California voters approve $10 billion for high speed train
California, say hello to the bullet train. In the big election America held on Tuesday, one transportation-related measure that passed was California's Proposition 1A, named the "Safe, Reliable High Speed Passenger Train Bond Act." Its passage means that almost $10 billion in bond money was approved for an electric train route that will connect San Francisco and Sacramento with Southern California (LA and down to San Diego). Clean transportation advocates are pretty thrilled with the vote, calling it "a clear affirmation of high-speed trains" and saying that better public transportation was "critical to solving global warming and creating real energy independence" as ENS reports. Once completed, the state estimates that a LA to San Francisco trip will take two and a half hours and cost $55. Learn all about the plans for the new train here.
When we first mentioned this train back in March, some of you were skeptical that it would ever pass. What say you now?
[Source: State of California, ENS, TreeHugger]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Mike Z 6:21PM (11/08/2008)
It's worth noting that this bond only covers the first 1/3 of the cost of the project. The rest is contingent on lining up other sources of funds.
I still am skeptical of the plan. As someone who has looked over airline and Amtrak financial statements, their business plans does not forecast standard metrics utilized in the industry (CASM, RASM, Passenger Yield, etc)
Considering that Amtrak has a CASM of about double that of the airlines, I don't see how they can hit their cost targets at half the fare of air.
Reply
texmln 7:42PM (11/08/2008)
What say I now? I say Californians better not ask the federal government for one dime to help bridge their $4.4 billion budget gap. If you can afford a $10 billion train, you can afford to go it alone on the rest of your state financing.
Just like a welfare recipient, they can't seem to pay for the "basics" but they have enough cash for beer, cigarettes, and cable TV - and a really expensive train.
Reply
Paul 11:44PM (11/08/2008)
Couldn't have said it better myself. Except to add that most also seem to be able to afford male prostitutes, cocaine, and $1000 / sf homes. If the fed bails out California and that disgusting Godzilla of a transvestite (Pelosi), then I'm going postal. Seriously. Track my IP right now 'cause I'll be the one with the AK making it physically impossible for the governator to "be back."
ryan 9:02PM (11/08/2008)
I want to point out, that even with diesel at $4/gallon, I could make that same trip in my TDI for under $35... alone. Every person added makes the trip that much more economical. An under-utilized train vs. a loaded car might even lose on emissions, though anyone who takes the time to do the calculations can feel free to correct my assumption.
The problem with trains, is that they are EXPENSIVE! Living in Japan, and owning a car, 99% of the time it is cheaper to drive by car... even when gas prices had spiked. If the car was out of the equation, and one relied only on mass transit, then the train would probably win. The fixed costs tied to a car are quite great, especially in Japan. Give us a reliable, on-time, far-reaching public transportation system and I will jump on board. Otherwise, I will have to keep my car on hand for that one time a month that my bike just won't cut it.
Reply
jpm 10:19PM (11/08/2008)
Being an ex-employee from a turnkey transit corporation, I'll bet you almost anything that they'll have huge budget overruns. I like the idea of public transit with trains, but they're so goddam expensive it's unbelievable.
One thing I don't understand is this-- wouldn't this money be better spent improving inter-city transit. Being a SF bay area resident, I can tell you first hand the BART sucks during rush hour: no where to sit, very noisy, not that fast (55 mph max - only on longer straight-aways).
Reply
GenWaylaid 2:46AM (11/09/2008)
I voted for this proposal just to see how massive a boondoggle it would be. I guess I have a very expensive sense of curiosity.
Now that the bullet train supporters have managed to get their initiative to pass, they just have to manage Pacheco Pass, Tehacapi Pass, and Cajon Pass. The last two are famously slow and grueling climbs for freight trains and the first is the location of a steep and badly congested state highway. I'd like to know how they propose to fly over that terrain at a hundred miles an hour.
Reply
fred 5:23AM (11/09/2008)
Has a french citizen iam very surprised of the criticism of the american people about fast trains
First they dont know nothing about it (no fast trains on american soil)
second its hard for them to imagine a LONG TERM investment
third fast trains has proven their positive points ALL over the world (but american people are always true about everythings)
Four global warming??? just do not do anything god will save us all
Reply
Chris M 2:42AM (11/11/2008)
The French TGV is actually designed as a high speed train, with special dedicated tracks. The California proposal is a "lets pretend its going to be high speed train" that is using standard rails shared with freight trains and commuter trains. Promoters claim it will go 200 mph, but the tracks just won't support that speed. It will rarely go over 100 mph, and they've already admitted that the San Jose to San Francisco section will be limited to a top speed of 60 mph.
ryan 8:54AM (11/09/2008)
Fred: Thank you for proving that YOU fit the stereotypical French person. I personally live in Japan, home to one of the best train infrastructures in the world. As jpm said, they are RIDICULOUSLY expensive. Fuel prices would have to quadruple for them to actually become economical. I doubt that electricity would remain flat in a situation like that, so the trains would again lose ground there.
Traveling by train also means that you have a SET of choices of where you can go to. Want to go somewhere out in the country? Too bad, you need to rent a taxi which will be INSANELY expensive. While I don't mind fixed times, it does get annoying when the trains stop at midnight. Certain hubs could make a lot of money staying open a couple more hours.
I would like to directly address your four concerns...
1) Just because there are no fast trains on American soil doesn't mean that no one in America understands them. Like I said, I live in Japan and have had plenty of experience riding them over here. Many others who have lived abroad have done the same thing.
2) Long term investments, wow you nailed that one on the head. Americans are terrible with history and predicting the future. The average American is all about right here and now. Not too many people are going to want a whole lot of ANYTHING right now, due to the insanity that the economy is going through.
3) Perhaps you didn't pay too close of attention to your geography teacher. America is a bit more spread out than your average country that has an advanced rail system. It takes two to three days to cross the USofA in a car. Try tying all of that together with rail... good luck.
4) Yeah there are idiots in America that rely on god to save them. I wouldn't claim that an entire country of people from very different backgrounds all believe this same thing though... In case you haven't noticed, the website you are reading is based in America. A lot of the green movement is happening in America. Last I checked, car emissions regulations are actually tougher over in America
Those who live in glass houses should not cast stones... or however it was that old saying went.
Reply
Gordio 3:51AM (11/11/2008)
Ryan:
Speak for yourself. You fit the stereotypic American
"I don't understand why most of the developed world prefers trains over driving. I prefer driving, and I'm not going to bother seeing things their point of view"
ryan 6:57AM (11/11/2008)
Gordio: I said nothing of the sort. I have and STILL DO use mass transportation in Japan. That includes the bullet train.
You are obviously ignorant as to the realities behind train-based transportation though. They are tied to rail, which can only serve a very specific set of points. That is a huge drawback. Plus, they are very expensive to use. Not to mention actually implementing the infrastructure in the first place.
I personally don't drive OR use the train much anyways. My bike takes care of 95% of my transportation needs. Unfortunately, Americans love cars and will not be doing away with them any time soon.
Oh, and most of the developed world DOES NOT prefer trains over driving. Please refrain from making assumptions about things that you wholly incapable of comprehending. That and putting words in my mouth.
JustZisGuy 12:01PM (11/09/2008)
Wow. Ignorance abounds. First off, the "U.S. is larger" argument is irrelevant. California has a similar population density to France or Germany. More people live in metro L.A. than in Paris and Lyon combined. Second, "it's expensive" is a pretty bogus argument when you consider how much is spent on highways *every year* in California. Do some research. Third, high speed rail has very little difficulty with hills. Curves, yes, have to be very large radius, but (according to a quick web search) gradients of 3.5% can be dealt with at full speed.
Lastly, regarding the argument about efficiency relative to cars: the TGV Duplex Paris-Lyon consumes 18.0 kWh/train-km, which in gasoline-equivalent energy terms is 1.16 statute miles per U.S. gallon. That's for a train with 545 seats. If it's HALF EMPTY the efficiency works out to over 300 passenger-mpg, which, yes, is going to be better than a TDI stuffed with 5 people. The people on the train have quite considerably more room. Oh, and by the way, the average occupancy of that service is 80%, so the efficiency works out to 436 passenger-mpg. AT 300 km/h!!! (186 mph)
See page 74 of
http://www.inrets.fr/infos/cost319/MEETDeliverable17.PDF
FWIW, I own a Golf TDI, and am a fan, but there is no substitute for the efficiency of rail and electric motors.
Reply
Paul 3:15PM (11/09/2008)
Your first sentence says it all (presumably you were looking in a mirror??). Unlike Europe and Japan, California's cities and almost every major metroploitan area in the US saw the bulk of their growth during the automobile age. PERHAPS the density is similar if you examine it at the state vs. country level, but examine it at the metro-area level and you're met with a reality that DOES NOT support high-speed trains or any form of rail-based mass transit.
Why do public transit systems fail (or minimally vastly underachieve) in almost every American city. Because there is simply no way to put stations within a reasonable walking distance of a critical mass of people and jobs. It's all about the last mile (or five miles). When I lived in Atlanta, I REALLY tried my best to ride MARTA. I drove the 4 miles to the station waited 10 minutes for the train, rode the train for 25 minutes, got off and walked 10-15 minutes to my very central office building. Saved me a little bit of stress and made me feel a little bit better about myself, but cost me 20-30 minutes a day (and often left me quite wet). Oh yeah, and most of my colleagues lived far more than my measly 4 miles from a train station. (note I'm not defending this as I hate sprawl, but it is reality)
The high speed train will at best be a hub and spoke system that helps make it possible to (in a very expensive manner) to travel from city to city, but you are likely to end up miles from your destination (requiring a car / taxi). Unless you are VERY lucky in having stations placed close to your start and end points, there is little if any incentive to take the train.
The governator said something akin to "dis vil solve da traffak problums" in the state. At best, it will provide a slower (albeit likely more environmentally friendly--depending on passenger volume) alternative to flying between the major cities in CA.
By the way, your efficiency calculations are flawed since they don't take into consideration the massive energy costs required to build and maintain the system divided by the relatively small number of passengers. But even if you accept these numbers, if you really take a non-biased look at it, are these numbers significantly enough better than the vastly more efficient air travel?
And your comparison of the cost to that of highways completely ignores the reality that highways carry freight and people in numbers that will so immensely dwarf that carried by this one rail system as to make it seem insanely insignificant and wasteful.
JustZisGuy 8:27PM (11/09/2008)
Replace references to high speed rail in your comment and you will hopefully see the logical fallacy:
The airplane will at best be a hub and spoke system that helps make it possible to (in a very expensive manner) to travel from city to city, but you are likely to end up miles from your destination (requiring a car / taxi). Unless you are VERY lucky in having airports placed close to your start and end points, there is little if any incentive to take the plane.
I'm not going to debate you any further, because you refuse to actually investigate the facts. Air travel is not vastly more efficient, it is vastly LESS efficient. It does not take much time to do a web search to determine that the best commercial air service can do is about 60-80 passenger miles per gallon. You can determine this based on real-world, publicly available airline reports, manufacturer's claims, real-world actual fuel burns, whatever you like - the laws of physics have their say. Sorry.
Contrast the airlines' 60-80 passenger-mpg with 300-400 passenger miles per gallon equivalency for high speed rail IN SERVICE, using real life numbers. Electrically-propelled rail service can also be essentially pollution free if powered by wind, hydroelectric or other "renewable" sources. Airplanes likely never will have that option.
As for the "massive costs" for rail - it is beyond belief that people will consider a two track rail system expensive (heck, four tracks if you want to include a separate freight line) yet a 10 lane highway is... what, free? As for air service: airport *expansion* projects often run into the billions of dollars. Even just a terminal building can cost $1 billion! (e.g. SFO international terminal opened in 2000). How anyone can say, with a straight face, that high speed rail is just too expensive compared to the alternatives, is beyond me. Have you looked into the highway costs attributable to cars? Have you priced out a Boeing 747 lately? A TGV Duplex seats more people, yet costs on the order of $20 million. A Boeing 747-400 costs, according to Boeing, between $228 million and $260 million. And which do you think requires more expensive maintenance?
Please think, don't just spout rhetoric.
Over and out.
JustZisGuy 8:47PM (11/09/2008)
Sample airline efficiency:
From Southwest Airlines' 2005 annual report, page 11:
85,172,795,000 available seat miles
60,223,100,000 revenue passenger miles
1,287,000,000 gallons Jet A consumed
70.7% average load factor
194 737-300 (137 seats)
25 737-500 (122 seats)
226 737-700 (137 seats)
607 mile average stage length
If you crunch through the numbers you will find the actual efficiency of SWA is 46.8 passenger-mpg JetA, which is equivalent to about 42 passenger-mpg gasoline (gasoline is about 90% of the energy density of JetA, so it takes more gasoline to provide the same energy).
42. So, my use of the range 60-80 passenger-mpg is very much tilted in favour of airlines. Comparing specifically the TGV Duplex to SWA, high speed rail is not just a little more efficient, it is TEN TIMES MORE EFFICIENT.
Note that airline service on shorter stage lengths is even LESS efficient. And before you jump in with "but turboprops are much more efficient" - well, they aren't. Again, crunch the numbers. I have a friend who flies Dash-8s for a living, and I've seen their actual fuel burns. Even if the planes flew around completely full, they wouldn't beat 60 passenger-mpg gasoline equivalence.
Paul 10:29PM (11/09/2008)
JustZisGuy, obviously you did want to debate me since you tacked on a number of paragraphs after you said your were done. :)
Obviously (I thought) by using the hub and spoke metaphor, I was trying to point out that from a passenger's perspective a train is little different than a plane in that regard, just slower.
Anyway, I didn't question the relative fuel efficiency of the train vs. the plane and certainly didn't question the relative environmental benefits. What I question is how and where it fits into our transportation system in terms of HUMAN efficiency. Trains are pretty good for medium distance passenger travel (100-300 miles) or for long (> 500 miles), time-insensitive freight travel. Cars/trucks generally work better shorter and planes farther. LA-SF is borderline at best, but maybe. I suppose there are few better places for this to be tried in the US except for the northeast corridor.
So, for some percentage of folks, the train is going to be better than flying or driving. Even at the 3.5 hour trip time. That's great for that percentage. However, I don't think there's a chance that number will approach the estimated 35% of LA-SF air travel unless there are major changes in the current cost/efficiency structure. Unless you meet those numbers then per ride cost will increase and ridership will further decrease. Since airlines won't sit on their rumps and watch passengers defect, you will likely see the cost differential between the two drop to near parity (unless they aren't REALLY threatened--see Acela below). Again, this will further degrade the foundation upon which the optimistic estimates were made. Honestly, if you came in at even 10% of the ridership estimates by 2030, I'd be blown away.
You asked for some research. Here's some. The only real parallel that we have to go on here in the US is the Acela Express. I'm going to say that the NY to BOS leg is the most similar. It carries < 600,000 passengers per year. Same 3.5 hour travel time. This is also in a part of the country where car ownership is the exception rather than the rule and where the trans-city flight costs are higher than SF-LA. They are also both in areas of the country VERY friendly to public transit. SF--how's BART treating you these days? LA? LA??? Acela riders all rave about the train and how much better it is than flying. Great service! Wonderful experience! And yet, just 600,000 passengers a year. Oh yeah, and this includes those coming from or continuing on to Acela's other destinations of Philly and DC.
Okay, so let's say this proposed CA train is closer in size and in demographics to the entire Acela line (it isn't even CLOSE, but let's run with it). Acela's total ridership in FY2007 was 10 million. Surely this is the upper end of the number upon which CA is basing their estimates. Right?
They are estimating between 88 and 117 MILLION. That's a year's worth of Acela ridership every month. That is the number that you need to make this viable. Seriously! Please keep that in mind when you talk about efficiencies. Without sufficient ridership there is no way to achieve any degree of efficiency. Sure each the train MAY achieve 200-400 passenger mpg equivalent. But who cares if you go bankrupt in three years because the cost of the infrastructure to support the < 1 million riders (heck, I'll give you 10 million and a kiss) drags you under.
Also, please go back again and think about infrastructure costs per passenger + freight mile when comparing highway vs. HS rail costs. We're talking yearly billions and billions of passengers/mile vs. at most 100 million, and that doesn't take into account freight. And note that just "adding in two lines of freight" won't make much difference since it'll barely be used. Why? Because 1) a miniscule (relatively) amount of freight travels BETWEEN the two manufacturing meccas (that's facetious in case you couldn't tell) of SF and LA and 2) you'd get maybe 2% of that since the distance is short enough that tractor trailer hauling is almost always more efficient.
And airports? They also service billions of passengers / mile. Each airport can service passengers from anywhere in the world. Each 400 mile length of track can service passengers from, what a 500 x 50 mile tract, AT BEST?
Hey, look, I lived in Europe and LOVED the train system. I'd love to see it work here. I would take it over both a car or a plane whenever it made sense to do so and perhaps even some times when it didn't (as was my experience in Atlanta). If I lived in the Northeast, I'd be one of those Acela riders. I also WISH WISH WISH that it could work because of the obvious environmental benefits. But numbers don't lie and we don't live in a field-of-dreams world. If you build it, they won't necessarily come.
Wise Golden 12:23PM (11/09/2008)
Interest on the $10 billion will be $600,000,000 per year. At $55 per trip, that’s 11,000,000 trips to cover the interest. This is 1/3 of the cost. I hate to be a skeptic, but I think we are seeing why California is having some troubles. The vastness of the US does not lend itself well to rail – even high speed rail. Florida wisely canceled the system that it had approved and perhaps California will do the same.
At any rate, this is very good and hopeful news for the foreign company that will build the trains and rail lines.
This all reminds me of the Simpson’s episode on monorails.
Reply
Paul 8:44PM (11/09/2008)
Ah, but they are expecting 88M to 117M trips annually by 2030. So, if you take their numbers at face value, then the payoff does have a chance of computing.
However, these numbers are pretty ridiculous. They are assuming that 6% of drivers (are their REALLY over 830 million automobile trips STARTING in LA and STOPPING in SF yearly--that's like 3.5 trips per registered vehicle in the entire country!?!) and 35% of flyers would choose the train over their existing mode of travel. Unlikely, but...
Okay, so let's take that optimistic 117M number. What does that mean? That means 320,000 people per day. That means maxing out a 1,000 person train 320 times per day. Over a 4 hour trip, a single train could carry 6,000 people per day. That means you'd need 54 trains running 24/7 to achieve this goal (27 running per direction at any given time). So, the trains would have to run every 8 minutes 50 seconds and be filled to capacity 24x7x365 to achieve these goals. Oh, okay, every 17:40 per terminus, but 8:50 apart.
Possible I suppose. Likely? Not even close. And it still takes 3.5 hours to get from LA to SF vs. 1 hour flying. Sure there's perhaps some time saved at the front end (assuming that the TSA won't step in and make it just as difficult to board the train as it is a plane), but that might add up to 30 minutes to an hour tops. If I'm traveling from LA to SF for a 10 AM business meeting and want to get home that night for supper (probably the most common form of travel between the two cities), which would I choose? Unless my home is right next to a station or my meeting is likewise that close, I think I choose flying.
Since I believe their ridership numbers are inflated, I also think that their rider cost numbers are lower than what they'll see in reality unless it is gov't subsidized. They also VERY much underestimate the airlines ability to match fares. Do they really think that if the airlines start losing revenue to the train that they won't react? Again, 35%???!?!?! 35% of people will choose the longer, equally (or more) expensive option? I really doubt it.
- I hear those things are awfully loud...
+ It glides as softly as a cloud.
- Is there a chance the track could bend?
+ Not on your life, my Hindu friend.
- What about us brain-dead slobs?
+ You'll be given cushy jobs.
- Were you sent here by the devil?
+ No, good sir, I'm on the level.
- The ring came off my pudding can.
+ Take my pen knife, my good man.
+ I swear it's Springfield's only choice...
+ Throw up your hands and raise your voice!
= Monorail!
Look, CA, go for it if you want it. Just don't ALSO ask for my money to bail out your government. If it works, yeah! If not, then perhaps Homer can save you. Just look out for the giant doughnut! Doh!
JustZisGuy 9:29PM (11/09/2008)
Ah, but they are expecting 88M to 117M trips annually by 2030. So, if you take their numbers at face value, then the payoff does have a chance of computing.
That's on the entire system, not just SF-LA. This renders the rest of your analysis incorrect.
Check these figures out: the TGV has
95% market share Paris-Avignon
90% market share Paris-Nimes
61% market share Paris-Marseille and Paris-Montpellier
27% market share Paris-Nice, despite the TGV journey time being 5 hours 40 minutes
...found via Google; this data dates from 2003. If you want to find newer figures, be my guest. Wait, never mind, I found this:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_200502/ai_n9572904
Apparently TGV market share Paris-Nimes rose to 100% in 2005.
I will agree with you that Californians may be less likely to flock to high speed rail than Europeans, perhaps even significantly so, but I doubt the effect will be as different as you think it will be.
In case it matters: I think high speed rail is the best alternative for intercity passenger travel for distances up to something on the order of 500 miles. Beyond that, and obviously for transoceanic travel, airplanes make sense. The two should work together, and in fact you will find in Europe that they do - shorter trips in some cases are operated by airlines as high speed rail trips! See, e.g., Lufthansa AIRail:
http://www.lufthansa.com/online/portal/lh/de/info_and_services/from_to_airport?l=en&nodeid=1771014
Lastly, to those who say passenger rail makes no economic sense: again, do your homework before making blanket statements. SNCF claims that they are making a return on investment on high speed lines, i.e. a profit after including the costs of construction. Tell me, how much profit are highways making? When is the last time an airport was built without public subsidy?
Sticking with SFO:
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2005/01/24/daily29.html
$4.2 billion in debt, eh?
Paul 10:59PM (11/09/2008)
JustZisGuy, wow, now we're not debating on two replies in the same thread. :)
You aren't winning by the way. :)
Every aspect of my calculations assumed the entire line with all cities. What part don't you agree with. There wasn't anything controversial in my calculations.
It is great to keep looking at TGV, but this ain't that and government agency figures from a socialist country aren't necessarily the most reliable. Still I'll ignore that point. The numbers sound like they'll compare directly and favorably, but they won't. First, the culture and mindset differences are much larger than you think. Second, the infrastructures and densities are vastly different at the serviced cities. And third, they are building on to and or upgrading existing lines that have been built up and maintained over a hundred years and run across territory that looks nothing like CA. Keep in mind that Acela is marginally successful because they were able to put it in place with no real infrastructure costs. $33B (and likely much higher since these estimates are always way low--and I think the $33B is only for the SF to LA portion of the line) in up-front infrastructure is going to put this impossibly in the hole even for a European mindset. I don't think this has a chance of being operationally profitable, but I KNOW it hasn't a chance of ALSO paying down a debt with $1.5 billion+ a year in interest alone.
Oh, and I have no problem with public funding of projects through the issuance of bonds nor with their method of partnering with private financing. I DO have a problem with them approving this at the same time that they are begging the federal government for billions in bailout $$$'s. Sorry, if you're issuing bonds, borrow to run the state first and then borrow to build your field of dreams.