The Antiplanner

U.S. High-Speed Rail Network

26th October 2009

U.S. High-Speed Rail Network

posted in News commentary, Transportation |

When Obama endorsed the Federal Railroad Administration‘s 8,600-mile high-speed rail plan, the Antiplanner predicted that rail advocates would not be satisfied with such a small system. For one thing, the FRA system reached only 33 states. For another, as a system of unconnected corridors it failed to connect such key cities as New York and Chicago or Chicago and the West Coast. Although self-proclaimed high-speed rail “experts” say that high-speed rail only makes sense in 300- to 600-mile corridors, the Antiplanner argued that politics would lead Congress to insist that lines be built across the country.

Sure enough, a group calling itself the U.S. High Speed Rail Association has proposed a 17,000-mile network that connects both coasts and appears to reach 43 — possibly 44 (West Virginia is unclear) — states. The route map includes lines from Chicago to Seattle and San Francisco (via St. Louis, Kansas City, and Denver) and Dallas to Los Angeles (via Albuquerque, Phoenix, and San Diego).

News reports indicate that the president of the High Speed Rail Association estimates that this system will cost $600 billion. That works out to $35 million per mile, which is about what Florida estimated it would cost to build high-speed rail across its flat lands (Florida estimated around $25 million a mile, but adjusting for inflation brings it to more than $30 million). But between a third and half of the miles in the system are going to be in some sort of mountains, where (judging from projections made by the California High-Speed Rail Authority) costs will be more than double those on flat lands. This brings the total cost to around $1 trillion, and that’s not even counting cost overruns.

Looking at the map makes me wonder if the plan’s architects have ever visited many of the routes they propose. Do they really think it makes more sense to go from Phoenix to San Diego, rather than the more direct and lower-elevation route from Phoenix to Los Angeles? Do they really think it makes sense to have a route from Salt Lake City to Seattle, going over the Cascade Mountains and by-passing the water-level route to Portland through the Columbia Gorge? No doubt they would respond by saying this is only a preliminary sketch to be refined later.

Just who is the U.S. High Speed Rail Association? The management team consists of a president, two vice-presidents, and chairman of the board, three of whom are architects. While one VP is an economist, he is the group’s lobbyist, which suggests he isn’t using his degree much. The group’s address is the same as that of an architectural firm run by the group’s chair.

The group’s web site also lists an advisory board of four, including an urban planner, the head of the Urban Land Institute, the head of an “infrastructure” firm, and the director of the International Union of Railways, a standards-setting organization.

In short, the group is dominated by planners and architects; visionaries who are poorly grounded in the financial facts of life. Not surprisingly, the Antiplanner is not enthused about entrusting $600 billion to $1 trillion to such people.

This entry was posted on Monday, October 26th, 2009 at 12:00 am and is filed under News commentary, Transportation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

There are currently 16 responses to “U.S. High-Speed Rail Network”

Please feel free to submit comments. Constructive debate is welcome. Ad hominem attacks and name-calling will reveal the shallowness of the author. Foul language may be deleted. Your first comment will require moderation; after that, all comments will be approved unless they contain too many links in which case the software may hold them for approval as potential spam.

  1. 1 On October 26th, 2009, John Thacker said:

    They’re delusional, especially with those 2015 dates.

    They have Birmingham-Atlanta-Greenville-Charlotte by 2015. That’s completely impossible; there hasn’t been enough environmental work, much less planning, for that to get past NEPA. They also have that route *before* the Charlotte-Greensboro-Raleigh-Richmond-DC link, which they have in 2020. That’s utterly backwards, based on feasibility studies and the state of planning and environmental work.

    Thanks to that, and the Antiplanner’s correct comments about terrain and elevation, I have to conclude that they have no idea about either US geography or US trains or the US government.

    posted on October 26th, 2009 at 6:32 am

  2. 2 On October 26th, 2009, John Thacker said:

    The silly thing about it is that even if they include a bunch of planners, they don’t even understand planning. There is absolutely no way that many of those areas can have “HSR Express” (meaning true HSR speeds) by 2015 or 2020. The planning and environmental process in the US simply takes too long.

    posted on October 26th, 2009 at 6:58 am

  3. 3 On October 26th, 2009, t g said:

    The Albuquerque to Phoenix route through the White Mountains is equally absurd.

    posted on October 26th, 2009 at 8:34 am

  4. 4 On October 26th, 2009, Mike said:

    t g,

    QFT. That was my reaction too. Do these people look at a flat (paper) map and assume it’s all as flat as Oklahoma in reality? There’s a reason there is no fast single freeway directly linking ABQ and PHX.

    (A few minutes looking over these routes on Google Maps — especially with the terrain turned on — will give you a very clear idea of why t g and I find the proposed rail route between those cities so laughable. The current best route is northeast from Phoenix on AZ 87, east on AZ 260, northeast on AZ 77 -> 277 -> 377, then east on I-40. There are twisty narrow stretches, but at present there is no better way to top the Mogollon Rim escarpment. If you want an easier drive that’s an hour longer, you just take I-17 north to I-40 east. )

    posted on October 26th, 2009 at 9:30 am

  5. 5 On October 26th, 2009, bennett said:

    …and what about Denver to SLC.

    I’m thinking this may be an instance where the mgmt team is aiming high knowing full well that the cannot attain the level of success that the map shows. This is a theme I’ve seen often in plans by boards, staff, companies, but rarely one championed by politicians, because failure to deliver on plans is unacceptable for them.

    I personally love the idea of a well connected network of high speed rail in the US but this seems rather ambitious to me. I think of the difficulties that Fastracks (regional light rail) or the trans Texas corridor (Texas’s toll road expansion) and how they have had difficulty coming to fruition, and I think, how is the HSR thing even possible?

    posted on October 26th, 2009 at 10:46 am

  6. 6 On October 26th, 2009, t g said:

    Denver, ABQ, Boise, SLC, Tucson, PHX, and Vegas all deserve to be on the chopping block. This almost seems like an anti-rail hoax.

    posted on October 26th, 2009 at 11:21 am

  7. 7 On October 26th, 2009, C. P. Zilliacus said:

    The Washington, D.C. to Pittsburgh, Penna. route (which would presumably follow the alignment followed by Amtrak’s once-per-day Capitol Limited between Washington and Chicago, Illinois would almost certainly need to cross the Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia (Jefferson, Berkeley and Morgan Counties) in order to avoid much rougher terrain on the north side of the Potomac River in Maryland.

    Perhaps not intuitively, one of the steepest grades on the mainline of the CSX Transportation rail network can be found in Montgomery County, Maryland between Germantown and Dickerson, where the Metropolitan Subdivision crosses the Parr’s Ridge (a foothill ridge of the Appalachians) and known to CSX train crews as “Barnesville Hill”).

    posted on October 26th, 2009 at 11:56 am

  8. 8 On October 26th, 2009, prk166 said:

    Bennet, I’m with you on Denver – SLC. The issue of how grades affect velocity and energy consumption but also the issue of being able to have enough room to build the track to standards need to be able to run 100 mph passenger trains. Maybe they don’t mind blowing up some rocks in Glenwood Canyon for this?

    Another 800 pound gorilla in their room is the Moffat Tunnel. It’s at max capacity. They’re either going to sink a billion or so for a new bore at Moffatt (for example, keep in mind the Eisenhower tunnel cost @ $125 million 35 years ago; IIRC new Loschtberg tunnel in Switzerland was @ $4 billion and 3 times as long) or fund some other project like a line connecting Craig with the UP main in WY or reopening Tennessee Pass. They’ll need to do something to address capacity at choke points like Moffat at some point soon irregardless of these “high speed” passenger trains. Will this become an opportunity for UP to get the tax payers to pay for it?

    And of course this doesn’t address the wisdom behind all of this, especially out west. Seems like a lot of money to spend to get just a few people from KC to SLC a few hours faster.

    posted on October 26th, 2009 at 12:19 pm

  9. 9 On October 26th, 2009, prk166 said:

    BTW – I realize their map isn’t supposed to be to scale but Winnipeg really isn’t that close to Lake of the Woods.

    posted on October 26th, 2009 at 1:01 pm

  10. 10 On October 26th, 2009, Mike said:

    I think we can all safely say at this point that what they’re presenting is a very rough estimation… and that some routes included are so unfeasible we’re not sure they’ve even researched them.

    In terms of the Atlantic seaboard, rider demand is likely to be high enough that a run from Boston through NYC to DC should be profitable — and if that’s the case, let the private sector do it! Let them incur the risk, not the general public. If the “powers that be” are unwilling to do this, what is that really saying? It’s saying “we KNOW this will be a huge money loser, but we’re going to build it anyway because it’s your money we’re spending and we can always get more of that.”

    The closest congruency I can imagine out west would be LA to Vegas and Phoenix to Vegas. There is considerable interstate traffic between those destinations out here, more so than any other pairings (again, interstate, so setting aside apparent layups like SD to LA — more in a moment). Again, if the ridership is really there, some greedy investor will want it built and operating so as to pocket a profit. That’s kind of how this sort of thing works. If none are, maybe it’s not as profitable as they seem to want us to think. Just because the old wizard says these aren’t the droids we’re looking for doesn’t mean it’s true.

    As for SD to LA, I’ve driven the I-5 at various hours of the day and night, week and weekend, between the two, and I have yet to encounter anything other than a fairly full road. Like the Boston to DC route, if this one isn’t profitable on its own, maybe the entire concept is a non-starter and we’re being fed a hustle.

    posted on October 26th, 2009 at 3:06 pm

  11. 11 On October 26th, 2009, C. P. Zilliacus said:

    Related article can be found on the Bond Buyer Web site here.

    posted on October 26th, 2009 at 5:39 pm

  12. 12 On October 27th, 2009, C. P. Zilliacus said:

    Also relevant is this article from the WTOP Radio site: Report: Amtrak loss comes to $32 per passenger

    posted on October 27th, 2009 at 10:13 am

  13. 13 On October 27th, 2009, C. P. Zilliacus said:

    Mike wrote:

    > If the “powers that be” are unwilling to do this, what is that really saying? It’s saying “we KNOW this will be
    > a huge money loser, but we’re going to build it anyway because it’s your money we’re spending and we can always
    > get more of that.”

    When discussing public-sector “investment” (and I use that term loosely) in rail passenger transportation systems in the United States, it’s also important to mention one group that will always benefit – the (nearly always) strictly unionized hourly workforces and their unions and the white-collar people that manage those workforces.

    posted on October 27th, 2009 at 10:16 am

  14. 14 On October 28th, 2009, Scott said:

    Consider:

    How often does “a person” go to to another urban area?

    People (mainly politicians) are forgetting that that over half of VMT are to work.

    Zoning doesn’t put areas more than a mile way.

    There’s many more reasons for distribution.
    Specifics: demographics, specialty, income etc….

    posted on October 28th, 2009 at 1:44 am

  15. 15 On October 28th, 2009, Mike said:

    Scott: People (mainly politicians) are forgetting that that over half of VMT are to work.

    bears
    bears
    bears
    bears
    bears

    Well observed. This should serve as yet another reminder that unless intercity rail is a substantially better option than an airplane ticket for any given traveler, it’s entirely superfluous.

    posted on October 28th, 2009 at 11:12 am

  16. 16 On October 29th, 2009, the highwayman said:

    bennett said: …and what about Denver to SLC.

    I’m thinking this may be an instance where the mgmt team is aiming high knowing full well that the cannot attain the level of success that the map shows. This is a theme I’ve seen often in plans by boards, staff, companies, but rarely one championed by politicians, because failure to deliver on plans is unacceptable for them.

    I personally love the idea of a well connected network of high speed rail in the US but this seems rather ambitious to me. I think of the difficulties that Fastracks (regional light rail) or the trans Texas corridor (Texas’s toll road expansion) and how they have had difficulty coming to fruition, and I think, how is the HSR thing even possible?

    THWM: Well just stringing wire over existing rail lines would be a quantum leap.

    t g said: Denver, ABQ, Boise, SLC, Tucson, PHX, and Vegas all deserve to be on the chopping block. This almost seems like an anti-rail hoax.

    THWM: Though places like Boise, Phoenix & Las Vegas aren’t even being served by Amtrak right now.

    posted on October 29th, 2009 at 12:48 am

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.