« Palin As Military Commander | Main | California Proposition 2 - Farm Animal Housing »
October 19, 2008
California Prop 1A - High Speed Rail
Let's begin shoveling through the stuff coming up on the November ballot in California.
There will be no Proposition 1. There will only be Proposition 1A. Basically, it's to authorize the state to issue almost $10 billion in bonds to "plan and partially fund" a high-speed rail system.
The proposition itself defines "high-speed train" as "a passenger train capable of sustained revenue operating speeds of at least 200 miles per hour where conditions permit those speeds." It aslo specifies that it would connect the San Francisco Transbay Terminal to Los Angeles Union Station "and Anaheim" and "links the state's major population centers" which include Sacramento, the Central Valley, the Inland Empire, Orange County and San Diego. Phase 1 is San Francisco to L.A. and Anaheim.
No more than 10% of the money can go for "environmental studies, planning, and preliminary engineering activities." Which would mean, I think, that 90% of it is to do stuff that the average person might perceive as actually building a railroad - which is, of course, a lot more than tracks and signals and trains.
One detail: "The planned passenger service...will not require a local, state or federal operating subsidy." Yowzah, that could be a deal killer. The only railroads I know of that don't require some sort of government subsidy are special, short-distance tourist trains - and the kiddy trains in zoos and parks.
The system "shall be designed to achieve these characteristics":
- Nonstop travel time from San Francisco or Oakland to Los Angeles of 2 hours, 40 minutes or less.
- Nonstop travel time from Inland Empire to Los Angeles of 30 minutes or less.
- "Achievable operating headway" (which is the time between trains) of 5 minutes or less. IOW, a high-speed train flies past you. Given five minutes for the air turbulence to settle, the tracks to cool down, and for Wile E. Coyote to stick his head up again, can you send another past?
- No more than 24 stations.
None of that is to say that's how the system will actually operate, only that if you put passengers on a train in San Francisco and ran it nonstop, could it get to L.A. in 2h 40m or less. I would guess most trains won't run nonstop.
There will be no station between Gilroy and Merced. I guess I should have been hanging out in Sacramento to understand the history behind this one rule. But let's take a look at a Google map showing Gilroy and Merced. My guess is the vision is to have a track running up the Central Valley going north to Sacramento. Somewhere in the vicinity of Merced the branch to the San Francisco Bay Area would head west to Gilroy. That whole stretch is farm land and small cities, none of which would seem to justify a high-speed rail station. But the route would cross I-5. Perhaps there was discussion of putting a station right at I-5, maybe creating a little community where route 152 intersects with I-5. Who knows, and who knows why it shall be forbidden.
Trains will not be forced to slow down when passing stations. Stations are to be located where there is "good access to local mass transit" and the whole system is to be designed to minimize urban sprawl. That sounds to me like a requirement for downtown stations.
$950 million (10%) of the bond can go for upgrading other rail lines (including heavy and light urban rail lines) that would provide connections to the high-speed train.
I assume the reader is already familiar with the superior efficiency and comfort, in addition to the vastly greater romance of rail travel when compared to other forms of transportation. If not, I will direct you to this definitive guide. Even those who are opposed to Prop 1A do not dispute those basics of rail travel.
Here's the website of those who support Prop 1A. There's more than one website for the opposition: Derail HSR, No On 1A, and this page on the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association site. The list of 8 objections on the Howard Jarvis site could as easily apply to any big highway construction project as well. Maybe they also oppose big highway construction projects, but if not I'd like them to point out the difference.
Naturally, my purely libertarian principles say the government shouldn't be building or operating any rail systems anywhere for any reason at any cost. But they also shouldn't be building highways or water systems or operating post offices. The only people making that pure free market argument, however, are the Libertarian Party of California who mystifyingly seem to be in favor of state highway construction!
OTOH, the recently approved $700 billion bailout caused me to immediately realize how vanishingly small this California high-speed rail project is. The federal government could have paid for it outright with a few Treasury notes swept up in all the hubbub. But the feds are never going to build high-speed rail. Look at the brouhaha they went through to just get that crappy Acela up and running. We might be going to hell in a handbasket. If somebody's nuts enough to loan this money to California, maybe we should go for it. If anything, a vast market collapse might mean cheaper labor and materials to build the thing.
Filed under California | permalink | October 19, 2008 at 02:04 PM
Comments
Give us a link to the contractor's history, would you please? Or even the contractor's name.
Posted by: Ron's Log at Nov 6, 2008 6:33:19 AM
If it wins, so what. It won't happen and it'll be a big financial waste, gift to the bond holders. More than 30 miles of tunnels through the Tehachapi mountains, right through the San Andreas Fault, will not happen! Money will disappear and taxpayers will get reamed. Look up the main Contractor's history and you might not believe it. It's not good.
Posted by: sonoman at Nov 4, 2008 9:52:52 PM
If it passes it will demonstrate resoundingly how stupid California voters are.
Posted by: at Oct 24, 2008 9:03:49 PM
In France, SNCF's long distance business unit "France Europe" achieved a gross margin of 19% in 2007. It transported 366 million passengers that year, subsidized the ailing freight unit and SNCF still paid EUR 131 million in dividends to the owner, i.e. the state.
High speed trains in Europe currently operate at top speeds of 300-330kph (186-205mph). Renfe has plans to bump speeds on the Madrid-Barcelona line up to 350kph (217mph). Its Siemens-built rolling stock is certified for that speed, as is the line. Very similar gear is already operating between Beijing and Tinjian in China at 350kph. Talgo-Bombardier and Hitachi also have off-the-shelf designs certified at 350kph. Not to be outdone, Alstom in France recently unveiled its AGV, which is certified for 360kph in commercial service. Its first customer is NGV in Italy. A new generation of bi-level high speed trains is in the works in anticipation of the liberalization of railroads within the EU in 2010, which SNCF wants to take advantage of. It will be certified for speeds in excess of 300kph, the limit of the current-generation Duplex design. These offer up to 1000 seats each.
Btw, the official reason the originally planned stop in Los Banos was nixed is that there is a wildlife area nearby. The Sierra Club didn't want the HSR project to encourage sprawl so close to it. Yeah, right. More likely, Silicon Valley didn't want to see its real estate values drop as worker bees headed out to cheaper pastures. Santa Clara county has already imposed strict limits on residential development in the Gilroy area.
Posted by: Rafael at Oct 20, 2008 10:21:57 AM
If it really could go from the Bay Area to LA that fast, it could compete without a subsidy. I wish they had such a thing when I lived in LA.
Posted by: libhomo at Oct 19, 2008 3:53:23 PM
When I took the super high speed RENFE from Barcelona to Zaragoza last June, it was the most civilized for of transit I have ever experienced.
It would be nice if something like this could happen in North America. Meal service, wine, classical music, movies. Will Prop 1A further this possibility ?
Posted by: Frank Martin at Oct 19, 2008 3:19:16 PM
Great job getting putting this together. I was reading just the small election guide about this in today's LA Times. I am not too sure the voters of California will pass this bond in light of the cuirrent state and national budget crisis.
Posted by: Raymond at Oct 19, 2008 2:53:30 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
