Here’s a brilliant idea from a disappointing governator who ran as a fiscal conservative but then helped his state run up tens of billions of dollars of deficits: build a “demonstration” high-speed rail project from Los Angeles to San Diego. The trains would use existing tracks and so would be moderate-speed rail, not true high-speed rail. Schwarzenegger hopes to see it completed before he leaves office so that people can see the benefits of California’s true high-speed rail project that won’t be completed before 2020.
The top speed of Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner from L.A. to San Diego is 90 mph. Schwarzenegger could spend a billion dollars on this route, but BNSF would still restrict the top speed to 90 mph.
Flickr photo by Snap Man.
Other than the fact that nobody has any money to do what Schwarzenegger proposes to do, one major problem is that the BNSF Railway, whose tracks the trains would use, has a policy that passenger trains may not go more than 90 mph on its tracks. CSX has a similar policy; Norfolk Southern’s limit is 79 mph. Of the nation’s four largest railroads, only the Union Pacific has agreed to allow trains as fast as 110 mph on its tracks, and then only if the government spends billions adding new tracks for both passenger and freight trains to run on.
The World’s Strongest Antioxidant is also getting increasingly popular as a Healthful Alternative to cheapest line viagra and a totally Natural Aphrodisiac. There are ladies who suffer from serious hormonal changes and negative results of various biochemical cialis in india price this store reactions ongoing within a body of a person against its own tissues produces antibodies. They viagra online pharmacies can be organized into the following groups: People with cardiovascular disorders, People who have undergone organ transplants, People with kidney problems, People who take medicines for this sexual dis-order suffer from side effects of the medicine. And you have heard buy levitra online hop over to this web-site it very right. The reason why the BNSF policy is a problem is that Amtrak’s Los Angeles-San Diego trains already reach a top speed of 90 mph. That makes it unlikely that spending a lot of money on new trains and track work will significantly reduce running times between the two cities.
Of course, top speed is less important than average speed. Current Amtrak trains require 2 hours and 50 minutes for a journey of about 120 miles. Governor Schwarzenneger’s letter to Secretary LaHood projects the new train times “would be reduced by 50 minutes from the current average drive time of more than three hours.” So call it 2 hours and 20 minutes. Add in the time it takes to get to and from the stations at each end from wherever the travelers are really going and you still have a three hour journey, which is not going to be competitive with driving. If I were Governor Schwarzenegger, I would be more worried about why a 120-mile freeway trip requires more than three hours.
However, the Antiplanner doubts that California can reduce trip times to 2 hours and 20 minutes. Schwarzenegger’s staff seems to be under the misapprehension that all it will take will be “new-style equipment” to get faster trains. In fact, the speed limits are the same for all passenger trains regardless of the equipment. The much-ballyhooed tilt trains used in the Pacific Northwest are reputedly a bit more comfortable for passengers as they go around corners, but they cannot go any faster than conventional trains.
What Schwarzenegger’s plan would demonstrate is that, even as the California government approaches bankruptcy, it is still stupid enough to spend a lot of money on a project that will accomplish almost nothing. Since we really don’t need any more demonstrations of that sad fact, the Antiplanner suggests that Schwarzenegger shut up about a LA-SD moderate-speed rail project.
Of course, California could follow New York’s lead and pay for the high-speed trains by borrowing the money from the $9 billion it plans to borrow to start building the trains. If New York can pay into its pension fund by borrowing from the fund, California could probably build the entire high-speed rail system by borrowing from its borrowed money five or six times. And politicians call Wall Street reckless.
The Antiplanner wrote:
> Of course, California could follow New York’s lead and pay
> for the high-speed trains by borrowing the money from the
> $9 billion it plans to borrow to start building the trains.
Wonder where California will get the money to re-pay the
loans from the pension plan?
> If New York can pay into its pension fund by borrowing
> from the fund, California could probably build the
> entire high-speed rail system by borrowing from its
> borrowed money five or six times
Maybe California can borrow from the its pension plans to fund
the inevitable operating deficits that the trains will incur?
Anyone heard of fiduciary responsibility?
High speed rail is a niche market. It has to be faster than a bus, but cheaper than an airplane. Since airplane prices vary in time a great deal, the rail niche is never very big. There may be places where high speed rail fits a niche, perhaps SD-LA or NE corridor. But the risk is high as airplane fares vary over time, and highway congestion is a big factor.
I would suggest the Antiplanner focus his research on the carbon cost/benefit of high speed rail. That is the only argument for high speed rail that survives any economic or risk-benefit sense. If high speed rail is not greatly beneficial for carbon cost/benefit, then I can’t see a rational argument that it should be subsidized at the huge levels it requires.
Anyone heard of fiduciary responsibility?
Indeed! If the deregulated Enron hadn’t lost so much of CA’s money, the citizenry’s investments would be in much better shape! Grrrr.
DS
It won’t take high speed rail to reduce the travel time between Los Angeles and San Diego, at least in the short-term. Much of the route is doubled-tracked, and much of it is single tracked. While there are sections where 90 MPH running is allowed, the speed limit on most of the route is 79 MPH. There is also a winding canyon to trudge through before you get to San Diego.
There are tons of small improvements that can be done to improve operations on this corridor.
I still wonder if the niche market can work. The NE corridor has the most potential, but LA-SD has the second most potential. LA-SF is probably third. If high speed rail has potential in the US, it has to beat air travel and auto travel in those markets.
All that is fine with me, as long as they are not subsidized. I especially object to policies crippling air and auto travel just to make rail more attractive.
Dan wrote:
> Indeed! If the deregulated Enron hadn’t lost so much
> of CA’s money, the citizenry’s investments would be
> in much better shape! Grrrr.
Enron was run by crooks and other people well-connected to the Republic Party’s appparat in Washington, D.C. Its evil doings don’t justify spending billions on new passenger rail lines.
Borealis wrote:
> All that is fine with me, as long as they are not subsidized.
Heck, Amtrak cannot even run its only close-to-high-speed-rail corridor in the Northeast without subsidies from the taxpayers for both capital items (e.g. rolling stock) and operating subsidies.
> I especially object to policies crippling air and auto travel
> just to make rail more attractive.
I agree. Though there are plenty of railfans out there that would like to forbid short-haul air passenger service (say, less than 300 or 400 miles) in order to force people onto trains.
Yet another slam dunk.
Enron was run by crooks and other people well-connected to the Republic Party’s appparat in Washington, D.C. Its evil doings don’t justify spending billions on new passenger rail lines.
The overarching point being, of course, that humans are humans. And eliminating gummint and/or gummint oversight and police power in favor of private takeover doesn’t eliminate human nature or make things any better.
DS
“Amtrak cannot even run its only close-to-high-speed-rail corridor in the Northeast without subsidies from the taxpayers for both capital items (e.g. rolling stock) and operating subsidies.”
Amtrak makes $41 per passenger on Acela.
“Though there are plenty of railfans out there that would like to forbid short-haul air passenger service (say, less than 300 or 400 miles) in order to force people onto trains.”
You don’t need to forbid short-haul flights. If you build the high speed rail, the trains will prove more convenient than short-haul air travel, which has happened in Spain and Korea, among other nations. The airline industry has received generous government support over the years, including a bailout, so I don’t see why rail cannot be given a leg up, so to speak.
Interestingly enough, the airline bailout did end up paying for itself, and it was opposed by Libertarians from the very beginning.
Dan said:
Enron was run by crooks and other people well-connected to the Republic Party’s appparat in Washington, D.C. Its evil doings don’t justify spending billions on new passenger rail lines.
The overarching point being, of course, that humans are humans. And eliminating gummint and/or gummint oversight and police power in favor of private takeover doesn’t eliminate human nature or make things any better.
Plato: Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.