience in applying their trades. That's value you can't just add up on a ledger, but the benefits are tangible and many, if diffuse.

The problem with penny pinching Rayndian types is that such diffuse benefit means nothing to them, they can't see the prairie for its leaves of grass.

 

[TSwizzle]

The people of California have been sold a bill of goods. It will all end in tears, if it ever ends that is.

You forget that after work is done to make a thing, you have the thing.

It will be thing that is an albatross around tax payers' necks for generations.

That's why we build infrastructure in the first place. a bill of goods and a train. If people don't use the track, that's on them.

It was supposed to be HSR, now it's a train ? The project was floated as HSR, that is the bond that CA voted on. It's not what we are getting apparently.

They have also purchased food and jobs for a lot of engineers and construction workers. It's a lot better than a lot of ways that money could be being spent. I'll admit I'd rather see it spent to upgrade all the telecommunications infrastructure nationwide to fiber, but one thing at a time.

There are a few other things that could have been sorted out before a train set.

Anyway, let the games begin.

 

[maxparrish]

Even in places with much higher urban densities such as Europe and Asia high speed rail does not earn enough revenue to cover capital and operating cost.

I'm sure that you have oodles of HSR financial statements on hand.

Don't need to. The more than sufficient supporting data, news overviews, and the studies that analyse the data that are already readily available to an alert Internet user.

One might start with: http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15746975

...The report says that while most lines cover their operational costs, they've had to restructure debt or seek additional government funds to finish construction.

"Most high-speed rail systems do not pay for their capital investment," said Genevieve Giuliano, director of the METRANS Transportation Center at the University of Southern California.

And then move on to:

Considering capital, operating, maintenance and planning costs, two high-speed train lines are money-makers—Tokyo to Osaka and Paris to Lyon, one breaks even—Hakata to Osaka—with the potential to make money if it remains in operation for at least 10 more years. All other HSR lines throughout Europe and Japan lose money. ...However, no country has a high-speed rail system that is profitable. The U.S. inspector general estimated the government contributions to passenger operations for each of nine European nations, plus the United States, from 1995 through 2003.65 Comparing these subsidies with passenger-miles of rail ridership during those years reveals that the subsidies in most of these countries are between 20 and 30 cents per passenger-mile. It is conceivable that if France or Japan had stopped with their first or second high-speed line, their system might be profitable. However, neither did.

French revenues for the other HSR lines may not even cover ongoing service costs; according to French economist Remy Prud’Homme, French taxpayers foot the bill for “about half the total costs
of providing the service.”66 The French and Spanish central government paid the up-front construction costs of their country’s high-speed rail lines with no real expectation that its
investment would be recouped through ticket revenues.67 Japan relied on capital recovery that, with the exception of the Tokyo-Osaka line, never materialized.

http://reason.org/files/high_speed_rail_lessons.pdf