Yesterday’s post on the costs of California high-speed rail discussed the likelihood that this megaproject will cost more than projected and the likelihood that taxpayers who pay for construction will have to pay again to rebuild the system every thirty or so years. Such costs are not so much a risk as a certainty. But there are many other risks involved with high-speed rail, some of which could unexpectedly drive up construction costs even more, and others affecting operations.

Some of these risks were identified in the senate oversight report on high-speed rail, including right-of-way, safety, and ridership risks. One important rish that was not brought out by the senate report is the risk that competing technologies will render high-speed rail obsolete.

Continue reading →

The California High-Speed Rail Authority wants to build an 800-mile rail network between Sacramento, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Anaheim, and (via Riverside) San Diego. Electrically-powered trains would travel over this network at speeds up to 220 miles per hour, allowing people to get from downtown San Francisco to downtown L.A. in about 2-1/2 hours.

It isn’t clear to me why any self-respecting San Franciscan would want to get to downtown L.A. in 2-1/2 hours, though I can imagine why they would want to quickly return. I suppose the Northern-Southern California cultural divide works both ways. But the four big questions are: How much will it cost? What kind of risks are involved? What are the likely benefits? And what are the alternatives? Today’s post will focus on cost.

By any measure, California high-speed rail will be a megaproject, the most expensive public-works project ever planned by a single U.S. state. Exactly how much it will cost is still uncertain — estimates published in various places have varied over a wide range. Just as uncertain is who is going to pay that cost. What is certain is that the $9.95 billion in bonds (of which $9 billion is for high-speed rail and $0.95 billion is for connecting transit improvements) that California voters will decide upon this November will be little more than a down payment.

Continue reading →

Florida is the only part of the U.S. other than California that has seriously considered a true high-speed rail project. In 1992, the Florida legislature passed a high-speed rail transportation act. This led the state Department of Transportation to propose a public-private partnership to build a high-speed rail line from Miami to Orlando and then to Tampa. However, Governor Bush killed this plan in 1999.

A high-speed rail advocate (and former Bush supporter) named C.C. Dockery then spend $2.7 million of his own money putting a measure on the Florida ballot that amended the constitution to require the state to build a high-speed rail network. The measure did not raise taxes or appropriate any money to the project, and it was passed by the voters. By 2004, perhaps more aware of the cost, 64 percent of the voters were persuaded to repeal it.

By then, however, the legislature had created a state high-speed rail authority and appointed Dockery to the commission. The authority had let a contract to prepare a detailed environmental impact statement (EIS) for the first leg of a high-speed rail line connecting Tampa and Orlando. This EIS was published in 2005, and the rail authority has subsequently disbanded (at least, its web site no longer works).

Continue reading →

In 1935, the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad — known as the Milwaukee Road for short — began operating steam-powered passenger trains at speeds up to 110 miles per hour between Chicago and Minneapolis. Passengers at that time had their choice of three railroads — the Milwaukee, the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy, and the Chicago & Northwestern — each of which had at least two trains a day that took 6-1/2 hours between Chicago and the Twin Cities.

The Hiawatha at 85 mph. Photo by Otto Perry, courtesy Denver Public Library.

Today’s Amtrak trains require eight hours for the same journey. The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative — a consortium of nine state departments of transportation — proposes to reduce this to 5-1/2 hours and to similarly speed service from Chicago to Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, St. Louis, and other midwestern cities.

Continue reading →

Many Americans who visit Europe return gushing over the high-speed rail lines. If only our country had the foresight to build such wonderful trains! It is too bad that America is being left behind the high-speed rail revolution.

A German InterCity Express (ICE) train in Leipzig station.

Fast, frequent rail service may be a boon to tourists. But it does not play a significant role in overall European travel. Eurostat’s Panorama of Transport says that, as of 2004, rails in the 25-member European Union carried just 5.8% of passenger travel — down from 6.2% in 2000 — while automobiles (including motorcycles) carried 76.0%, up from 75.5% in 2000 (see p. 102).

Continue reading →

The presidential nominating conventions are over, so we can now turn back to more serious business, like debating rail transit. As it happens, Californians will get to vote this November on whether to sell $9 billion worth of bonds to start building high-speed rail from San Francisco to Los Angeles.

With a current total estimated cost of $30 billion ($45 billion when branches to Sacramento and San Diego are included) and rising, California high-speed rail is a megaproject of truly disastrous proportions. As one California writer says, it “would make the Big Dig fiasco in Boston look like a small scoop.”

Japanese high-speed trains on display.

Before looking at the California plan in detail, it is worth examining high-speed rail in other countries. The best place to start is Japan, which introduced high-speed rail to the world in 1964.

Continue reading →