Ray LaHood's European Vacation

US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has been touring European HSR systems in recent days and is coming away impressed:

Spain's bullet train system is a model to follow as America plans how to spend the money the government is injecting to stimulate the economy, the U.S. transportation secretary said Saturday....

The Spanish network is likely to interest the U.S. government because its specially designed, electrified tracks — first devised for the French TGV system — are not as expensive to lay and run as some German or Japanese alternatives.

And Spanish state-of-the-art tunneling technology has proved successful in boring efficiently through mountain ranges to reach the cities of Valladolid and Malaga.

LaHood met with Spain's Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to discuss how investing in such a train system could stimulate job creation in the U.S.

"Yesterday I traveled on a train at close to 350 kilometers (215 miles) per hour, the fastest I've ever ridden on a high-speed train," LaHood said. He said he had enjoyed a conversation and beverage aboard and found the experience very civilized.

"Our leaders have made the decision that America will have high speed rail," LaHood said.

As a longtime aficionado of the AVE system I am pleased, but not surprised, to see LaHood taking to the Spanish system. Because the Iberian Peninsula had its own rail gauge, Spain had to build all-new tracks using standard gauge for the AVE - meaning they have dedicated HSR tracks just as California will. Of particular interest is the tunneling technology Spain has employed, as The Transport Politic points out:

What is clear is that the distinctively Spanish obsession with using tunnel boring machines (TBM) seems to be a model for the Transportation Secretary; these semi-automated devices save on both time and cost in building underground rail corridors. For example, the 3.5 mile tunnel under downtown Barcelona, which is part of a larger project that will allow high-speed trains from central Spain to reach France, will only cost 180 million Euros to build. That’s far cheaper per mile than any similar U.S. tunneling project, and part of the explanation is the efficient use of those TBMs.

TBMs will be a godsend here in California where significant tunneling in the Pacheco Pass and Tehachapi Mountain areas will be needed to complete the system. Of course, I am sure that the Peninsula NIMBYs will seize on this as well as an argument that their tunnel is financially viable - which it probably isn't, and besides, they need to defend the position that their tunnel is more important than the all-important Pacheco and Tehachapi tunnels which are sorta necessary for the whole project to work as intended.

It's also possible that the tour is going to reconfirm for Ray LaHood the importance of adopting European safety standards for HSR trainsets. The FRA's weight rules need to be modernized - the current rules are an embarrassment and an impediment to proper HSR development in America. As the head of the Department that includes the FRA, LaHood is in a strong position to insist that the FRA enter the 21st century.

Perhaps the most important aspect of LaHood's visit is intangible - a renewed commitment to building European-style HSR here in America. Currently the only project that meets that standard is California's. I have every reason to believe this trip to France and Spain will bolster LaHood's demonstrated conviction that California's HSR project is deserving of robust federal support.

The Five Year Curve

One of the best train bloggers out there is DoDo, and over at the European Tribune he offers one of his best pieces yet - an examination of the AVE system's ridership growth and a comparison to other HSR systems around the world. He draws two key conclusions, which I'll explore in some detail below (though you need to read his full post to get the full picture), the first of which is:

What should be striking is that traffic seems to reach its full potential in at least five years. (Air/rail market share data would have been more appropriate for this purpose, but it's harder to come by, and you get the picture.)...

The lesson from this: high-speed rail (and not just high-speed) is a long-term investment. Do not insist on instant success -- but do expect a permanent change in travel patterns.

In short, if the LA-SF route is fully opened around 2018, then we will not see the "full potential" reached until 2023. However, we WILL see a permanent long-term shift in how Californians get around this state, which is of course the core goal here.

DoDo uses as his model the AVE line from Madrid to Barcelona, which was finally completed about a year ago. It replaced the "Puente Aéreo" - the "air bridge" between Madrid-Barajas and Barcelona-El Prat that was the world's busiest air route by flights. The "Puente AVE" as DoDo calls it has eaten heavily into the Puente Aéreo, to the point where the AVE trains now take about 50% of the market share of Madrid-Barcelona travelers.

But as DoDo also notes, the Madrid-Barcelona AVE, despite those impressive gains in modal share, has yet to meet ridership expectations:

RENFE missed its own expectation for the entire line by almost 250,000 -- and that for the Madrid-Barcelona relation alone by 300,000. Only the last few months of Spanish intercity traffic were affected by the economic crisis, so there is something else at play here. I criticised high ticket prices a year ago, and I find that this has indeed become a theme in the Spanish media over the past year. Even at the anniversary press conference, where new airline-style last-minute discounts were announced.

What explains this? To DoDo the answer is obvious: "all potential customers won't try out a new offer instantly - you have to wait for people to discover that the new alternative is better."

This leads to DoDo's second key conclusion - that there are certain bad decisions that typically get made by HSR builders and governments in response to the slow start (though some of these bad decisions are made in the design and construction phase):

It happens actually quite often that a major new rail project gets off to a really bad start, generating bad publicity -- and then turns into a solid mainstay of the transport system a few years later (with less media coverage). To sum up the reasons:

1. an expectation that people will change travel patterns instantly;



2. financing (e.g. interest rates and period of maturity) and rosy projections themselves are tailored for short-term expectations on profitability;



3. after diverse construction delays, (especially high-speed) lines are often opened half-finished (missing sections, stations, local transit connections, trains, signalling), and thus can't realise their full potential instantly



4. when the builders become nervous about their ridership projections (be it due to cost overruns or 'half-finished' openings as per above), they tend to bet on passengers accepting higher ticket prices -- which usually doesn't work out.

I can all too easily envision some or all of these coming true in California. And though DoDo explains how SNCF successfully handled some of these issues in the early 1980s, under the Socialist leadership of François Mitterand (bringing down ticket prices to encourage long-term ridership growth), I think that at this stage in the process we have the opportunity to avoid some of these problems.

First, we cannot expect ridership goals to be met immediately. DoDo's analysis shows they will be met but not until around five years have passed. This will produce hackles from the usual HSR deniers (who will still be with us in ten years' time) - the Wendell Coxes and Martin Engels who will say that "omg you haven't met ridership - the HSR train is a boondoggle! kill all remaining extension plans!" We must resist them patiently but firmly and let the project steadily attract riders.

Second, we need to oversee the financing process to ensure that the project's finances are not going to be imperiled by expectations of high ridership out the gate. This is a long-term project; its financing should be long-term as well. This is one reason I am skeptical of some of the more broad public-private proposals for how to fund the train. Government has the luxury of waiting for the system to mature and work properly; the private sector instead demands immediate profits at the expense of long-term planning (and we see how well THAT worked out).

Third, construction delays. I have always said that we are likely to see both delays and cost overruns, but that we can and should work to ensure the are minimal. Sometimes the two are linked - Peninsula NIMBYs are inherently arguing that it is OK to both make the HSR project more delayed and more expensive to suit their demands. We may well see similar problems on other sections of the route. We cannot let these delays compromise the overall system. The route has always been intended to be opened in stages, as was BART, but the finances, operation, and political support for the project cannot be made dependent on that staging. Further, the stages should be opened for practical reasons, and not in an effort to cut corners or costs. Again the long-term vision for the system must be kept in mind at all times.

Fourth, fares. Whether the $55 fare from SF-LA is possible even in 2018 dollars is an open question. But the system cannot raise ticket prices to try and cover financial shortfalls or cost overruns if they are to build a long-term ridership base.

It is entirely possible that ten years from now the short-sighted short-term political and economic worldview that helped create the present economic mess will have been replaced with a renewed emphasis on long-term planning and infrastructure, and that Californians will be willing to wait a few years for HSR ridership to rise to expectations.

But I wouldn't bet on it. Instead we are going to have to continue to fight to ensure that HSR is built the right way, the proper way, without compromising for people who put all sorts of petty and small concerns above the HSR project itself.

Gavin Newsom's TGV Trip

San Francisco mayor and candidate for California governor Gavin Newsom is in France this week and toured the TGV, hoping to boost his profile on sustainable transportation. He also took the occasion to reiterate support for an HSR tunnel to the Transbay Terminal:

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom took a tour of the French high speed rail system (TGV) in Paris Monday and said that California's new version of the train is a "requirement" for the Transbay Terminal being planned for San Francisco's South of Market area.

"Since the onset of this project, I have been committed to the grand vision of Transbay, including high speed rail, a downtown extension for Caltrain and the visionary multi-use terminal itself," Newsom said. "Including the rail box as part of the terminal construction is necessary for this grand vision to be realized."...

Newsom's office has said that the plans are not certain as to whether the rail would come into the Transbay Terminal. He said it was vital that it did.

“We’re not going to build a $2 billion bus station under my watch,” said Newsom.

The Transbay Joint Powers Board, which oversees development of the Transbay Terminal, has considered building the first phase of the new terminal without the train terminal, and coming back later to excavate under the terminal and build for high speed rail only if subsequent funding materializes.

On Monday, Newsom came out against that idea, suggesting that the Transbay Joint Powers Board should not move forward on construction of the new transit center until funding is secured for the inclusion of high speed rail and it is fully integrated into the first phase of the project.

We've been calling for someone in San Francisco to assert some leadership on this and while it's great that Newsom is stepping up, the fact is that he does not bring much to the table in terms of financing. If he can get Senators Feinstein or Boxer to step up with including funding for the train box and tunnel in the stimulus, that would be fantastic. Newsom and Obama have a famously frosty relationship so that's not likely to help matters. Still, if Newsom can play a mediative role between the Transbay JPB and the CHSRA that would be helpful.

Newsom also said that the DTX and the train box would be ideal targets of an Obama stimulus. Unfortunately those chances appear to be receding. The DeFazio amendment I wrote about last night has been withdrawn:

We received word this afternoon that Rep. DeFazio's amendment that would have provided $2 billion in assistance to transit agencies was required to be withdrawn. We'll post more as we learn it, but had something to do with parliamentary issues.

There's reports out there that Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, is planning to offer an amendment to the stimulus that would add as much as $10 billion in rail funding. I don't know the details on that, but you'll surely get them as soon as I do.

The Globalized Rail Industry

Over at the European Tribune DoDo offers an excellent look at how globalization has affected the manufacturing of HSR trainsets. This clearly has implications for our own high speed rail system, since most of the manufacturers who would provide trainsets for California HSR are based in other countries (though I hope and expect they will produce the cars here in CA). Anyhow, it's a very good read and surveys not only the technical aspects of HSR technology but the political considerations behind them, how shifting markets in both Europe and Asia have driven innovation. For example:

Alstom's ambitions in particular were long hampered by SNCF's unwillingness to order the AGV: they preferred the lower price and reliability of the TGV (and the higher capacity of the double-deck Duplex) over (relatively minor) improvements in performance.

The AGV, you'll recall, was the trainset that Fiona Ma rode in 2007, a trip that did much to raise the profile of HSR here in California. Had SNCF been willing to order the AGV it could have made that technology a more readily available option to us in California. True, that option is still there, but it's my belief that the CHSRA will - rightly, in my view - prefer to go with a more commonplace trainset than something untested and new.

Perhaps it will be Spain that pushes the envelope most effectively:

Finally, there is the above mentioned announced threat to everyone from Spain, the Talgo AVRIL. To cut Madrid-Barcelona times to 1h45m(!), the targeted service top speed is 380 km/h. With Talgo's expertise, this should be considered with more seriousness than China's ambition -- but not without doubts. Talgo named its current top product Talgo 350, but it is certified for only 330 km/h (with insufficient power and ride quality among the likely reasons).

380 km/h is about 236 mph, which would achieve the CHSRA's stated goal of 220 mph top speeds on the line. If Talgo can deliver that service to RENFE then it becomes much more likely California can get that as well.

It's likely that all of these will be evaluated when the Central Valley test track is built. But I have to believe that past performance will be a factor as well - if, say, the Talgo AVRIL can reliably accomplish its intended speeds in Spain then it would augment a successful test here in California.

Ultimately this decision has political ramifications, and the state of the global HSR market will play a major role. So go have a look at DoDo's post to get better acquainted with that market.

How Sacramento (and other CA cities) Will Benefit From Prop 1A

Today's Sacramento Bee examines what Sacramento gets out of Proposition 1A and high speed rail. The article wants to generate some controversy about the fact that Sacramento is going to be included in a later phase of construction, but few of the folks interviewed were willing to play along. Instead the article provides one of the most detailed and strongest arguments for voters not living along the SF-LA "spine" to support Proposition 1A.

Rail Authority executive Mehdi Morshed said his agency's studies indicate the first segment will be a moneymaker – and income would be used to extend the line to Sacramento and San Diego.

That's the rub for Sacramento.

"Unless somebody builds the San Francisco to Los Angeles segment, Sacramento will never be built because it will never pencil out," Morshed said. "You need to have the cash cow (first)."

Morshed isn't just speaking in the abstract. Both the French TGV and Spanish AVE systems have followed a similar trajectory, where an initial line became so popular it created the political will and the financial capacity to expand new lines. The TGV puts SNCF in the black and subsidizes not only new HSR lines but the rest of SNCF's passenger rail operations. The first AVE lines helped pay for expansions of the system, including the route from Madrid to Barcelona.

Representative Doris Matsui, whose district is primarily comprised of Sacramento, agrees, especially on the need to use a starter line to build momentum for more extensions:

"For me it would be easier to look favorably on this if Sacramento were in the loop early on," said Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento. "We are the capital city. Why not?"

But, she said, "We're never going to get there unless we take the first step. If California comes out ahead, we benefit."

Matsui's approach is sound - realizing that Sacramento benefits when the state as a whole benefits - which it will once the SF-LA line is under way.

Sacramento benefits in more tangible and immediate ways and the article's author, Tony Bizjak, should be commended for explaining to readers that Sacramento's existing passenger rail systems are in line for a much-needed financial boost from Prop 1A:

The bond measure sets aside at least $47 million for improvements to Sacramento's popular Capitol Corridor passenger train line.

Sacramento Regional Transit, which runs light rail and buses, also is in line to receive at least $21 million.

Capitol Corridor train chief Gene Skoropowski is a vocal bond measure supporter, and said his trains between Auburn and the Bay Area would work in tandem with bullet trains, at first in San Jose, and eventually in Sacramento.

"Our service would likely become a major feeder-collector," he said. "People would take our train to Sacramento or San Jose to connect up with the high-speed trains."

The Capitol Corridor trains, RT light-rail trains and Amtrak trains would meet up with bullet trains at the downtown Sacramento railyard transit depot.

$47 million can go quite a long way for the Capitol Corridor, as would $21 million for Sacramento's RT. For the Capitol Corridor that money could purchase new train cars, and upgrade existing sections of track to improve the route's already remarkable on-time percentage - 93.8% in September 2008.

Other passenger rail systems around the state will receive immediate benefits from Prop 1A. The Pacific Surfliner that connects SLO, Santa Barbara, Ventura, LA, Orange County, and San Diego is in line for about $45 million, as are the San Joaquins. The San Joaquin money would be significant since upgrades there could help passengers in Sacramento reach the Merced HSR station more quickly. Metrolink is to receive some money, and the long-planned Coast Daylight, a train from SF to LA via the coast route (Salinas, SLO, Santa Barbara) could also get fully funded.

The article closes by showing how Congress is already poised to begin directing federal money to the HSR project:

Congress also recently established a $1.5 billion grant program to promote high-speed rail. Rep. Matsui said California should line up well for a chunk of that money if voters approve the bond.

That money isn't the full federal match that will be needed, of course - but it IS a clear indication of Congressional willingness to provide money, especially when the US Senate is prepared to push a much larger HSR funding plan in 2009.

Of course, Sacramento can expect to someday be included on the HSR route. We here in Monterey will never be included. But both of our cities will benefit, immediately, from Prop 1A when it passes. And we will benefit in the long term from the HSR line that will make passenger rail travel in our state much quicker, efficient, and available to all of us, even we folks on the Central Coast who make regular trips to Southern California.

Ghettoizing Rail

The Progressive Policy Institute released a study earlier this week calling for a major national investment in high speed rail. Their study reads like a greatest hits of the arguments we've cited repeatedly on this blog - the airline crisis, economic stimulus, environmental benefits, and transportation needs.

The study calls for massive investment in five national HSR corridors, including LA-SF. To pay for this the study proposes a dedicated source of funding - a Rail Trust Fund that would provide for HSR as well as other rail service. Its sources would include:

• A ticket tax on all passenger rail systems, from $5 for Amtrak to $1 for commuter rails


• Charging freight companies fees to haul along new rails


• Encouraging state matching funds along the highway model (80 fed/20 state)


• Proceeds from auction of cap-and-trade (I have also proposed using an outright carbon tax or congestion charge as well)

I would personally just close the Highway Trust Fund, which is obsolete, and turn THAT into the Rail Trust Fund. But the above proposals are a good starting point.

The Progressive Policy Institute, alongside numerous other think tanks, understands the importance of providing passenger rail service at fast speeds to both improve existing rail routes and provide new service where none currently exists. California's high speed rail project will accomplish both goals.

But to hear the HSR deniers tell it, we somehow don't need HSR. That's their new line of attack - HSR is unnecessary and we should not spend $10 billion on it when we could spend the money on BART to Livermore, for example. Seriously, someone proposed that as an alternative to HSR in an email to me, despite the fact that there's about a 100 to 1 difference in the number of riders the two would serve. I'd love BART to Livermore, but come on, it pales in comparison to the service benefits of HSR.

I'll be first in line to agree that we need to improve existing passenger rail service. And hey, guess what? HSR accomplishes precisely that. Those who live along the Caltrain corridor will see major service improvements to Caltrain. Eliminating grade crossings means faster service and shorter trips even on local trains. Passengers could also transfer at Palo Alto or Redwood City (whichever is chosen) to make their journey to SF or San José that much quicker.

The anti-HSR forces are dominated by Northern Californians, which is significant. Southern Californians understand the benefits of HSR, partly because their region is much larger. Anaheim, Burbank, Riverside and Palmdale are already connected to downtown LA via Metrolink and the Pacific Surfliner in some cases, but HSR would make those trips much faster. The Surfliners already connect LA to SD, but HSR will cut that travel time in half if not better - faster than driving. And instead of seeing HSR and other passenger rail as somehow opposed, SoCal rail advocates embrace both systems.

We can look abroad to see evidence of this. In France the TGVs aren't the only form of rail travel. They are well integrated with, for example, the Paris Metro and the RER regional trains. All work together to boost each other's ridership and provide different levels of service that meet most possible travel needs.

What the HSR deniers are trying to do with this "oh we don't need HSR" argument is ghettoize passenger rail and ensure that Californians are never given the chance to use it more widely and frequently than they already do. High speed rail will bring new riders to the rails, rescuing them from a collapsing airline industry and from ever-rising gas prices. The big gap in California's passenger rail network is LA-SF, one of the most heavily traveled corridors of any kind anywhere in the state. HSR would open that corridor to rail, providing a rising tide that lifts all boats and building support around the state for increased investment in rail.

The HSR deniers should be more honest about their motives. It's not that they think HSR is the wrong kind of rail - but that they don't want new rail service period. They believe, against all evidence, that California is just fine relying on planes and cars. They want passenger rail to serve a small niche and not the masses. We reject that narrow, outdated thinking. It's time for California to join the 21st century and build a real high speed train system that can get this state moving again.

Wednesday Open Thread

Note: Robert is honeymooning all week. Regular posting will resume August 3. Until then use these open threads to discuss anything related to the California high speed rail project.

Comment Starter: How did you first become interested in high speed rail? Was it a trip on a European or Asian HSR system? Repeated trips on California passenger rail that led you think "a bullet train would make this SO much easier?"

HSR Is An Attractive Investment

In the comments on the previous post there is an interesting discussion about private investment in high speed rail, including some understandable concerns about whether that money will materialize given the worsening credit crunch facing the global economy.

California HSR is actually very well positioned to benefit from this, and there is every reason to expect that private investors will line up around the block to be a part of it. To understand that point we must first look to France where SNCF has turned a profit by emphasizing high speed rail. (H/T to The Overhead Wire)

Guillaume Pepy, SNCF chairman and chief executive (PDG) since February, says that, unlike his predecessors who had to manage a railway recession, he is presiding over an accelerating boom. The state-owned SNCF delivered a net €1.1bn (£875m) profit last year and first-half figures, due next week, are said to be sparkling. Pepy envisages up to 80m extra passenger trips this year or an increase of around 8%.

"This change will speed up because we are facing a twin energy and environment crisis," he says, pointing to surging fuel costs and growing personal worries about carbon footprints. "People want sustainable mobility and, in France, more trains and more SNCF."

Rail travel is booming around the world as well as here in California, as the latest numbers prove. Given that oil prices are going to remain high for the foreseeable future, we can reasonably expect train ridership to continue rising.

In other words, ridership will grow. And what do private investors look for? Growth opportunities. Don't be fooled by the weakening economy - there remains an enormous amount of capital sloshing around global markets, looking for a good rate of return. Currently a lot of that capital is in oil, creating speculation that is partly responsible for the high level of oil prices (but only partly - the underlying fundamentals of insufficient supply to meet demand remain likely to keep prices high for a long time to come).

But even though oil prices are on a long-term upward trajectory, they are also volatile. Over the last week prices fell by $10/bbl before rising again. Private capital would prefer a much more stable and reliable investment. Something fixed, that won't be ephemeral, and something that offers the prospect of long-term growth.

Meaning infrastructure. It's no accident that the largest funds are looking to own physical things instead of worthless mortgage tranches or the declining dollar. Abu Dhabi's purchase of the iconic Chrysler building is but one example of the trend. More relevant is Argentina's high speed rail example, financed by a French bank.

High speed rail would be an extremely attractive investment even in a bad economy and during a credit crunch. It offers returns with very little risk. Every high speed rail system in the world has strong ridership levels and most generate operating surpluses. SNCF relied on it to return to profitability. Here in California the long-term airline crisis and oil crisis, as well as global warming rules, will help sustain high levels of demand.

The key is public funding. A presentation at the June 2008 CHSRA meeting explained the results of a survey of private investors who might be interested in our project. Many were supportive, but said that they needed a minimum of 60% public funding to be willing to invest, and would be most comfortable with 75%. In other words, the state of California needs to provide the first stake, and then the federal government.

Given that HSR is such an undisputed global success, it should not be difficult to attract private investment. Proposition 1 is the necessary first step to bringing that about. If we vote for it, we will build it - and they will come.

Oooo! Shiny Maglev Toy!

One constant feature of HSR activism are the folks who don't think it's a good enough idea. These people turn up their noses at HSR as being too mainstream, too boring. No, what we really need is some gee-whiz technological solution that has never really been tried successfully on a large scale anywhere, but looks cool. Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) is one of these - the Facebook HSR groups often get visited by these folks who try to convince us we're wasting our time with HSR and that PRT is going to solve all our problems.

Even more common than PRT acolytes are the maglev promoters. They like the idea of fast passenger trains but conventional HSR technology just isn't fast enough for them (I guess 200 mph trains are old hat to some). So they insist on exploring maglev technology - and for some it's maglev or nothing.

Maglev is an interesting concept, but notoriously difficult to construct, and a real budget-buster (the HSR deniers really should focus their attention on maglev, where they might actually have a point). Such was the fate of Munich's maglev project - intended to link central Munich to the airport, the project costs doubled and when the German government refused to increase its contribution, private backers pulled out. Shanghai's maglev line is experiencing ridership problems and China has chosen to use conventional HSR technology to connect Beijing to Tianjin (which is set to open on August 1).

But that doesn't stop the American media from fawning all over maglev. They've been doing it for as long as I can remember - it was in the late '80s or early '90s that the Southern California media was all over a proposal to link Anaheim to Vegas via maglev. The media loves nothing more than a neato piece of technology, which seems to explain MSNBC's maglev article:

Could America’s fastest train whisk us away from $4-a-gallon gas guzzlers?

Thanks to a $45 million infusion from a transportation bill signed by President Bush in early June, there could someday be a magnetic levitating train, or “maglev,” soaring from Disneyland to Las Vegas at a maximum speed of 310 mph — 180 mph on average.

After the research phase is complete in about three years, the private partnership behind the effort, American Magline Group, comes to its biggest crossroads: obtaining $12 billion in funding for construction.

The article goes on to discuss some of the pros and cons of maglev, selling it as a solution to high gas prices but concerned about the construction cost and the routing. But nowhere are the other HSR lines on the American drawing board - including ours here in California - discussed, even though they're much closer to reality.

And it's not like HSR lacks for technological interest. Assemblywoman Fiona Ma was on the record-setting Alstom TGV journey in 2007, reaching a top speed of 574 kmh, or 357 mph. The California system is planned to hit 220 mph, which would be the fastest train in North America by far.

It's unfortunate, though not surprising, that it's the shiny new toy that gets the media attention. Californians deserve to hear more information about high speed rail, especially realistic explanations about what it is, how it works, and how it has succeeded around the world. I guess we'll just have to do that on our own.

I'm not against PRT or maglev per se. But Americans need high speed rail to connect their cities, especially with the environmental and energy crises we face. HSR is a tried and true technology, and 220 mph isn't anything to sneeze at. Let's focus on the task at hand, and if folks want to continue researching and testing maglev, have at it - but it doesn't need to compete with HSR.

Answering the Sac Bee's HSR Questions

Yesterday the Sacramento Bee said "answers are needed before November" on high speed rail. Let's see what we can do, shall we?

But the authority's preferred route for high-speed rail between the Central Valley and the Bay Area has always been the Pacheco Pass. To win over environmentalist opponents who worry that a new rail corridor through sparsely populated Pacheco Pass will induce sprawl, the authority wants to add Altamont as a potential recipient for funding. Thus the Galgiani bill. Because it's closer to Sacramento, Altamont has the added advantage that it would likely bring high-speed rail to the capital city earlier.

The sprawl opponents' main concern was addressed when a station at Los Banos was deleted. I've not encountered any environmentalist or enviro group that believes Altamont would be better from a sprawl perspective. If that belief is out there it's not driving the effort to revisit Altamont - that instead is being done by Central Valley lobbying organizations and of course, Cathleen Galgiani herself, whose district lies along the Altamont corridor.

While the Galgiani bill may improve high-speed rail bonds' chances at the polls, it does not resolve all the issues surrounding it. As Sen. Alan Lowenthal, the chairman of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee recently observed, the high-speed bond act is not "a conventional public works project" – a dam or road, for example, built with borrowed money to be repaid with taxes or fees on the users or beneficiaries. Voters are being offered a "business proposition" – and a highly speculative one.

Alan Lowenthal is wrong. There is not much difference between a dam, a new freeway, and high speed rail. HSR is a commonplace public works project. It's only "not conventional" if you deny the existence of the rest of the world. Yes, it's new for California, but that does not make it some sort of totally crazy and unpredictable new idea. It's been perfected over the decades into a rather humdrum and normal project.

The High Speed Rail Authority assumes that the $9.95 billion in state bond money when combined with an unknown and uncertain amount of federal and local funding will attract enough private investors to finance the full $33 billion cost of the first phase of the project, between San Francisco, Los Angeles and Anaheim.

The private investment issue is uncertain, that I will grant. But who really believes federal funding is uncertain? Veto-proof majorities just supported $14 billion for Amtrak in the US Congress including some for HSR. Yes, it would be smart of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, or some other California leader in Washington DC would direct some funds to the CA HSR project as a down payment on federal support, but given the broad support for passenger rail in the Congress, and Barack Obama's outspoken support for high speed rail the chances look very good for federal funding.

And as the Sac Bee editorial board surely knows, the feds aren't going to commit funding until California does. Someone has to make the first move here, otherwise we all just stare at each other.

The authority also assumes that high-speed rail operated by a private consortium will generate enough revenue to repay investors, cover annual costs and provide a profit. And, the authority says, high-speed rail won't need operating subsidies from the state.

That assumes operating subsidies are a bad thing. But even if we said they were, HSR lines around the world show operating profits. None require subsidies. SNCF, the French government train operator, is going to pay the government a €131 million dividend. As ridership is soaring on all rail lines in California surely there is cause to believe California HSR will be as successful as lines around the world.

Those are a lot of questionable assumptions. While there are obvious benefits to a modern high-speed rail network, particularly with fuel prices soaring, the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee outlined a number of potential risks and unknowns associated with this project. It raised doubts about the authority's ability to gain access to rights-of-way necessary to build a new rail corridor, especially through parts of Southern California already heavily congested with conventional passenger and freight rail networks. It noted that the financing plan relies on outdated estimates of construction costs.

But as a commenter explained a few days back these concerns are overblown:

It is quite surprising and upsetting that the media and nay-sayers are portraying this right-of-way issue as a deal killer when the CHSRA is already aware of these obstacles and trying to address them.

The CHSRA is not as of yet absolutely counting on using the freight rights of way. They acknowledge that doing so will minimize impacts and probably reduce, but according to the Bay Area to Central Valley EIR/EIS, they are not planning to try to seek agreements until the high-speed rail project has been given a go ahead by the state and the voters.

Doesn't this make sense? Why would we have this state agency make agreements that it can't back up? Hopefully there will be a successful negotiation between UPRR and CHSRA, but if not there is nowhere in the studies that indicated this will irrevocably hamper the project.

Well said. The Bee continues:

In the face of the state's big deficit, Lowenthal asks the key question: "What assurance can the authority provide that California taxpayers will not be stuck with a massive bill in the future if they approve the bond measure on the November ballot?"

It's a question high-speed rail advocates must answer for this measure to have a chance of passage.

Here the SacBee has shown it does not understand this issue at all. The key question is NOT what the financial cost of HSR will be - but instead what is the cost of not building HSR? The Bee's implicit assumption is that either we take a supposed risk on HSR or we save money by not building it.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Not building HSR consigns Californians and their economy to reliance on methods of travel that are undergoing major stress from high fuel prices - prices that are not expected to come down anytime soon, if ever. The SacBee should answer that question: what are they prepared to pay if we do not build HSR? Have they considered that not building HSR might in fact be the more costly and risky option?

Probably not. But then that's why we're here. To ask the questions our state's media won't. And to provide the leadership few else seem interested in providing. California's high speed rail project won't just be a boost for sustainable, affordable transit here, but will open the doors to high speed rail across the country. It's time for Californians to act like leaders again - and not fall prey to obsolete and disproved assumptions phrased in the form of a question.

High Speed Rail isn't a Toy

A growing phenomenon in media commentary on high speed rail seems to be an embrace of the necessity and value of the system, but an unwillingness to part with 20th century dogma on taxes and government spending in figuring out how to pay for it. We saw that with Bruce Reed's HSR op-ed last week, and we see it today with Thomas Elias' op-ed in the Long Beach Press-Telegram. Elias opens by recounting fast, efficient, and comfortable trips in France on the TGV, and then examines the California plan:

The question: In a day when the state may run a $15 billion deficit or more and when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has tried for across-the-board 10 percent budget cuts, how can we afford a massive new toy? Many equate the high-speed train idea to a family that wants to buy a new Ferrari when it can only afford macaroni and cheese for dinner.

But high speed trains may be more than a mere luxury. They can make business travel between urban centers easier and more comfortable, without many of the restrictions and complications terror fears have brought to air travel. They can also restore California's aura of leading the way toward a better lifestyle for all Americans. The trains would be instant tourist attractions, with reservations booked months in advance.

Elias would be a stronger advocate of HSR if he more strongly discounted the "HSR is an expensive toy" claim - in fact, the price of gas is turning ALL cars into Ferraris, at least in terms of cost, and HSR is the affordable mac-and-cheese alternative. Yes, HSR is more comfortable, but it won't be just for tourists and businessmen - it will be the most affordable way for average Californians to visit mom and dad at Christmas, to go to their child's graduation in June, to get to work in the morning. All HSR advocates need to internalize this thinking - our cause is MUCH stronger if we show people that HSR is the affordable workaday transportation solution for the 21st century, instead of taking a "gee whiz" attitude that was outdated even in the 1970s.

That quibble aside, Elias' op-ed is primarily concerned with funding:

These realities suggest the financing plan now proposed, with a conventional bond to be paid off by all state taxpayers, might not be the best way to finance a massive project like high speed rail.

Why should all taxpayers pay for a toy that will be used only by a few? Why should taxes from people in Redding or Chico be used for a rail system that will never approach those cities, even as it serves the likes of Bakersfield, Fresno, Madera and Stockton?

The plain answer is that residents there should not be taxed for this. Nor should poor Californians in Los Angeles, the San Joaquin Valley or the San Francisco Bay area who will rarely if ever ride these trains. For it is reality that - just as in Europe or Japan - fares on high-speed trains would be considerably higher than on conventional ones.

So unlike dams or highways or public hospitals or sewers, high speed rail should be built neither with general obligation bonds, as now proposed, nor with general fund revenues on a pay-as-you-go basis.

Rather, revenue bonds are the answer. Many an American stadium, toll road, bridge, airport terminal and short-cut tunnel has been built this way, with borrowed money that is eventually paid back by users of the project.

In short, since high-speed rail is not as essential as freeways or ordinary passenger and freight trains, why finance it the same way? Just as air fares are now taxed to pay for increased airport security, high speed rail tickets could be priced to meet bond payments. Just as hotel guests are often taxed to pay for improvements and services intended for tourist use, why not make high speed train riders pay in full for the service they are enjoying?

The framing here is absolutely atrocious. HSR isn't as essential as freeways? Or ordinary passenger trains?! Most Californians will never use it?! While I welcome Elias' support of HSR his assumptions are completely wrong. Freeways are the true luxury - they are an astronomical cost in subsidies, pollution, global warming, congestion, and fuel. Elias wants us to believe that this is "reality" but instead it's a 1970s worldview passed off as fact. Ordinary Californians, including those in the working-classes, use intrastate air travel rather frequently, and will also use HSR frequently - especially as they won't be able to afford air travel or long-distance road travel for much longer.

The reality is that HSR is exactly like a dam, a highway, a public hospital, or a sewer. It will be an essential piece of public infrastructure without which society will have a hard time functioning. Just as the State Water Project in the 1950s enabled the state's economic prosperity of the late 20th century, so too will HSR enable growth and prosperity in the 21st century. Without it the state will be dependent on oil-based transportation that the rest of the world is already abandoning - leaving California uncompetitive and making it difficult to get around the state.

Elias' awful framing aside, I'm not opposed in theory to using a revenue bond to pay for HSR. I have no doubt that HSR will attract enough riders to pay back the bonds. One advantage of a general obligation bond, however, is that it makes it more likely to attract the private investment that state politicians are demanding before they sign off on HSR. Investors see a general obligation bond as a safer risk than a revenue bond, which is especially important against the backdrop of a global credit crunch.

And despite my criticisms of the way Elias is selling HSR, as with Bruce Reed's op-ed I am again pleased that we seem to be moving away from a debate over whether HSR is necessary to one of how we should pay for it. It's a sign of real progress.

Fiona Ma: It's Now or Never

As you probably know by now, we here at the California High Speed Rail blog are HUGE fans of Fiona Ma. She has taken the lead on high speed rail in the state legislature, and her trip on the record-breaking TGV journey in April 2007 was the turning point in public awareness for high speed rail in our state.

Last month Ma attended the Ecocity 2008 conference in San Francisco, and gave a powerful speech explaining the environmental and economic benefits of high speed rail. Among the points she mentioned was that transportation is the largest source of California's carbon emissions, and that the only way we will meet our AB 32 targets is to build high speed rail. The video below covers the speech, at around 10 minutes long (Ma's remarks begin at 00:45).



One of the key points she made was that California's leadership is crucial for the rest of the country to embrace high speed rail. "If we do not pass it in November, we will never have high speed trains in the US," she told the audience to loud applause. She is probably right - California is seen as a national leader, especially on technology and global warming action. But if California doesn't pass the bonds this November, it will embolden HSR deniers and discourage HSR supporters - and even more importantly, might derail the momentum currently building in Congress to drop billions of dollars on HSR. And even if momentum continued in DC, we might find that places such as Texas, the Northeast Corridor, and the Great Lakes states will move ahead on HSR while California is left behind. A defeat of the bond this November WILL kill our chances for HSR for the next ten years.

But Fiona Ma was confident that we will win in November. As she told the audience:

I think this is the perfect storm. The high cost of gasoline, the congested roadways, the long lines at the airports, and now with the airline crisis, I really believe that this is the time that Californians will pass this bond in November.

The HSR deniers don't want to discuss any of these problems - but Californians understand these problems very well. No wonder 58% of voters back the high speed rail bonds. They get it, just as Fiona Ma gets it.

Fiona Ma also called on the bloggers to help publicize high speed rail - and we've been doing exactly that for two months now. The California High Speed Rail Blog: We Do Our Part!

Arnold Marvels at HSR

From our friends at the Overhead Wire comes this Financial Times op-ed gem. Arnold Schwarzenegger was talking about a recent trip to France that included a ride on the TGV with Nicolas Sarkozy:

“I could not believe we were going at 350km an hour,” the erstwhile film action hero marvelled.

The Overhead Wire's reaction:

Believe it Governor, and make it happen here.

Amen to that. Of course, Arnold, Fiona Ma could have told you about going 575 kph. Our plan doesn't promise anything nearly that ambitious, but 350km an hour, which is what ours DOES offer, is worth Arnold's full-throated support. The legislature and the CHSRA have been busy changing the implementation plan to suit Arnold's demands, especially on private sector involvement. It's time for Arnold to come out strongly for HSR and in particular for the bond measure on the November ballot.

Programming Note: High speed rail will be the topic of discussion on KQED's Forum with Michael Krasny Monday morning at 9AM. The guest list includes Quentin Kopp, Lee Harrington of the SoCal Leadership Council, and Erik Nelson, aka the Capricious Commuter. According to Nelson, noted HSR denier Martin Engel was invited to be a guest but refused. That's pretty gutless. But it shouldn't be surprising, considering that Martin's site does not allow comments, doesn't even provide a way to contact the site's authors. Not only is it a very 1995 approach to the Internet, but it's a sign that the HSR critics are not confident in their arguments. Whereas here, we welcome all comments on the topic. We have nothing to hide, we have nothing to fear.

Arnold Schwarzenegger Says "Travel the World, Support High Speed Rail!"

I've occasionally mentioned that the origin of my support for high speed rail was a trip on Spain's AVE line from Madrid to Sevilla in 2001, in the context of a broader argument that a surefire way to generate support for rail travel is to put people on a train and show them how useful it is, and how good it could be at a high speed.

Today Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger made much the same argument, but in a rather odd way:

Speaking at a forum on global economics held by the nonprofit Milken Institute, the governor suggested lawmakers would be more willing to embrace his plans to privatize the building of roads, schools, high-speed rail systems and other public works if they could see how effectively it has worked in other countries.

"Some of them come from those little towns, you know what I am saying, they come from those little towns and they don't have that vision yet of an airport or of a highway that maybe has 10 lanes or of putting a highway on top of a highway," Schwarzenegger said. "They look at you and say, 'We don't have that in my town. What are you talking about?'

"So they are kind of shocked when you say certain things. So I like them to travel around."

It's a pretty strange way to frame the argument for a number of reasons. The overall context is Arnold's effort to defend travel junkets paid for by his corporate allies, and using high speed rail trips as an example. A closely related context is Arnold's effort to privatize everything in sight despite the poor track record of privatized government. In fact, if legislators traveled to France or Spain, they'd see a government-run high speed rail system that turns enough of a profit to seed the construction of new lines. Somehow I doubt Arnold's corporate buddies are interested in showing off the positive benefits of European socialism.

Nor am I convinced that telling legislators from small California towns that their horizons are narrow is going to accomplish much. It had a mixed effect on a Republican assemblyman from Hesperia:

Assemblyman Anthony Adams, a Republican from the mid-size city of Hesperia (population 83,000), said Schwarzenegger's comments, "while I'm sure well-intentioned, reek of a certain elitism that doesn't help foster a cooperative working relationship."

Last month, Adams toured Japan's high-speed rail system on a trip organized by the Senate Office of International Relations. He said he paid for the week of travel with campaign money and personal funds, and was impressed that Japan's system is efficient and well-managed.

"I'm awful grateful I did it," said Adams. "It will help me make the case for why high-speed rail is right for California."

I do believe that Arnold is right that Californians should embrace technologies and systems used successfully around the world. We've done this many, many times before, and in a global economy California has to keep up with Europe and Asia or fall permanently behind. And while a surefire way to create a lifelong HSR supporter is to put them on the TGV or the AVE or the Shinkansen, it's not necessary to leave the continent or even the state to see the value of HSR.

Many Californians instinctively understand why HSR is necessary when we explain the need to replace air travel for financial, environmental, and practical reasons; or when we explain the economic and climate benefits of the system. But if we want to go a step further, Arnold should be encouraging Californians to take trips on the state's extensive train network. Ride Metrorail, or Caltrain. Take a trip to Santa Barbara on the Pacific Surfliner, or a trip from Sacramento to the Bay Area on the Capitol Corridor. That would show Californians the value of rail travel as well as get them to see why high speed rail would be so much better than what we already have.

Of course, that would all require Arnold to stop trying to destroy public transportation in California. We welcome his support on HSR, but he also needs to understand HSR works best when there is a strong feeder network of mass transit.

High Speed Rail Is Simply a Better Way to Travel

John Addison publishes the Clean Fleet Report, a newsletter devoted to renewable automobiles. For Earth Day 2008 he wrote an excellent overview of the California high speed rail project that not only reinforces many of the major points in favor of high speed rail, but does so in a particularly clear and convincing manner.

The article opens with an anecdote about Fiona Ma's trip on board the record-breaking TGV trip in 2007, about how her initial worries were quickly overcome:

Fiona Ma was nervous about getting on a train that was about to set a world speed record. Just before Easter 2007 in the countryside outside Paris, she saw the people lining the green and flowered route. The French were flying flags, waving, and cheering. Less reassuring were those of faith who crossed themselves as the new train accelerated past 200 miles per hour. The people blurred into a collage of spring time colors. The train vibrated much as when a jet plane roars down the runway and starts to ascend. Fiona hoped that this train would not leave the tracks.

At three hundred miles per hour, the train was still on the tracks, accelerating. Out the window, only one image was distinct. A plane that was filming the historic event flew along side the train. Surrealistically, Fiona and the eleven other dignitaries could see what was filmed from the plane on a screen inside the train. Another LCD displayed their world record - 357 miles per hour on a train. Everyone cheered. The train slowed over the next few miles. Fiona took a deep breath, exhaled, and smiled; she took part in history.

It's a great framing device for Addison's article, especially as it mirrors some of the initial hesitancy that some Californians have about the project. By now we should be familiar with most of them - it's going to cost too much, Californians won't ride it, the budget deficit means we can't do it, construction will hurt the environment. These are the usual doubts and worries folks have before embarking on a major, transformative project. But once we look at how HSR works in practice - and once we evaluate the specific proposal - it is impossible to avoid having the same feelings of excitement and confidence that Fiona Ma felt on that train in France last year.

Addison goes on to describe the environmental benefits of HSR and the growing demand from Californians for this kind of system. He closes his article with a personal anecdote showing just how useful, efficient, and valuable HSR systems already in place - even quasi-HSR systems like the Acela - are in contrast to our decaying and sclerotic oil-based transportation systems:

As a manager covering several states, I used to travel weekly on airplanes. Point-to-point always required at least four hours to get to the airport, get thru security, taxi in the runway, fly, taxi in the runway, then rent a car. In contrast, when taking a train from Washington D.C. to New York, I found that train travel was faster than airlines and better integrated with public transportation. With high-speed rail, airline travel to cover a few hundred miles would never be a personal option.

Travel between Washington D.C. and Boston is now even faster with speeds of up to 150 miles per hour on Amtrak’s Acela, the only high-speed rail in the United States. Now you can get from the nation’s capital to downtown Manhattan in less than three hours; an impossibility with airline travel and the fastest taxi driver in New York history. Over ten million passengers road this Northeast Corridor in 2007, making it the most popular train route in the U.S. Acela is now profitable.

In 12 years, 32 to 68 million passengers may be riding on an even faster system in California. The high-speed rail will keep California’s economy moving forward, with more jobs, more energy security and far less emissions.

The US Capitol to downtown Manhattan in three hours. Downtown San Francisco to downtown LA in 2.5 hours. These are travel times that airlines simply cannot match - once you factor in total travel time including the trip to and from the airport.

Millions of Californians have stories such as this - whether it's of their travels on the Acela, the Shinkansen, the AVE, or like Fiona Ma, the TGV. While it certainly seems like the major political issues surrounding HSR will be financing and environmental impact, perhaps the most compelling and convincing arguments in its favor are those that come from personal experience. From Californians who know first-hand just how effective and valuable high speed rail really is.

What these personal accounts make clear is that high speed rail is simply a better way to travel. It offers advantages that the airlines cannot, and has a brighter, more affordable future that the airlines cannot hope to offer. HSR isn't a dragon-slayer - it's not going to put the airline industry out of business overnight - and nor is that its goal. Instead it will offer modern transportation that meets our 21st century needs - from cost to economic growth to global warming.

It just makes sense.

Legislators to Tour European High Speed Rail Systems

The California legislature takes its spring break this week, and 12 of them are going to Spain and Japan to learn more about successful high speed rail systems:

Eight California lawmakers are traveling overseas this week to study high-speed rail systems and other matters as the Legislature takes an 11-day spring break.

Assembly members Charles Calderon, D-City of Industry; Mary Hayashi, D-Hayward; Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael; and Roger Niello, R-Sacramento, are on a trip to Spain sponsored by the California Foundation on the Environment and the Economy.

Sen. Jim Battin, R-Palm Desert, and Assembly members Anthony Adams, R-Monrovia; Bonnie Garcia, R-Cathedral City; and Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, are part of a delegation visiting Japan.

One reason for the trips is to study the development of high-speed rail systems in both countries. A measure on the November ballot would authorize California to sell nearly $10 billion in bonds to help pay for a 700-mile high-speed rail system linking the state's largest cities.

I post this because it reminds me of last year's spring break trip, where Fiona Ma was aboard the record-setting TGV run - the train topped out at 574 kmh (357 mph).

It's worth noting that Spain's AVE trains were promoted by both the right and the left. Originally begun as a kind of vanity project by the PSOE (Spanish Socialists) to connect Madrid to the 1992 World's Fair in Sevilla, the line turned out to be extremely popular and profitable. PSOE lost the 1996 elections, but their right-wing successors, the Partido Popular, embarked on a major expansion of the system, including lines to Barcelona, Valladolid, Malaga, and a planned line to Valencia. PSOE is back in power in Spain and has completed these plans and announced further ambitions to connect to the Basque Country and to the Portuguese capital, Lisbon.

If Spain's bitter political rivals can agree on the value of HSR, surely California Republicans and Democrats are capable of doing the same. Republicans constantly proclaim themselves to be better for the economy and for business. As I explained yesterday, the economic stimulus that HSR would provide California is considerable. Let's hope that the Republicans on these trips come to their senses and see the need to support this fall's HSR bonds.