[Note from Eric Eldon: I wrote a rather positive article this week on the proposed $10 billion California High-Speed Rail bond measure. If approved by the state's voters this November, the bond will lead to high-speed trains stretching from Sacramento and the Bay Area all the way down to San Diego. Martin Engel, a transportation commissioner for the City of Menlo Park, Calif. (a city that the train would run through), thinks its a terrible idea because it's so expensive and because it's solving the wrong problems. Here's his response.]
If I may, I would like to respond, more or less point by point to your article, Eric. Actually, the train ticket price that is most frequently quoted is $55 one way for the SF to LA route. That will be in 2030, according to the CHSRA [Ed. My source on fares is here]. What do you suppose that $55 will have risen to in twenty years, when these trains are finally running?
Train ticket sales today, for regular as well as high-speed trains worldwide, begin at twice the $55 amount for similar distances. Even not-so-zippy Acela (the Washington D.C. to Boston commuter train) is more costly. Many bloggers who’ve visited Europe or Japan will convey that information; that is, it’s expensive to ride those trains. And you doubtless know, all passenger rail systems are massively subsidized; so their expectations of profits are highly hypothetical.
You talk about the “value” of this project. A better way would be to talk about the “cost/benefit” ratio. You have to acknowledge that the costs will be staggering, regardless of where the money comes from. There are many examples of under-pricing (lowballing) infrastructure projects (Bay Bridge; Boston Big Dig; the Eurotunnel, for example). A Danish researcher, Bent Flyvbjerg, has published findings about this practice. My point is this: Is there a cost point for this project that makes it no longer worthwhile? Say, like the Iraq war. And, if so, what would that be?
If you become a student of this practice, you will discover that you cannot disagree with a cost projection of $100 billion (not the currently projected $42 billion). It will be all borrowed money, both from public state and federal treasuries and private ones. These debts require not only interest payments, but also a return on principle, like a mortgage. When you say that it will not all come from California, you are probably right. However, it is California that will have to repay these loans. Some say that it will help our economy. What if many of the investors are from overseas? Is being in hock to overseas investors such a good thing for the state’s economy?
Given the fare cost and the limited connections, the likelihood of lower income workers using this train as a mode of commuting is actually rather slim. Those people would prefer slower and lower cost modes of transit. Let us be clear here, whatever this train is, it is not mass transit. In large high-density areas such as the LA basin, it could serve commuters, but that is not the rhetoric or the intention of the developers.
Yes, they claim that it will create 450,000 new jobs and will require 300 thousand man-years to construct. The fact is, there is no way of predicting this. Half a million jobs will be created in the next fifty years — or not — based on large, macro-economic forces, the nature of the global and national economy, the well-being of California’s industrial and agricultural capacity and similar basic sea-changes. Were such job growth to take place, it would be presumptuous to give credit for such expansion to the creation of a north-south railroad system.
Speed of travel, the CHSRA claims, will be faster by train than plane. No matter what the obstacles are, that’s nonsense. Indeed, airports are becoming more efficient at moving people through the terminal obstacle course. At the same time, it is naive to believe that this train, and others, will not require far greater security measures than are now in place. We have been blessed by not having a post 9/11 terror attack. I suggest that with the next one, there will be a major clampdown, trains included.
Back to the $42 billion cost. Construction, which won’t begin for another several years, will take 10 years, more or less, to complete. Do you want to predict the construction costs 10 to 15 years out? You already know about sinking dollars, rising inflation world wide, fierce competition for construction materials, decline in credit availability, etc. The $42 billion is a number like the $55 train ticket. Even if it were true today, which it isn’t, these numbers will skyrocket. I say again, $100 billion total costs are not unreasonable.
A word about environmental benefits of the train. I suggest that they will not be anywhere near as great as claimed. Comparing “the train of the future” with the automobiles of the present is unfair. Planes and cars in the future will be more ecologically friendly. Electricity, on the other hand, may become dirtier (fossil-fuel powered plants) as our demands increase exponentially. This is a domain where it is almost too easy to overstate benefits in politically correct language.
Eric, you mention the increase in riders on other rail carriers. The CHRSA frequently predicts 117,000,000 passengers annually. They even paid a consulting firm to come up with those numbers. 117 million people is over a third of the entire U.S. population. How rational is that?
There are many more issues that need to be seen through lenses other than those provided by the train developers. Amazingly, very few people have been willing to seek out alternative perspectives or to challenge the rail authority’s assumptions.
Martin Engel was born in Germany, received an M.A. from Harvard, and a PhD from Syracuse. He served in the US Air Force. He has held faculty positions at Wayne State University, Carnegie-Mellon University and most recently at Stanford University. He was also a senior program officer at the US Department of Education, and a program director at Apple.
38 Comments
-
Don Jones said:
I agree with many of the skepticisms raised by the author. However, as a native Californian who spent the first 35 years of my life in Southern California and the last 10 years in the Bay Area, my sense is that the train would be a net value add. I have no numbers to back that opinion up, but on the face of it, it would certainly encourage travel up and down the state by those who can afford it - business leaders and others who are in a position to potentially create more jobs (not the jobs created by the construction of the railway).
One area that Mr. Engel does not touch on: studies of the positive economic impacts of high speed trains - France’s TGV, Japan’s high speed train and others. If we’re going to debate the issues, let’s get the data out there - maybe here’s a good place to start:
-
Matthew Maroon said:
This may be the worst point by point refutation of anything ever written. He simply goes through and expresses unfounded opinions against estimates made by experts. “I don’t think it will cost $42 billion, it will cost $100 billion.” “I don’t think low income people will use it to commute.” “I don’t think it will be faster than planes.”
I see no basis for anything here. And also, I assume the CHRSA doesn’t mean 117m total unique passengers. Just that many fares, which is each Californian using it an average of 3 times.
I don’t know anything about this train system, but I know a terrible argument when I see one.
-
John Ball said:
What Mr. Engel exposes is the continued inability for “experts” to cinch up their belts and make capital investments in US infrastructure for the next generations. Had Mr. Engel been responsible for the decision-making at the time, we would have no national highway system, no power grid, no waterworks, and no science built on the exploration of space. Enabling technologies and infrastructure require the visions of bold, strong futurists and sadly, few of those skills exist amongst city commissioners.
While China’s efforts with Three Gorges Dam may not be perfect (by our measure), you can’t help but wonder if the US would have the vision and financial commitment for a similar undertaking, or have we lost our ability to think about investing for the future.
FTR - I don’t live in California.
-
Fabian Schonholz said:
@John:
John, I am 100% with you. Vision is key to continuing progress and along with vision the investment. At the same time, there has to be a fiduciary responsibility inherent to these type of projects and the approval of these projects.
While I do not agree with the argument presented on this post as a reason not to follow on this project, I do think that a proper business plan that considers developing scenarios.
-
Anthony said:
I am a Bay Area person who has lived in the Philadelphia area for the last several years. There is no better way to travel to NYC or DC than the “not so zippy” Acela. He is right that the cost is more than $55, but it is still cheaper than the cost of driving (gas, city parking, etc.). And unlike driving, on the train you can work, read or catch up on sleep. The actual travel time may be shorter on a SF to LA plane, but the math changes quickly when you consider total travel time. There aren’t the mile long security lines of airports, so you can get to the train station minutes before departure. When compared to a plane, boarding and getting off the train takes almost no time. Delays happen a fraction of the time compared to planes. Most important - the seats are a lot more comfortable.
-
Joseph Jones said:
This project is a major disaster just waiting to happen. The promoters, led by Rod Diridon, have in the past promoted back room deals and projects that just make no sense.
The Light Rail system in San Jose is a result of Diridon’s activities. It is the worst performing project of this type ever.
The CHSRA website is huge. When you wade into it, you find magical numbers. They paid a consulting firm big bucks, and who magically more than doubled the then estimated and already then inflated ridership numbers.
The chosen prime contractor has a long history of waste corruption.( they built the Big Dig in Boston — do a Goggle on them and that project) Those of you commenting on this article should do more research, Mr. Engel certainly has and I have also.
The voters must simply reject this folly.
-
Martin Edic said:
This is an incredibly short-sighted response. Air is getting efficient? I live in Rochester, NY. To travel to Manhattan, a 45 minute 250 mile flight, I have to get to the airport an hour early, take an hour and a half to fly and get out of the airport then take 2 hours to get into Manhattan from JFK. That’s 4.5 hours. If we had a fast train I could easily beat this.
Plus the fuel efficiency issues are unbelievable. CSX is currently advertising that they can move a ton of freight 450 miles on one gallon of fuel. Nothing comes close and that is with today’s inefficient trains.
Please don’t let this guy write for you anymore- this so poorly done. -
Jason said:
Hi,
So what about the basic concept of diversification? The more options the better?
Did it occur to you that when you deduct the cost of fuel from other sources for the same trip (cars, airplanes) and productivity and efficiency ratio (working while you travel, can’t make that proposal while in the car, or the plane, getting stuck at the airport) a train offers?
Don’t those cost need to be factored in? Think how much time wouldn’t be wasted in taking a train compared to flying or driving. The overall reduction in fuel usage. 55$ ticket in 2030 terms. So gas / fuel won’t grow at the same rate? Wear and tear on your car? Or the airline industry even being around? We are up to 5 failures in 1 week.
Your article showed your lack of foresight and consideration to the concept on the macro scale. -
Yuri Ammosov said:
Let us think about this: what is typical user of such a system once completed? What does his regular work day looks like and where is he traveling by першы train and how often?
-
morris brown said:
@Martin Edie
Wow!!, your statement “Please don’t let this guy write for you anymore- this so poorly done”, just plain smells of censorship. Where were your born?
Quoting from “A FEW GOOD MEN”, “You can’t take the truth”.
HSR may well be a good approach to transit needs in certain areas, maybe in your Rochester NY area and or in parts of California.
This project as proposed just makes no sense.
Martin and I are both founders of
The readers here might well want to expand their knowledge about this project by visiting our site.
Morris Brown
-
Andre Peretti said:
Unbelievably primitive and biased arguments coming from an expert. Examples:
“all passenger rail systems are massively subsidized”. Wrong. The SNCF (French railways) made $1.6 billion profit in 200. The profit would be $10bn if it could abandon all its legacy local lines and keep only the TGV (high-speed train). In fact, HSR is so profitable that some airlines are waiting for 2010, when railtracks will be deregulated, to run their own trains. They intend to win on the tracks the battle they have lost in the air.
Other argument: “The security measures will be the same as in airports and the train will lose its edge”. Wrong. The islamists have planted bombs on the TGV but the results were not spectacular: destroyed baggage, slight injuries. Not bloody enough for Al Qaeda. You can’t use a train as a guided missile and smash it against the Pentagon. So, the train will keep its edge.
“The electricity will be dirtier”. Here, the comparison with France would be biased because French electricity is 80% nuclear and 19% hydro-electric, so trains are emission-free. But even in the US power plants are being upgraded with liquid filtration systems that remove up to 90% of CO2 and other pollutants. Besides, nuclear energy is back in favor and the share of fossil fuels will be less and less significant. You also feign to ignore all the research on alternative sources of energy.
The truth is that many special interests (short-haul airlines, highway contractors) are at risk. So, we can expect more and more “expert” articles of this kind as the November ballot draws near. -
Erik said:
@morris brown,
“Your statement…just plain smells of censorship.” Actually calling someone out on a poorly developed and explained article is not censorship. For example, do you think Time or Newsweek would publish articles by a writer with nary a high school education? So calling that said writer out would be censorship? “Hey look, I’m Morris Brown and I can use polarizing buzzwords.” You are a scholar sir. -
Jason said:
So
@morris brown high speed rail works in every nation that has it but not California? My question to you is when oil breaks 140 gas is $6-7 dollars a gallon or more… you don’t think people will want another means of getting to and from? Rail economics are much more stable then air or auto. Hence why Europe has kept with rail.
You have no problem buying a German car…ah but screw it if we want to have a train system that is on par or greater than theirs. -
Mark said:
Screw this. If we can’t decide on anything, why vote?
-
R Blanc said:
I share concerns about this bond. If California needs anything right now, it is not high speed intercity rail between northern and southern California. The commercial air carriers are serving that well and there is significant capacity remaining in the air (using larger equipment) and on the ground (at airports) in both regions to absorb additional traffic.
What California DOES NEED is a massive investment in conventional commuter and intra-regional rail. Southern California offers an excellent case. The well intentioned but anemic Metrolink system be the blueprint and should be massively expanded. New routes and stations need to be funded, service frequencies increased, connecting services rationalized, grade crossings need elimination, tracks need to be doubled, repaired, speeds need to be increased dramatically. Amtrak California (Surfliner) and San Diego’s Coaster commuter rail should be folded into a single state infrastructure and operating authority.
The ill-conceived “light rail” build out across Southern California needs to be tabled. Perhaps worthwhile for now in San Diego, light rail transit is not a serious solution for a city the size of Los Angeles. The day will soon come where we all look at at grade, street running trains in a city full of cars as an foolish endeavor. Los Angeles’ MTA has useful rights of way which should be properly developed as suburban lines, placed safely in trenches enabling rail vehicles to run at very high speed while permitting street traffic to run freely.
When one considers the transit and intra-regional rail needs, suddenly the train from Fresno to Los Angeles doesn’t seem to rise to the top of the agenda. The State of California needs to get its act together. Southern California needs a BART like investment. Northern California needs to continue to build out its network. Once citizens start taking to the rails EVERY DAY will one see the true NEED for an inter-city rail network like the one being proposed.
-
Yuri Ammosov said:
@Jason: German trains are VERY OFTEN terribly late. This means several hours late. No offence intended, just my riding experience. Italy is different, trains are very punctual there.
-
Advisior said:
With all do respect; I wish to argue my point:
What you fail to mention, or failed to consider is the extremely challenging topography of Japan makes for a “prohibitively expensive” cost per mile rail system. The Central Japan Railway makes about a 10% profit each year, regardless. There is more at play than demographics, which is what I think you meant by “geography.”Japan is an extremely mountainous country, yet it has over 1,500 miles of Shinkansen double track. And, for a 300 km/h system (185 mph) to have high average speeds, the Japanese have had to resort to extensive tunneling. In spite of this extraordinary cost, they consider tunneling an absolute necessity for them to have a true high-speed rail system. The Seikan tunnel between Honshu (the main island) and Hokaido is deeper and longer (33.4 miles) than the Chunnel (31 miles).
Thus, how do you empirically “know,” that a cross-country line would be “prohibitively expensive”? Compared to what? I think it is prohibitively expensive for America to prop up the airlines for 8 decades! They are putting about $100 billion, every 3 years (local, state, federal taxpayer) into the private business of aviation, while the business that the taxpayer owns, AMTRK, only gets about $1.5 billion annually.
I wish people would stop whining about why we can’t do things and start looking for ways to rebuild our infrastructure in a sustainable fashion. There is no city in the U.S. that is further than 500 miles from the next largest city. High speed lines can be built and be very competitive with airline trips of 600 miles or less, which is half of all domestic flights. And, they could be built and operated in such a way that they were always on time, unlike the airlines. Why don’t all these airline delays add up to “prohibitively expensive”?
From the studies I have read, HSR can be built at 1/3 the cost of expanding existing airports, while employing millions, (something that is needed in our depressed economy; I tend to think that we are in for the long haul now that the economic snowball has started downhill).
According to USDOT, flights of about 500-600 miles only average about 65MPH (door-to-door) and off loading those flights from operations of longer distances would relieve congestion and delay.
There are also sustainability issues:
However, most importantly, there is the sustainability issue: aviation is not sustainable for many reasons; however, there are 4 major reasons: noise, climate, toxics, fuel and the technology to fix these problems together, do not exist and actually is opposing technology.Even if we had this miracle fix today, it would be about 30 years before even enough flights in the fleet were equipped. Quite frankly, that will be too late for thousands of people who die annually from “airport-poisoning”, and also, regarding our climate, the outcome could be catastrophic in a very short period of time, if left unchecked.
Before you start dismissing what I am saying, I should give you a little background. The US federal government (and others) is fully aware of the sustainability problems; however, there is a mandate for unprecedented global flight expansion starting with the 2008 UN economic globalization treaties. I know these things because we have been advising them along with other governments; I was also picked by the USEPA and FAA to head the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) when it began (which I declined) to try to fix these problems.
I assure you, problems with air travel are only going to get much worse. It was our organizations that alerted the government and changed policy regarding the end of “cheap oil”; we also helped get aviation into the International Panel on Climate Control (IPCC) (thus, we are generally ahead of them on the curve on some issues). There is a lot more, but I am trying to keep this short, while still giving you a factual answer.
The sustainability problems are significant, specifically with fuel & climate and one affecting the other (however, it may not be necessarily carbon that causes climate change and I will give you an important example):
Aircraft are the only proven man-made cause of temperature change (climatic, regional, diurnal). What is significant is that it was proven by the actual removal of the source from the equation and the effects are immediate and dramatic (Travis, 2002).
When all planes (except 6 military) were grounded for 3-4 days after 9-11, the temperature over North America changed by almost 2 degrees C (huge). Basically, the temperature reverted back to the way it was pre-1950s, (before the jet age)!
The plan now, is to massively increase flights artificially (dating back to the deregulation promise) in the next few years. Obviously, with the above mentioned, the results could be very serious.
I wont get into all of the complexities… but just basically refer you to a Report to Congress by the U.S. General Accountability Office (independent research body of Congress), which studied our 4 solutions and came to the exact conclusion. They have also referred to that study ever since 2001; it is (GAO-02-185).
We have also run out of cheap oil; there will be attempts to stabilize it and the price will fluctuate for a while. But we are in trouble starting at about 2010-2013; we are too dependent on foreign oil now.
A white paper solution is available; if asked I will post (it is relatively short).
Now you may see somewhat why I am so adamant about needing a long-term, sustainable, reliable transportation solution that a world-class high-speed rail system will bring.
-
Mark said:
(Bleep) you all. Just decide and get it over with…
-
Rufus in Menlo said:
The biggest omission Martin Engel makes in his article is that actually HE LIVES TRACK SIDE to where they want to build HSR through Menlo Park. He and Morris Brown (Co-founder of derailhsr.com) organized to kill a Menlo Park transit-oriented-development one block from their condos last year (they’re neighbors), and have worked for years to prevent grade separations in Menlo Park. While they have the right to express their ignorant counter-productive opinions, they shouldn’t get away with misrepresenting themselves and their agenda.
-
Rufus in Menlo said:
P.S. Excellent post advisior. I don’t know about Martin’s Ph.D, but when I was in school THIS is how we made a cogent argument.
-
F.K. Plous said:
I am disturbed that Mr. Engel talks about people “commuting” on the new high-speed rail system. He seems not to understand the difference between commuting (the daily work trip up to 40 or 50 miles) and discretionary intercity corridor travel of the type for which business travelers and many leisure travelers use air (200-600 miles).
True, there is some overlap between these two travel patterns. The high-speed trains in Japan have enabled many Tokyo employees to commute to work in 35-40 minutes from homes 100 miles outside the city. The same pattern has spread to France. But the California HSR system is designed primarily for intercity corridor travelers, not commuters. If Mr. Engel doesn’t understand that he isn’t qualified to comment on it.
F.K. Plous–Chicago
-
Davisgrad said:
Martin-
You engage in speculation too much. You may disagree with the HSR commission’s numbers, but you have to have some basis for your own. The $100 billion dollar number seems like you pulled it out of the air, as with most of your arguments.
All rail systems are subsidized, it’s true. In fact, almost all infrastructure projects are subsidized. Let me know when the interstate system weans itself of public subsidy….. And the TGV does run a profit on it’s HSR operations, which is more than can be said for our airlines, which are broke and continue to require massive government subsidy in the form of infrastructure and bailouts.
There is a cost point that makes the project not worthwhile. When you include the costs of pollution, congestion, plus all the massive investments that will be needed to transport people on roads and planes. You fail to mention this. The options aren’t between HSR and nothing, they’re between HSR and more of the same, pollution, traffic, and expensive roads and airports. The costs of carrying the same number of people by road and rail is $80 billion. (which came out of professional estimates, not your unbacked figure of $100 billion).
Where are you going to build the fourth airport in the Bay Area? How many lanes is enough? Where are we going to build the new freeway?
In fact, bonds don’t require amortization payments. The debt can be rolled over, which requires more interest payments, but it’s not at all like a mortgage in that way. Your understanding of public finance is flawed.
The bonds can also be paid off by fares, though I agree that the fares in the early phases of the system may not cover the entirety of the bond payment. But remember, freeways and airports don’t pay anything towards their bonds, so if you are concerned with debt from infrastructure projects, you shpuld support HSR. And if the fares paid the bond payments in the entirety, then the cost to the California taxpayer is essentially zilch.
At $4 a gallon, getting between the 390 miles from LA to SF at a generous 30 miles a gallon takes 13 gallons and $52. That’s about the same as a train ticket. How else should the poor travel?
You can estimate how many jobs the system can create, it’s ridiculous to state otherwise. You may not be trained in economics, but please refrain from making such silly statements. All you have to do is figure out how many positions will be needed for the project. You may say those jobs would be created anyway, but saying you can’t estimate the number of jobs created is false. Also, in the face of high unemployment, those jobs may not be created otherwise for a while.
The actual travel time on the train is about the same as on a plane. If there are security measures, they should affect trains and planes the same, if anything planes more. Train security, in my experience, has always been easier than plane security, so I don’t think it’s naive at all. Have you ever ridden on a HSR system? I have, and it was convenient, fast, affordable(~30 euro for a 400km trip), and clean.
Though you seem skeptical of predictions in other contexts, somehow you know that cars and planes will be cleaner in the future, but electricity will be dirtier. Also, “costs will skyrocket.” Apparently you can make predictions and estimates as an amateur, but estimates done by professionals are suspect.
I agree that more figures are welcome. You should try and work out some of those numbers though, or find someone who was or will. Just speculating doesn’t advance the debate at all.
-
Justin Gaynor said:
What a poorly written rejoinder! “The Washington-to-Boston is not so inexpensive”. Well, how expensive is it? “All passenger rails are massively subsidized.” Example? “Indeed, airports are becoming more efficient at moving people through the terminal obstacle course.” How much more efficient? How long does it now take?
Nearly every sentence of Engel’s essay sounds like it was pulled out of thin air. Why publish fluff like this?
I write this not as a proponent of the rail system, but as a proponent of lucid, persuasive argumentation.
-
Arthur said:
Engel’s points deserve consideration, but most of them are as unfounded as the projections they attack.
The cost may mushroom beyond the current projection, but then again, the benefits will too. How do you value benefits like lower emissions, time saved from congestion, and city growth spurred by ease of transportation? The high speed rail will surely generate ripple-effect benefits that are difficult to value. Although we can’t be absolutely certain about costs or benefits, common sense and a long-term mindset seem to suggest this will be a good investment. Alternatively, we can continue to spend money on expanding highways and airports, with significant costs of their own.
Projected figures such as jobs generated and travel volume are also not completely speculative. Existing figures on employment in transportation, air and car traffic volume will give a reasonable estimate. You will see that 117 million passengers per year is not far-fetched.
Train travel poses much less security threat than air travel, for the simple fact it runs on the ground. Again, consult existing security measures in Europe will give a good reference point. Trains are also safer.
Lastly, comparing future trains to today’s cars is a great point. While future car improvements will erode the value of the train, none of those technologies are mature, whereas the core technology behind the proposed train is already practical. We’re comparing today’s trains to today’s cars. -
Eric Wu said:
Sir, you are but giving speculation. If you feel that it is impossible to put a 42 billion dollar price tag on the rail system, then how can you be qualified to put a 100 billion dollar price tag on the project?
You explain that we cannot predict the future, and then you proceed to.
Although it is entirely plausible and probable that inflation would increase the building costs and the fares, it would not affect the passengers. Most likely, although not entirely known, the salaries of America would increase along the same percentage.
-
Richard Rider said:
Here’s my column on the topic, published earier this year.
California High-Speed Rail Project Dead?
Not Dead Enoughby Richard Rider
Every cloud has a silver lining. It was never truer than when viewing our monstrous $16 billion California budget deficit, and its oddly beneficial effect on our Frankenstein statewide high-speed rail project —- the beast that refuses to die.
The high-speed rail creature was hatched in the 1990s by the Pete Wilson administration. Wilson put together two commissions to decide first on the desirability of high-speed rail, and then on the financing. Both commissions were packed exclusively with train lovers —- no dissent tolerated. After several starts and fits, a multi-billion dollar “down payment” bond to finance a bullet train system is scheduled to be on the ballot this November.
When it comes to grandiose government building plans for nonessential services, over the years I have developed what I immodestly call “Rider’s Two Iron Laws of Public Works Projects”:1. Government will always overestimate the benefit.
2. Government will always underestimate the cost.Nowhere do my laws apply more dramatically and consistently than to government public rail projects. Take our San Diego (North County) Sprinter. Please.
When first proposed in 1987 as a major reason for voters to adopt a new countywide half percent sales tax for transportation (we did), an east-west North County light rail train line was to cost $60 million, and be completed in 1995.
Now, 20 years later, it’s coming in at about a half-billion dollars —- over eight times more than we were told. Not to mention a few years late.
Given government’s history of over-projecting light-rail usage, what will become apparent this year is that the Sprinter will deliver significantly fewer riders than projected.
Even more important, what is seldom mentioned about the projected ridership is that about 75 percent of the Sprinter passengers will come from buses, not from cars as most people envision.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/04/10/news/coastal/20_45_404_9_07.txt
Similarly the California high-speed rail project surely is founded on bogus projections. The cost is pegged at $42 billion, an unfathomable figure. But based on consistent past experience, the real cost will easily exceed $80 billion, not counting the interest on the bonds.
Even more absurd is the ridership projection. To quote REASON Foundation policy analyst Adam Summers, “Amtrak’s high-speed Acela Express, which serves the popular Northeast Corridor from Washington, D.C., to New York to Boston, enjoys ridership of less than 3 million passengers per year. It serves a larger market than the planned California system, yet proponents ask us to believe that California’s high-speed trains will carry over 100 million passengers a year by 2030.”
http://reason.org/commentaries/summers_20071030.shtml
The strategy by rail proponents is what I call the “hole in the ground” ploy. First get the taxpayers to approve a paltry $10 billion bond, leaving open the ultimate cost and the remaining financing. Then, with the project started, proponents figure that the voters will reluctantly approve massive additional expenditures, on the shaky premise that “we can’t stop now.”
Which brings us back to our wonderfully awful California financial condition. Twice, this deceptive $10 billion down-payment bond has been delayed by economic reality. But it’s tentatively on the ballot again for November 2008. If it is not again postponed, it’s a measure that should be roundly defeated at the polls.
To slightly misquote political satirist P.J. O’Rourke speaking about a different matter, “we need to take this Frankenstein train behind the barn and kill it with an ax.” Die, monster, die!
***
Richard Rider, chairman of San Diego Tax Fighters, is a freelance columnist
-
Richard Rider said:
HSR for California is a silly idea for many, many reasons. But one of the most obvious is that California’s population is stabilizing. If it were not for the illegal immigrants, our state’s population would actually be falling. Such has been the case in San Diego since about 2002.
And illegal immigrants won’t be shuffling back and forth between SF, Sacramento and LA. They would not be train customers.
We are 47th in state business climate. Billions more of taxes are being proposed on both the state and local level. For the last several years, about a quarter million more California residents (legal residents) have left California annually than moved into the state.
These are the folks who theoretically would have been train customers. Theoretically.
Furthermore, travel in all forms will be more expensive, so travel in general will not be expanding. There will be more “staycations,” teleconferencing, etc. The demand is simply not going to grow as in the past.
In addition, HSR does nothing for urban congestion. It will carry (far to few) INTERcity passengers. When they get where they are going (and assuming they stay for any time), they’ll likely rent cars and use the local roads anyway.
Finally, HSR will NOT be available in Southern California. For political reasons, the trains will have to make too many stops in the region, so while they make look pretty, they won’t average the vaunted 200+MPH proponents tout. Not even close.
-
Richard Rider said:
Here’s a consideration no one wants to talk about. For terrorists, HSR is a dream come true.
These HSR trains are essentially planes flying on rails. A tiny amount of explosives set off on the rails in front of a rushing 200 MPH train would have catastrophic consequences for the passengers. And the terrorists would not even have to blow themselves up to accomplish their purpose.
One such terrorist attack, and HSR will be no more. It will be 80 MPH rail at astonishing cost to the taxpayer.
-
Matt said:
I love how people throw around the word “research” when all they really mean is looking up a vague term on google. Don’t get me wrong, I love google, but the term “research” should be reserved for methods slightly more legit.
High Speed Rail is the way to go.
-
Jason said:
Whenever billions of taxpayers’ dollars are on the line, I like to hear the word of an intelligent skeptic. I do think that such a rail system is solving the wrong transportation problems in California. For example, for those who want to travel from SF to LA, the fastest method is by plane.
Although air travel has its own inconveniences, it is meeting the current demand for the route. I suspect that most people don’t intent on traveling too far with a train/public transport system. I’m all for public transportation but I think the money would be better spend on localized light rail systems that alleviate street congestion in communities, rather than try to compete with the I-5 highway. LA has a huge demand for this and that would bring more traffic off those freeways than this proposed system.
Once many substantial localized transportation systems are established and greater community density takes place, then I could see the place for high speed rail. Remember, these systems work well in Europe and Japan partially because of the density of their communities and the extensive network of local transportation systems which integrate nicely together. We don’t have those characteristics in California, yet.
-
patco13 said:
If I hear anyone else use the terrorist concern as a reason not to do something I am going to scream. Rich Rider clearly hasn’t done his homework or even basic reading. Part of a high speed rail system involves fencing equql to or greater than used at Airport. Additionally there will be security monitoring, perimeter monitoring and countless other provisions not available to the public. As with other systems, local and regional trains will be part of the system as well so all people will benefit, contrary to letters printed here.
-
SF said:
I found out about the California High Speed Rail project, and found Richard Rider’s column at:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/01/09/opinion/rider/20_46_081_8_08.txt.
I was reading the comments. Here was one of Richard Rider’s comments:
“‘Likes to argue’ … I’ve already made clear the alternative — roads. More of ‘em, and more lanes. To say they don’t work is to deny the fact that we haven’t been building ‘em for decades. See post above.”
OK, I am a 15 year old who does not live in California, so someone please correct me if I am wrong. In 2002, Amtrak had to beg for 200 million dollars in government subsidy just to keep itself running. The same year, the government gave that same amount of money to add four lanes to I-95, in addition to one highway interchange that costed 600 million. That is just two little projects that got gov ‘t subsidy of four times the amount that Amtrak needed just to stay in service.
Expanding all the freeways in California will need a lot more than just 600 million dollars in gov’t subsidy. We cannot continue to expand them. You have to expand I-5 and Rt. 99, which cannot be expanded without having to go through eminent domain. You have to expand all the freeways inside the cities, and all interchanges. Besides the costs, it is going to be pretty hard putting more freeways in Los Angeles. There’s no room left. So please tell me where all your freeways would be, and how you would fund them.
You are also forgetting the fact that the Transcontinental Railroad had “heart-stopping costs”. Congress did not like the fact that it costs so much, plus the Civil War was going on. Guess what? We did it anyway. Is it just me or are you making the same argument against HSR? Remember, we are in the middle of the war in Iraq and HSR will help reduce our dependance on foreign oil. You mention that Acela has less than 3 million passengers a year. This is not true. In 2007, about 3,100,000 people were riding Acela. This was an increase from 2006 because of high gas prices. With gas at $4 a gallon, there’s just gonna be more and more folks riding it. When I’m 30 years old, I guess it would be over capacity if this continues.
Even if we had energy efficient cars, it will be expensive to build more freeways. Remember, putting down asphalt uses oil, which is very at record high prices. This does not reduce our dependance on foreign oil. -
Fred said:
Flawed argument - “Eric, you mention the increase in riders on other rail carriers. The CHRSA frequently predicts 117,000,000 passengers annually. They even paid a consulting firm to come up with those numbers. 117 million people is over a third of the entire U.S. population. How rational is that?”
The Truth!!!!
SF Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) has 193 miles of rail, 43 stations and carries 33 million patrons annually: Almost equal to the Cal State population of 35 million. Very Rational.This guy went to Harvard???!!
-
Raj said:
The guy who posted the link to derailhsr.com is just a buddy of the author of this article. So go figure.
-
BlogEarnCash said:
I am confused about this…
-
David M. said:
Yay, Prop 1A passed!! Martin Engle’s arguments are very flawed. I agree with Matthew Marroon….Martin’s “I think” doesn’t work. California’s population is increasing…our freeways and airports are over capacity. People WILL use this train system because it will take them from city center to city center in less time than going to the airport and going through security. Regarding the annual ridership estimate, I can believe it because this includes tourists and people doing business in CA, not just Californians. Plus, trains can run safely in bad weather. We must not delay. We must build this thing now! Look at France’s TGV and Japan’s train as perfect examples. We are so far behind. It will take 20 years + to finish…let’s not look back in 20 years and say we should have built this when we could’ve had it done.
-
Mike Creek said:
The simple truth is that you can throw numbers around all you want, but they are never going to persuade people one way or another. The only question is whether you want it to be built.
-
Fed said:
Air travel is so inefficient, time consuming, uncomfortable, overpriced, and generally such a miserable experience that if there’s any way possible, I’ll drive instead. Working at Edwards Air Force Base, I’m restricted to flying out of LAX (even if I was allowed to use regional terminals, I would still need to make a connection at LAX to get anywhere…wasting hours in the process). To travel to Sacramento by air requires a long drive, fighting traffic, down to Los Angeles (usually leaving home at 3:00 a.m., a half hour just to park and ride a bus to the terminal, the regular hassles in the terminal, and then the flight back in the opposite direction to get where I need to go. I choose to drive, but highways are becoming more congested by the day. California NEEDS an alternative and a way to tie the big three (LA, SFO, SAC) together! The only thing I see missing from their plan is a stop at LAX (assuming that they tie into BART at SFO).
2 Trackbacks
6:54 am
smog | Zach NHS Global Warming Documentary said:
[...] build a high-speed train to Northern California has given rise to a lot of pro- and con opinions, as we’ve covered. What do you think about the plan?TT: It’s a great idea. I’m not sure if it’s a best use of [...]
4:25 am
san diego park n ride said:
[...] positive article this week on the proposed 10 billion California High-Speed Rail bond measure. Ihttp://venturebeat.com/2008/04/11/why-the-california-high-speed-rail-plan-is-fundamentally-flawed/Going against the odds The Globe and MailDescription is not [...]