Reason & Rail

Argentine train crash demonstrates need for crash energy management

2012-02-22T11:08:00.001-08:00

An Argentine commuter train pulled too quickly into a station and hit the end of the line at 12 miles per hour, killing at least 49 and injuring hundreds.

The commuter train came in too fast and hit the barrier at the end of the platform at about 12 mph, smashing the front of the engine and crunching the leading cars behind it, Schiavi said. One car penetrated nearly 20 feet into the next, he said.
Most damaged was the first car, where passengers make space for bicycles. Survivors told the TeleNoticias channel that many people were injured in a jumble of metal and glass.
Passengers said windows exploded as the tops of train cars separated from their floors. The trains are usually packed with people standing between the seats, and many were thrown into each other and to the floor by the force of the hard stop.

In a previous post, I linked to the following paper, based on FRA collision tests which predicted 55 fatalities in a commuter train collision at 30 miles per hour. This seems to have been borne out by this tragedy. It would highly behoove the Federal Railroad Authority and members of Congress to, in light of this crash, reform American rail car safety standards in line with UIC standards and focusing on crash energy management to prevent the telescoping responsible for this accident. No one should have died today and no one should die in a future crash in America either.

Making the Tejon Ranch detour even more reprehensible

2012-02-14T09:04:00.001-08:00

They have been illegally killing mountain lions in order to promote their own hunting.

Unorganized thoughts and sources on electrification

2012-02-13T10:27:00.000-08:00

Initially gathered these for a post I've since dropped

Prices and Costs in the Railway Sector is a handy quick overview of very rough estimation for non-American rail costs. It's in 2000 Euros, which traded at parity with the dollar, so a simple inflation adjustment is all that's needed to bring costs up to today.

SNCF practice is to use a 60MVA substation every 40-60km and 10-15MVA autotransformers every 10-15km. These are the priciest elements of electrification, but not terribly so. Road overpass reconstructions to create clearance for electrification accommodating double stacked freight is almost certainly going to create major costs in excess of the actual electrification.

Catenary is sufficiently cheap (~$400,000 per track-kilometer) that any argument based upon the notion of delaying electrification because later improvements would require removal and reinstalling catenary ought to be ignored.

Purchasing ALP-45DPs without major modifications might be only 7.8 million per locomotive. Admittedly a high estimate compared to major freight locomotive purchases, but more affordable than their initial cost.

Amtrak's FY reports report a fuel consumption of 2.3 gallons per train-mile, but cost of diesel fuel is accelerating quickly. While Amtrak’s average for the year was $2.76 per gallon (for a total cost of $6.348 per train-mile), by September 2011 that had sharply risen and they were paying $4.38 per gallon ($10.07 per mile). Metrolink has currently secured fuel at a price of $3.25 per gallon and budgets at $3.40 per gallon in the current fiscal year ($7.48 and $7.82 per train-mile). Meanwhile Amtrak's 5 Year Financial Plan estimates a 6% annual increase in the cost of diesel with a price of 3.91 by FY2016 (page 45). I think this is probably on the optimistic side.

The British government sometime ago made available a study with a variety of actual fuel and electricity consumption figures for British trains. Of course they've redone their website since then and broken all the old links to it, but trawling around found it once more. 500 tons is close to the weight of a 6-7 car train set with American cars. Given LA Metro's price of 12 cents per kilowatt/hour, using electrical consumption figures from the Class 90 (22.62 kwh/mile), electrification with locomotives would drop fuel costs by two-thirds. EMU electrical consumption figures vary widely, down to as low as 5.7 kilowatt hours per mile, but also often being as high as a locomotive hauled consist. Off-handedly I want to suggest that third rail electrification may be more energy efficient than overhead.

Eyeballing the acceleration given in this presentation suggests a possible 20% improvement by use of electric locomotives over diesel. That said, I did not account for any difference in power capabilities.

Obama's 2013 budget and rail

2012-02-13T08:56:00.000-08:00

Taking a scan through the DoT summary:

• Provides $2.7 billion in 2013 and $47 billion over six years to develop high-speed passenger rail corridors and improve intercity passenger rail service to significantly enhance the national rail network.
...
Provides Dedicated Funding for High Speed Rail Investments. The Budget provides $47 billion over six years to fund the development of high-speed rail and other passenger rail programs as part of an integrated national strategy. This system will provide 80 percent of Americans with convenient access to a passenger rail system, featuring high-speed service, within 25 years. The proposal includes merging Amtrak’s stand-alone subsidies into the high-speed rail program as part of a larger, competitive System Preservation initiative.

American government being what it is, of course, the DoT summary appears to be contradicted by the overall. Go figure.

• Provide 80 percent of Americans with convenient access to a passenger rail system, featuring high-speed service, within 25 years. The Budget provides $47 billion over six years, plus $6 billion in 2012, to fund the development of high-speed rail and other passenger rail programs as part of an integrated national strategy. This includes merging Amtrak’s stand-alone subsidies into the high-speed rail program as part of a larger, competitive System Preservation Initiative.
•Establish a National Infrastructure Bank.
To direct Federal resources for infrastructure to projects that demonstrate the most merit and may be difficult to fund under the current patchwork of Federal programs, the President has called for the creation of an independent, non-partisan National Infrastructure Bank (NIB), led by infrastructure and financial experts. The NIB would offer broad eligibility and merit-based selection for large-scale ($100 million minimum) transportation, water, and energy infrastructure projects. Projects would have a clear public benefit, meet rigorous economic, technical and environmental standards, and be backed by a dedicated revenue stream. Geographic, sector, and size considerations would also be taken into account. The NIB would issue loans and loan guarantees to eligible projects. Loans issued by the NIB could be extended up to 35 years, giving the NIB the ability to be a “patient” partner side-by-side with State, local, and private co-investors. To maximize leverage from Federal investments, the NIB would finance no more than 50 percent of the total costs of any project.

So in the magical scenario where Obama gets his budget passed, we have an infrastructure bank and six billion this year for rail and 7.8 billion the next three years, but about a billion of it goes to Amtrak for operational subsidies.

COASTER and the Marines for TOD on Camp Pendleton

2012-02-11T08:24:00.000-08:00

From a few months ago, but I just recently came across it

The North County Transit District and the Marine Corps are joining forces to extend the Coaster commuter train north from Oceanside to a station in the heart of Camp Pendleton.

On Thursday, NCTD planners will seek approval from the board of directors to work with the military base on planning and preliminary design for a rail spur and station. The preliminary work is expected to cost up to $334,000.

If the project runs as smoothly as NCTD officials hope, within four years the base’s 70,000 daytime military and civilian personnel and 38,000 residential military family members will have on-base access to Coaster trains.

And quite likely, on-base access to Amtrak Surfliner and Metrolink trains as well.

“We’re excited to have the chance to serve North County’s largest employer,” said NCTD Chief Administrative Officer Alex Z. Wiggins in a conference call on Friday.

Earlier this year the Marine Corps approached NCTD to discuss the creation of a Coaster station on base, according to Timothy McCormich, NCTD director of services planning. The base master plan, he noted, favors high-density, transit-oriented development.

Indeed, an unprecedented construction boom is under way on base. A $65 million grocery and department store exchange has opened; a $500 million hospital is due to open in 2014; a 500-bed barracks compound for unmarried personnel is being built; and there are plans for 900 new homes.

NCTD and the Marines want to land their station in the midst of all this development, near the Stuart Mesa Housing Complex, said NCTD deputy chief operations officer Lane Fernandes.

To accomplish this, the Coaster route would be extended 2 miles on a spur track from its current terminus, Oceanside.

The planners say that among the project’s selling points is that NCTD already has its train storage and maintenance yard on Pendleton property, not far from the Stuart Mesa site. Also, they say, the military has secured environmental clearances for the area in the course of developing its current master plan.

The project fits in nicely with earlier announced plans to extend the Coaster’s southern terminus beyond Santa Fe Station, to the Convention Center. Conceivably, said Wiggins, the Coaster could provide the Navy with a single transit connection between Pendleton and the 32nd Street Naval Station.

From a business plan perspective, the base is a ripe opportunity for NCTD, which currently runs several Breeze bus routes through the base. A study last year found that a substantial number of base personnel already live on the key transit corridors served by Coaster and Sprint commuter trains.

Additionally, base personnel are motivated to use public transit. Since 2002, noted Fernandes, the Navy has reimbursed its troops and civilian employees up to $230 a month for transit pass purchases.

Fernandes and McCormich emphasize that the project is in its earliest stages and there are no actual figures yet for construction costs, timelines or even operational plans.

The first step, they say, is to get approval for the project and the planning and engineering funding from the board on Thursday.

This, I expect, would lead to a major increase in Coaster traffic as well as Surfliner ridership and revenue if they can put together integrated ticketing and cross-platform transfers at Oceanside; neither of which should be an issue thanks to the forthcoming integrated timetable and the future LOSSAN joint powers authority. With boot camp in San Diego and the School of Infantry and other advanced training at Camp Pendleton, specially chartered troop trains between San Diego and this new spur may become a fairly standard feature on the rail line.

Additionally, this may be indicative of a new trend within the US military to return to passenger rail transportation; the US Army is starting troop trains this year between Fort A.P. Hill and Fort Lee in Virginia, the first in twenty-five years, due to concerns about motor vehicle accidents and safety with the previous practice of busing.

Amtrak speeds up to 110-mph Chicago-Detroit

2012-02-07T20:49:00.000-08:00

Amtrak has received approval to raise the speed limit from 95 miles per hour to 110 miles per hour on a 98 mile line between Chicago and Detroit

Although not announced, some simple math puts the time savings at about 8.5-9 minutes not considering any additional acceleration time required and about twenty minutes all told from the 79 mile per hour speed limit. For only eight daily trains and 600,000 annual passengers, this honestly does not seem like much bang for the buck on Amtrak's part. Once again I feel that Amtrak should be divested from its infrastructure and refocus on national rail service instead of projects like this one. While I hate to be parochial (not really), the same speed increase, even over a shorter portion of the LOSSAN Line, such as from Irvine to Los Angeles, would have reaped far greater results. Three times as many trains each with about 40% more passengers as it currently is and a ten mph increase in average speeds makes it far more car competitive with one of, if not the, busiest automotive corridors in the country, leading to greater revenues for Amtrak. But instead it gets wasted out in Michigan because Amtrak owns those lines and SCRRA owns (most of) LOSSAN-South.

OCTA launching bike share program

2012-01-27T13:40:00.001-08:00

Fullerton is to be the location, starting with 15 stations and 150 bikes.

With college students in mind, transportation officials are envisioning installing the first bicycle-sharing station in the city of Fullerton to offer a band of bikes for short trips in the area.
"Fullerton appears to have more overall demand given the nearby downtown, proximity of destinations to the Metrolink station, three local colleges in the area, and a network of bike-friendly infrastructure," Orange County Transportation Authority officials said in a report.

This week, the agency's board approved putting out bids and is expected to choose a contractor for the project by May. OCTA's budget for the pilot program: $921,000.
So far, the plan is to install 15 stations with 150 bicycles serving an area of about two square miles. Officials expect that the program will grow at the Fullerton pilot location and launch in other areas of the county as funding and demand warrant.
Wes Parsel, bikeways coordinator for the agency, said the rental bicycle program is aimed toward commuters traveling fewer than 30 minutes and less than three miles, whether to get to their jobs or to run short errands.
"Especially the first and last mile from work ... from your bus or the train," said OCTA spokeswoman Laura Scheper.
The initial focus is to connect local colleges and universities with Metrolink stations, so the customers will be college students, staff and faculty.

This is a rather pleasant surprise given Orange County's poor reputation on transit. On the other hand, OCTA was responsible for the introduction of bike cars on Metrolink if memory serves. I would be more surprised by this failing than it succeeding (with the caveat that I'm not familiar enough with bike share programs to spot any glaring failures with implementation), especially in south county where bike lanes are prevalent and there are a number of destinations near Metrolink stations.

Complete contractor control of CA HSR

2012-01-26T22:31:00.000-08:00

As if it weren't bad enough that Parsons Brinkerhoff, the Authority's contractors, are not forbidden from bidding to build the system (leading to atrocities like the latest Grapevine study since inflating the cost is in their interest), there's the following fun tidbit in the state audit of the Authority, noticed by morris brown at the CAHSR Blog.

For example, one board member disclosed on his statement of economic interests that he was a consultant for Parsons Transportation Company—the regional contractor responsible for the San Jose‐to‐Merced portion of the program— and was paid between $10,000 and $100,000 annually. Although this board member appropriately reported this economic interest, if he were to take part in a decision involving the Authority and Parsons Transportation Company while he had this financial interest, and if certain other conditions were met, he could be in violation of the political reform act, which bars public officials from using their positions to influence government decisions in which they have a financial interest.

Page 32. This is apparently Dan Richard, the new chairman of the board. The inherent corruption and conflict of interest that this represents should be blatantly obvious. Quite frankly, it's beyond me why it was even legal for him to go to work with PB following his work on BART's board of directors. The revolving door from procurement to contractor has been a source of endemic corruption for the military (see for instance the KC-767 scandal); one would hope that state and other governments would be a bit stricter.

The immediately following section regarding the lack of oversight and control that the Authority itself retains over the Project Manager and the inaccurate and misleading information contained in their progress updates is also instructive of the degree to which the high speed rail program has been taken by its supposed contractors.

This isn't the only piece of apparent corruption on display by members of the high speed rail authority however. Tom Richards' ownership of several properties within a very short distance of the station selection he oversaw in Fresno, while potentially within the limits of the law, are a clear violation of its intent.

Honestly, at this point, I think the best thing that could be done for high speed rail in California is to jettison its entire management and sell the franchise to the highest (or lowest subsidy) bidder. If we're going to let the designers potentially build it, let's put them on the hook for running it and making money off its operations as well.

Wildfires another automotive externality

2012-01-26T12:08:00.000-08:00

Via CaliforniaWatch:

Nitrogen emissions from car exhaust and industrial sources might be increasing forest fires across the California desert by fueling the spread of invasive grasses, according to a new report by the Ecological Society of America. Agricultural nitrogen is also causing groundwater contamination in the state, the report concluded.

Most nitrogen in the atmosphere is trapped in an inert form that is unusable by most plants and animals. In nature, bacteria in the nodules of nitrogen-fixing plants, such as soybeans, must convert this bound nitrogen into a form that plants and animals use to grow.

But cars and power plants emit a form of nitrogen and oxygen called NOx, which falls to the ground when it rains or snows, said Eric Davidson, a soil ecologist and executive director at the Woods Hole Research Center in Falmouth, Mass., who led the study [PDF]. Unlike atmospheric nitrogen, NOx emissions deposit nitrates, which are readily taken up by plants.

In California, weedy, non-native grasses are edging out native plants in desert areas such as Joshua Tree National Park, and NOx is likely to blame.

"The native plants in the desert were not adapted to have that extra nitrogen, so they don't really grow all that much better, whereas these exotic grasses have evolved to make use of that nitrogen," he said.

The grasses are highly flammable, unlike the bare rock, soil and islands of shrubs that used to predominate, Davidson said. As a result, "an ecosystem that once hardly ever had a fire in it now has fire more routinely."

More at the link. A significant and increasing portion of it comes from fertilizers however. Obviously transportation isn't an answer to that, but it would be an interesting move if the high speed rail authority or other rail agencies dealt with farmer complaints on eminent domain by building hydro or aeroponic systems to make up for the lost farmland and increase overall production. If that's done instead of a straight cash payment for the land, it may very well be cost-neutral or even beneficial, as well as killing two birds with one stone.

New CAHSRA board chairman claims a surprise in the revised business plan

2012-01-25T18:53:00.001-08:00

Quoth Dan Richard:

Rail Mix — I’m in an eighth-floor office at 770 L St. on a blustery day chatting with the bluster-free Dan Richard. Since Richard is the new board chairman of the California High Speed Rail Authority , I ask him if the new-and-improved business plan that Gov. Jerry Brown wants on his desk any minute now will have any surprises in it. “Yes, there’s a very big surprise,” Richard says, calmly removing his classes and rubbing his eyes. And that is…? “I think it will surprise everyone that we’ve actually listened to our critics for a change,” he says with a fraction of a smile. About what, specifically? “We simply can’t ignore urban areas when we build this thing,” he says.

A return to the bookends perhaps? Or perhaps a straight build to IOS rather than ICS? His background doesn't fill me with too much confidence, certainly it won't be anything half as sensible as Clem's proposals.

Amtrak files a claim against Canadian National

2012-01-20T20:45:00.000-08:00

Amtrak has filed a petition with the Surface Transportation Board asking for intervention with CN dispatching and punitive damages sufficient to ensure that CN changes its ways.

According to Amtrak, Canadian National is the single worst railroad in the United States when it comes to following the law on prioritizing Amtrak trains. Given the data and incidents which Amtrak sets forth in its, I can't help but see CN getting slapped silly, and deservedly so. Two in particular struck as especially damning:

72. In July 2011, in response to a request from Amtrak for a schedule change that would have addressed issues on another host railroad on this route, CN asked Amtrak to make its Wolverine trip schedule longer to accommodate what CN unabashedly declared was the "increased likelihood of FTI." One of the route segments on which CN anticipated increased FTI delays was the segment between Pontiac and Vinewood, which has so little freight traffic that CN is currently planning to remove one of the two main tracks. This express request to incorporate CN's statutory preference violations into Amtrak's schedules is reflective of CN's approach to its statutory duties.
...
105. CN fails to communicate with other host railroads about the location of Amtrak passenger trains on multi-host-owned routes, and refuses to cooperate with other host railroads to minimize delays to Amtrak's passenger trains on those routes. This intransigence contributes to the high instances of delay that Amtrak's trains experience on CN's rail lines.

Should the STB uphold Amtrak's complaint and CN is actually forced to treat Amtrak appropriately, Chicago-termini trains should see a major increase in OTP and likely a reduction in scheduled times to reduce currently needed padding.

Chinese toll roads default on their loans

2012-01-18T08:33:00.000-08:00

It's not just the Railways Ministry who was concerned about debt evidently

China Daily is reporting that a bunch of state toll authorities in China are defaulting on bonds by announcing an "extension" of their loans. And the country's regulator says it's OK. As an example Hunan Provincial Expressway has suspended payments of interest on Y3.11b, $491m in a unilaterally declared "loan extension." Next biggest toll operator Guangdong Provincial Communications and two others among total of eleven expressway companies are "delaying payment" of interest on some Y30.16b, nearly $5b of debt.

The debt was incurred in connection with highway projects advanced as economic "stimulus" in 2009, and apparently they have not attracted the expected traffic and toll revenues, and find themselves unable to service their borrowings

A senior official of the China Bank Regulatory Commission Zu Mubing is quoted as saying recently that local government entities like tollroads can have a one-time extension of their loans, apparently saying that a delay in making interest payments is acceptable to the country's major regulatory body.

In the absence of an independent judiciary to which creditors can appeal, the regulators' word is law.

Many of the state companies with loan "extensions" are apparently in the loan markets for more borrowing because the "extensions" are cited in prospectuses issued for new loans. Lei Wanming, a Party official at provincial tollroad Gansu Highway is quoted as saying that his company's interest payment deferrals should not cause concern: "Our company can pay our interest and our principal payments with no problem."

Quite why they would breach their contract with lenders and cease paying interest if they are able to pay it with "no problem" probably requires the special logic possessed of a communist party apparatchik to explain.

Why Amtrak shouldn't own the NEC

2012-01-14T16:45:00.000-08:00

Russ Jackson points out for RailPAC that Amtrak's ownership of the Northeast Corridor has resulted in severe myopia when it comes to what is notionally a national railroad corporation.

Well, it’s January, 2012 and the sounds of silence appeared in “Amtrak Moves Aggressive Agenda for 2012,” where they say “America’s Railroad is building for the future.” That future appears to be a withering of the long-distance trains by neglect while the company pretends to “strengthen current services.” What is in this “Agenda”? As expected, the already announced order for 70 new electric locomotives (NEC), 130 new single-level long-distance cars (Eastern routes only), plus a high-capacity next-generation high-speed rail system (NEC), upgrading tracks, bridges and other infrastructure (NEC) (which he claims are essential for supporting our national network), expanding Acela Express capacity (NEC), additional capacity into Manhattan, NY, (NEC), improving ADA station accessibility (not specified), development of the on board e-ticketing and the next generation reservation system (NEC and Corridors first), new technology for onboard food sales (NEC and Corridors first), 160 MPH HSR upgrades along a 24-mile section in New Jersey (NEC) , Positive Train Control (NEC first), and expanding the Amtrak Police Department (NEC). Oh, they throw in a Seattle, Washington Maintenance Facility (for the Cascade Corridor).

While he focuses more on the long-distance trains, it's important to note that much of that money could be quite well used on the corridors as well. The catenary upgrade in New Jersey is $450 million in exchange for about one minute of actual time saved. There are quite literally dozens of far more worthy projects across the nation that could greatly raise Amtrak patronage and lower its costs were they to be funded instead of this catenary upgrade. Depending on the particular report, that would pay in full or in part for the Miramar tunneling outside San Diego, for instance, which is quite likely the single biggest bottleneck and contributor to lengthy trips on the LOSSAN corridor.

Is the NEC important? Of course. But Amtrak is national and several other corridors have the potential to be just as important if Amtrak can simply disengage from its current focus on the NEC and instead invest in the entire nation rather than merely the one area where it happens to own the tracks. The Federal government needs to strip away the NEC and establish a national joint powers authority for the network, which is predominately used by commuter agencies anyhow.

The times they are a changing

2012-01-13T20:14:00.000-08:00

Governor Brown moves to revamp CA high speed rail project

ELK GROVE, Calif.—Gov. Jerry Brown said Friday that his appointees to the board overseeing California's embattled $98 billion high-speed rail project will fix its problems and offer a revamped business plan after the rail authority's director and its board chairman resigned a day earlier.

The Democratic governor told reporters in Elk Grove, a Sacramento suburb, that he will not join the "defeatist crowd" that believes the project is impossible.

"We're going to build, but we're not going to be stupid. And we'll listen to the critics, and we'll fix things and we'll do the right thing," Brown said. "We're not going to go overboard. We're going to be very careful and build incrementally as we go."

This really strikes me as being an indication that the general direction of the project is going to change. I expect that the ARRA funds with a 2012 construction start timeline will be forfeited due to the need for a revamped business plan, but will find their way back for the first segment to actually be constructed. I also firmly expect that the initial construction segment will be abandoned to go straight for an initial operating segment. Accordingly, the CV will be abandoned yet remain as it will simply be part of the IOS.

Less firmly, I suspect Altamont will receive more study and possibly a switch to it, especially given Brown's Oakland connection. I don't anticipate a proper Grapevine study however, as it is too new in time, unless a major traditional media outlet does a story on it.

Electrifying on the quick and cheap with a train

2012-01-13T12:36:00.000-08:00

Somewhat older news, but Network Rail in Britain has ordered a £35 million 23-unit train to speed electrification of British routes.

While only a mile per 8 hour shift (and one shift per day) doesn't seem terribly fast on the face of things, ordering such a vehicle for California would permit the electrification of the LOSSAN-South corridor within six months of starting work (assuming of course that the substations and autotransformers were built equally as quickly). The main obstacle, of course, is that without the planned tunnels through areas such as San Juan Capistrano, San Clemente, and Del Mar there is likely to be significant NIMBY opposition on aesthetic grounds (as well as some misguided environmentalists in those areas who believe that wooden or steel poles are more harmful for the environment than are diesel particulate emissions).

Two possible solutions arise that permit partial electrification of the corridor while the other enabling projects lurch forward; they may even be possible to do simultaneously:

1. The first, and less ideal solution, is to purchase dual-power locomotives such as NJT is doing (ideally, just changing the paint job and in-cab signaling system) for the Surfliner and Metrolink, both of which are planning on purchasing or rebuilding locomotives as it happens. Alternatively, a hybrid multiple unit such as Bombardier's Autorail Grande Capacité could be bought. The latter option is preferential as it can take advantage of funding for additional coaches for the Surfliner and multiple units have both a superior acceleration and public relations appeal compared to a normal locomotive and car consist (being as they would be new to Southern California and thus generate plenty of free advertisement through their novelty).

2. The more preferable option is to make this a mainly Metrolink project. The Orange County Line's additional service has its southern terminus in Laguna Niguel, ending before any aesthetic or environmentalist NIMBY concerns would arise. Being a stunningly unattractive corridor, the only real opposition I foresee is from those concerned about potential health hazards from overhead wires, a false concern which should be easily addressable, as well as potential takings for substations and transformers (however, those should fit within stations or in industrial parking lots fairly easily). If at all possible, the electrification should also be extended along the San Bernardino Line, fulfilling the initial promise of Metrolink two decades ago. At the same time, Metrolink ought to beg, whine, plead, and threaten to hold their breath until the FRA gives in and grants a waiver for the use of UIC compliant EMUs for their superior acceleration capabilities. This would provide a ten minute reduction in travel time to Los Angeles for both Laguna Niguel and San Bernardino as well as aid congestion reduction on LOSSAN.

Ignoring for a moment the cost of train sets to take advantage of the electrification (as rolling stock replacement is already scheduled), this ought to be a a fairly cheap endeavor with rest of world electrification costs in the realm of 1.5-2 million USD per track-mile. In terms of capital cost then, this should be on par with Metrolink's Rotem car purchase. Network Rail quotes a 33% reduction in maintenance costs for electric rolling stock (page 5) and a fifty percent reduction in fuel costs (plausible given the proximity of San Onofre nuclear power plant, however I suspect that the difference diesel and electricity prices is greater in Britain than in California). Combined with the greater patronage the new service might expect, especially with fares that can hold steady or even drop during times of gasoline price increases, it seems reasonable to posit that electrification would pay for itself over its replacement lifetime.

All hands abandon ship

2012-01-12T22:01:00.000-08:00

In the past three days, the California High Speed Rail Authority's press secretary, CEO, and chairman have resigned. While Robert Cruickshank's reaction was essentially "Meh", this has major importance for the future of the project, especially given the timing, right after the horribly flawed Grapevine alignment study was released. A few unorganized thoughts:

1. I don't believe there is a single person who actually believes a major executive when they say that they resign to spend more time with family or on personal issues. This was either in protest or he was essentially forced out.

2. The Authority isn't going to survive this unscathed. Given Senator Feinstein's recent support for the bookend approach to building CAHSR in a letter to Governor Brown, I consider it highly likely that the Authority will not receive the funding appropriations this year that they are seeking. While this will rule out the use of some ARRA money, it frees the remainder to go back into more sensible route build outs, such as the Los Angeles-Bakersfield section.

3. Given the above, CAHSR is going to live or die on the Authority's response to a funding delay. Appropriately spun, they could play it up as taking more time to get a better plan set out (skipping the ICS and go straight to the IOS for instance) which would have a far better PR appeal.

4. The recommendation of Dan Richards, a former BART director with a less than stellar record when it comes to cost and contractor control, as chairman of the Authority's board, does not inspire confidence that the Authority will manage to salvage their position.

Record ridership, but falling far short of expectations

2012-01-11T23:05:00.000-08:00

Amtrak likes to trumpet record levels of ridership over the past ten years, but these numbers should come with an important caveat: In a very real sense, they are a complete failure. Released in 2001, Amtrak California's 20 year vision plan, for instance, predicted ridership levels nearly double their actual levels in 2010.

In the case of the Pacific Surfliner, a partial explanation may be found in the studies which show that riders see no difference between Amtrak and Metrolink; it is possible then that a significant portion of what would be Surfliner riders are captured instead by Metrolink's Orange County and Ventura Lines. I find this doubtful, however, given the similar failings in Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin ridership.

Another reason for the major shortfall could be a failure to complete work which would expand capacity or decrease travel time which would be necessary for the validity of the ridership projections. Certainly not all of the projects which were planned for were completed within the past ten years and there has been no time reduction between San Diego and Los Angeles in contrast to the 30 minute time travel reduction expected by 2005. Additionally, the loss of the planned Los Angeles-Las Vegas train almost certainly cut Surfliner ridership since 19% of current PSL revenue is derived from connecting to long distance trains (page 5). Still, a significant fraction of the ridership gap is almost certainly due to overly optimistic projections, even taking into account failed improvements and an economic downturn.

It is a sad reality that what gains Amtrak has made in terms of ridership has come almost solely from degradations in service and speed by air and automobile. The forthcoming creation of a LOSSAN joint powers authority may allow for local funding sufficient to fund these improvements via a variety of means, including selling the PSL franchise to another operator. Given that Amtrak has become myopically focused on the Northeast Corridor, to the near total exclusion of investment plans in the rest of the nation's passenger rail network, this does not strike me as a poor solution. Indeed, that focus helps demonstrate why, though the overall purpose and tack is wrong, Republican arguments for the privatization of Amtrak and a degree of free market competition in passenger rail service have an element of truth and public good to them.

More insanity from the high speed rail authority

2012-01-10T10:52:00.000-08:00

The report on the Grapevine alignment has been released and, unsurprisingly for those with a low degree of trust in the Authority and Parsons Brinkerhoff, it continues to support the Palmdale alignment. How does it do this? By arbitrarily refusing to study the easiest and cheapest Grapevine route on the grounds that it would cause problems for a yet to be built housing project with a maximum value of $500 million dollars. Yes, just like in Millbrae, billions of dollars are being intentionally wasted rather than cooperate with other agencies or simply use their inherent powers of eminent domain. It is especially egregious since, while in Millbrae, there is a half-assed excuse available in the existing BART facilities, the Tejon Ranch Company does not have anything more than an environmental impact report yet. Absurdly, in order to avoid the use of eminent domain and cutting through a nonexistent property, it cuts through an already existing community, that of Lebec.

Additional lengths and costs have incurred to the I-5 routing thanks to diverting to the east of Bakersfield rather than the more appropriate west, for this we have the increasingly obviously flawed "Central Valley first" approach pushed by the Obama administration to thank. However, given what looks strongly like corruption on the part of the Authority's board, one wonders if the Federal requirement to start in the Central Valley was actually requested by the Authority in order to give it political cover.

Automobile pollution helps spawn tornadoes

2012-01-10T09:16:00.000-08:00

This might be the best argument in favor of Midwest HSR and local transit

Tornadoes and hailstorms may take the weekends off during the muggy summer months, according to a new study that reveals new ways human activity can inadvertently sway weather.

Scientists analyzed summertime storm activity in the eastern U.S. from 1995 to 2009 using data collected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Storm Prediction Center.

They discovered that tornadoes and hailstorms occurred at a rate of about 20 percent above average during the middle of the week. In contrast, the phenomena occurred at a rate of roughly 20 percent below average on the weekend.

The findings proved statistically significant—not just a random pattern—and matched up well with similar cycles seen in other kinds of storms, the study authors say.

The team then investigated Environmental Protection Agency air-quality monitoring data and noted that human-made, summertime air pollution over the eastern U.S. peaks midweek. The cycle is linked to more human-made pollution created during the five-day workweek, such as commuters driving to and from work.

More at the link. I'm joking, of course, about it being the best argument for the midwest high speed rail plan, however, it strikes me that it is still a good one. With annual damages from tornadoes resulting in billions of dollars in damage and numerous fatalities, the positive externalities of even a minor reduction in number and severity would, over the life of the system, more than repay the public investment cost.

Hat tip to David Levinson at The Transportationist.

Merry Christmas

2011-12-25T00:00:00.000-08:00

Today, the twenty-fifth day of December,

unknown ages from the time when God created the heavens and the earth

and then formed man and woman in his own image.

Several thousand years after the flood,

when God made the rainbow shine forth as a sign of the covenant.

Twenty-one centuries from the time of Abraham and Sarah;

thirteen centuries after Moses led the people of Israel out of Egypt.

Eleven hundred years from the time of Ruth and the Judges;

one thousand years from the anointing of David as king;

in the sixty-fifth week according to the prophecy of Daniel.

In the one hundred and ninety-fourth Olympiad;

the seven hundred and fifty-second year from the foundation of the city of Rome.

The forty-second year of the reign of Octavian Augustus;

the whole world being at peace,

Jesus Christ, eternal God and Son of the eternal Father,

desiring to sanctify the world by his most merciful coming,

being conceived by the Holy Spirit,

and nine months having passed since his conception,

was born in Bethlehem of Judea of the Virgin Mary.

Today is the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh.

Traditional transportation to the Traditional Mass

2011-12-20T21:46:00.000-08:00

With Amtrak's schedule changes to the Pacific Surfliner's schedule effective on January 9th comes a very welcome, unexpected, and likely unintentional change that is highly beneficial for Southern California Catholics who are partial to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Mass. On Sundays, Amtrak train #562 out of Los Angeles and train #763 out of San Diego will arrive in San Juan Capistrano at 7:26am and 7:34am respectively. This train stop is quite literally right across the street from Mission San Juan Capistrano and, presuming the train is reasonably on time, arrives in time to find a seat for the 8:00am Traditional Latin Mass held in the Serra Chapel (the entrance for which is on the opposite side of the Mission from the train stop).

These are both daily trains operating on their normal schedule so this is most likely a fortuitous coincidence, but this is nonetheless a wonderful opportunity for Catholics across Southern California who are interested in the Traditional Mass.

Caltrans and Metrolink to advertise train times to freeway commuters

2011-12-20T13:10:00.000-08:00

Or, how to advertise while taunting at the same time.

Electronic highway signs show commuters that trains are a viable alternative to freeway traffic
IRVINE - Caltrans and Metrolink have jointly developed a pilot project to show commuters that trains are a viable alternative to freeway traffic. Both train and freeway travel times are now displayed on electronic highway message signs near the Fullerton and Anaheim train stations.
"For travel between Orange County and downtown Los Angeles' Union Station, trains are often faster than freeways," said Acting Caltrans Director Malcolm Dougherty. "We want to give commuters real-time information to help them get to their destination quicker."
The train and highway travel is being displayed weekdays on the northbound
Interstate 5 and westbound State Route 91 electronic signs located closest to the Anaheim and Fullerton train stations. The travel times will resemble the message shown here:
DOWNTOWN LA MIN
FWY 55
11:55 TRAIN 40
"This pilot project will highlight the time a commuter could save by taking a Metrolink train, but that's only one of the many benefits of opting for public transportation over driving your car," said Metrolink Board Member Paul Glaab. "Commuters can also save money, have a positive impact on the environment, and enjoy a stress-free commute. We hope this project will encourage Southern Californians to get familiar with their public transportation options."
Caltrans provides the freeway travel time information using data collected from its vehicle detector stations throughout the freeway system. Metrolink provides train travel times, which include Amtrak and Metrolink train departure and trip duration information.

If memory serves, this should be only the initial rollout of a larger system of such messages along the LOSSAN corridor. They should also act as a useful visual aid for encouraging more investment in the rail corridor to improve system speeds.

On population density and suitability of rail investment

2011-12-19T21:21:00.000-08:00

A common criticism of passenger rail investment in the United States is that, while passenger rail may work well enough in various countries of Europe and Asia, it will not in the United States due to the size of the United States and the lower population density as compared to those nations with successful passenger rail programs. This is, of course, a complete misrepresentation of the projection and rationale of the situation.

While the United States is indeed far larger than any of the countries which have built out a high speed rail network, the passenger rail investments proposed for it are not scaled up to the size of a continental empire like the United States, but rather are similar in size and scope to those already built. These are regional networks, existing either entirely within a state (such as is the case with California High Speed Rail) or across a small selection of states (such as the Northeast Corridor). The emptiness of Montana and Alaska is irrelevant to such considerations, therefore, as it is most appropriate to consider the size of the region in question to European or Asian analogues (as has often been done with California and Spain, which share a similar size, population, and density).

However, it is also useful to note that European Russia (that is, those portions of Russia located west of the Urals and containing the large majority of the Russian population) soundly defeats such an argument. While 78% of Russia’s population lives in this territory, itself about half the size of the continental United States, the population density is still extremely low. Whereas the average population density of the United States, even including Alaska, is 87.4 persons per square mile (rising to 103.5 once Hawaii and Alaska are removed), that of European Russia remains only 10.5 per square mile. Yet Russia maintains a high degree of passenger rail operations. Indeed, it recently placed an order for an additional eight Velaro high speed train sets for service between Moscow and Saint Petersburg. To suggest then that the United States, which possesses ten times the population density, is unsuitable for high speed rail, is quite fallacious.

Consider as well the Greater Los Angeles and San Diego areas. Combined, Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties have a land area of 9,050 square miles and a population just shy of 16 million. This makes for a land slightly smaller than the Kingdom of Belgium yet nearly 50% more populous. The Swiss Confederation, famous among transit proponents for its high degree of public transportation use, has a population of 7.8 million residing in a total land area 15,940 square miles. There is no rational reason why the United States cannot attain such high degrees of mass transit usage when, with the exception of certain areas in the midwest and Rocky Mountain areas, it has areas far denser than even highly notable European nations.

Reserved seating for the Surfliner Express next month?

2011-12-13T16:40:00.000-08:00

Spotted this when doing a price and travel time lookup for next year. For whatever reason Amtrak has chosen to renumber the Surfliner Express as 599 instead of 563 with its new schedule starting on January 9th (available on pages 21 and 22). What's more intriguing, however, than the random number change is that it appears that Amtrak is converting it into a premium fare and reserved seat train. In Amtrak's system this starts on January 17th, 2012, which seems odd as that's a Tuesday. This could simply be a bug, of course, which the business class oddities would lend credence to, but Amtrak has yet to return an email asking about this.

Edit 12/14/11 8:33am: Amtrak has finally returned my email.

We apologize that it has taken longer than expected for us to reply. We have had an unusually high number of e-mail requests. Your patience is appreciated.

Apparently, there is a programming glitch which the appropriate department is now working to resolve. All Pacific Surfliner trains offer unreserved coach and upgraded business class seats.

Gaudete Sunday

2011-12-11T11:43:00.000-08:00

Today being Gaudete Sunday, I find it pretty much obligatory to have this playing much of the day. Nothing to do with trains today I'm afraid.

Pacific Surfliner to move to a yield managed fare system

2011-12-02T23:22:00.000-08:00

In a presentation given to the November 16th meeting of the LOSSAN Rail Corridors Agency Joint Powers Board, Amtrak representatives mentioned that the fare system of the Pacific Surfliner will be changing, with an ultimate end goal of a fully reserved and revenue managed train service (page 15).

Currently, fares for the Pacific Surfliner are the same for all trains and times of purchase, the price depending only upon the origin/destination and the class of service. With the exception of business class and times of holiday rush, the tickets are unreserved, meaning that they are valid for any train (up to a year from the time of purchase if memory serves me correctly) and do not guarantee one a seat.

In the Northeast Corridor, however, reserved trains are the rule. This takes more of a Southwest Airlines approach to seating however and simply means that they will not sell more tickets than they possess seats; it does not reserve any seat in particular.

As presented in the meeting’s agenda, Amtrak has already embarked upon the first phase of the new fare structure by keeping fares at the peak level of the summer months rather than reducing them following Labor Day, as had previously been the norm. In the spring of 2012 this will transition to having peak-fare days; Friday Sunday, and possibly Saturday being mentioned as the candidates for such pricing. Finally, the third phase, which does not have a starting point mentioned, will be a full migration to reserved seating and yield managed seats with “an expanded fare structure aligned with the demand for each departure.” While not explicitly stated, I suspect that this will mean a variable fare depending on previous demand and the current number of vacant seats per train (likely with a flat fare for reservations two weeks in advance as is currently the practice in the Northeast Corridor).

The first, rather simple stage, of the new fare system has already shown results. Amtrak’s year over year ticket revenues for the Surfliner in September increased by 20.3% on a ridership increase of only 5.1%; of that 20% increase Amtrak estimates that half of it was due to the new fare plan, which was still double their initial expectations.

While I am a fan of the convenience of flat pricing and unreserved seating that are currently features of the Surfliner, increasing the ticket revenue of the Surfliner is certainly needed and this, along with the changes to the Rail2Rail progam (Amtrak currently receives only $2 per Metrolink rider and faces overcrowding on some trains due to popularity, Metrolink Rail2Rail riders forming up to a third of riders on some trains; understandably it is desiring more money), should help bring the farebox recovery ratio higher. In turn, that should help mollify libertarian complaints about subsidization and increase the case for capital grants for increased speed and service on the corridor.

Good news, but unambitious plans for passenger rail in Florida

2011-12-01T10:55:00.000-08:00

Florida is spending $118 million to move passenger rail service between Miami and Jacksonville to the Florida East Coast Railway.

Direct Amtrak service between Florida's two largest cities is just a few years away.

The state will spend about $118 million to restore passenger service to Henry Flagler's old railroad — the Florida East Coast Railway — between Jacksonville and Miami.

That money will help build eight new stations in coastal towns between Stuart and Jacksonville, build a critical connector just north of West Palm Beach and make other improvements to the railroad.

The Florida Department of Transportation estimates Amtrak service on the FEC could begin in 2015.

Currently, Amtrak service between Miami and Jacksonville runs on CSX Transportation tracks that parallel Interstate 95. But that trip takes about 10 hours because CSX tracks veer into central Florida and then through Orlando.

A direct route on the FEC would shorten that trip to six hours.

Total cost of the project is $250 million, which includes the trains. But FDOT hopes Amtrak would provide the vehicles or partner with the state to get federal money for the trains.

Initially, service would be one roundtrip daily. Eventually, that would expand to two roundtrips.

"Amtrak has said they don't just want this, but this is its best opportunity to expand," said Kim Delaney, a planner with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. "This is the fastest and least expensive way to restore passenger service on the FEC."

The Amtrak project also may open the door for Tri-Rail's long-awaited northward expansion to Jupiter along the FEC tracks. The commuter line now ends in Mangonia Park, just north of West Palm Beach.

But the Amtrak proposal is separate from a plan to return commuter-rail service on the FEC between Miami and Jupiter.

Ignoring for a moment the oddity of spending that much money while rejecting an essentially guaranteed and cost free high speed rail system, this is an important and worthwhile investment. With a six hour travel time, travel time becomes competitive with travel by car or faster, depending on congestion (which, by all that I've heard from Floridians, is horrendous). However, a single trip per day will not suffice for high levels of ridership. Four should be considered an absolute minimum with preferentially a higher number of trips per day in order to cater to those who have time commitments or desires which one or two roundtrips will not suffice for. Additionally, an increased number of trips per day reduces worries about missing one's train and being left on the other side of the state.

Provided that Florida DOT is willing to pony up the requisite amount of cash, improving capacity and speeds for the rail service should be a fairly straightforward affair. Florida East Coast Railway has been shipping an increasing amount of intermodal freight to and from the Ports of Miami and Jacksonville and has been investing to expand its ability to capture that market. As intermodal trains are preferentially faster trains, there is no major roadblock to such partnerships.

Fare pricing and transit ridership

2011-11-27T14:40:00.000-08:00

Gabe Newell, co-founder of Valve Corporation, recently gave an interview about game pricing strategies, with some perhaps surprising information as to the level of revenue increase thanks to lowering the price of games.

“The sale is a highly promoted event that has ancillary media like comic books and movies associated with it. We do a 75 percent price reduction, our Counter-Strike experience tells us that our gross revenue would remain constant. Instead what we saw was our gross revenue increased by a factor of 40. Not 40 percent, but a factor of 40. Which is completely not predicted by our previous experience with silent price variation.”

While retail purchases of games is, obviously, not the same as mass transit, the synergistic effect of heavy advertising combined with temporary reductions in fares should achieve the result of large increases in transit ridership. Presuming a decent level of service and that non-sale fares are kept at reasonable levels, a high proportion of the patrons ought to be kept, resulting not only in major increases in ridership and farebox recovery ratio, but also in political support for the capital funds needed for expansion and service enhancements.

Coaster, for instance, has seen a major gain in ridership this past year due in large part to lowered fares. According to page 47 of the November LOSSAN meeting, which details a Coaster ridership survey, 68% of new pass holders started riding due to lower fares, in full or in part. This is while showing 20-30% gains in ridership year over year and 26% of all monthly pass holders surveyed had started since January of this year, when a price reduction went into effect.

There are two major notable factors concerning ridership however. The first is that only 30% of Coaster passholders pay the full fare themselves. 23% have it paid entirely by their employer (46% of all new pass holders) with a similar amount receiving subsidies from their employer (over half of whom pay less than half the full fare out of pocket as a result). Advertising should probably focus upon this market then, seeking to win more customers from a pool already interested in Coaster ridership thanks to the very low fares. This could be as simple as liaising appropriately with individual companies near Coaster stations (or in San Diego proper) and getting permission to hang posters in the break rooms advertising Coaster and mentioning the individual company’s transit subsidization policies.

Such a simple means of advertising would do rather well as current Coaster advertisement is atrocious. 52% of those surveyed first heard of Coaster by word of mouth. Valve’s price drops don’t occur in a vacuum and they could not achieve such remarkable gains as 40-fold revenue increases without heavy sales promotions. Valve does have the advantage of a somewhat captive market when it comes to their promotions. All Steam games are, of course, through Steam and advertising for sales is presented when logging into Steam or upon exiting a game.

While there is not such a similar captive audience means for commuter rail ridership, the same principle of heavy focused advertising along with discounted fares should result in greatly increased ridership, with the loss of captive audience being made up for by a higher degree of advertising with consequent spending. This is something that Metrolink, with its stagnant ridership since the downturn of the economy and low existing ridership per route mile, needs to look at in order to boost its ridership numbers.

The highway boondoggle that broke Maryland's transportation budget

2011-11-23T22:26:00.000-08:00

A whopping 136 million dollars per mile for the 18.8 mile InterCounty Connector. What's even worse is that this was apparently in a semi-rural area for the construction, not an urban area with its attendant expenses.

The 18.8-mile Intercounty Connector, which opened in full Tuesday, could be the last publicly funded highway built in Maryland for a generation, as the state’s tolling agency, which financed its $2.56 billion construction, reaches its debt limit, local transportation experts said.

Financing for the six-lane toll road linking Interstate 270 in Montgomery County with Interstate 95 in Prince George’s County leveraged the Maryland Transportation Authority’s statewide toll collections.

But the transportation authority’s debt capacity is tapped out from borrowing to build the ICC and $1 billion in express toll lanes on I-95 northeast of Baltimore, state budget analysts said. Mounting debt recently prompted the authority to raise tolls statewide as the authority also struggles to maintain its aging bridges, tunnels and roads.

“You’re probably looking at another 20 years before we see another major road like this be built,” said Lon Anderson, a spokesman for AAA Mid-Atlantic.

Supporters say the ICC provides a vital east-west link long missing from Maryland’s highway network, but some critics worry about the toll road’s long-term financial effects. They say the ICC’s hefty price — it’s the most expensive road Maryland has ever built — has hamstrung the state’s transportation finances for years.

“The state has mortgaged its transportation future in many ways to the ICC,” said Montgomery County Council member Phil Andrews (D-Gaithersburg-Rockville), a longtime critic of the highway. “The opportunity cost of building the ICC has been huge, because it’s foreclosed improving many other roads.”

Whether the highway proves worth the investment — and at what cost — will play out over the next 10 to 30 years in several key measures: how many vehicles the ICC absorbs from local roads, time saved by motorists who use it, job growth from companies that rely on it to attract workers, and the impact it has on local streams and air pollution.

“The road, from an economic standpoint, will pay for itself many times over,” said Maryland Comptroller Peter Franchot (D), who helped put together the ICC’s financing plan in 2005 when he represented Montgomery in the General Assembly.

OCTA considering no confidence vote on CAHSRA

2011-11-16T14:08:00.000-08:00

Voice of OC:

The Orange County Transportation Authority is considering sending state high-speed rail officials a memo urging them to "pull the plug" on the proposed $98-billion Anaheim-to-San Francisco project.
The 17-member board will vote next month on the wording of a message it plans to deliver to the state's High-Speed Rail Authority, which has overall authority to contract for construction of the rail system if the state Legislature and federal officials approve financing.
OCTA plans and builds most Orange County highway and rail systems, using federal, state and local tax money. But it has no jurisdiction over the planned 520-mile high-speed rail project.
A vote of no-confidence would come in part from a Republican-dominated board and be directed at Gov. Jerry Brown and Democratic legislators and members of Congress who support the rail plan.
But it was a Republican, former Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle, who spearheaded much of the local support for the project. Pringle also served on the OCTA board and chaired the High-Speed Rail Authority in 2009 and 2010.
With Pringle gone, no one on the OCTA board spoke up for the rail system during Monday's meeting.
And at least six of the OCTA board members said they opposed the way the project is being handled.
The high-speed rail project has been beset by management problems. Voters approved the system in 2008 on the condition that when it is finished, no tax money will be used to operate it.
A new business plan released earlier this month was hailed for its realistic approach. But that created other problems, because the plan estimated the cost would be $98.5 billion, more than double the previous $43-billion estimate. It also predicted that most private investment, which had been promoted as a way to offset tax money, wouldn't materialize until after the system is up and running.
The rail authority's new business plan is open for public comment through January, which prompted OCTA board member Peter Herzog, a Lake Forest City Council member, to suggest the board send its own comments. Some wanted to vote immediately to oppose the project.
"The emperor has no clothes," said Supervisor John Moorlach, one of the OCTA directors. "Sometimes with a deal, it's good to tell someone 'no.' "
But OCTA Chairwoman Pat Bates, also a member of the Board of Supervisors, said, "Today, I don't think, is the day we should say ‘pull the plug.' I think we should have a deliberative process and not just knee-jerk here."
The board asked two of its committees to review the business plan and next month recommend what to tell the High-Speed Rail Authority.
Even though a no-confidence vote would have no legal effect on the rail authority, OCTA board members said such a vote coming from the transportation agency in California's third largest county would carry impact.
"Orange County already is left out of most of it," said Fullerton City Councilman Don Bankhead. "The whole thing doesn't make sense anymore."

While I've been a supporter of high speed rail in California, and continue to support a high speed rail network for California, the demonstrated incompetence and corruption by the Authority's recent business plan has caused me to turn against the current implementation of it. I intend, actually, to write to OCTA in support of this no-confidence motion.

The value of crash energy management

2011-11-04T20:16:00.000-07:00

FRA delay and refusal to reform on its current "safety" regulations is inexcusable.

Edit on July 7, 10:15am: This brief paper puts forth in lives the difference between current standards and CEM: With only a 30 mile per hour impact, 55 lives would have been lost in the demonstrated collision with FRA equipment, but none with a CEM consist.

Some bad news for San Jose-San Francisco CAHSR

2011-10-21T16:28:00.000-07:00

A recent CAHSRA memo bodes poorly for the current planning up in the Bay Area:

Since June, Caltrain has made significant progress in determining what capacity could be realized on the Caltrain corridor. The HST service would require at least four trains per hour per direction to serve the estimated passenger demand to and from the Peninsula and San Francisco. The Phase 1 service plan used for the Project‐level SF to SJ EIR stated that eight high‐speed trains phpd would be required for a fully built out Phase 1 during peak periods. Consequently, Caltrain has focused its operations simulation efforts on studying scenarios with six Caltrain trains and four high‐speed trains phpd which will offer the required performance level expected of high‐speed rail and the passenger capacity expected during this initial phase. While the initial model results show promise that such an operation is possible, as discussed above there are compromises that will need to be made by the Authority in order for the blended approach to work. Specifically the Authority will need to accept:
• That the high speed trains will not operate at 125 mph as originally envisioned for the SF to SJ corridor and consequently not be able to make the 30 minute travel time goal between SF and SJ as stated in Proposition 1A. It is not yet clear whether high‐speed trains will need to operate at 79 mph or possibly may be able to reach speeds of up to 110 mph on the Caltrain corridor. Further investigation continues.
• That the high‐speed trains will operate on a railroad with “at‐grade” crossings. The original performance criteria for the statewide system required a “fully grade‐separated” system.

An estimate of the capital cost of providing the necessary infrastructure for a blended solution indicates that it remains substantial. Initial estimates based on the existing engineering work by the Authority puts the total at approximately $5.3 billion (2010 dollars) for the mid‐line overtake solution.
...
The Transbay Transit Center (TTC) in downtown San Francisco is the preferred destination for the statewide HST system in San Francisco. According to recent estimates from the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, the estimated cost of developing the tunnels from 7th and Common Street, to the Transbay Terminal at Fremont and Mission Street is approximately $2.6‐$3 billion in year of expenditure dollars. This estimate includes the tunnels, stations and platforms at the TTC that would be able to serve thehigh‐speed and Caltrain trains. The $2.6 billion cost of this project is not currently included in the $5.3 billion estimate for the blended service described above.

At a grand total of eight billion dollars for the construction of a segment that will not manage the speeds (indeed, quite possibly being slower than current Metrolink and Amtrak trains in Orange County along the LOSSAN line) necessary to meet Prop 1A requirements, it is highly unlikely that CEO van Ark will not choose to "value engineer" the routing as is being studied with the renewed look at the Grapevine routing. Indeed, choosing to go with the superior Altamont corridor as a cost savings measure (since it would require a much smaller amount of shared ROW between Caltrain and CAHSR and would reduce the cost of the Sacramento extension) seems like it would almost be a slam dunk as the Authority is not prejudiced in its routing options, either Pacheco or Altamont, under the terms of Proposition 1A while the Authority is likely going to need to convince the Legislature to amend the law to permit the Grapevine route to proceed, bypassing Palmdale.

It also introduces the potential that an IOS encompassing the entire San Joaquin Valley, from Sacramento on south (and potentially to Los Angeles) might not be as crazy an idea as it initially seemed. Phase II extensions, after all, are permitted if they will not interfere with Phase I construction or funding. If extending to San Jose or San Francisco is delayed due to routing studies or insufficient capital, Sacramento may be ideally placed to take advantage of that delay, using the on-hand capital for a quick expansion and ignoring much of the current NIMBY issues in the Bay Area.

Perhaps most importantly, however, is the Authority's apparent willingness to consider mixed traffic with at grade crossings. If it is willing to do so in the Bay Area, it may very well be willing to similarly do so in Southern California and adopt a "blended LOSSAN" system rather than the current Riverside-Inland Empire dogleg. Not only this save a tremendous amount of money, but while the total cost of a Los Angeles-San Diego LOSSAN upgrade retaining grade crossings is likely in the same eight billion dollar ballpark as San Jose-San Francisco, it has the advantage of serving a much greater populace with a far larger potential for automobile diversion and ridership than either the current dogleg or the Bay Area Caltrain upgrade.

Canadian Pacific rolling out an innovative new intermodal system

2011-10-18T13:03:00.000-07:00

From RailwayAge:

Canadian Pacific on Monday said it will be the exclusive Canadian rail transportation provider for trailer supply company Contrans, using innovative multimodal flat rack containers from Calgary, Alberta-based Raildecks Intermodal.

CP has been testing Raildecks' 53-foot collapsible, multimodal carriers through this past summer at its Toronto Intermodal Facility in Vaughn, Ontario. The testing proved successful on CP's long-haul intermodal trains, offering an alternative to shippers who have been relying on trucks to move their products over a long distance, Raildecks said.

“Raildecks’ innovative product extends the efficiencies of intermodal rail to industrial products shippers,” said John McBoyle, vice-president Intermodal at Canadian Pacific. “We believe industrial product customers will be attracted to the consistency, efficiency and , reliability of our long-haul intermodal network.”

“The Raildecks solution provides a viable option to convert some of the industrial freight that is moving over the road to be transported on intermodal rail,” said Raildecks CEO Rick Jocson. “By converting a traditional over-the-road commodity to rail, Raildecks are reducing greenhouse gas emissions, freeing up major roads and highways, and reducing costs for shippers.”

“We are excited to be able to provide shippers with a brand new service offering,” stated Stan G. Dunford, Contrans' chairman and CEO. “This will revolutionize the long haul flatbed market and will result in substantial efficiencies and savings for shippers.”

The Raildecks solution should allow for increased use of rail by customers using flatbed trailers and cars at present. Additionally, routes currently constrained in train length due to sidings or other issues should see a capacity increase for those cargoes currently traveling on flat cars due to the doubling up that these cars provide.

Madrid-Barcelona operating profit margin is 20%

2011-10-09T08:39:00.000-07:00

A rather handy graphic taken from a RENFE presentation to the CAHSRA this past June, page 50. This is simply further evidence that high speed rail pays for itself and doesn't require external operational subsidies.

San Diego is doing something right: Double digit gains in Coaster and Sprinter ridership

2011-10-06T10:51:00.000-07:00

The American Public Transportation Association has put out a report on growth in the use of public transit in the first six months of 2011 compared to 2010 and San Diego comes out leading the rest of California in terms of percentage gain. In light rail, Sprinter posted an 11.55% year over year gain, while the San Diego Trolley came in second with a 7.4% increase. Similarly, commuter rail showed a 17.13% increase for the Coaster. Altamont Commuter Express came in second with a 9.37% increase, closely followed by the Capitol Corridor's 9.17%. Metrolink, by contrast, came in at an utterly anemic 1.7% increase in year over year ridership.

While these figures are certainly going to be a bit inflated by the low starting position that San Diego's lines began from, compared to the rest of Californian systems (in absolute terms, for instance, Caltrain had three times the increase of Coaster), they still represent a major increase. They also pose an interesting question that I do not have the answer for at present: Why is Coaster doing so well while Metrolink is not?

Another's comments on Paris-Marseille TGV

2011-10-04T08:22:00.000-07:00

Taking ericmarseille's comment from the CAHSR Blog:

Totally OFF TOPIC but, I hope, informative :

I came back yesterday from a trip in the Parisian region (Marseille-Paris and back, 480 miles)

The good :

- Took an IDTGV, so could book on internet and print the tickets myself
- Only €100 for the entire trip, decided only two days before departing
- Was able to upgrade to first class for €2 on the Marseille-Paris leg
- Was able to change my ticket the day before I was supposed to leave for a €10 fee and did it all on internet too, including printing the new ticket
- Still as fast and cool as ever
- on the return leg, arguably in an off period, I was able to strech my legs as much as I wanted for 45 min, I was in a face-to-face configuration and the guy who was in front of me got out at Avignon and nobody took his place. Everybody staying in the car after Avignon either was alone on its two seats side or didn’t have someone in front of him in face-to-face configuration, smart seat management from SNCF
- Los of seat and elbow room in first class (lateral seat configuration : 2+1 instead of 2+2 in second class) ; so much seat room in fact, that I felt a bit loose in my seat (and I’m 240lbs)
- The croque-Monsieur at the snack car, still shockingly good (I mean, good, which is shocking given SNCF standards)

The bad :

- Last-time tickets on the busiest part of the week-end can grow to up to €110 for a single trip
- First-generation TGV first class atmosphere (dark grey, dark red, and black) was good for regular TGVs, but on the duplex, lower and less luminous it is sad and even creepy
- On my first leg the TGV was so old that the first class car stank of old furniture textile, and even old, very old, cigarette odour ; the smells of the arguably refined perfumes that the first class passengers use in abundance, as a social status sign, all mixed, didn’t help either
- Not only that, but for the first time of my life in a TGV, I was annoyed by the noise of the train itself (still on the first leg, first class), which, instead of a whirr comparable to a cat’s purring, was rather comparable to a vacuum cleaner noise ; still not as noisy as the dreaded Parisian RER, but, hey, it had to be a very, very old TGV
- more than €6 for a croque-Monsieur, the rip-off goes on at the snack car

Additional thoughts:

1. Paris-Marseille, at 481 miles, is about a hundred miles further than Los Angeles-San Francisco. A one hundred euro fare, round-trip, is currently worth $132.90. Booked two days in advance, this is significantly cheaper than the vaunted Southwest fares between Los Angeles and San Francisco for two days in advance as well. Not only is it significantly lower than the $351.40 round trip fare, it is even cheaper than the $165 one way fare.

2. At 27 13.8 cents per mile, this stands in ready contradiction to an earlier bit of propaganda that is being spread by CAHSR opponents.

3. SNCF is probably in dire need of new or refitted rolling stock. Thankfully smoking odors won't be an issue with CAHSR trains.

Thoughts on the Grapevine study's potential

2011-09-28T20:11:00.000-07:00

Grapevine high-speed train route could save $4 billion

Building a high-speed train route over the Grapevine instead of through the Antelope Valley could save up to $4 billion, according to a July progress report released Wednesday.

A conceptual study identified more than one feasible alignment over the mountain pass, prompting engineers on the project to propose a more in-depth study of the Grapevine proposal, originally rejected in 2005.

But missing from the conceptual study, as of July anyway, was a close look at what effect a Grapevine route would have on the project's overall economics.

"More detailed analysis of ridership and revenue figures is required to complete the analysis between the Grapevine and Antelope Valley Alternatives," engineers with Parsons Brinckerhoff wrote in the July update released Wednesday by Bay Area opponents of the project.

Board members of the California High-Speed Rail Authority are not expected to review the study's findings until October or November, at which point they could decide whether to launch a detailed study that would place the Grapevine in direct competition with the Palmdale route.

With up to four billion dollars in cost savings, this could definitely push the current initial operating system debate, whether Bakersfield-San Jose or Merced-Los Angeles, decisively in favor of at least south to Sylmar and possibly all the way to Los Angeles Union Station. This is, of course, predicated on actual cost savings. It could very well be that both options are tremendously expensive and that it is simply the case that the Grapevine routing is less "more expensive" than the Palmdale routing. Unfortunately, I have yet to find the actual report itself as of yet.

Possible joint powers authority for LOSSAN

2011-09-24T07:52:00.000-07:00

More rail service could spring from new agency

A plan is in the works that could lead to a significant expansion of rail service between San Diego and Los Angeles.

Regional transportation agencies are considering joining forces for a super authority that would oversee 351 miles of coastal rail between San Diego and San Luis Obisbo.

Among the many changes forged by that authority could be as many as 27 additional daily train trips along the San Diego-Los Angeles corridor, officials said.

Currently, Amtrak has 11 daily trains each way.

If such an agency comes into being by 2014, as supporters believe, Coaster trains could be running all the way to Los Angeles and Metrolink trains could run from Los Angeles to San Diego, in addition to Amtrak Pacific Surfliner trains.

The Metrolink currently comes as far south as Oceanside, which is the northern terminus for the Coaster.

The San Diego Association of Governments, the regional planning agency, endorsed the concept of the broad rail authority at its board of directors meeting Friday. Other agencies along the corridor are being asked to back the concept.

The San Diego-L.A.-San Luis Obisbo rail corridor — known as LOSSAN to officials — is the second-busiest in the country and is also a complex patchwork of fiefdoms that includes seven owners and five operators, while passing through seven counties.

All the various interests have a voice on the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Joint Powers Board, which strives to coordinate and support the numerous interests, but in 2009 its members began looking for a “new vision for the corridor.”

From the discussion at the Friday’s meeting, it appears the LOSSAN group needed to look no farther than Northern California for a role model: the Capitol Corridor between San Jose, Oakland and Sacramento — the nation’s third busiest rail corridor.

SANDAG officials were told Friday that a single administrative authority would create greater efficiencies in the rail corridor, better manage assets and carry greater clout in Sacramento and Washington.

SANDAG board member Matthew Hall, mayor of Carlsbad, expressed the concern of many, saying “I want to make sure we don’t end up with lots of control and no money.”

Nobody was underestimating the magnitude of the shift in power the creation of a super agency would require. SANDAG for example, currently is administering the $1.5 billion improvement project on the county’s coastal tracks, which are owned and operated by the North County Transit District.

“The group used to be the 800 pound gorilla,” observed Chris Orlando, chairman of the NCTD board and a SANDAG member. “Now the 800-pound gorilla is in Los Angeles.”

Still, the benefits of a super agency proves alluring and the board voted to back the process.

“We’re not getting married,” said SANDAG chairman Jerome Stocks. “We’re agreeing to date -- and so far it is only a lunch date.”

This would be a tremendously important move for the Los Angeles-San Diego rail corridor. As many as 38 daily trains would make it the second most frequently trafficked rail corridor in the country in terms of intercity trains behind Philadelphia-New York. With a single coordinating authority behind the wheel as well, upgrades to improve service frequency and train speed throughout the system rather than individual pieces (such as the Fullerton-Laguna Niguel OC Metrolink train expansion) are more likely. This may also result in the upgrading of the general system to permit 125mph speeds from Los Angeles to San Diego, eliminating the need for the highly expensive Inland Empire routing of the high speed rail system.

Domestic intermodal is on the rise

2011-09-20T11:24:00.000-07:00

Intermodal seen closing gap with trucking

Domestic intermodal rail service is now service competitive in relatively shorter-haul traffic lanes traditionally dominated by truckload carriers, and after more than three decades is finally being regarded by shippers as a viable transport option, according to a long-time intermodal consultant.

Lee A. Clair, a partner at management consultancy Norbridge Inc., said domestic intermodal service can compete with solo truckers on stages as short as 500 to 550 miles, a distance usually covered by a solo truck driver in one day. Clair appeared on a Sept. 16 webcast sponsored by the investment firm Stifel Nicolaus & Co., which transcribed Clair's remarks.

Based on total freight spending, rail-based domestic and international intermodal represent only 3.8 percent of the total U.S. market, Clair said. However, intermodal is now the largest class of traffic moving on North American class I railroads, based on units moved, Clair said. The consultant defined units as containers, trailers, or carloads.

Domestic intermodal has grown to become nearly as large as the international segment, which has traditionally been most closely associated with intermodal service, Clair said.

Shippers looking to reduce their fuel spend and their carbon emissions are increasingly eyeing intermodal as a more cost-effective alternative to truckload carriers for domestic deliveries. Railroads, in turn, are investing more marketing dollars and operational resources into strengthening their domestic intermodal businesses.

The trend is a break from the past, when U.S. intermodal service was considered an extension of international service that involved a prior or subsequent ocean freight movement. For railroads to compete strongly in the domestic arena, however, they must deliver consistent and reliable service comparable to truckload operations at shorter distances. A typical intermodal move stretches anywhere from 1,200 to 2,000 miles.

Domestic container traffic in the second quarter rose to 1.22 million containers, a 9-percent increase from the same period a year ago, according to data from the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA). International container traffic rose 5.4 percent in the same period to 1.88 million containers, IANA said.

With the future introduction by GE of hybrid locomotives reducing fuel consumption up to 15% and mullings by BNSF of electrification, this is a trend that I think will only continue to accelerate.

CA-241 job claims

2011-09-17T23:37:00.000-07:00

CA 241 claims 17,000 jobs would be expected from a 16-mile, $1.7 billion extension of the toll road to the I-5 south of San Clemente. Such numbers help justify the CAHSRA's own job estimates of 600,000 jobs over the construction of the project. It is also interesting to note that the price of the 241 extension, $106.25 million per mile, is more expensive than current estimates for construction between Bakersfield and Fresno. While the Transportation Corridor Agencies will probably raise the funds on their own, any government funding would be far more profitably invested in upgrading existing rail service along the LOSSAN corridor paralleling Interstate 5, alleviating congestion via mode capture.

A five billion dollar boondoggle in Texas

2011-09-14T10:29:00.000-07:00

Alon Levy posted a few months ago on road boondoggles, but Texas is showing its determination to prove that everything is bigger, if certainly not better, in Texas. Witness a 5.2 billion dollar third beltway around Houston. To make matters worse, the renewed push for the project is largely to try and keep ExxonMobile's headquarters in the region, not of any actual congestion or other criteria which might present a somewhat rationale criteria for the construction.

Bakersfield to Sacramento?

2011-09-13T10:23:00.000-07:00

An interesting, if unlikely proposal:

School kids don’t cope well with geography, tests show. But adults shy on knowledge of our own state’s heartland? What is there about California’s central valley they don’t understand? A lot, it would appear from those — media included — who call the valley “nowhere,” as in deriding federal support for state high-speed rail to begin with a Bakersfield-Fresno-Merced link. They say it’s a “train to nowhere.”
Well, let’s see. For a century and a half, “nowhere’s” crops have fed and clothed (lately with China’s help) much of the known world. For good measure, valley wines pleasure international palates. The best rival French vintages.
“Nowhere” supports six universities awarding bachelor’s and higher degrees, among them the University of California’s Merced campus. College commuters are a mainstay of Amtrak valley service. Faster trains would boost their numbers.
What’s next hurts but must be said. “Nowhere” is an unthinkingly crude term. Valley people suffer high rates of asthma and other pulmonary disorders linked to automotive and agricultural air pollution. For them, fast trains spell relief. That’s an unsung part of high-speed rail’s rationale: Good transportation, competitive with cars and some flights, is a sound way to address tainted air.
A step-back, second-wind high-speed rail review is in order. Flexibility in confronting challenges is a hallmark wherever trains at 100-200 mph have proved their worth. Big question: Is insistence on Bay Area primacy truly the best route to a north-south rail alternative to congested air- and freeways? Airplanes also pollute, remember.
Peninsula resistance to high-speed rail has mounted. Neighbors fear losses to rail corridor widening. Recently proposed “blending” of high-speed rail with commuter rail, using the same tracks, may stem such fears. But only as a stopgap, pending corridor tweaking for higher speeds.
Grade separations, vital to speedy trains, present tough issues. San Bruno’s grade sep will raise rails 17 feet before they dive under Interstate 380. “Humps” and high speed don’t blend well.
While the Peninsula mulls high-speed rail, another scenario is emerging. It would have the California High-Speed Rail Authority consider, up front, extending new trackage from Merced to Sacramento. High-speed rail’s first operational stage would then embrace two-thirds of the Central Valley — almost a miniature of the entire system, of real value in and of itself, but poised to spread wings.
Sacramento is after all our state capital, worth more than second tier in high-speed rail’s vision. Making it an early destination could change minds among legislators who aren’t high-speed rail fans. It would boost the capital’s urban stature while benefiting valley travelers.
What a feather in CHSRA’s cap — making the valley a stand-alone segment of the whole, with trains running sooner and more affordably.
We have that opportunity. Sound arguments support its study, including these: Terrain north of Merced is largely non-urban and level enough for relatively rapid construction; conditions favor incrementally faster trains that could provide valley service within a few years (the incremental approach has worked well in France and Spain); CHSRA stands to benefit from early train experience — the valley would make a good lab.
Federal Railroad Administration startup funding would put trains within striking distance of Sacramento. It’s logical for California’s capital to be part of high-speed rail’s earliest loop.

Normally I'm fairly parochial about Bakersfield-Los Angeles being the next segment that should be constructed and the initial operating service being from Merced to Los Angeles. In fact, I would be harshly critical if San Jose were to receive the next construction segment. However, I would be supportive of building to Sacramento next (which, to comply with the law, would likely need to be a requirement of federal funds) for two main reasons. First, there is my conviction that, of all the cities that will be connected by the high speed rail system, Sacramento is likely to benefit the most, in terms of induced traffic, thanks to the greater availability of connections. Second, such an alignment would offer great weight to moving back to the far superior Altamont Pass alignment, not only saving money and speeding travel from Los Angeles to the Bay Area, but also capturing a very significant amount of ridership from cars between Sacramento and San Francisco which the Pacheco Pass option, taking two hours to go between San Francisco and Sacramento, does not.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

2011-08-22T15:55:00.000-07:00

This particular bit of propaganda, especially the claim about high speed rail ticket prices per mile, has been making its way around lately, including by State Assemblyman Jerry Hill. It provides an excellent example of the value of cherry-picking one's data to support the conclusion.

Using empirical evidence from analyzing fares on high-speed train routes in Europe and Japan, it appears the CHSRA’s high-speed rail per mile rate should be about $0.44/mile to recover operating and construction costs; 80% higher than their presently-used $0.24/mile. Setting aside for a moment the fact that all but two of the world’s high-speed rail routes are subsidized, and assuming they at least break even, the analyzed per mile rate would make a one-way SF to LA ticket cost about $190.5 Therefore, if the CHSRA’s assumed private operator must charge enough to break even, four tickets for a LA/SF round trip would cost at least $1,520.

First the lie: The California High Speed Rail Authority is not required to recover construction costs, only operating costs and any revenue bonds sold on the basis of HSR ticket revenue. It is therefore, irrelevant, to cite what may be needed to recover construction costs.

With regards to the damned lie, as I have already shown before, every high speed rail operator recovers operating costs based on passenger revenue. The claim that "all but two of the world’s high-speed rail routes are subsidized" is a falsehood based on which routes have fully paid off their construction bonds, an assumption that does not necessarily work if, as SNCF has chosen to do, profits are used to invest in expansion rather than paying off the extant loans. It is a rather foolish person who considers a business unprofitable simply because the original loan is not yet paid off.

Lastly, we come to the statistics. Their empirical evidence fares in Europe are peak hour next day 2nd class fares upon Paris-Lyon, the most congested and hence profitable line within France. As any economics student could easily point out, when lines are operating at or near maximum capacity and there is still substantial demand, the fares will, absent outside regulation, reflect the highest price the market will bear. At 425 kilometers and 86.4 euros peak, this reflects a price of €0.20/km or $0.47 per mile. However, if we look at the Paris-Marseille segment, which covers 783 kilometers in three hours, we have next day fares ranging from €54 to €97, or $0.16-0.29/mile. Advanced fares drop as low as €39.90 for two weeks in advance, twelve cents per mile. Seen in this light, if anything, the 24¢/mile fare proposed for CAHSR is actually too little.

Similarly, the Japanese fares referred to appear to be from JR East's Tokaido Shinkansen who charge a flat fare of 14,050 yen on the Nozomi express trains between Tokyo and Shin-Osaka. That equates to a hefty 53¢ per mile, but again, this is not a sign of actual operational need rather than profit-taking. The congestion and demand on the Tokaido Shinkansen is sufficiently high that JR East is planning to build a ¥9 trillion maglev line to supplement it (a line which will be entirely privately funded and expected to be operational). A longer journey from Tokyo to Hakata, again using the Nozomi express along the congested Tokaido Shinkansen, is ¥22,320, 40¢ per mile. It is, of course, notable that that fare level does not impair traffic, contrary to the assertions of the Community Coalition on High Speed Rail.

A more proper response by CC-HSR would have been to try plugging in numbers for themselves and seeing if the numbers worked. Then, and only then, would it be appropriate to criticize the 24¢/mile figure if the numbers did not pan out. Since they failed to do so appropriately, I'll make some effort at doing so.

Assumptions:

1. The trainset will resemble a Siemens Velaro E with a cafe car and a total of 405 seats in three classes (however, for the purpose of this analysis, all seats will be treated as coach).

2. The notional average trainset will travel an express route from Los Angeles to San Francisco with no stops.

3. Attributed maintenance costs will be equal to $33.74 per mile, in accordance with the tolls SNCF pays along Paris-Lyon.

4. Electricity use shall be 35.41 kilowatt hours per mile, similar to the TGV Atlantique (page 74), and the price per kilowatt hour 8.46 cents.

5. Three employees (engineer, conductor, and cafe attendant) whose total compensation per hour is 40, 30, and 25 dollars per hour respectively, with an assumed 3 hours of paid time per notional average trip.

6. The average train will have a capacity factor of only 50%.

These direct marginal operating costs come then to a total of $16,154.82 for the 432 mile journey. At 24 cents per mile, the 202 passengers paid a total of $20,943.36 ($21,210 if we round up to the $105 ticket cost) in fares, meaning that the average train should cover its costs handily. Amtrak's experience is that the cafe car adds an additional 7% to the revenue, boosting total revenue to $22,694.70, an operating profit of $6,539.88. Provided that these numbers truly represent the average train, the California high speed rail system should not face any difficulty in raising sufficient operational revenue to run an operational profit at the 24 cents per mile fare level.

Why did freight electrification fail in America?

2011-08-18T16:32:00.000-07:00

Having recently acquired a copy of The Milwaukee Electrics by Noel T. Holley, I thought it might be worthwhile to go through and post some thoughts on why electrification did not become more widespread and was generally dismantled in the United States.

1. Electrification was extremely expensive. The Milwaukee Road’s 654 miles of electrification cost 23 million dollars when completed in 1920, some 200 million dollars adjusted for inflation using a GDP deflator or some 3.78 billion as a relative share of GDP. While that would not pose a major problem for the Class I railroads of today, that amount was a rather large sum for the Milwaukee Road and, in part, led to its bankruptcy in 1925.

2. It did not produce major financial gains, even with regards to steam locomotives. After subtracting the cost of bond and interest payments, electrification amounted to only one million dollars in annual savings on the Rocky Mountain Division and $100,000 on the Coast Division (the Coast Division having had construction and interest prices increase greatly compared to the Rocky Mountain due to World War II). Higher traffic would have greatly increased the savings, however the Milwaukee Road was the Johnny-come-lately transcontinental and suffered accordingly. It is tempting to believe that had it been the Great Northern which electrified instead, the electrification might have been maintained to the present day.

3. The World Wars, Great Depression, and economic troubles for some in the 1920s put severe limits on the financial capability of the major railroads to make the major investments that electrification entailed.

4. Diesels provided nearly all of the advantages of electrification at far less cost. While electrification required the construction of extremely large amounts of infrastructure before a single locomotive could run, diesels could be integrated into the normal purchasing cycle and gradually replace steam locomotives.

5. For quite a long period of time, electrics did not offer a significant difference in motive power cost compared to diesels and could in fact be more expensive to operate. To quote the aforementioned book:

A study performed by Laurence Wylie in 1949 indicated that new diesels would be slightly cheaper to operate on the Coast Division than the old electrics. The purchase price, interest and taxes are what made diesels are more expensive choice.

This closeness of costs was not unique to Milwaukee. A 1948 study on the Great Northern electrification found diesels to be slightly cheaper to operate there also. The Great Northern blamed this on the exorbitant rates it was paying for electric power. Its variable rats went as high as $.01 per kilowatt hour (kwh) including demand charges. Joe Gaynor, who headed the G.N. electrification, felt the rate would have to be cut to $.005 per kwh for economics to justify expansion of their electrification.

Energy costs were one of the factors favoring electrics on the Milwaukee. From the late 1940’s through the late 1960’s, the Milwaukee paid $.09 per gallon for diesel oil compared to $.068 for enough electricity to produce equivalent power. (Calculations and locomotive tests showed that one gallon of oil equaled 12.5 kwh which were purchased for $.00544 per kilowatt hour.) This rate was quite good in comparison to the Pennsylvania RR which paid roughly $.009 in 1950 and $.013 by 1966.

Today of course, the situation is quite different when it comes to the price of fuel. However, that does not necessarily support electrification of the mainline corridors as a real possibility within the next few years. With only a limited amount of funding available for improvements, expansion of freight service is likely to be a more profitable endeavor, and so receive the monies, than electrification absent a public-private partnership for the purpose of electrification.

Oil prices lead to higher usage of intermodal rail services

2011-08-12T11:19:00.000-07:00

Survey Sees Major Shift of Truck Freight to Intermodal

Shippers shifted freight from all-truck modes to intermodal at the fastest pace in years during the second quarter, according to a closely watched survey by the Wolfe Trahan research group.

Based on preliminary results of the survey conducted in July and early August, the shift from roads to rail occurred more than at any point in the last eight years, the analysts said, and shippers expect to shift more domestic cargo to intermodal in the months ahead. The full results of the survey are scheduled to be released before Labor Day.

During the April-June quarter, “shippers in our survey shifted a net 4.5 percent of their volume from truck to rail,” said analysts Edward Wolfe and Scott Group, for “the highest net shift to rail in the past eight years of our survey.”

Shippers also said they expect to move a net 3.6 percent more to rail from highway-only transport over the next 6-12 months, which is a pickup from recent surveys. In this year’s first quarter, shippers projected a 3.2 percent net shift in the coming year, up slightly from last year’s fourth quarter.

For most of last year, surveyed shippers told Wolfe Trahan they only expected to shift a net 1.3 percent to 1.9 percent of their business away from road delivery to intermodal.

While rail industry officials often credit the shift to improving rail service times and investments to convert more of their rail networks to doublestack clearances, researchers found a strong correlation between modal shifts and oil prices.

When average quarterly oil prices were below $70 a barrel for West Texas Intermediate crude during 2009, the survey found freight shifting back to trucks and the delivery convenience they provide.

But when WTI quarterly pricing moved above $70 per barrel in 2010 followed by a spike this year, shippers increasingly put more cargo aboard trains for the long-haul part of the trip.

With realistic long term oil prices remaining above $70 a barrel for the foreseeable future, freight rail is increasingly going to be the shipper of choice. Electrification, which offers energy prices roughly one third of the current cost of diesel, may become a means of competition between shipper; however, this is presuming that there is sufficient capacity on the rail lines to warrant such, which is generally not the case at present. Certainly however, the expectation of 500 hybrid locomotives sold by 2020 is one that should be easily matched. My own expectation is that such a number is probably on the more pessimistic side, should the claimed fuel savings hold up in practice.

When rail spending is depressing and an outrage

2011-08-03T20:19:00.000-07:00

Earlier today, Secretary LaHood announced an additional $336 million in Federal funding for the purchase of new intercity locomotives and rail cars. This brings the total of such awards to $782 million for a total of 33 locomotives and 120 passenger cars. This is, quite frankly, an absurd amount of money. At an average of five million for each vehicle, the utility of continuing to purchase individual locomotives and cars rather pales. Diesel or electric multiple unit train sets, even FRA compliant USRailcar models, become a far better value for the money as they offer increased performance over traditional locomotive and car consists. Their relative novelty to American passenger railroading may also offer a useful public relations boost with a "futuristic look."

Consider, for instance, that NCTD in San Diego County was able to purchase twelve Siemens Desiro DMUs at a total price of 52.2 million when they set up the Sprinter rail service, a price of 4.35 million per unit. For this price, instead of receiving 6 locomotives and 42 rail cars, California could have purchased 48 such multiple units. Four unit consists would enable 478 coach seats and 24 business class seats, using Desiro Classic specifications and assuming each end car contains business class seats. These twelve trains would be capable of taking over, in part or in full, for any of Amtrak California's routes and providing increased service in the process, perhaps allowing even for an authentic Surfliner Express rather than the paltry 15 minute savings currently offered.

As a further note, it is outrageous that California is the only state to spend substantial sums of it's own money on increasing capacity through this measure. 42 million, 20% of the total funding, came from California's own funds. Only Illinois paid as well and their funding amounted to a paltry 11.6 million, barely 5% of the purchase that was made for and about 2.5% of the total projects Illinois is involved in. Further Federal funds should require a state match similar to that of California's.

Why do I, as a conservative, support high speed rail in California?

2011-07-26T23:14:00.000-07:00

That modern American conservatism is, in general, highly opposed to high speed rail programs is not a matter of dispute and one that I do not believe I need to source or prove. In certain respects it is even understandable where passenger rail advocates have grossly misrepresented or wrongly implied basic passenger rail improvements as being “high speed rail”, such as was the case in Ohio and Wisconsin and is the case, although the funding remains, with line upgrades and extensions in Illinois and Iowa. That is not to say that I oppose those projects, merely that I understand why, with the lackluster reality of 79 and 110 mph trains when the implication is one of bullet trains, conservative opposition might greatly result. However, opposition to the lines in Florida and California, where the lines are truly high speed, is less clear, if perhaps even more vociferous. So what are some of the reasons that I, as a self-identified conservative, support high speed rail in California if the zeitgeist of conservatism is opposition to high speed rail programs in the United States?

1. High speed rail systems support themselves

As I have previously noted, every high speed rail system in the world brings in enough revenue to cover its operational costs. While they may not necessarily cover the initial capital costs of constructing the lines, that makes them no different from most toll roads and certainly no different than any newly constructed highways. The overall economic benefits of increased mobility and commerce are sufficient to make the initial capital investment a worthwhile expense, especially given that the government can take the long view and evaluate investments not merely over the next few quarters, but over a century or longer (which is not to say, of course, that projects are necessarily a good idea if they take a century to recoup their investment value).

2. High speed rail, especially where it overlays commuter rail, decreases congestion

Currently, despite not being time competitive against cars, the Metrolink commuter rail system ”clears the equivalent of one lane of the 91 Freeway per day” and is expected to do so with another lane following the Perris Valley Line extension. Trains operating on the OC Line add an additional half lane of capacity in terms of riders and cars removed between the hours of 4am and 8am while the San Bernardino Line, over the course of one hour (5:15am to 6:12am) removes just under 2,000 riders, or a full lane of traffic, from the highways. 125 mile per hour commuter trains sharing lines with high speed intercity trains will represent trip times that are not merely time competitive with cars, but outright faster than automobiles on uncongested roads, leading to greater use of them and decreasing overall trip times for those who stay on the roads while others change modes.

Similarly, because high speed rail is competitive with airlines on shorter distance hops of five hundred miles or so, with rail journey times under three hours taking approximately 70% of the air-rail market, air congestion can be lowered (assuming proper regulatory authority is granted to airport managers to ensure that flights are actually dropped rather than replaced with smaller jets and turboprops), resulting in safer air travel with fewer delays.

3. High speed rail reduces the need for other capital investments

We do not live in a static world, but rather a dynamic world of fairly continual growth (at least for the next few decades), and our infrastructure planning must plan for the future. That means we must rationally look at the most cost-effective means of expanding transit mobility to keep up with the expected population growth, expected to reach approximately 44 million by 2020 and 49 million by 2030.

What the recent “Carmageddon” flap in Los Angeles showed, although it was not remarked upon, is that it can no longer be taken as a given that highway spending is the most cost-effective means of reducing traffic congestion. One billion dollars is being spent upon that project in order to add a single carpool lane in each direction for a total of ten miles. One hundred million dollars per mile is tremendously expensive, on par with the cost of building and upgrading urbanized high speed rail lines, and more expensive than building greenfield rail lines (even with America’s cost inflation relative to the rest of the world when it comes to infrastructure projects). For all that, the additional capacity is only up to 2,300 vehicles per hour per direction, or about 4,600 persons since this is a carpool lane requiring at least two persons per vehicle. By contrast, a rail line, for the same money or less, would be capable of carrying as many as 8,300 passengers with ten minute intervals between trains, not including standees, effectively doubling the capacity of the highway improvement for similar amounts of money. With the tremendous population growth in the Inland Empire that we have seen in the past decade and expect to see in the future, it makes far more fiscal sense to utilize high speed rail to expand our mobility solutions rather than the continual expansions of highways that has previously been the case in the California. This is especially the case when high speed rail is more than capable of operating without additional government spending and as the Phase II expansion through the Inland Empire, in particular, is currently intended and expected to be financed through CAHSR revenues and private investment rather than taxation or general obligation bonds.

4. High speed rail insulates intercity travel and commerce from oil shocks.

The heart of economic growth lies in the rapidity and affordability of transport, both for goods and persons. With the current poor fuel efficiency of American cars and the general inefficiency of short distance airline hops such as represented by intrastate air travel, rising fuel costs pose a general harm to our ability to continue to engage in the normal travel and personal commerce to which our economy is accustomed, the loss of which most likely having a deleterious effect upon the economy as a whole. With extremely low profit margins hovering around 2% and cumulative losses of $54 billion over the previous ten years, it is entirely possible that, although the Bay Area-Los Angeles Basin represents the heaviest travelled air corridor in America, future oil shocks may result in curtailment of service, either by airlines seeking to cut costs, or from travelers cutting their own costs and forgoing travel and with it the commerce that would have resulted. Electric high speed rail, by contrast, is unaffected by increased petroleum prices. For those who have work commutes that may be accessed by rail, the steady fares of high speed rail and commuter trains on high speed rail trackage in the face of fuel price increases may very well represent a viable alternative which saves them money. Discretionary income saved (or rather, continuing to be spent in a discretionary manner) rather than being turned into non-discretionary income for transportation is far more beneficial to the economy.

5. High speed rail, as currently designed in California, expands travel and commerce opportunity and activities

Currently, if one wishes to travel in California somewhere other than between the LA Basin and Bay Area, their only choices are extremely expensive air fare or a lengthy piece of driving. Personally this was quite recently hammered home to me when, looking at the potential for meeting up with a friend from out of state who would be visiting Sacramento, I was faced with the options of either spending several hundred dollars on airfare, with inconvenient flight times, or 8-9 hours each way driving, the latter of which was not a feasible option due to work scheduling. For many areas, such as in the Central Valley, driving is currently the only option. With the more convenient transit that high speed rail can generally provide, travel and tourism, already major industries in the state, can only benefit.

Do we actually want DesertXPress?

2011-07-19T19:31:00.000-07:00

Note: This was reposted to accurately reflect the day it was written rather than Blogger's insistence on publishing it from when the draft was first created.

The proposed private high speed rail line between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, DesertXPress, has gotten quite a fair bit of attention and some degree of government support, such as use of the I-15 corridor. As it would, if current plans proceed at their current rate, be the first true high speed rail line in America (Acela only briefly touching 150 mph for a few miles), it also has a strong degree of support from high speed rail proponents. Is DesertXPress necessarily a rail line we want however?

To begin with, DesertXPress is not likely to succeed financially. While they have claimed to have large amounts of private capital behind them, they have also applied for a 4.9 billion dollar Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing loan from the Federal Railroad Authority. These loans carry "interest rates equal to the cost of borrowing to the government"which is currently equal to 3.75% on a 30 year bond (the Wall Street Journal is reporting about 4.3% currently). At that rate, the annual loan repayments would equal 273.4 million dollars per year (292.2 million at 4.3%), around the same amount as Taiwan High Speed Rail paid in 2010 (NT$8.9 billion, page 5; that is US$308 million today, but the NT$ has risen in value against the US$ and one year ago, that amounted to $276.2 million). The Taiwan HSR system was unable to pay the cost of financing and required a government takeover to refinance the loans at even lower interest rates despite far higher revenues than DesertXPress expects. Page 16 shows the revenue levels that DesertXPress expects to make. It is not until 2031 that revenues would be sufficiently high as to lower financial charges to only a quarter of total revenues. Given that operational profits prior to interest and taxes is less than 10% of total revenues for European high speed rail operators (running from a Spanish 2% to SNCF at 7%), it is unlikely in the extreme that DesertXPress could meet its interest expenses and would be forced into bankruptcy. This would not be the case, of course, if there should happen to be an appropriate sum of private investment to build the line rather than building it on loans, however, it raises the question of why DesertXPress would apply for a loan sufficiently large to build the entire line if it had the requisite private investment secured.

When and if DesertXPress fails, it will be a tremendous PR blow for the case of the California high speed rail program and other high speed rail programs in the United States. Any initiative that has been gotten in the public mindset is likely to be lost with such a visible failure, especially as anti-HSR groups such as Reason and Heritage seize upon it to use as an example in their mantra of the unprofitability of high speed rail (while ignoring toll roads with much higher margins being similarly crippled by debt loads).

From another standpoint, there must also be considered the nature of the line. While high speed travel between New York, Boston, and Washington D.C. is mutually enriching, high speed travel between the Los Angeles area and Las Vegas is unlikely to so be. The main industries of Las Vegas and the main reason for the relatively high level of travel to Las Vegas are parasitical in nature, gambling and the leisure and entertainment industries which serve its customer group. From the viewpoint of California, given the low return spending which the connection would bring from Las Vegas, it would be greatly preferable not to have it and instead encourage that gambling be conducted at Indian casinos within the state (such as the promotion between San Manuel and Metrolink), thus keeping the dollars and their related jobs inside California rather than exported to another state with little return.

Additionally, Las Vegas is itself of dubious quality. While there is nothing inherently wrong with responsible gambling, Las Vegas has consistently promoted itself as being the home for every vice it can, as being a destination and resort for debauchery and decadence, thus earning its nickname as "Sin City." Promoting and encouraging easier access to vice runs contrary to good order and the benefit of society and hence on that basis ought to be avoided except whereas deemed necessary by pragmatism (for instance, were it to lay upon one of the best routes connecting two worthier cities rather than being the entire purpose of the line itself).

Have Metrolink Express trains been a success?

2011-07-13T13:04:00.000-07:00

On May 9th, Metrolink introduced express train service along the Antelope Valley and San Bernardino lines. These lines both received a pair of express trains, one heading to Los Angeles in the morning, and one leaving Los Angeles again in the evening. Now that a few months have passed, ridership data for the months of May and June have been posted, allowing us to see whether the faster train times resulted in higher ridership.

Antelope Valley Line total ridership

April 2010: 141,616

May 2010: 132,876

June 2010: 139,586

April 2011: 137,327

May 2011: 142,024

June 2011: 144,762

San Bernardino Line

April 2010: 281,242

May 2010: 268,550

June 2010: 279,766

April 2011: 290,095

May 2011: 295,575

June 2011: 298,514

Even a simple eyeballing of the numbers indicates that the combination of additional service and express trains has resulted in much higher ridership than would otherwise have been expected. However, the express trains appear to be underperforming. AV 282, the morning express service, averaged 214 passengers per weekday. That's only 55-60% of the performance of its preceding and following local services which averaged 383 and 349 passengers respectively. Similarly, the afternoon AV 285 averaged 291 passengers against the 411 and 366 of its earlier and later trains.

San Bernardino does far better however. SB 383 averages 522 passengers per weekday to Los Angeles, substantially better than the earlier SB 305 with 279 passengers and close to the following SB 307 with 583 passengers. In the afternoon, SB 384 carried an average of 563 passengers, substantially better than its neighboring trains at 531 and 511 passengers.

There are two explanations that come readily to mind for why the Antelope Valley express trains do so poorly. The first is that the commuting population is more concentrated in the stops served by the express trains on the San Bernardino Line than they are on the Antelope Valley Line. Considering the 2007 boarding pattern, the express train only serves 36% of commuters and serves the first, fourth, and eighth (third to last) busiest stations. Meanwhile, the San Bernardino line served the busiest three stations representing 46% of the total commuters.

The second explanation may simply be a lack of sufficient time saving to draw a suitably large number of commuters from other trains and from cars. The new express trains, if on time which the AV trains had some trouble doing at first, are slightly less than half an hour faster than their local counterparts (with the noted exception of SB 383 being 45 minutes earlier than its predecessor, arriving 15 minutes before it despite leaving 30 minutes later). San Bernardino is now competitive in terms of trip time with cars, although it is still slower when one accounts for the first and last mile problem of mass transit. Antelope Valley, however, is still slower than the car (in both cases, using Google Maps to determine trip time). In this case, the dominating factor is going to be the arrival timing since it cannot function as a suitable alternative to road congestion for those who are intent on minimizing their transit time.

Oil prices, airline ticket prices, and CAHSR

2011-07-11T12:54:00.000-07:00

In 2010, Southwest Airlines reported that the average price that they paid for aviation fuel came to $2.51 per gallon (source, page 3). That price represented nearly a third, 32.6%, of all operating expenses and slightly more than double the price of fuel merely five years prior. In total, over the past ten years, fuel costs have risen by 250% from 99.6 cents (after inflation adjustment, 78.69 cents in 2000 dollars, page F22) and an increase in total operating expenses of 186% from 17.4% of total operating expenses in 2000 (ibid, page F7). As of this week, the world price for fuel is $2.998, a 344% increase in nominal and a 273% increase in real price since 2010.

Working backwards from this carbon calculator's result of 203 pounds of CO2 per Southwest traveller between LAX and SFO (Southwest chosen due to being the most commonly cited and advertised airline between the two airports and their entirely economy seated aircraft), we can see a fuel consumption of 9.6 gallons per passenger per flight with $24-29 per ticket being devoted simply to paying the fuel cost (depending on 2010 hedged SWA price vs current market price). The portion of the price paid simply to account for the fuel costs is quite large, as much as half the ticket price with current $59 discounted fare sales but still remaining a solid 25-30% of the ticket fare at the more common $99 fare level that travel on that route sees this year (for an advance purchase ticket).

This rise in fuel prices is not indefinitely sustainable of course. Too high of an oil price will cause major drops in consumer spending as increased transportation costs raise the price of goods and lower household discretionary incomes. At a certain breaking point, this causes a sufficiently large drop in demand as to cause an economic downturn, reducing the price of oil. Until and unless significant forces of alternative fuels (be it Fischer-Fropsch synthetic fuel, biofuel, or widespread adoption of electric cars and mass transit) or a coordinated price fixing action by the oil producing nations act to stabilize the price of oil, this will result in a perpetual cycle around the "sustainable" price.

Still, it is certainly possible for oil to increase sustainably by another 50% (to an average world price of $150 dollars per barrel and an airline price of $4.50 per gallon) or catastrophically double (to $200 and $6 respectively). This would push up the fuel price between LAX and SFO to $43.20 and $57.6. If airline operating expenses and profit seeking (in terms of dollars per ticket) remain fixed and fares only rise in accordance with fuel, our $99 baseline fare would rise to $114 and $129. Assuming that other factors similarly rising (such as wages to deal with transportation expense inflation) meant that fuel did not exceed 40% of the total airfare, only the catastrophic scenario would see a price rise, to $144 per ticket.

While this would impact transportation to a degree, in neither case does it seem that air travel between the Los Angeles and San Francisco regions would be greatly affected. There is a sufficiently high degree of travel that increased fuel costs are unlikely to so greatly reduce demand and profit margins such as to significantly reduce service.

Among the trains cited in "Estimating Emissions from Railway Traffic" (page 74), the TGV Atlantique, which runs 300 km/hr maximum and 240 km/hr average between Paris and St. Pierre des Corps (Tours), best represents CAHSRA's planned 350km/hr top speed, 220km/hr average speed train between Los Angeles and San Francisco. That train consumes 22 kilowatt-hours per kilometer for a total consumption upon the 695 kilometer route of 15,290 kilowatt-hours. With 485 seats, if we assume an average train capacity factor of only 50%, the energy consumption will be 63 kilowatts per passenger. At the 2010 price of electricity for transportation customers in California of 8.46 cents per kilowatt-hour, the fuel price per passenger is a mere $5.32.

This does not mean, of course, that high speed rail tickets will necessarily be able to drastically undercut the price of airlines. Rail, after all, has significant infrastructure maintenance costs that airlines do not. Renfe financial report shows traction energy costs amounted to only 7.5% of total expenditures (source, page 163). Following that result, if averaging only 50% of total seat capacity, a break-even fare, of all operational costs, would be $71, declining to $50 at 70% capacity factor. Electricity is somewhat cheaper in Spain, but this should not greatly affect matters. SNCF reports energy costs averaging 4.3% of total costs from amongst all divisions, with the result of much higher train fares if that were to hold true for CAHSR ($123).

In the end result, higher oil prices are not likely to impose a significant burden to air demand although competitive pressure may lead to failures and consolidations before ticket prices rise to match fuel costs. Provided that gold-plated design can be avoided, maintenance costs kept low, and tendencies towards overstaffing as currently demonstrated by American passenger rail kept at bay, the California high speed rail system stands a very good chance of potentially greatly undercutting airline fares and establishing itself as the major low cost carrier of high speed intrastate intercity travel.

Railroads targeting domestic intermodal freight

2011-07-05T17:53:00.000-07:00

Rails try new route to intermodal growth

For decades, international commerce has dictated the rules of engagement in the U.S. intermodal industry. Seagoing containerized imports were offloaded at U.S. ports of entry, transloaded onto railroads, and moved inland.

That business is hardly going away. However, the days when domestic intermodal operations were viewed strictly as a "bolt on" to international service that involved a prior or subsequent ocean freight movement are fast becoming history. Today, the four U.S. Class I railroads are putting greater emphasis than ever on the domestic market as they look for ways to fuel intermodal growth. In so doing, they will try to move beyond their comfort zone of near 2,000-mile hauls and muscle in on the short- to intermediate-distance markets dominated by truckload carriers.

To be sure, it isn't a zero sum game. Collectively, the trucking industry is the country's largest intermodal user and has for years relied on the service to cut its linehaul costs. UPS Inc., known to many as a ground carrier, is also the single biggest intermodal customer.

However, there are still many shippers who will not use intermodal service and depend exclusively on truck, a fact that railroads know all too well. For example, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) estimates its customers use intermodal for only about one-quarter of their total transport needs.

The railroads believe U.S. businesses may be ready for a change, especially as trucking costs escalate, road congestion intensifies, and fears of a driver shortage persist. The rails maintain that the speed and reliability of their domestic intermodal service has now improved to the point where they can offer a compelling price-service solution on shorter stage lengths.

A wide-open opportunity
If rail industry estimates are accurate, there is plenty of incentive to focus on the domestic business. Omaha, Neb.-based Union Pacific Railroad Co. (UP) says 11 million truckloads are up for grabs in its service territory, while Fort Worth, Texas-based BNSF puts its potential market at 7 million. In 2010, BNSF handled between 2.25 million and 2.5 million domestic intermodal loads, while UP handles, on average, about 2 million a year.

Jacksonville, Fla.-based CSX told analysts recently that of the 14 million truckloads that normally move in the Eastern United States each year, about 5.1 million have already been converted to intermodal, leaving a potential market of somewhere around 9 million. CSX said it handles about 40 percent of the 5.1 million loads that have already been converted.

Senior rail executives recognize the potential bonanza that awaits them should they convince shippers that they can deliver on their intermodal service commitments and continue to do so at lower rates than truckload. "We have a unique opportunity, and the opportunity is huge," says Steve Branscum, BNSF's group vice president, consumer products marketing.

To capitalize on this opportunity, the rails are building out their intermodal networks. Norfolk Southern's "Crescent Corridor," a 2,500-mile joint public-private project linking New Jersey with Louisiana, is expected to divert 1 million trucks per year from 10 interstate highways when the work is completed in 2013. Executives for the Norfolk, Va.-based railroad were unavailable for comment.

Earlier this year, CSX opened an intermodal facility in the Northwest Ohio town of North Baltimore. The facility serves as the pivot of a hub-and-spoke operation where freight arriving from nationwide points is transferred to double-stack trains for delivery throughout the East. It enables shippers to bypass the notorious "choke point" of Chicago, and thus can reduce transit times by up to two days between West Coast ports and distribution centers in the Ohio Valley, CSX officials say.

"It is our gateway to the West," says Michael Rutherford, director of intermodal marketing for CSX Transportation.

Out west, UP has upgraded eight of its 10 primary corridors to enable intermodal to better compete with truckload, according to Matt Gloeb, the railroad's assistant vice president of domestic intermodal. The two remaining lanes, Los Angeles–Seattle and Los Angeles–Houston, are expected to reach service parity by year's end, Gloeb says.

UP has raised tunnel clearances at Donner Pass, 90 miles northeast of Sacramento, Calif., to accommodate double-stack container trains, according to spokesman Tom Lange. The railroad has built intermodal terminals in Chicago, San Antonio, Dallas, and Salt Lake City. It is also laying a second track on its Los Angeles–El Paso "Sunset Route"—a move that will double train capacity on the heavily used intermodal corridor by allowing two trains to operate over it at the same time, Lange says.

Do the toll roads make a profit?

2011-06-30T09:35:00.000-07:00

In comparison to my earlier post about the operational profits of high speed rail, I thought it might be useful to take a gander at various toll roads in America and see whether they made a net profit; that is, revenues in excess of operational, depreciation, tax, and interest expenses; since the major complaint I've run into is persons complaining that high speed rail ought to repay its capital investment costs as well. I'm specifically breaking out interest in order to help illustrate the capital costs, but annual net deficits or profits are based on the totality of revenues and expenses as reported by the toll road.

San Joaquin Toll Road (CA SR 73), 2010, page 9

Operating income: $81,668,000

Interest expense: $112,817,000

Annual net deficit: $19,690,000

SR 73 is in sufficiently poor shape that it recently found it necessary to reduce the debt service margin and extend the bond repayment period in order to continue paying them.

Foothill/Eastern Toll Roads (CA SR 241, 261, 133), 2010, page 9

Operating income: $94,669,000

Interest expense: $132,418,000

Annual net deficit: $10,702,000

E-470 (Denver, Colorado), 2010, page 14

Operating income: $31,366,289

Interest expense: $95,419,612

Annual net deficit: $60,068,817

In addition to toll revenue (from some of the highest in the country, with a full length trip from I-25 S to I-25 N costing 31.8¢ per mile), E-470 also received more than 8.6 million dollars in vehicle registration fees.

Harris County Toll Road Authority, 2010, page 16

Operating income: $229,583,106

Interest expense: $116,887,849

Annual net income: $132,199,306

North Texas Tollway Authority, 2010, page 12

Operating income: $258,200,000

Interest expense: $377,500,000

Annual net deficit: $111,200,000

Note that the numbers here may be deceptive. According to Tollroad News, "one reason NTTA was able to build the TX121 Sam Rayburn Tollway so cheaply was that they took over a half-built pike from TxDOT and excluded TxDOT's costs from their figure for Project Costs." There may, therefore, be additional depreciation and interest costs not properly accounted for.

Central Texas Turnpike System, 2010, page 21

Operating income: $5,688,946

Interest and amortization: $66,745,615

Annual net deficit: $127,139,586

In this case, I ignored 63 million dollars in outside capital contributions and transfer payments in recording the net deficit. This does not materially affect the matter as it only offset half the losses. It is also interesting to note that in 2009, after depreciation, the CTTS ran a negative operational income, a result not seen in any of the earlier examined figures regarding high speed rail.

Pennsylvania Turnpike, 2010, page 24

Operating income: $71,359,000

Interest expense: $263,749,000

Annual net deficit $162,295,000

In 2009, the PA Turnpike had a negative operational income. The annual net deficit figure I've used is after eliminating transfers to PennDOT and likewise ignoring capital contributions. It is quite possible, however, that the PA Turnpike would run a net profit were it not for the revenue bonds funding transfers to PennDOT under Act 44.

Indiana Toll Road Concession Company, 2010

EBITDA: $138,800,00

Operating income: $59,100,000

Interest expense: $268,000,000

Net annual deficit: $260,800,000

Ohio Turnpike Commission, 2009, page 23

Total revenues: $209,348,000 (includes 2.1 million in gas tax allocations)

Total expenses: $199,701,000

Interest expense: $30,730,000

Net annual profit: $9,647,000

Much of the revenue for the Ohio Turnpike comes from commercial vehicles which represent 20% of the traffic and 53% of its revenue collection. As a result, increased intermodal competition from railroads, such as the new CSX intermodal yard, may represent a major threat to the sustained profitability of the Ohio Turnpike.

Bad arguments for high speed rail: Oil consumption

2011-06-29T08:00:00.000-07:00

While HSR can be an important and worthy endeavor, it's important to make sure that arguments in its favor are actually valid ones rather than a simple throwing out of various minor benefits. We might distinguish this best as primary benefits and ancillary benefits. A primary benefit such as road and air traffic mitigation is one where high speed rail is highly cost-effective and performs best. Ancillary benefits, such as relatively minor reductions in environmental pollution, are nice to have, but the project is not a cost-effective means of reaching those goals and they do not necessarily provide major gains (which, admittedly, is a large part of the reason that they are not cost-effective). Ancillary benefits, because of their cost-ineffectiveness, should not be highlighted and used as major talking points in support of high speed rail, as opposition think-tanks will seize upon this and use it to help convince independents that high speed rail should not be supported.

One of the ancillary benefits which is often inappropriately highlighted as a primary benefit by high speed rail proponents is that of reducing American oil consumption. Often, our reliance upon foreign oil, including some from Middle East nations such as Saudi Arabia, is seized upon by such proponents and the defense costs added to the price of oil. This, however, is a flawed notion that ignores the interconnected nature of global trade. Even if we were completely independent from foreign oil, or at least oil not from North America and Europe, including our shipping, we would still fund foreign militaries and place troops in these areas. A sudden lack of oil shipments from Saudi Arabia would cause major oil price shocks globally, not merely to those depending on oil from Saudi Arabia. Even if we were, by perhaps some magical free energy device, completely free from oil use except in raw industrial processes, we would still be gravely damaged economically because our economy depends on foreign trade. Major economic recessions or depressions in our trading partners will cause the same problems here as well.

Now, for the actual matter at hand, that of high speed rail's role in reducing our dependence on oil. The California High Speed Rail Authority estimates that, by 2030, the high speed rail system will be saving 12.7 million barrels of oil per year. This, however, represents only sixteen hours worth of US consumption in 2009 and only 1.9% of California's annual consumption (one week's worth). Clearly it would have minimal, if any, effect on oil prices or oil dependence.

Ultimately, the problem of oil consumption is going to be best handled through regulations and industrial subsidies (such as paying Ford to bring over the 65mpg Fiesta ECOnetic) which increase the average fleet fuel efficiency from its currently pitiful 22.6 miles per gallon to a rather higher figure. Saving fuel via HSR is helpful, but it is nothing more than a bandaid compared to what really must be done and it is a far from economical means of so doing.

California intrastate air travel and high speed rail

2011-06-12T22:39:00.000-07:00

Using information from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, I've compiled a rudimentary list of air travel within the state of California that may be affected by high speed rail.. The methodology was quite simplistic: Each airport in a city connected by high speed rail was selected and any California destinations within the top 10 destination airports recorded with the 2010 passenger data. It was assumed that Long Beach passengers would be served by Los Angeles Union Station, Oakland passengers by the San Francisco Transbay Transit Center, and Santa Ana passengers by the Irvine station.

California intrastate air travel (March 2010-February 2011):

Bakersfield (BFL): 19,000 to SFO, 14,000 to LAX

Burbank (BUR): 402,000 to Oakland, 230,000 to Sacramento, 220,000 to San Jose, 69,000 to SFO

Fresno (FAT): 111,000 to LAX, 44,000 to SFO

Los Angeles (LAX): 1,499,000 to SFO

Long Beach (LGB): 164,000 to Oakland, 160,000 to SFO, 70,000 to Sacramento

Oakland (OAK): 400,000 to Burbank, 375,000 to LAX, 363,000 to San Diego, 253,000 to Ontario, 249,000 to Santa Ana

Ontario (ONT): 260,000 to Oakland, 240,000 to Sacramento, 146,000 to San Jose

Sacramento (SMF): 360,00 to San Diego, 303,000 to LAX, 245,000 to Ontario, 229,000 to Burbank, 228,000 to SNA

San Francisco (SFO): 1,503,000 to LAX, 716,000 to San Diego

San Diego (SAN): 732,000 to SFO, 405,000 to LAX (almost certainly just connecting travel), 383,000 to Oakland, 357,000 to Sacramento

San Jose (SJC): 453,000 to LAX, 318,000 to San Diego, 247,000 to SNA, 223,000 to Burbank.

Santa Ana (SNA): 356,000 to SFO, 252,000 to San Jose, 249,000 to Oakland, 231,000 to Sacramento

Stockton (SCK): 11,000 to Long Beach

If we mirror any pairs with missing data on the assumption that nearly all passengers will return to their original airport, and we ignore SAN-LAX traffic as either being erroneous or solely composed of long distance connections, we find the following information, in the context of CAHSRA travel time estimates:

0-120 minutes:

Bakersfield-San Francisco: 38,000 (111 minutes)

Bakersfield-Los Angeles: 28,000 (54 minutes)

Fresno-San Francisco:88,000 (80 minutes)

Fresno-Los Angeles: 222,000 (84 minutes)

Stockton-Los Angeles: 22,000 (119 minutes)

120-180 minutes:

Los Angeles-San Francisco: 3,701,000 (160 minutes)

Los Angeles-San Jose: 906,000 (129 minutes)

Los Angeles-Sacramento: 746,000 (137 minutes)

Burbank-San Francisco: 802,000 (154 minutes)

Burbank-San Jose: 443,000 (125 minutes)

Burbank-Sacramento: 459,000 (133 minutes)

Irvine-San Jose: 499,000 (156 minutes)

Irvine-Sacramento: 459,000 (164 minutes)

Ontario-San Jose: 292,000 (153 minutes)

Ontario-Sacramento: 485,000 (161 minutes)

180-240 minutes:

San Diego-San Francisco: 2,194,000 (236 minutes)

San Diego-San Jose: 636,000 (207 minutes)

San Diego-Sacramento: 717,000 (215 minutes)

Ontario-San Francisco: 513,000 (182 minutes)

Irvine-San Francisco: 1,210,000 (186 minutes)

This presents us with a notional market representing approximately 14,460,000 annual trips which may be captured by high speed rail. Not all of these are valid trips for that market, as some represent connecting flights to longer distance flights, but that number is not easily quantifiable.

If we assume market captures of 100%, 70% and 50% for the listed trip segments, in line with international and domestic experience, we come up with a total of 8,866,100 passengers who would transfer their mode of travel to the CAHSR system from air travel, not counting for population growth by the time the full system is built. This may be a potentially low number, since approximately 344,000 passengers are "lost" assuming 50% market share for Ontario and Irvine to San Francisco, despite being only a few minutes over the three hour threshold, however, this may also be an appropriate compensation for over counting long distance connections. The 905,000 apparent connecting passengers between Los Angeles and San Diego may be captured through the use of code sharing (as Amtrak and Continental do with certain trains connecting at Newark Airport) if an easy connection can be made via the Metro Rail Green Line from Union Station to Los Angeles International Airport.

At current airplane ticket prices (purchased in advance today for July 8th, one way, including fees; air passengers in the first category were ignored) and with the current HSR ticket pricing structure of 83% of air travel fares, these air travel diverted passengers represent $645 million in annual revenue. Even with the additional $100 million that Amtrak California currently generates in ticket revenue, it is clear that substantial revenue will need to be derived from automobile diversions and induced trips. Given the expectations of even higher levels of freeway congestion and higher gasoline prices, however, this seems to be a reasonable expectation, at least so far as the Los Angeles-San Diego corridor is concerned. Such ridership estimates are, however, beyond the purpose of this post.

Bad arguments for high speed rail: CO2 emissions

2011-06-06T22:39:00.001-07:00

While I am a proponent of high speed rail, not all of the arguments put forth in its favor are valid. One of those arguments is that there is a significant and worthwhile environmental benefit to building high speed rail one which is not merely an added bonus, but rather a good of sufficient value to justify its construction on that ground alone. High speed rail, however, is one of the worst ways to try and reduce CO2 emissions. This is not to deny that there are environmental benefits to high speed rail, but rather to point out that they are simply at the level of added bonus as far as carbon dioxide emissions and climate change (health effects from particulate matter may be a different issue).

The California High Speed Rail Authority claims that, by 2030, using 100% renewable energy, the high speed rail network will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by twelve billion pounds. At 43 billion dollars to construct in year of expenditure dollars, that represents a cost of $3.58 per pound or $7,901 per metric ton of emissions, a far higher level than any proposed carbon tax. Planting additional forests, however, may sequester 2.2-9.5 metric tons of CO2 per acre per year. At the article's suggested ranges of $200-2,000 per acre, 21.5-215 million acres of timber could be planted at the same price, representing 47.3 million metric tons at the extreme low end and more than 2 billion metric tons per year at the extreme high end. Simply shooting for the same goal as CAHSRA claims, 5.4 million metric tons per year, at the lowest sequestration rate and high end of costs, require an investment of 2.45 million acres and 5 billion dollars, nearly an order of magnitude less. In any case, this amounts to an absolutely trivial reduction in CO2 emissions.

An even better investment, however, would be in the phaseout of the generation of electricity using coal power while simultaneously pushing mass transit and low or zero emission privately owned vehicles through tax incentives and subsidies. According to the California Air Resources Board, the largest CO2 emitters in California are oil refineries although they are put to shame by coal power plants. The Jim Bridger Power Plant in Wyoming, which has a net summer capacity of 2,117 megawatts is responsible for 15,293,640 metric tons of CO2 annually. A $13 billion contract was signed in 2008 for two new reactors providing 1,100 MWe each in Georgia, a cost of some 850 dollars per metric ton of carbon emissions reduced if it were used to replace a plant such as the Jim Bridger Power Plant. While solar does not have the problems of nuclear waste, it's low generation capacity relative to nameplate capacity is a severe detriment in comparison to nuclear and coal and makes it a far more expensive alternative. Proper site design, safety procedures, and modern passively cooled reactors make the risk of a meltdown negligible. Therefore, if we were use to the same amount of money for the high speed rail system as for replacing coal power generation, we could reduce CO2 emissions by 50 million metric tons per year, a far higher amount than CAHSR.

All this is not to deny that there is some environmental benefit to high speed rail. But high speed rail is not the proper or cost-effective means of combatting pollution, especially not with regards to CO2 emissions. High speed rail backers should be wary of making claims that the system is worth the expense because of its environmental benefits when those benefits, when extrapolated to an actual financial cost, offset only a small fraction of the cost of the system.

High speed rail operational surplus

2011-06-06T17:54:00.000-07:00

Examples from across the world of high speed rail systems posting an operational surplus.

SNCF (France) 2010, page 18.

Revenue: 7.2 billion euros

Gross profit: 915 million euros

Operating income 535 million euros

It should be noted that, although owned by the government, SNCF pays taxes on its income and annual tolls of 1.306 billion euros for the TGV to Réseau Ferré de France, the owner of the French rail network, and 3.6 billion euros in total from other rail operations.

Renfe (Spain) 2008, pages 163-164

Revenue: 1.067 billion euros

EBITDA: 146.05 million euros

EBIT: 25.94 million euros

Net income: -24.84 million euros

Although the total income is slightly negative, that is including depreciation. Even with 264 million euros paid to Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias, the Spanish rail network owner and operator, for trackage rights, the AVE system garners sufficient ticket revenue to pay for the operation of the system.

DB Bahn Long Distance Unit (Germany) 2009

Revenue: 3.565 billion euros

EBITDA: 504 million euros

EBIT: 141 million Euros

DB Fernverkehr (Germany) 2010, page 30

Sales: 3.356 billion euros

Profit from ordinary activities: 155 million euros

In the case of the 2010 report, my figures may be flawed since I do not read German, despite two years of college German classes.

JR Central (Japan) Fiscal Year 2011

Transportation operating revenue: 1,142,369 million yen

Transportation operating expense: 870,358 million yen

Transportation operating income: 272,011 million yen

This includes revenue and expenses from both Shinkansen high speed rail and conventional rail systems. Shinkansen revenue amounted to 973.7 billion yen in FY 2009, indicating that it is fully capable of funding itself.

JR West (Japan) April 30, 2010 to March 31, 2011, page 44

Railway operating revenues: 806,834 million yen

Railway operating expenses: 745,789 million yen

Railway operating income: 61,044 million yen

Page 27 of this document breaks down transportation revenue by rail line. The Shinkansen is responsible for 323.9 billion yen and conventional lines 404 billion yen. According to page 26, pure ticket sales amounted to 728 billion yen, and operating expenses excluding taxes, depreciation, and rental payments came to 568.7 billion yen.

JR East (Japan) Fiscal Year ending March 31, 2010, page 21

Transportation operating revenues: 1,808,704 million yen

Transportation costs and expenses: 1,577,378 million yen

Transportation operating income: 231,326 million yen

It should be noted that JR East was severely affected by the Great East Japanese Earthquake on March 11, 2011. Revenue and operating income amounted to 1,772,493 million yen and 227,150 million yen respectively, with expenses not given. Page 33 breaks down totals between Shinkansen and conventional rail with 431.5 billion yen (2011) for Shinkansen and 1,177.5 billion yen for conventional rail.

Amtrak (United States) Fiscal Year 2010, page C-1

Acela revenue: 449.9 million USD

Acela costs including OPEBs: 349.3 million USD

Acela fully allocated contribution: 100.6 million USD

Acela is the only high speed line in America, briefly reaching a top speed of 150 miles per hour, although it is limited to lower speeds along most of its route (for instance, a top speed of only 135 miles per hour between Washington D.C. and New York City).

Taiwan HSR (Republic of China), 2009 and 2010, page 6

2009 Operating income: NT$23,323,712,000

2009 Operating profit: NT$5,564,846,000

2010 Operating income: NT$27,635,351,000

2010 Operating profit: NT$9,071,545,000

It should be noted that 2009 was the first year in which the Taiwanese high speed rail system covered its operational costs, having begun operations in 2007. Even though it ran at an operational profit, high depreciation charges and high interest costs resulted in a net loss until the government took over the system. High speed rail is not necessarily capable of covering its capital costs on ticket revenue alone without government backing in some manner (at the very least, government backing of loans for lower interest rates).

Edit: For clarification purposes, I should note that JR Kyushu and Korail are not listed because I could not find data for them and SNCB does not appear to break out their data between regular travel and high speed rail. Anyone else not listed, I simply didn't look for. Taiwan HSR was added on June 10, 2011.

Opening up the NEC to private operators

2011-05-28T21:09:00.001-07:00

Amtrak could lose Northeast line

WASHINGTON -- Congress would take away Amtrak's popular Northeast corridor train service and invite private investors to bid for the right to develop high-speed rail under a plan outlined by a key House Republican on Thursday.

The densely populated corridor -- which extends from Washington to Boston, including service to New York City and Philadelphia -- is the most viable region in the country for truly high-speed trains averaging speeds better than 110 mph, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica, R-Fla., said.

But Amtrak has failed to provide fast service despite tens of billions of dollars in federal aid, he said while outlining his plan at a hearing.

Amtrak's Acela trains reach speeds over 150 mph in some portions of the corridor. Mica said trip times average only 83 mph between Washington and New York and 72 mph between New York and Boston.

His calculations include wait times at station stops along the route, which lowers the average speed. Some trains in Europe and Asia achieve speeds over 200 mph.

Last year, Amtrak proposed a plan to upgrade its Northeast corridor track and trains and to eliminate bottlenecks so that trains can travel up to 220 mph. Trip time between Washington and New York would be reduced to 96 minutes and between New York and Boston to 93 minutes.

The plan would be phased in over 30 years and cost $117 billion to implement. The railroad is seeking private investment to pay for some of the cost.

Mica, a longtime Amtrak critic, wants to take away the rail company's 363 miles of track and infrastructure, place it under the control of the Transportation Department or a new government-created corporation, and solicit bids from private investors for the development, operation and maintenance of high speed service.

The plan will be incorporated in a long-term transportation spending bill the committee is drafting and expects to introduce around mid-June, Mica said.

"I believe that we have great potential in the Northeast corridor," Mica said. "The only thing standing in the way is Amtrak or the federal government or Congress."

Rep. John Duncan, R-Tenn., chairman of the House Transportation highway subcommittee, said Mica's plan probably has enough support from Republicans to pass the House, but it is unlikely to be accepted by the Senate.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., a leading Amtrak supporter, warned in testimony at the hearing that potential Northeast corridor investors will want a profit, which means ticket prices likely would increase.

Mica's plan "hasn't begun to get any legs to stand on as I see it," he told reporters afterward. He said the plan would amount to a "death potion" for the transportation spending bill, which pays for highway and transit construction.

Amtrak is a private corporation, but it depends on federal subsidies. Amtrak is in debt to the federal government for about $4 billion, according to a committee briefing memo. Amtrak spokesman Steve Kulm said the railroad had paid off about half the debt as of last year.

Amtrak was created by Congress in 1971 to provide passenger train service between cities after passenger railroads failed in the face of competition from airlines and interstate highway travel. But with the U.S. population expected to exceed 400 million people by 2050, nightmarish congestion is forecast for the nation's already crowded highways and airports.

President Barack Obama has said he wants to put high-speed intercity trains within reach of 80 percent of the American public by 2025, but he has run up against resistance from Republican governors and members of Congress who say the nation can't afford the cost.

Quite frankly, this is a reasonably good idea, as long as it is handled well (for instance, by mandating that whatever private organization receives the NEC makes certain improvements, ie regular service between NYC and Washington, D.C. within two hours, upon pain of severe penalties and revocation of franchise). Amtrak's handling of the NEC has been extremely poor, their plans quite frankly incompetent, and any improvements by Amtrak would be at taxpayer expense.

Increasing the revenue potential of HSR

2011-05-23T10:24:00.000-07:00

While the focus of high speed rail is on passenger movement (with only the TGV La Poste providing freight movement amongst all the world's high speed rail lines), the potential for freight traffic should not be overlooked as well. Not only does the diversion of freight from road to rail relieve congestion, pollution, and road damage, but rail freight is also a valuable source of revenue, potentially exceeding that from passenger travel, which increases the viability of the rail system and enhances its ability to self-fund improvements and expansions. As a result, this particular information regarding San Diego freight traffic is particularly interesting:

How significant is the need for a larger airport in San Diego County? And what is wrong with Lindbergh, the current airport?

There is significant need for new airport capacity today, not 15 years from now. Two-thirds of San Diego’s air cargo is currently trucked up to LAX and Ontario airports. Thirty percent of our passengers go outside the county, primarily to LAX, for long-haul and international flights. Lindbergh is a lovely short-haul airport—if you want to go to the Bay Area, Las Vegas, or Sacramento.

But, at only 600-plus acres, Lindbergh is far too constrained for full long-haul, international, and air cargo service. And there are no other currently available sites in the county for a new airport. Of all possible sites, the best one remains Miramar, which is in military hands and isn’t likely to be turned into a civilian airport any time soon.

With 127,261 tons of cargo in 2010, we can see that comes out to approximately 250,000 tons of freight, in loads easily manageable by high speed rail vehicles. As the current plan envisions a stop at Ontario Airport and San Diego is proposing an intermodal hub at Lindbergh field itself, intermodal freight shipments between San Diego and Ontario Airport could prove to be a valuable service in addition to the passenger traffic along the LA-San Diego line.

Overperforming rail lines

2011-05-18T12:55:00.000-07:00

Alon Levy at Pedestrian Observations has a good post regarding overperforming rail lines such as Amtrak's new Lynchburg line and what we can learn from them.

OCTA authorizes more Metrolink trains within OC

2011-05-09T20:43:00.000-07:00

Transit board approves 6 new O.C. Metrolink trains

The Orange County Transportation Authority board approved a scaled-back plan to add six trains between Fullerton and Laguna Niguel, after the agency initially envisioned adding 32 weekday countywide trains.

These trains will operate in the late afternoon and evening beginning this summer, providing service to a previously underserved market, OCTA officials said.

The Orange County Transportation Authority board approved a scaled-back plan to add 6 trains between Fullerton and Laguna Niguel, after the agency initially envisioned adding 32 weekday countywide trains.

The six trains provide a total of 48 daily trains servicing Orange County. An additional six trains could be implemented in fiscal year 2014-15.

The expansion, which was approved by voters as part of the renewed Measure M sales tax ballot initiative in 2006, ultimately envisions bringing the daily total of trains to 76. The overall cost, which includes buying new locomotives and passenger cars as well as making improvements to stations, expanding parking lots, and making street crossings safer, is more than $400 million.

When voters approved the measure, the county was going through a robust economic growth and officials predicted that by 2010, average weekday ridership on the three Metrolink lines that serve Orange County would grow from about 14,000 to more than 30,000.

Then came the recession.

During the past three months of 2010, combined average weekday ridership on the three lines servicing Orange County was 14,093, a decrease of 1.3 percent compared to the same period in fiscal year 2009-10.

Will Kempton, OCTA's CEO, believes that once trains are running more frequently, more people will ride them.

The idea is that, with trains running every half hour or so, "people won't have to worry so much about a schedule," Kempton said in a previous interview. "They can simply go to the station and know that there will be a train."

A $7 intra-county day pass for use on all OCTA local buses and Metrolink service was also approved to correspond with the new service.

Meanwhile, as the OCTA approved this plan, Metrolink launched an express service for passengers who travel on the Antelope Valley and San Bernardino lines. The service is supposed to save daily commuters up to five hours a week by limiting the number of times the trains stop.

"As gas prices continue to increase and transportation funding remains scarce, Metrolink is assuming a bigger role in meeting the region's transportation needs by adding service that provides more solutions for our ridership," said Metrolink CEO John Fenton in a statement.

The OCLink Pass may turn out to be even bigger than the increased Metrolink schedule. One of the larger detractions to ridership on Metrolink is the cost of a ticket. An all day pass for $7, however, is a major reduction in cost, by more than 50% on a round-trip ticket between Laguna Niguel and Fullerton for instance, and a drop to 33% of the normal round-trip fare between the outliers of Buena Park and San Clemente. These ticket prices are lower than parking alone for Angels Stadium or the Honda Center, which are both directly served by Metrolink, which means that, presuming that the schedules have enough trains, especially trains later in the evening, there should be a healthy boost in ridership, especially for the Honda Center, whose parking costs are sufficiently high to make it cheaper to bring multiple people by train rather than drive and park.

Why the 241 Toll Road makes the argument for high speed rail

2011-05-04T14:01:00.000-07:00

Lately, the Transportation Corridor Agencies, who own and manage CA-241 and certain other toll roads, have been using a new website to promote extending the 241 south. Of note is this particular claim:

Extending the 241 will ease traffic on Interstate 5 by creating an alternative route for the hundreds of thousands of motorists a day who travel between San Diego, Orange and Los Angeles Counties. Without the toll road, travel from the San Diego/Orange County border to Mission Viejo will take one hour in 2025. With the toll road constructed, the same drive on Interstate 5 will take 25 minutes and only 16 minutes on the toll road. The 241 is also expected to take pressure off Interstate 15, currently used by many driving from eastern Orange County into San Diego County. The 241 Toll Road will carry thousands of vehicles that would otherwise be clogging neighborhood streets and Interstate 5.

This is highly interesting and applicable to the high speed rail program and conventional intercity travel for Southern California. Such a level of congestion would make even the current Pacific Surfliner route significantly faster for travel from Orange County to San Diego as well as the high speed rail route (however, travel from Orange County to San Diego is liable to be faster along the current Surfliner route due to the backtracking to Los Angeles and inland route; currently Irvine to San Diego is comparable according to Amtrak schedule and CAHSR Trip Planner, upgrades currently in the works and reasonably foreseen by 2025 would put the Surfliner in the lead).

Given the previous failures of the 241 to extend south, as originally intended, and its lack of actual connection to Mission Viejo, it is doubtful that they will succeed in this current venture, and such high levels of traffic congestion and delays will occur. If, however, Orange and San Diego Counties are able to cooperate on expanding rail service, increasing average speed, and cutting delays, intercity and commuter rail should prosper well and take the place that the 241 cannot.

Reasonableness of high CA HSR ridership projections

2011-04-23T11:33:00.000-07:00

Those opposed to high speed rail projects in America, especially that of California, frequently deride the ridership and revenue projections for high speed rail projects, proclaiming that people will not abandon cars or planes for rail trips that are, respectively, more expensive and lengthier (in terms of pure transit time). As a result, the high speed rail system will turn out to be nothing more than an expensive boondoggle.

The reality, however, is quite different. Let's take just a single corridor for comparison, Los Angeles to San Francisco, without considering intermediate destinations. As such, we can refer to this as the California Express service. The primary market which will be attracted to switching over to rail travel from their current journeys is the air market. This is the market that already places a premium on speed of travel and has the disposable income to purchase a ticket. While automobile travel between the regions is equal to the air travel (Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-regions, page 37), we can assume that the increased marginal costs of travel by air or rail are sufficient to dissuade them from traveling on these modes, especially if they are doing so by group. The current rate of increase for gasoline prices, however, may change this situation by the projected opening of the CAHSR system in 2020.

Utilizing the Los Angeles World Airports flight schedule, we can see the daily flights between LAX, Burbank, Ontario, and Long Beach airports and the San Francisco and Oakland airports. For purposes of this post, we will assume that 70% of the seats are filled, on average, and that there are an equal number of flights departing San Francisco and Oakland to return to these airports. On Sunday, April 24th, there are 168 flights leaving the Los Angeles area for the Bay Area, 120 such on Monday, 184 on Tuesday, 70 on Wednesday, 100 on Thursday, 191 on Friday, and Saturday the 30th completes our examination with 60 such flights. A cursory examination of the information indicates the large majority of the flights to be Boeing 757s and 737s, which we will use as representative of the flights. Examination of a few selected flights at SeatGuru shows airplane capacities between 137 and 184 passengers, so we will use 160 as our average representative aircraft.

We have therefore, an assumption of 100,016 weekly and 5,200,832 annual passengers from Los Angeles to the Bay Area, or a total round-trip of 10,401,664 passengers (this is a simplistic analysis, however, and more professional ones indicate around 8 million such trips). How many might we expect to divert to rail from the air market? The experience of European high speed rail systems indicates that, should the California system successfully attain its mandated transit time of two hours and forty minutes, it's air-rail market share should for 60-85% of the joint market.

Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-regions, page 36

However, even within the context of America, we find plenty of support for the belief that such a high percentage of the market can be obtained by rail in competition with air. In the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak holds 49% of the Boston-New York air-rail market and 63% of the New York-Washington, D.C. market (ibid., page 43). In the case of Boston, this is with the fastest trains taking 3:35 to complete the journey and most trains over four hours while air travel along the route averages 1:15-1:30 minutes. Nor is Amtrak significantly cheaper if the journey is pre-purchased, with numerous flights two months in advance being available for $69 one way while the four hour trains start at $49 and Acela trains starting at $99 (however, all Acela seats are at least business class). Similarly, in the case of Washington, the Amtrak journey times range from 2:45 to 3:30 with prices starting at $49 and $139 while the air journey times are 60-90 minutes, however with prices starting at $79 and only a few in that range; most air fares are approximately $119.

Given that flight and rail times are directly comparable for Washington to New York, it seems evident that the California high speed rail system should attain at least that 63% share and quite possibly higher. In such a case, we would see 6.5 million passengers along solely the California Express service. With airline fares averaging $99 between LAX and SFO for a two month advance purchase ticket, not counting various fees and surcharges, annual revenues could easily equate to some $650 million dollars if the high speed rail system chose to charge a direct equivalent to airline fares. As airlines continue to raise fares in the face of oil price increases, the room for higher rail ridership and revenue marches steadily higher as well, raising the specter of a billion dollar per year revenue line simply from the express trains. Indeed, that may be the more reasonable assumption for 2020 given oil and population growth trends.

Even should fares be discounted compared to airline fares, it seems evident that, based upon comparisons with rail operations in Europe and elsewhere in America, the first phase of the high speed rail project should easily maintain sufficient ridership to generate an operating surplus.

CAHSRA to apply for $1.2 billion in rejected Florida funds

2011-03-28T15:03:00.000-07:00

Via the Merced Sun-Star:

High-speed rail may come to Merced sooner than expected, as the California High Speed Rail Authority will announce today it's asking for $1.2 billion in funding that was rejected by Florida.

If the request is approved, it would mean the first phase of track will run from Merced to Bakersfield. Also, instead of building a station just in downtown Fresno, stations will be built in Merced and Bakersfield. The authority is also looking at building a station in Tulare County.

"This is very good news for Merced," said Mayor Bill Spriggs on Sunday afternoon. "The City Council has always supported high-speed rail. We were disappointed when the Corcoran-to-Borden route was announced."

"If we get a portion of Florida's money, we'll able to complete the entire backbone of the project," Jeff Barker, deputy director of the rail authority, told the Sun-Star Friday.

In December, after receiving federal money from canceled high-speed rail projects in Wisconsin and Ohio, the authority announced it was building the first leg from Shafter to Borden. That was quickly dubbed "the train to nowhere" by some critics and disappointed advocates.

The application deadline is April 4 for the $2.43 billion that Florida Republican Gov. Rick Scott turned down. Barker said the state will provide a 30 percent match from state Proposition 1A funds that will bring the total to more than $1.7 billion.

"We already have $5.5 billion to start construction from Borden to Shafter," he said.
Assemblywoman Cathleen Galgiani, D-Livingston, who wrote Proposition 1A, which voters approved in November 2008, said "It's not a question of whether were going to get the money, but how much."

The staff will make its recommendation to the authority's board Wednesday.

"With the extra money we think we can do one of two things," Barker said: Extend the track to south of Bakersfield to at least Te-hachapi or build the track 39 miles beyond the triangle at Chowchilla toward Los Banos and San Jose.Laying the "keel" of the high-speed rail in the Valley, Galgiani said, "gets us closer to getting private money on the table. It signals to the private investment community that we are serious."

FL DOT: High speed rail would have been even more profitable than expected

2011-03-10T13:54:00.000-08:00

High-speed rail is profitable, study says

TALLAHASSEE -- Three weeks after Gov. Rick Scott put the brakes on high-speed rail, the Florida Department of Transportation on Wednesday released a study showing the line connecting Tampa to Orlando would have had a $10.2 million operating surplus in 2015, its first year of operation.

The study showed the line would have had a $28.6 million surplus in its 10th year.
The numbers are more optimistic than a 2009 study, which concluded the line would have not seen an operating surplus until 2021.

The $1.3 million study, conducted by the forecasting firms Wilbur Smith Associates and Steer Davies Gleave, shows the line would have had 3.3 million riders in its first year. The previous analysis predicted the line would have had 2.4 million riders in 2015.

Scott, who last month cited concerns about operating losses due to low ridership when he decided to kill construction of the project by rejecting $2.4 billion in federal money, dismissed the ridership study results.

“I had been briefed on their ridership study and I looked at other ridership studies and I’m still very comfortable with the decision I made that I don’t want the taxpayers of the state on the hook for the cost overruns of building it, the operating costs or giving the money back if it’s shut down,” he said.

He said he made the decision based on a verbal review of the ridership study, as well as documents provided by the libertarian Reason Foundation and the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

Scott said he feared the 84-mile line would be a burden to Florida taxpayers, even though private vendors had indicated they would be willing to cover any operating losses or construction cost overruns, and federal officials said Florida would not have to repay the $2.4 billion if the project failed.

A spokeswoman for Scott said he doesn’t trust the studies.

“The governor has said all along he believes ridership projections for this and other rail projects are overestimated,” said spokeswoman Amy Graham. “Numerous studies support this conclusion.”

Wilbur Smith Associates, one of the companies that conducted the study, is a transportation and infrastructure consulting firm founded in 1952. It has 56 offices in eight countries, according to the company’s website.

Steer Davies Gleave has 16 offices worldwide, including locations in Boston and Denver according to its website.

The sunny numbers came way too late for rail proponents, who criticized Scott for turning down the money before all the information was available.

“Now we see more evidence that shows just how profitable high-speed rail would have been,” said U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Tampa. “Private firms had been clamoring to bid on Florida’s high-speed rail initiative. Now, unfortunately, because of the governor’s rigid ideology, these private companies will look to other states. The jobs and economic benefits will follow.”

Sen. Thad Altman, R-Melbourne, who unsuccessfully fought Scott’s decision in the state Supreme Court, said he doubts an earlier release of the ridership study would have made a difference to the governor.

“His conclusion was political, not based on economics, good business or even protecting the taxpayers,” Altman said. “As time passes and more information comes out, you can see the injustice that was done to the state of Florida.”

In the wake of the study, Democratic U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson is clinging to the idea that the line could be built.

“I still have a sliver of hope that common sense and the facts will prevail,” he said.

Others, though, want to just let the matter go.

“Frankly, it’s Day 2 of session,” said House Speaker Dean Cannon, R-Winter Park. “That issue, unless the governor changes his mind or does something differently, is behind us. So we’ve got to move forward.”

A poll conducted by the Tampa Chamber of Commerce shows that 59 percent of Hillsborough County registered voters support a high-speed rail line connecting Tampa to Orlando. The survey questioned 400 voters likely to participate in the November 2012 election between March 2 and 6 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percent.

U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is expected to announce by the end of the week which states will receive Florida’s money. According to an attorney for the governor, the state had already spent about $110 million on the project when Scott announced that he did not want to go forward with it.

Again, we can see that Rick Scott's decision to cancel the project was entirely political in nature rather than being founded in actual concern over cost overruns and state subsidies.

Florida High Speed Rail Funding Withdrawn

2011-03-04T11:45:00.001-08:00

It looks like high speed rail in Florida is dead for the time being

About $2.4 billion in federal funds for a high-speed rail project in Florida will go elsewhere after the state's Republican governor rejected the deal out of hand, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said on Friday.

LaHood said the Obama administration was pulling the plug on the financing after speaking with Rick Scott, Florida's Tea Party-backed governor, Friday morning in a last-ditch attempt to win his approval.

The money, which many Floridians hoped would bring thousands of jobs to a state burdened with record-high unemployment, would now be spent in other parts of the country, LaHood said.

"I know that states across America are enthusiastic about receiving additional support to help bring America's high-speed rail network to life and deliver all its economic benefits to their citizens," LaHood said in a statement.

Under LaHood's offer, Washington would have paid for all but $300 million of the $2.7 billion high-speed line. The project was originally approved in late 2009 by former Governor Charlie Crist and by state lawmakers, who set aside funds to finance the state's share.

Scott rejected LaHood's offer at least three times, saying the state could not afford it and, if the line were built, taxpayers would be responsible for operating losses. The Tampa-Orlando line would be the first phase of a longer line to Miami at a cost of billions more.

"Put simply, the proposed high-speed rail line is far too uncertain and offers far too little long-term benefit for me to consider moving forward and ultimately putting taxpayers at risk during an already challenging fiscal climate," Scott had written in a Feb. 16 letter to LaHood.

All hope is not lost however. Given the bipartisan backlash against the rejection of the rail funds, it is almost certain that it will be a major issue during the next election and will probably serve as an important element of his downfall. While the program will now be delayed by a few years, there is nothing inherently preventing it from being funded again in the near future, and in the meantime, the money will most likely turn into valuable upgrades on the Northeast Corridor and in extending the California high speed rail system.

Korea's high speed rail kills several airports

2011-02-26T13:40:00.000-08:00

High Speed Rail Has Basically Killed A Dozen Airports In South Korea

Eleven of the 14 airports managed by the Korean Airports Corporation lost money in 2009 and 2008. Several are ghost airports with no regular flights. Still more developments were suspended and never completed.

KAC is now trying to sell these loss-making airports, according to JoongAng Daily, putting Cheongju Airport on the market after it lost $5.1 million in 2009.

How did South Korea end up with all of these useless airports?

First, local governments keep building giant infrastructure projects, including empty airports and empty office buildings.

Second, airports can't compete with the new high-speed rail network, which travels from one end of the country to the other in less than three hours.

This story should terrify airlines (and automakers) everywhere. And you wonder why high-speed rail gets blocked in America.

Because of the long distance nature of many of the flights, it's rather unlikely that you would see the same effect upon American or even simply Californian airports, but this does show that high speed rail will dominate the short distance regional market. In turn, this will free us from the need to add capacity or build additional airports at tremendous expense and cut down on pollution, through which we prevent hundreds of millions of dollars in health care costs.

If Bill Nye is for it, it must be good

2011-02-24T16:09:00.000-08:00

Ok, this one is pretty much just tongue in cheek, but even Bill Nye is for high speed rail.

The National Review attack on high speed rail

2011-01-31T12:08:00.001-08:00

Wendell Cox, a noted opponent of high speed rail programs, has a new article in the National Review criticizing President Obama's call for more high speed rail funding in the state of the union address, calling it "hard to imagine a more unnecessary program". As is generally the case with such critics, the criticisms leveled are generally flawed or even completely misrepresent reality. Let's begin, shall we?

For example, people who travel between Los Angeles and San Francisco — along the route planned for one of the nation’s first high-speed-rail projects — already have choices. They can fly, drive, take the bus, or travel by train. True, some would prefer to tax their fellow citizens so that they can have another choice, high-speed rail. But indulging this desire would be as legitimate as funding government grocery stores for people who prefer not to shop at their local grocery chains.

Merely two paragraphs into the article and already Cox is waving the flag of the the dreaded "specter of communism" by suggesting that high speed rail is somehow comparable to government grocery stores. But in so doing, he has shown himself to be either completely ignorant of the facts surrounding the financing of the California high speed rail project or to simply be lying about them in service of personal political and financial gain. Neither of those alternatives speak well of him.

Is there a tax involved with the California high speed rail project? The answer is no.Proposition 1A, the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond

Act, established no tax for the construction of the high speed rail system. Rather, it authorized the sale of nine billion dollars in bonds to be used for the construction. While these are general obligation bonds and face the possibility of being repaid through the general fund, the reality is that the California high speed rail system is expected to post a sufficiently high profit that will be able to pay off the bonds from its own revenue, without a single tax dollar from Californians. Don't believe me or the high speed rail authority? How about SNCF, the operator of France's quite profitable high speed TGV lines?

There is a somewhat better case to be made with the Federal grants to the high speed rail authority, of which 3.5 billion dollars has been granted so far. The best that can be said of these is that they are prior existent tax dollars, coming from the general fund, to which California is a major net contributor, representing a normal use of discretionary funding rather than a specific tax for the construction of the project. There is, however, no need for the government to simply grant the money. Future federal monetary aid could easily be in the form of a loan with the interest rate set to inflation, slightly above inflation, or at a fixed percentage slightly higher than that of treasury bonds, giving the federal government a direct profit on the venture rather than the current indirect profit venture from corporate taxes on the operator (should it be operated by a private company) and income taxes from the higher wages and economic activity engendered and enabled by the rail system.

While we are at the issue of taxation, however, what precisely is the problem with levying taxes to pay for the high speed rail system? It was the promise of taxes with Federally backed bonds and the wholesale granting of land that paid for the first transcontinental railroad (and two of the three others) so that people could have a choice other than months by horse, walking, or ship. It was also taxes, most egregiously, coming in part from the railroads themselves, that paid for the highways and airports that gave new, highly subsidized, choices that made passenger rail too unprofitable to justify new private capital investment and operation. What, then, is the problem with a tax that finances this choice?

But most importantly, what the high speed rail costs is in many ways less important than what it doesn't cost. By building high speed rail and thus diverting short range intrastate air traffic to rail, the congested airspace and airport terminals are able to free up space for more long range airplanes, their proper role. This delays or entirely eliminates the necessity of spending tens or hundreds of billions of dollars to upgrade current airports and build new ones in order to handle the expected demand, much of which would come, not from user fees, but from taxes on local citizens. The same goes for the expansion of highways, especially in the Central Valley, which currently does not have much choice of transit means to Los Angeles or San Francisco, but also in both Southern and Northern California. Not a peep is made of a 3.3-4.5 billion dollar project that would expand the I-5 over a mere thirty miles, yet to expand commuter and high speed rail projects which provide a valuable alternative and reduce the need for future expansions, and do so at a lower cost and higher passenger capacity than high expansions which result in simply more highway congestion, is somehow equated to be with communism.

Among intercity transport modes, only Amtrak is materially subsidized. User fees pay virtually all the costs of airlines and airports, which (together with connecting ground transportation) link any two points in the nation within a day. The intercity highway system goes everywhere, and nearly all of it was built with user fees paid by drivers, truckers, and bus companies.

Well, one of these facts is true. Amtrak is indeed subsidized, thanks to legislative mandates requiring service on unprofitable routes and immense government subsidies to build the airports and highways which it competes with. While gasoline and vehicle taxes are valuable contributors to highway construction and maintenance, they are far from "nearly all of it." In 2008, user fees in the form of tolls and fuel and motor vehicle taxes accounted for only 51.72% of highway spending with the rest made up from income, sales, and property taxes and the promise of future taxes in the form of bond proceeds. Indeed, much of the user fees is actually a bit of an accounting trick, since fuel taxes are paid on all fuels, regardless of whether or not one travels on a highway. The local roads which therefore subsidize the highways are paid for through property and sales taxes, which are most assuredly not user fees. Expansion of highways in order to deal, ineffectually, with congestion is also generally not provided for by user fees, as can be see in the earlier cited example of highway expansion in San Diego County. In that case, it is a county-wide increase in sales tax which goes to pay for it. Similar examples exist throughout the country.

How great is this cross-subsidy, you ask? Currently, 15.44 cents per gallon is levied upon gasoline in order to pay for the federal share of highways, equating to 0.68 cents per vehicle-mile at an average 2008 fuel economy, or 0.71 cents at 1997 economies, the last time it was adjusted. That is less than a tenth of the toll for state run tollways such as the Pennsylvania and New Jersey Turnpikes, which themselves are only a half or even a third of the tolls for privately run toll roads.

High-speed rail is a budget buster. Japan, with the world’s leading system, illustrates the financial devastation that high-speed rail can produce. For 25 years, Japan borrowed to build a system serving the ideal rail corridor, nestled along a single coast with a population of more than 75 million people. Ridership was artificially increased by high gasoline prices and one of the highest highway tolls in the world. Yet this modest system, only twice as long as proposed California system, played a major role in driving up a gargantuan rail debt that was transferred to Japanese taxpayers. The rail debt added more than 10 percent to the national debt. This is akin to adding $1.4 trillion to the U.S. national debt.

Japan is not an example of high speed rail being a budget buster, it is an example of why relying on independent financing while subject to political mandates can be a budget buster. Japan's rail debt was largely thanks to the Diet mandating the construction of many lines, commuter and high speed, for political reasons while also engaging in some rather corrupt practices in order to make a personal profit out of the deal, and at the same time an costly upgrade of the major Tokyo commuter lines was necessary. These are problems which require open books and independent oversight, but which can plague any problem, not merely rail.

If Mr. Cox wishes to make the comparison to adding 1.4 trillion dollars to the US national debt, a cost dwarfed by the Iraq War incidentally, then let us feel comfortable in pointing out that that would require the construction of nearly 25,000 to 50,000 miles of high speed rail. With94,000 miles of rail owned by the Class I railroads in America today, it is extraordinarily doubtful to believe that such a large amount of rail construction would be required in order to meet the 80% of Americans access goal that President Obama outlined.

Virtually everywhere high-speed rail has been constructed, financial liability has fallen to the taxpayers. In Taiwan and the United Kingdom, taxpayers assumed billions of dollars in private debts for much more modest high-speed-rail systems than Japan’s.

Meanwhile in France, Spain, and Germany, the systems run at a profit and the taxpayers are not on hold for such debts despite much larger systems than in Taiwan and the United Kingdom. These state-backed systems provide an interesting contrast to those of Taiwan and the United Kingdom which were private corporations with largely private funding, up to 80%, at high interest rates. It was these high percentages of loans and high interest rates which were to kill them. Once THSR was taken over by the Republic of China, and its loans redone at the lower interest rates which the government can receive, it began to post an operational profit.

All of this could have been avoided. Through the years, high-speed-rail cost overruns have been well documented. Most recently, research by Bent Flyvbjerg of Oxford University, Nils Bruzelius of Stockholm University, and Werner Rothengatter of the University of Karlsruhe (a former president of the influential World Conference on Transportation Research) found that passenger-rail cost overruns above 40 percent were common and that overruns above 80 percent were not uncommon. Overruns can go even higher: On Korea’s high-speed-rail project, they were between 200 and 300 percent, the president of the country’s rail system said.

Yet how much of this is due to problems with the high speed rail projects themselves? If a project is delayed, even if through no fault of the constructing authority itself, inflation will naturally push the cost higher than previously projected. If the scope of the project is expanded, that too will push the cost higher than the original projection, but is to be entirely expected. Recently prices for construction materials have been pushed higher thanks to the development of China and other nations, leading to major cost overruns that could not have been reasonably foreseen. If these are not isolated and accounted for in the study, it is entirely worthless to cite.

High-speed-rail cost escalation has reached these shores. Even before the first shovel has been turned, California’s high-speed-rail costs have risen at least 50 percent, inflation adjusted. The cost estimates for the first approved section of the Los Angeles–to–San Francisco line, a “train to nowhere” from Corcoran to Borden, indicate escalation beyond $45 billion.

If Wendell Cox can show some actual evidence that there has been a more than twenty billion dollar increase in the expected construction cost, in year of expenditure dollars, I would be most interested in hearing of it. So too, I suspect, would the California High Speed Rail Authority.

Of course, since he has deemed fit to follow it up with the silly "train to nowhere" meme, it is more than likely that there is no such evidence. Criticizing the construction of a short portion of the overall line simply because it is not the overall line does not make any sense. As the line now extends to Bakersfield, it is equally an absurd comment without any rationale behind it. Indeed, to refer solely to the initial Corcoran to Borden section and ignore that it is funded through to Bakersfield is to, simply put, engage in a blatant lie. One might also note that the Interstates themselves similarly began in "nowhere."

In Florida, boosters tell taxpayers that their liability for the Tampa to Orlando high-speed-rail line would be only $280 million, and that, somehow, a private bidder will shower additional billions upon them to pay any cost overruns.

Since the private companies have offered guarantees to cover the cost of any cost overruns, this is merely an exercise in fear-mongering by Cox.

Even the rosy reports produced by boosters show that high-speed rail would remove only a small percentage of cars from the roads. The hope of reducing air congestion is just as elusive because travel origins and destinations are so dispersed in the United States and because the number of people forsaking air travel for high-speed rail will be small.

It is quite possible that, were high speed rail to drop from heavens today, there would not be an appreciable number of people switching from automobiles. Today, however, is not 2020 when the LA-SF line is scheduled to open, or 2030, when the ridership projections are set. By 2020, California's population is expected to increase by more than six million, a fifteen percent increase. By 2030, we are expected to hold fifty million residents. Southern California is already infamous for its heavy road congestion and no amount of freeway expansion will be able to alleviate the crush of so many additional commuters, nor, if memory serves, is it currently programmed or funded. I do not believe it unreasonable to suggest that, faced with ever increasing congestion delays and steadily rising gasoline prices, many will switch over from increasingly slow driving to traveling along the same route at 125 miles per hour in comfort and able to work productively on their way to or from their destination. Thousands already make that switch every day; it is incredibly hard to imagine that with more frequent service, average speeds more than doubling, and rising time and monetary costs to driving that a substantial number of people would not make that switch.

As for the assertion that "the number of people forsaking air travel for high-speed rail will be small" this is completely in ignorance of the actual facts. The Acela, despite averaging only 65 miles per hour between the two cities, holds 55% of the air-rail market between Boston and New York. To assert that a rail service with three times the average speed and none of the absurd TSA theater will not entice customers away from air is to blatantly ignore the reality of what even slow rail is capable of.

Voters gave the new Republican House of Representatives a mandate to cut spending. Zeroing high-speed rail out of the federal budget may be the litmus test. If Congress fails to stop this costly and unnecessary program, it would call into question the commitment to spending reduction.

The Republican House may indeed have a mandate to cut spending. But let's cut it from highway and airport expansion and invest in smart growth instead. High speed rail and commuter rail are capable of handling America's future transportation growth and cutting our dependence of foreign oil at a far lower cost than any road and air dominated plan can ever aspire to.

Texan group pushes flawed report encouraging sprawl

2011-01-21T10:44:00.000-08:00

No surprise there

The Texas Transportation Institute today released the final version of their report on congestion, which ranks the DC area tied for first with Chicago in hours wasted in traffic. Unfortunately, the report's methodology completely misleads as to the seriousness of traffic, and TTI is pushing the wrong policy solutions.

The TTI report narrowly looks at only one factor: how fast traffic moves. Consider two hypothetical cities. In Denseopolis, people live within 2 miles of work on average, but the roads are fairly clogged and drivers can only go about 20 miles per hour. However, it only takes an average of 6 minutes to get to work, which isn't bad.

On the other hand, in Sprawlville, people live about 30 miles from work on average, but there are lots and lots of fast-moving freeways, so people can drive 60 mph. That means it takes 30 minutes to get to work.

Which city is more congested? By TTI's methods, it's Denseopolis. But it's the people of Sprawlville who spend more time commuting, and thus have less time to be with their families and for recreation.

Sadly, despite CEOs for Cities pointing out these methodological problems last year, TTI went ahead and finalized its report without fixing them (PDFs). TTI ranks Portland as worse than Nashville, with a Travel Time Index (TTI) of 1.23 1.15 for Nashville and 1.15 1.23 for Portland. However, because of greater sprawl, Nashville commuters spend an average of 268 hours per year commuting, while the average Portland commuter spends 193 hours per year.

What does this mean for public policy and the Washington region? TTI's data is often used to justify spending money on new freeway capacity, since congestion sounds bad. TTI even promotes this approach. Tim Lomax, a co-author of the report, told the Post's Ashley Halsey III, "You can do little things like stagger work hours, fix traffic-light timing and clear wrecks faster, but in the end, there's a need for more capacity."

"That we are congested is not news, but TTI's report does tremendous damage, because they fail to recognize the primary cause of our congestion and imply that we could simply widen roads to build our way out of the problem," said Stewart Schwartz, Executive Director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth.

Will Wisconsin's Governor Try To Get Rail Money?

2011-01-19T12:25:00.000-08:00

One paper thinks that he might

The train to Madison may be dead, but the train to Chicago is as alive as ever.

Ridership on Amtrak's Milwaukee-to-Chicago Hiawatha line has doubled in the past eight years, hitting a record 792,848 in 2010. And a new study rates the Hiawatha route as one of the nation's most promising prospects for an upgrade to high-speed rail.

Gov. Scott Walker has said little about his plans for the Hiawatha. But the Milwaukee-area business community strongly supports the route. Just days before the federal government yanked nearly all of the $810 million allocated for a Milwaukee-to-Madison line, the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce offered Walker a plan to shift most of the cash to the Hiawatha and other existing rail service.

MMAC President Tim Sheehy believes his group's plan could lay the foundation for the future of high-speed rail in Wisconsin. He hopes the state will use the MMAC outline in another bid for federal high-speed rail money.

Walker campaigned on killing the train to Madison, which would have been a 110-mph extension of the 79-mph Hiawatha. Even if federal stimulus money would have covered all construction costs, Walker said he didn't want state taxpayers to pick up some $7.5 million in annual operating costs, after fare revenue. Revised ridership estimates could have cut $2.8 million off the state share, and the state could have used existing federal aid to cover up to 90% of its costs.

Although Walker didn't want the train, he argued for keeping the $810 million for highways, which would have required an act of Congress. But in a Nov. 14 television interview, Walker said he and his staff also had "looked at options relative to rail," including upgrades to the Hiawatha and the long-distance Empire Builder.

Since then, Walker's staff has not specifically answered repeated Journal Sentinel questions about what options they were exploring. Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie has indicated, however, that the subject was still under discussion with federal officials after Dec. 9, when they canceled all but $2 million of the stimulus grant and redistributed the money to other states.

Sheehy and MMAC Vice President Pete Beitzel say their group gave Walker's staff an outline of how to use $450 million to $500 million of the stimulus money for rail upgrades without adding Milwaukee-to-Madison service. Sheehy said Walker seemed interested in the ideas.

Part of the MMAC plan focused on Hiawatha improvements, including renovating the train shed at the downtown Milwaukee Amtrak-Greyhound station, a $19.4 million project that would have been funded by the stimulus grant; and buying three new locomotives and a new set of passenger cars to supplement the two train sets already ordered from Talgo Inc., Beitzel said.

More frequent trips

A separate $12 million federal grant, unaffected by the Milwaukee-to-Madison controversy, is already paying for upgrades to the platform at the Mitchell International Airport station and to the Hiawatha tracks, and the state can use the remaining $2 million from the larger grant for Hiawatha upgrades.

With a third train, the Hiawatha could add an eighth, and perhaps even a ninth, daily round trip, Beitzel said. Hiawatha ridership has grown more than 99% since Amtrak and the state added a seventh round trip in late 2002.

Jay Sorensen, a Shorewood-based transportation consultant, said the Hiawatha attracts an even higher proportion of affluent business riders than his former employer, Midwest Airlines. He says authorities could double the Hiawatha's frequency "and demand would rise to meet that. . . . They could make it so blindingly convenient, by having trains every half-hour, that people say, 'Why am I driving?' "

Iowa to give back high speed rail funds as well?

2011-01-06T17:37:00.000-08:00

House GOP budget bill could kill Iowa City passenger train

A budget bill proposed today by Republicans who have taken control of the Iowa House of Representatives could be a death blow to plans for daily Amtrak passenger train service between Iowa City and Chicago.

That’s because the bill would not provide state money needed to establish and subsidize operations for the route, which could force the Iowa Department of Transportation to return a federal grant of $81.4 million already awarded for the passenger train project.

The Iowa Legislature has previously committed $10 million for Iowa’s share of the train project, and lawmakers have been asked to appropriate an additional $10 million in start-up costs. In addition, state officials have estimated it would require another $3 million annually in Iowa taxpayer subsidies to keep the train running to Iowa City.

State Rep. Scott Raecker, an Urbandale Republican who will chair the Iowa House Appropriations Committee, said Monday he is reluctant to provide any taxpayer money for passenger train service, especially because of the need for ongoing subsidies to run the train in future years.

“We have to be cautious about making out-year commitments before we can fund things like K-12 education, which is $231 million short. We also have a $600 million hole in Medicaid,” he added.

Raecker said he anticipates that the Iowa City to Chicago train “will be a point of discussion and debate as we move through the process, whether or not that should or should not remain in the bill.”

The Iowa Department of Transportation received a federal grant of $81.4 million in October to help establish the Chicago-to-Iowa City train in a partnership with the Illinois Department of Transportation, which received $148.6 million in federal money. But Iowa’s entire share of federal money will be lost if Iowa doesn’t proceed with the train project, federal officials have said.

Nancy Richardson, director of the Iowa Department of Transportation, said the loss of state funding for the Iowa City passenger train “would obviously leave a hole” because Iowa’s application for federal money was based on securing matching state money.

“It would be a very serious blow, but we would need to look and see if there are other options for coming up with this match,” Richardson said.
That would include private money, contributions from local governments or other sources of state funding, she explained.

The passenger train would still likely operate between Chicago and the Quad Cities because the Illinois Legislature has already appropriated money for the Illinois section of the project to proceed.

While the House Republican bill doesn’t specifically address plans for a proposed Chicago-to-Dubuque passenger train, Richardson said the proposal may not bode well for Dubuque-bound rail service. Illinois lawmakers have agreed to provide state funding for a train running from Chicago to the Iowa border at Dubuque, but Iowa needs to provide some money in start-up costs and ongoing operational costs, neither of which have been determined yet, she said.

Richardson added that Iowa DOT officials are exploring the possibility of obtaining a federal grant to help cover some of the costs of a Dubuque passenger train.

Giving back the funds rather than investing them in this rail line would be a truly short-sighted move. $20.6 million dollars over four years is an extremely small portion of an annual six billion dollar budget and can easily be covered by bonds if there is truly no other option. With an expected ridership of nearly 250,000 per year on four daily trains (two round-trips), the result is a 73% passenger capacity and fares likely covering a large portion of the subsidy, which would not be paid until four years from now, in 2015. Ridership may be even higher than that as the Positive Train Control mandate requires installation upon passenger lines by 2015. By the end of the first year, maximum speeds, then, should be raised up to 90 miles per hour or faster, dependent upon track condition, increasing the attractiveness of the rail service and hence its patronage.

Have we reached peak traffic?

2011-01-02T11:44:00.000-08:00

An interesting study suggests that the United States may have reached saturation in travel levels.

Beginning in 1970, they found, motorized passenger travel grew rapidly in all eight countries as greater prosperity led to rising car ownership and domestic air travel. But after 2000, when per capita GDP in the U.S. hit $37,000, passenger travel stopped growing here. In the other countries, passenger travel leveled out at a GDP of $25,000 to $30,000 per capita.

“A major factor behind increasing energy use and carbon dioxide emissions since the 1970s has ceased its rise, at least for the time being,” Schipper said. “If it is a truly permanent change, then future projections of carbon dioxide emissions and fuel demand should be scaled back.”

The peak travel study runs counter to government models predicting steady growth in travel demand well beyond 2030. Schipper and Millard-Ball say that their own findings are “suggestive rather than conclusive.” They speculate that highway gridlock, parking problems, high prices at the gas pump and an aging population that doesn’t commute may be contributing to peak travel. People already spend an average 1.1 hours per day traveling from one place to another, and driving speeds can’t get much faster.

“You can’t pronounce one single factor for the slowdown in travel,” Schipper said. “The most important thing will be to see what happens as the economy recovers. Everybody expects oil prices to go up. But with new fuel economy standards, more hybrids and higher oil prices competing against a recovery in which people buy old-fashioned gas-guzzlers, the question is, what is going to win?”

Most of the eight countries in the study have experienced declines in miles traveled by car per capita in recent years. The U.S. appears to have peaked at an annual 8,100 miles by car per capita, and Japan is holding steady at 2,500 miles.

There are signs of saturation in vehicle ownership, too, at about 700 cars per 1,000 people in the U.S. — more cars than licensed drivers — and about 500 cars per 1,000 people in Japan and most of the European countries. Car ownership has declined in the U.S. since 2007 because of the recession.

“You get to a point where everybody who could possibly drive, drives,” Schipper said.

If the travel market itself is actually saturated, this suggests that predictions of high amounts of induced demand for rail travel may not actually be borne out and that any gains in rail ridership will be at the expense of motor and air travel. On the other hand, if the saturation is due to problems with the currently available methods of air and motor, then induced demand may be a major contributor along with high levels of modal switch.

Berkley's HSR emissions paper was way off

2010-12-30T13:58:00.000-08:00

A good run down of the problems with it on the CAHSR Blog. Of course, the goof originated with the high speed rail authority itself, which is a bit embarrassing.

Five dollar a gallon gasoline in 2012?

2010-12-28T10:31:00.000-08:00

That's the prediction of the former head of Shell Oil

The former president of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister, says Americans could be paying $5 for a gallon of gasoline by 2012.

In an interview with Platt's Energy Week television, Hofmeister predicted gasoline prices will spike as the global demand for oil increases.

"I'm predicting actually the worst outcome over the next two years which takes us to 2012 with higher gasoline prices," he said.

Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst with Oil Price Information Service says Americans will see gasoline prices hit the $5 a gallon mark in the next decade, but not by 2012.

"That wolf is out there and it's going to be at the door...I agree with him that we'll see those numbers at some point this decade but not yet." Kloza said.

"The demand is still sluggish enough in some of the mature economies."

Gasoline prices have been steadily rising. Last week, gas prices crossed the $3 mark for the first time since October 2008. According to AAA figures, prices are up 4% from a month ago and 16% from the $2.585 average a year ago.

A study from the Oil Price Information Service estimates drivers will spend $305 on gasoline in December. According to the study, fuel prices are up 13.6% from last December and 76% higher from December 2008.

Gas prices eased off last week's gains but still remained around the $90-a-barrel mark, settling at $91-a-barrel. Prices were down 51 cents from Thursday's close after China unexpectedly raised interest rates over the holiday weekend for the second time in two months.

Oil prices settled above $90 a barrel for the first time since October of 2008.

Until and unless we build more oil-independent mass transit, the economy is slaved to the ever increasing cost of oil. High speed rail is the most obvious and the flagship means of achieving a deal of oil independence, but it is only one part of what must need to be a cohesive whole; from busses and streetcars on the local level, to electric commuter railways, and high speed electric trains for intercity transport.

Merry Christmas!

2010-12-25T14:26:00.001-08:00

Today, the twenty-fifth day of December,

unknown ages from the time when God created the heavens and the earth

and then formed man and woman in his own image.

Several thousand years after the flood,

when God made the rainbow shine forth as a sign of the covenant.

Twenty-one centuries from the time of Abraham and Sarah;

thirteen centuries after Moses led the people of Israel out of Egypt.

Eleven hundred years from the time of Ruth and the Judges;

one thousand years from the anointing of David as king;

in the sixty-fifth week according to the prophecy of Daniel.

In the one hundred and ninety-fourth Olympiad;

the seven hundred and fifty-second year from the foundation of the city of Rome.

The forty-second year of the reign of Octavian Augustus;

the whole world being at peace,

Jesus Christ, eternal God and Son of the eternal Father,

desiring to sanctify the world by his most merciful coming,

being conceived by the Holy Spirit,

and nine months having passed since his conception,

was born in Bethlehem of Judea of the Virgin Mary.

Today is the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh.

Virginia expands passenger rail service

2010-12-21T13:04:00.000-08:00

First train to begin service within three years

RICHMOND- Governor Bob McDonnell announced today that the Commonwealth of Virginia and Norfolk Southern Railway Company have signed a landmark agreement that is an important step toward bringing daily intercity passenger rail service back to Norfolk for the first time since 1977. The round-trip train will link Norfolk with a single-seat ride to Richmond, Washington, D.C., and cities as far north as Boston.

Speaking about the agreement, Governor McDonnell noted, "The new service will bring direct intercity passenger rail service to one of Virginia's largest population centers. The Hampton Roads region is home to over a million Virginians, including thousands of Federal employees and military personnel, who currently have limited transportation choices for travel to Richmond, Washington, D.C., and into the Northeast. This service will provide an alternative to the heavily congested I-64 and I-95 corridors."

The agreement provides for the speedy upgrading of Norfolk Southern tracks between Norfolk and Petersburg so that they are suitable for use by passenger trains. Funded by an $87 million Rail Enhancement Fund grant, the projects include upgraded signaling, track extensions and connections, passenger train turning and servicing facilities, and a track and platform near Norfolk's Harbor Park for the passenger train. Also included is construction of a new connection between Norfolk Southern and CSXT tracks near Petersburg. These improvements will enable passenger trains to run on Norfolk Southern's busy Heartland Corridor route.

"The partnership between the Commonwealth and Norfolk Southern is a perfect example of business and government working creatively, cooperatively, and quickly to meet a challenge," said Norfolk Southern CEO Wick Moorman. "We are proud to be part of a timely and forward-looking response to a pressing public issue."

"Connecting Norfolk to the Amtrak network and the Northeast is a major step forward for the mobility of the region," said Thelma Drake, Director of the Department of Rail and Public Transportation.

Norfolk Southern will work with the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) to complete the work outlined in the agreement. The project is already being designed, and construction will begin in 2011.

The Commonwealth continues to make progress on the necessary agreements for improvements to CSX track and with Amtrak. These agreements must be in place before new intercity passenger rail service can begin.

At least there's on Republican governor besides Arnold who gets the necessity of rail passenger service and is willing to continue investing in it. Of course, since the Washington D.C.-Lynchburg, VA route runs an operational profit, this is a very easy choice politically. At $87 million, capital costs are also far cheaper than what it would cost to expand the highways along the route. With any luck, the citizens of Virginia will vote for continued improvements to the rail route, including electrification and upgrading to Class 7 track to allow for 125mph service.

Florida HSR and the new governor

2010-12-17T18:33:00.000-08:00

Rick Scott vs high speed rail

Could Rick Scott, who's all about getting people back to work, manage to kill the planned Orlando to Tampa high-speed rail line and the 24,000 jobs it would bring Florida?

The answer's yes, if, in the end, the governor-elect cares more about partisan politics than an economic opportunity that anyone with his supposed business savvy would be daft to resist.

Regrettably, Mr. Scott's sending signals that to him, politics may well be more important than doing what's clearly in the best interests of Florida. How unfortunate for the state, which needs the stimulative, potentially transformative high-speed line.

And how ironic for someone who cast himself as a political outsider in his run for governor.

Mr. Scott's continued parsing of the project — it's got to show a return on investment; it can't cost taxpayers, he says — is now imperiling it. State Department of Transportation officials who'll depend on Mr. Scott for their paychecks once he's governor have picked up on his dislike of the project and put off plans to solicit companies to prepare the Interstate-4 median for the high-speed trains.

Mr. Scott's tack resembles those of Republican governors in Wisconsin, New Jersey and Ohio, who recently leveled criticism at federally-supported rail projects destined for their states — before they ended up telling Washington they didn't want them.

But Mr. Scott surely knows Florida's in a far better position to host a new passenger-rail system than those states, unless six weeks after the election he's still ignorant about one of its biggest infrastructure and economic development projects.

Florida's $2.6 billion high-speed project would be paid for almost entirely by the feds. Washington has agreed to send Florida all but $280 million of its cost. And some companies vying to run the trains indicate they'd cover the state's share. They're willing to do that because they believe running the Orlando-Tampa route would give them a leg up on operating a second high-speed rail line from Orlando to Miami — and other fast trains outside Florida.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said he feared his state would have to pay for costly rail-project overruns. But meetings last month between Florida transportation officials and companies wanting to operate the trains reportedly revealed the companies' willingness to cover any construction overages.

Wisconsin Gov.-elect Scott Walker said his state would have had to pay too much to operate and maintain its rail line. But the company that runs high-speed trains in Florida would have to operate and maintain them for 30 years. The state, Florida DOT's Kevin Thibault told us, wouldn't have to pick up the cost.

Florida would need 23,000 people to build the rail line, and to find as many as 1,000 workers to operate it. The train would stimulate businesses along the line and help turn Orlando and Tampa into a single market that attracts entrepreneurs eager to reap the benefits of the nation's most advanced transit system.

And it would offer commuters and tourists an alternative to an increasingly gridlocked I-4. It also would prove cheaper than the alternative: Building another lane of Interstate 4 — just from Tampa to Lakeland — would cost $3 billion.

Why would Rick Scott oppose such a system? Because President Obama's stimulus program, which he savages, underwrites so much of it? Because it has become a badge of honor among conservative governors to reject federally funded rail projects? Because, even though it would better connect Floridians and deliver all those jobs, Mr. Scott thinks opposition would somehow help him among his conservative constituency?

We've tried, but we can't think of another reason

This would be an extraordinarily poor move on Florida's part and proof of a merely ideological attack on the concept of passenger rail itself by members of the Republican Party. A guaranteed construction cost, with all overages handled by the companies responsible? Check. An operating franchise that does not require taxpayer subsidy? Check. Limited to no expense to the state of Florida because of hefty Federal grants? Check. What more could anyone want?

Is flying faster and cheaper?

2010-12-11T14:09:00.000-08:00

One of the common criticisms levied against high speed rail is that the train is slower than flying, even for the vaunted Los Angeles-San Francisco corridor that is the primary rationale of the California high speed rail system. At a first glance, they're right. After all, Southwest offers a travel time of one hour and fifteen minutes between Los Angeles International and San Francisco International while the California High Speed Rail Authority states a travel time of two hours, thirty eight minutes. The devil, however, is in the details.

To begin with, planes, as anyone who has travelled by air knows, are often late, and LAX-SFO is no exception. Continuing with Southwest for our example, they offer eleven daily flights between the two airports. With the exception of the early bird special, Flight 799 at 6am, they are often late, usually about ten to twenty minutes. That, of course, doesn't mean too much. Time spent at the airport waiting for the plane, however, does.

Southwest recommends arriving at SFO 60 minutes prior and LAX 90 minutes prior to the flight. Right away we see a problem. While the flight itself is only an hour and a half, the flight isn't the entire trip and we can already see that, of two people who arrive at the airport and train station at identical times, the train rider will arrive at his terminus first.

Of course, very few people travel for the sake of arriving at a particular airport or train station. Generally, the travel is a means to an end, located in the titular city. Here again we see an advantage to the train. Both the Transbay Transit Center and Los Angeles Union Station are in the heart of downtown, the hubs of their respective mass transit networks, and within easy walking distance of hotels and other destinations. By contrast, the airports are located twenty to thirty minutes away, not including the time taken to disembark the aircraft and wait for one's luggage.

What of the claim that air travel is cheaper than a train ticket? Well, it's true that if one happens to buy a ticket months in advance and flies on an off-peak day (Monday, Tuesday, and Saturday it would seem), a ticket can be had for only sixty dollars, including taxes and fees. Last minute travel as may often be the case for businessmen or travel on days that are more in demand results in higher rates of course, and we are not yet including parking costs.

Meanwhile, as of today, an Amtrak trip from Los Angeles to San Francisco can be had for only 56 dollars without advanced booking. It is by no means the most pleasant or fastest trip, involving a bus transfer to Bakersfield, the San Joaquin train to Emeryville, and then another bus to San Francisco itself. A direct connection that requires less employee hours per passenger and has more efficient travel will assuredly not rise above the price of an airline ticket. Furthermore, these comparisons are for travel today, when the true comparison is for travel ten years hence when the line has been built. As the price of oil continues to increase, the price of air travel, especially on shorter commutes such as Los Angeles to San Francisco which burn proportionately more per passenger-mile, will continue to rise. Meanwhile, California's electricity is mainly natural gas with increasingly larger amounts of renewables, such as solar. In fact, one of the reasons that Southwest is so cheap (and a major contributor to its profits) is that it locked in lower oil prices through hedging, but those hedges are about to expire.

So, will it be faster and cheaper to fly? Looks like that is just another myth.

Acela continues to gain marketshare

2010-12-05T10:38:00.000-08:00

Remember this whenever someone says people won't take trains that are slower than planes

“We’ve designed a product for the business travelers’ needs, and we’re trying to reach them at the most relevant points of their travel experience,’’ said David Lim, Amtrak’s chief marketing officer. “The underlying assumption being the airport experience has not been the best in the last couple of years.’’
Acela was launched in late 2000 with the goal of grabbing a larger share of the lucrative business travel market from short-haul air routes between Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington. By most measures, it has succeeded.
Amtrak now transports 55 percent of passengers in the Boston-New York air-rail market, up from 16 percent in the mid-1990s, according to the New England Transportation Institute, a nonprofit research organization in Vermont. Acela’s ridership has risen nearly 30 percent, from 2.5 million passengers in its first full year of service to 3.2 million passengers in fiscal 2010, which ended in September. Air travel, on the other hand, has declined.
Last year, nearly 30 percent fewer people flew between Logan and the three New York-area airports than in 1999, the year before Amtrak introduced Acela, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Air passenger numbers decreased 35 percent between Boston and Philadelphia and 8 percent between Boston and Washington in the same period.

Acela isn't even that fast. Boston-South Station to New York Penn aboard the Acela takes three hours, thirty minutes, an average speed of only 65 miles per hour. By contrast, Los Angeles to San Francisco in 2 hours, 38 minutes is an average speed of 164 miles per hour. Or, take a similar length trip, Fresno to Los Angeles, 255 miles as compared to 228.7 for Boston to New York. 1 hour and 24 minutes, nearly three times the speed at 182 miles per hour. If Acela can get that marketshare at such a low average speed, then it stands to reason that the California high speed rail system will blow things out of the water.

The real cost of highway driving

2010-12-05T09:57:00.000-08:00

How much does it really cost to maintain highways in a good state of repair? Currently, the gasoline tax in California is 53.7 cents per gallon, plus sales tax . At an average fuel economy of 22.6 miles per gallon, that comes out to 2.4 cents per mile. Is that sufficient to pay for road maintenance and construction? Hardly.

Let's take, as an example, the Pennsylvania Turnpike and a trip I made upon it earlier this year, from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia. Using their calculator, using exits 57 and 362 results in a total distance of 269.7 miles and a toll of $19.70. That's a per mile rate of 7.3 cents, three times what we might expect if California's gas tax actually sufficed. Orange County's own CA 241 toll roads are even worse. Santa Margarita Parkway to the I-5 comes to a total of $2.50 in tolls over an 11.3 mile distance. At 22 cents per mile, that's ten times the cost that we would expect if the gas tax were sufficient. What's more, the 241 and other toll roads receive additional funds from the gas tax.

The truth is, the gas tax comes nowhere near close enough to actually paying for transit. It retains some appearance of doing so, although falling short even still, because a large portion of driving is on roads that are paid for by other taxes, such as property taxes, thus subsidizing the highways. Take away that subsidy, however, and it's nothing more than a hollow shell.

GE to help build Chinese trains for California?

2010-12-03T08:45:00.000-08:00

China’s CSR, GE May Bid on California, Florida High-Speed Rail

Dec. 3 (Bloomberg) -- CSR Corp., China’s largest maker of rail vehicles, and partner General Electric Co. may bid to build high-speed train lines in California and Florida as U.S. President Barack Obama spurs investment in railways.

The companies may also compete for a project on the east coast, CSR Chairman Zhao Xiaogang told reporters in Hong Kong today. They are yet to finalize what form their cooperation will take and will decide which of the lines to bid on over the next three years, he said.

The GE-CSR venture may face competition from trainmakers including Bombardier Inc., Alstom SA and East Japan Railway Co. as the U.S. federal government promotes rail to ease congestion and curb pollution. China has also said it may offer financing for a planned California high-speed line costing at least $40 billion to help local trainmakers break into the U.S. market.

“Bidding for such projects can help give CSR an international profile and boost its image as a global company,” said Stanley Yan, a Shanghai-based analyst at Masterlink Securities Corp. “The company is seeking new markets.”

CSR, based in Beijing, wants overseas sales to account for 20 percent of total revenue by 2015 from about 8 percent now, Shao Renqiang, the company’s secretary, told reporters. It expects total sales to climb to 150 billion yuan ($23 billion) by that year, he said.

“Overseas contracts are lucrative and we want to expand such sales,” Zhao said. “We’re actively seeking sales in the U.S., where there are seven or eight contracts in the pipeline.”

China Railways

The company is also bidding for projects in China, where the nation plans to more than double its high-speed passenger network to about 16,000 kilometer by 2020, Zhao said. China is accelerating the pace of construction to cut travel times and ease transportation bottlenecks, he said.

CSR rose 1.9 percent to HK$9.35 at the close of trading in Hong Kong. The stock has risen 64 percent this year, compared with a 6.6 percent gain in the benchmark Hang Seng Index.

CSR and GE, based in Fairfield, Connecticut, are also building a diesel-engine train factory in Changzhou, China. The two last month agreed to form a venture that will make parts for diesel trains.

GE, the world’s biggest maker of diesel trains, agreed to cooperate with China on high-speed rail as it doesn’t have its own technology. The partnership may eventually support about 3,500 jobs in U.S., with final assembly taking place in the county, GE said last year.

California Network

California, the most populous U.S. state, is planning to build a high-speed rail network that will eventually run from Sacramento and San Francisco to Los Angeles and San Diego.

China can offer a “complete package” for the project including financing, He Huawu, chief engineer of the nation’s rail ministry, said in a September interview. The same month, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger rode bullet trains in China, Japan and South Korea as he sought contractors and financing for the project.

The California line won $2.3 billion in federal funding in January, as part of an $8 billion stimulus package announced by President Barack Obama. The government awarded a further $2.4 billion of aid for high-speed projects nationwide in October.

One thing that absolutely has to be mandated as part of this deal if we were to take up China's bid would be a technology transfer, restoring the ability of American companies to design and produce state of the art passenger trains. That same requirement, after all, is how China got the technology in the first place and how South Korea has gotten it as well. Of course, our bargaining position is better the more domestic funding we have and the less we have to rely on the loans offered by various foreign nations such as China.

More trains, more riders

2010-11-29T12:06:00.000-08:00

Will more trains bring more riders to Metrolink?

Five years ago, at a time of robust economic growth, the board of the Orange County Transportation Authority approved a plan to expand Metrolink commuter rail service.

At the time, officials predicted that by 2010, average weekday ridership on the three Metrolink lines that serve Orange County would grow from about 14,000 to more than 30,000.
Then came the recession. Ridership levels are back near where they were five years ago, after rising in the intervening years. In October 2010, average weekday ridership on the three lines was 14,818, down 3 percent from a year earlier.

Meanwhile, OCTA has delayed plans to add new trains. The agency initially envisioned adding 16 round trips between Fullerton and Laguna Niguel by 2009, but didn’t. It’s now looking at adding at most six round trips in 2011, with more to come later.

The expansion, which was approved by voters as part of the renewed Measure M sales tax ballot initiative in 2006, ultimately envisions adding 34 new trains in the county, to bring the daily total to 76. The overall cost, which includes buying new locomotives and passenger cars as well as making improvements to stations, expanding parking lots, and making street crossings safer, is more than $400 million.

Will Kempton, OCTA’s CEO, believes that once trains are running more frequently, more people will ride them.

The idea is that, with trains running every half hour or so, “people won’t have to worry so much about a schedule,” Kempton said. “They can simply go to the station and know that there will be a train.”

That, he says, should result in a “stable and expanding ridership base.”

Still, it’s unclear who the new riders will be.

“Voters always vote for rail,” said David Brownstone, an economics professor at UC Irvine who studies transportation.

Brownstone noted that California voters in 2008 approved a $10 billion bond measure for a high-speed rail system that could one day compete with Metrolink and Amtrak on the Anaheim-to-Los Angeles route.

“They think it’s going to cut congestion,” Brownstone said. “Time and time again, people vote for these things and I think they think someone else is going to take (the train). It doesn’t happen.”

Yet studies have shown that increasing the frequency of transit service does yield an increase in ridership, said Marlon Boarnet, a professor of planning at UCI.

The studies suggest that a 100 percent increase in service will result in a 50 percent growth in ridership, he said.

“I think it’s a pretty good idea,” he said, of OCTA’s plan to expand service.

One pitfall: while OCTA owns the tracks between Fullerton and South County, the tracks between Fullerton and Los Angeles are owned by freight-hauler BNSF. Metrolink gets a certain number of daily slots and on the Fullerton-to-Los Angeles rails, and those are already filled.

That means L.A.-bound riders on new Orange County trains are likely to find there are no additional connections waiting for them once they get to Fullerton.

One thing that isn't brought up in the article is that expanding service on the OC line will make it far more convenient to go to Angels Stadium or the Honda Center. Right now, evening games and performances are pretty much an impossibility if you want to travel by rail as the last Metrolink train leaves Anaheim at 7:13pm and getting there isn't necessarily the most convenient either. Amtrak operates later, but is more expensive and has no evening trains at the Laguna Niguel/Mission Viejo station, which makes it useless for those using that stop. Meanwhile, if memory serves, the expanded OC line service is supposed to provide service as late as 11pm. With a little bit of advertising, as simple as a message that accompanies ticket purchase advertising a lack of driving hassle or congestion and that a roundtrip ticket is the same or cheaper than parking at the Honda Center, ridership could easily make large gains.

Russian HSR turns a profit

2010-11-28T13:53:00.000-08:00

Russian high speed rail turns a 30% profit in less than 12 months

The Sapsan high-speed train launched by Russian rail monopoly Russian Railways (RZhD) less than twelve months ago has proved to be the monopoly's sole profitable enterprise in the passenger transport sector, with its profit margin hitting 30 percent, RZhD President Vladimir Yakunin said on Tuesday.
"The other types of rail passenger transportation are loss-making," Yakunin said in an interview with Vedomosti business daily, adding that losses amounted to 34 billion rubles ($1.1 billion) from commuter train carriage and 36 billion rubles from long-distance train transportation.
Commuter train tariffs are regulated by regional authorities while rates for economy-class coaches are set by the Federal Tariff Service. These rates are lower than the economically justified level and therefore the government has to compensate the rail monopoly for its losses, an RZhD representative said. Tariffs for Sapsan fast-speed trains, however, are regulated directly by Russian Railways, which offers competitive rapid carriage services compared with other means of transport.
The demand for high-speed rail passenger carriage has proved to be so strong that the company is considering buying another eight Sapsan trains, Yakunin said, without specifying the terms of the expected deal.
The company plans to make a decision on the purchase by the end of 2010, Valentin Gapanovich, RZhD senior vice-president, said on Friday.
Russian Railways currently has eight high-speed Sapsans produced by the German engineering group Siemens. They run between St Petersburg, Moscow and Nizhny Novgorod. The Sapsan occupancy rate is 84.5 percent, according to RzHD.
The company's revenues from ticket sales may amount to 205 million euros annually at the current ticket price, while profits from the operation of these trains exceed 61 million euros.

Just another fine example of high speed rail systems posting an operational profit, despite all the current Libertarian and Republican naysayers.

Reason TV lying about pork and the gas tax

2010-11-26T17:06:00.000-08:00

Let's take this apart, shall we?

Their first complaint is of money being taken away from the highway trust fund to fund non-highway projects. Unfortunately, they give no specifics with which we might examine the issues, but let us consider the argument made: Money is being diverted from the highway trust fund and spent on non-highway earmarks. There's just one flaw with this: It's complete malarky. The gasoline tax doesn't even suffice to cover current expenses, which is why in 2008 the Highway Trust Fund received over 8 billion dollars from the general fund and an additional two billion was spent from the general fund on freeways. Indeed, the total federal tax revenue for gasoline is only was only 25,325,646,000.00 in 2008. Money being quite fungible, any such non-highway uses must exceed the amount of revenue from the general fund and non-gasoline sources before complaints about diversion can be justified. But given the pathetic nature of their highlight, that doesn't seem likely.

That hovercraft in Toledo, OH was an appropriation of 745,125.00 for the development of ferry service between Toledo and Windsor, Canada. Of course, what Reason fails to mention is that of the 18.4 cents collected in gasoline tax, 2.86 cents goes to mass transit. So what we have here is criticizing as pork the use of mass transit money in order to fund mass transit. I'm having a hard time seeing the exact problem with that situation.

Then of course, we have the stimulus plan criticism. Yet the stimulus plan was never meant in its entirety to fund infrastructure repair and construction. Indeed, the largest portion of the stimulus plan was tax cuts, 288 billion dollars worth. Only 48 billion dollars was for transportation, 27.5 billion of which was for highway and bridge construction and repair. While the yoga thing seems to be quite off, I fail to see the problem with observing the effects of cocaine on monkeys as a scientific endeavor, given the high popularity of the drug among America's population and the usefulness of anything that will help combat addiction to it or treat those who have overdosed upon it.

Then of course, we have the true reason for calling these men "porkers" and the final piece of absurdity in the video: Because they have called for raising the gasoline tax by 135%. That 135% increase is a whopping total of 25 cents. That counteracts the depreciation of the current gas tax by more than seventeen years of inflation and rising fuel economies on vehicles, with perhaps a little extra to help with our greatly inadequately built and maintained infrastructure. Only in the bizarro world of Reason is this known as anything other than simply being responsible.