California's Bullet Train Project's Biggest Challenge? - Tehachapi!

[mramsey]

The Coast Starlight is not part of the discussion.  It doesn't serve densely populated areas along most of its route.  We are talking principally about Caltrain, Metrolink, and the Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin.  Also potentially the San Diego lines, but that would come later.

Well, the Capitol Corridor is also not part of the discussion, as it has little or nothing to do with travel between SF and LA.  Keep in mind that HSR is intended to take 5 or 6 hours off the existing rail travel time between the two cities, not just an hour or two.

To take this as an example, it would not be entirely pointless to electrify the existing metrolink line from Lancaster to LAUPT, along with alignment improvements to allow higher speeds (but not necessarily 'high-speed' travel) as an interim to building a true high speed line through Soledad Canyon and into LA.   Let's say maybe the Metrolink travel time from LA to Lancaster could be cut from 2 hours to an 1hour 15 minutes (but not the half hour they claim for high speed trains).    Such a project could serve as the interim connection for high-speed trainsets, but also provide a long term improvement for Metrolink's Valley line even if the Tehachapi connection never gets built.     The entire current alignment would be left intact for UP freights.

There are already Metrolink express trains between Palmdale and LAUS that make the trip in 1:33.  The ridership numbers aren't huge (average weekday boardings in Lancaster and Palmdale combined are less than 800), and a glance at a map shows why the entire Antelope Valley segment will ultimately have to be replaced for anything approximating "high speed rail".

That scheduling was a change that was made relatively recently, probably because the HSR authority received quite a bit of feedback similar to mine.

The scheduling change for electrification of the Caltrain RoW occurred because costs and community opposition made it clear that building a full 4 track grade separated corridor from SF to SJ was just not going to happen, which is part of the reason they had to roll out a new business plan earlier this year.  Caltrain electrification has been planned since I started riding it in the 90s, but since Caltrain has no dedicated source of funding, there has been no way to pay for it. Once it was clear that the existing RoW (with a few small changes) was going to have to suffice for Phase I of HSR construction, providing immediate bookend funding to cover electrification makes perfect sense.  At least we'll get something useful out of the deal in my lifetime.

And my point is that the political will is not going to be there if they don't make good connections between the Central Valley chunk and other existing lines.  Basically what they need(ed) to do is electrify the remaining part of the San Joaquin route from Merced to Oakland so that the same trainset could run from Bakersfield to Oakland in up to 2 hours less time. 

The current plan for the initial operating segment between Merced and Bakersfield is precisely that, to provide improved travel times by rerouting the San Joaquin to the new tracks so it can run at higher speeds (still using diesel power) and without conflicting freight traffic.  Electrification on the Central Valley segment comes later, in any case, as it's pretty much an all or nothing thing.

Forget the Tehachapi part until such time as you have demonstrated that these projects can improve transit options and start paying for themselves before the most expensive and risky investments need to be made.

Strangely enough, I don't disagree with much you say.  Fundamentally, though, that stretch of track near Tehachapi is the one thing that will really improve the travel times, but it also will cost more that any other segment of the system.  The problem we have now is that state and federal money has been allocated to pay initial costs for SF to LA HSR, and the money just isn't there yet to start tunneling through mountains.  They have to start somewhere, and they legally can't get away with spending all of it to benefit LA and SF area commuters...

[jagged ben]

Strangely enough, I don't disagree with much you say.

Yes, I would say we have a similar understanding of the problems to be surmounted.

It's something of a chicken and egg problem.  My criticism of the plan in many ways boils down to saying that if we had been investing more in the passenger rail network for the last 40 years, there would be much less to do to integrate a high speed rail system.  But of course, that investment was not made.  So now that you want to build high speed rail (and can you sell anything slower to the electorate?), do you start with the projects that that really should have been done long ago, or try to leapfrog that part of the process?   Well, I have said what I think the answer is, but it's too bad the question has to be asked.

Fundamentally, though, that stretch of track near Tehachapi is the one thing that will really improve the travel times, but it also will cost more that any other segment of the system.  The problem we have now is that state and federal money has been allocated to pay initial costs for SF to LA HSR, and the money just isn't there yet to start tunneling through mountains.

So if they want there to eventually be more money, they had better make the initial investments look like a success that's leading somewhere.  We'll see if they can do it.  I'm not particularly optimistic. 

They have to start somewhere, and they legally can't get away with spending all of it to benefit LA and SF area commuters...

Unfortunately you're right, and that is what I think was a big mistake.  (I even reluctantly voted for the thing knowing this.)  I would not be surprised if at some point the issue has to be revisited by the voters and/or the legislature. 

The current plan for the initial operating segment between Merced and Bakersfield is precisely that, to provide improved travel times by rerouting the San Joaquin to the new tracks so it can run at higher speeds (still using diesel power) and without conflicting freight traffic.  Electrification on the Central Valley segment comes later, in any case, as it's pretty much an all or nothing thing.

I didn't know that.  I'll have to take a closer look at the new business plan than I have so far.

Of course, continuing to rely on diesel in my mind negates much of the purpose of the project. 

[sd80mac]

My comment is a little "left" of the current discussion (pardon the "California" pun ), but in reference to upgrading existing rail corridors, what about upgrading Amtrak's line to San Diego? I know they share tracks with BNSF just east of Fullerton, but on the Amtrak only segment, trains are allowed to reach 90MPH in some areas, including tracks over grade crossings. Would raising the speed limit to say 110-125MPH using current diesel technology (i.e. double-head or a locomotive on each end DPU-styple) provide any support for the need, or rather desire for higher speed rail?

[elnscale]

Frankly, I don't understand why this project is being comptemplated at all. $68 billion (current estimated) construction cost. And what is the annual operating cost (need 25% of the electric output of the Hoover dam equivalent, maintenance, staff, consumables, capital replacement plans etc. etc.)?

Don't get me wrong. I grew up in Britain riding the inter-city trains regularly, the TGV in France and other fast trains around Europe. So I love fast passenger trains.

But this makes no economic sense to me. Even if the construction cost was accurate and didn't go up and there is no time value of money, no interest rate, and you amortise it over 100 years, that's $680 million per year. So it's difficult to see a cost less than $1 billion per year.

If they get 3,000 riders a day, every day, that's a million a year so that's $1,000 per ticket.

And if that's not bad enough, this for a state that is broke.

But maybe they are just  planning on somebody else paying for it (like me in Michigan).

Sorry, I just don't get how the numbers any economic sense.

So isn't the arithmetic the biggest challenge?

[mramsey]

If they get 3,000 riders a day, every day, that's a million a year so that's $1,000 per ticket.

Conservative yearly numbers I've seen for air passengers making non-connecting trips from LA Basin airports to SF Bay Area airports run from 5 to 7 million in recent years, with expectations that this will increase to upwards of 10 million by 2025.  That's 14,000 or so per day in recent years, and upwards of 25,000 per day in a decade.  If NEC figures can be considered comparable, 50 to 60% of those passengers, plus some number of highway drivers could be diverted to HSR.  By the way, increases in air and road traffic don't come for free, if part of this travel is diverted to HSR, fewer new airports, runways, and highways will be needed.

And if that's not bad enough, this for a state that is broke.

Only because the tax system in this state has been broken for several decades, it looks like people are starting to come to their senses.

But maybe they are just  planning on somebody else paying for it (like me in Michigan).

Federal income tax contributions from California residents exceed federal monies returned to California.  We're paying to keep your auto factories open...

[elnscale]

So you're saying the money is not the biggest challenge?

Even the vaunted NEC cannot make a profit when you factor in the capital costs of running the operation. At least that's what Trains magazine said about the NEC (does it or doesn't it make a profit) a few months back.

BTW, the annual ridership according to Amtrak in California for FY 2011 is:

• Pacific Surfliner service (San Diego-Los Angeles-San Luis Obispo, 2,786,972)
• Capitol Corridor service (San Jose-Oakland-Sacramento-Auburn, 1,708,618)
• San Joaquin service (Oakland/Sacramento-Bakersfield, 977,834)

Per Amtrak.

[mramsey]

So you're saying the money is not the biggest challenge?

No, I'm saying we have to keep the cost in perspective, we spend a lot more on all forms of transportation than most of us think.  People don't seem to notice that those few miles of extra lanes added to their favorite highway cost 100 million or so, all they know is that there is still too much traffic.

Even the vaunted NEC cannot make a profit when you factor in the capital costs of running the operation. At least that's what Trains magazine said about the NEC (does it or doesn't it make a profit) a few months back.

Trucking companies could not make a profit if they had to pay their full share of the constructing and maintaining the highways and bridges they need to operate.  Airlines could not make a profit (not that many are these days) if they had to pay their full share of costs for airports, runways, navigational aids, and the FAA bureaucracy.  This is all before you consider what their fair share of the damage caused by the CO2 they emit should be, or the bloated military necessary to make sure the oil still flows.

BTW, the annual ridership according to Amtrak in California for FY 2011 is:

• Pacific Surfliner service (San Diego-Los Angeles-San Luis Obispo, 2,786,972)
• Capitol Corridor service (San Jose-Oakland-Sacramento-Auburn, 1,708,618)
• San Joaquin service (Oakland/Sacramento-Bakersfield, 977,834)

Per Amtrak.

Very amusing, but irrelevant.  Pacific Surfliner suffers from lack of frequency, slow speeds in many areas, and high ticket prices (the wrong approach to cost recovery).  Capitol Corridor actually does a respectable job capturing ridership, given that the actual number of commuters between the Bay Area and Sacramento isn't all that large.  And, the San Joaquin is not an option worthy of consideration by most people, if they need to travel between SF and LA. 

The real question here is whether we want to invest in a more convenient and comfortable future, or just keep limping along with our current neglected and deteriorating infrastructure.

[John]

This is all before you consider what their fair share of the damage caused by the CO2 they emit should be, or the bloated military necessary to make sure the oil still flows.

Please don't let this thread devolve into politics or religion.

[Bob Bufkin]

Thanks John because one of these posters is beginning to piss me off.

[Robbman]

The real question here is whether we want to invest in a more convenient and comfortable future, or just keep limping along with our current neglected and deteriorating infrastructure.

There's the crux of the issue here... some believe the first step should be to fix the current neglected and deteriorating rail infrastructures that provide more benefits to all users (freight, passenger, commuter) in a more expedient manner... not build brand new ones that serve little purpose until the whole new infrastructure is in place. 

I find this all interesting... I live in Virginia, and we're doing the above approach, before diving into an all out HSR approach.

[mramsey]

There's the crux of the issue here... some believe the first step should be to fix the current neglected and deteriorating rail infrastructures that provide more benefits to all users (freight, passenger, commuter) in a more expedient manner... not build brand new ones that serve little purpose until the whole new infrastructure is in place. 

I find this all interesting... I live in Virginia, and we're doing the above approach, before diving into an all out HSR approach.

California has never had a truly direct rail route connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles, which are all of about 340 miles apart as the crow (or airliner) flies.  We can all picture the Coast Daylight, but despite the elegant streamlining, the trip took 10 hours due to the circuitous coastal route.  I can drive between the two cities in 6 to 7 hours via I-5, an expensive piece of infrastructure which was built in semi-usable segments over 20 years.

We can and do fix commuter lines around the edges, and Caltrain, ACE, Capitol Corridor, and Metrolink have all been setting ridership records of late.  Useful (less than 4 hour) rail travel between SF and LA can really only be accomplished with new infrastructure.

[mramsey]

Thanks John because one of these posters is beginning to piss me off.

Sorry guys, "science" is just another religion, prototype railroad "News" has nothing to do with politics, the fact that Japan, China, S Korea, France, Germany, Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, etc., can afford long term infrastructure projects, while our own deteriorates, has nothing to do with skewed spending priorities or tax policy.  I get it, it was my mistake for expressing my own deviant opinion as to why California HSR system might just be worth the astronomical expense (nearly 4% of what we spent to fix Afghanistan and Iraq!), to me (who will happily pay the added tax, despite likely never getting to ride it) and perhaps others.  I'll go back to quietly looking at the nice pictures...

[John]

It's ok to post opinions on most things -- but we try to stay away from anything that could be controversial and try to keep the focus on the cho-choos