From the Center for Public Integrity: https://apps.publicintegrity.org/abandoned-in-america/train-off-track
I am torn on this issue. I say let California finish what it started. I would be staunchly against any more Federal Money for this project.
If this was a private project it wouldn't be boring through so many mountains nor would it have so many other expensive engineering features. The goal should have been to get the system built and operational and then fund engineering improvements to it.
The major three flaws I see here on this project was Jerry Brown appointing himself Chief Engineer of the project and insist everything be first class from the start. Probably the major reason that costs escalated so rapidly out of control.
Second flaw was attempting High Speed on such a ridiculously long corridor to start. Would have been far better to have first implemented LA - San Diego or SFO to San Jose first. Do the smaller leg first get your experience then attempt the larger legs of the system. Government projects are generally stupid in the learning area though. Jumping feet first into the major part of the project without any experience.
Third Flaw of course was Jerry Brown selling the project as a private-public project in which he stated the Private sector would contribute at least 50% of the construction funds........without consulting anyone in the private sector, then he appointed himself Chief Engineer and ballooned the costs out of control. Fix that yourself Governor Brown. Feds are not here to rescue you from your own stupidity. The 50-50 contribution could have happened with a smaller project as what this was once proposed $15-20 Billion. There is no way any private company or investment firm is going to pay $50 Billion for one stinking HSR route in California. That is way too much risk.
I agree with what CMStPnP says but I could state the three flaws more succinctly.
1. - Jerry Brown
2. - Jerry Brown
3. - Jerry Brown
runnerdude481. - Jerry Brown 2. - Jerry Brown 3. - Jerry Brown
RE: CMStPaP Post,
Your comments reflect the views of someone who knows almost nothing about this project and its struggles. The planning for this started long before Jerry Brown became governor. He has had virtually zero impact on the planning and design. That process has been going on for years in a careful deliberate process. The California High Speed Rail Authority web site, through the various business plans explains why the costs have gone up. In short form, cost estimates from 10 years ago would be obsolete and be much higher simply from inflation (btw, inflation in construction materials fluctuates much more that the overall inflation rate) Also they were basically based on general per-mile rule of thumb pricing (x dollars per mile at grade) A project I was involved in just before retiring had steel prices for rebar double in the course of two months). Secondly, critics of the project got the State Legislature to require that all costs be adjusted inflation wise to 2028 dollars--immediate cost increase to accuse incompetence on the HSR authority. Thirdly, the initial idea was from at grade with crossing roads, etc. to cross over on overpasses. In going through environmental clearances with the myriad of entities, the project gets "gold plated" cities like Fresno that want trenches, viaducts, etc. To satisfy local demands for the route into Bakersfield, almost 4 miles of viaducts have to be built--very expensive. It also includes such mundane things such as utility relocation being far far more expensive than every imagined--and the "who cares" "in no hurry" attitudes of utilities such as PG&E AT&T and Verizon and the also myriad of small local irrigation districts in the Central Valley. Also your suggestions of shorter routes first don't make sense because for example SF to San Jose is too short.
Most important that passage of the ballot proposition in 2008 didn't mean that the next day construction started, it meant that the next day design could begin.
mdwAlso your suggestions of shorter routes first don't make sense because for example SF to San Jose is too short.
Poor example. This could be built out in conjunction with CalTrain electrification, sharing many high-dollar-in-California components such as large wayside storage procurement, and even if not really high speed, I expect any 'HSR' express between SF and San Jose to be very well patronized, probably far more than any other initial destination pair slated for actual completion to operation, right from the beginning.
mdwMost important that passage of the ballot proposition in 2008 didn't mean that the next day construction started, it meant that the next day design could begin.
That dead dog won't hunt. In that same decade of pathetic fribbling in California, just how many miles did the Chinese build -- including all the equipment and techniques to do viaducts quickly and effectively?
Some of us know a great deal about this project and its 'struggles' and don't have too much real pity for self-inflicted nonsense masquerading as engineering.
mdw RE: CMStPaP Post, Your comments reflect the views of someone who knows almost nothing about this project and its struggles. The planning for this started long before Jerry Brown became governor. He has had virtually zero impact on the planning and design. That process has been going on for years in a careful deliberate process. The California High Speed Rail Authority web site, through the various business plans explains why the costs have gone up. In short form, cost estimates from 10 years ago would be obsolete and be much higher simply from inflation (btw, inflation in construction materials fluctuates much more that the overall inflation rate) Also they were basically based on general per-mile rule of thumb pricing (x dollars per mile at grade) A project I was involved in just before retiring had steel prices for rebar double in the course of two months). Secondly, critics of the project got the State Legislature to require that all costs be adjusted inflation wise to 2028 dollars--immediate cost increase to accuse incompetence on the HSR authority. Thirdly, the initial idea was from at grade with crossing roads, etc. to cross over on overpasses. In going through environmental clearances with the myriad of entities, the project gets "gold plated" cities like Fresno that want trenches, viaducts, etc. To satisfy local demands for the route into Bakersfield, almost 4 miles of viaducts have to be built--very expensive. It also includes such mundane things such as utility relocation being far far more expensive than every imagined--and the "who cares" "in no hurry" attitudes of utilities such as PG&E AT&T and Verizon and the also myriad of small local irrigation districts in the Central Valley. Also your suggestions of shorter routes first don't make sense because for example SF to San Jose is too short. Most important that passage of the ballot proposition in 2008 didn't mean that the next day construction started, it meant that the next day design could begin.
Cmstpap:
I still must disagree with you. As much as you accuse me absolving Brown of “blame”, you seem so angry at to blame him for everything. private money was supposed to cover some of the cost but the ferocious opposition from some polititians has driven the chance of that away for now. If you were a private investor would want to put money into some that was ferociously opposed by prominent members of Congress? That was part of their plan, fierce opposition to kill private investment and then mock the HSR for not having any. Your comment about building it ”cheap” and then ‘fixing” it later just can’t be done with true high speed rail. It has to be designed for 200 mph from the beginning. That is how Japan did it,that’s how France did it with the TGV, thats how Britain did it with High Speed 1. I explained in my previous post why the costs went up. Everyone who suggests how it could be made ‘cheaper” seems to know little about construction and how huge projects like this work.
mdwAs much as you accuse me absolving Brown of “blame”, you seem so angry at to blame him for everything.
mdwYour comment about building it ”cheap” and then ‘fixing” it later just can’t be done with true high speed rail.
Well it's certainly news to me as I am going to presume it is to Japan that they started with a 200+ mph railway system.
It has always been built incrementally by the state sponsored systems as the technology matured (Germany, France, Japan). Exception being China. China is not a country where budgets or project rationality has any meaning though. Additionally, I might point out that the Swiss didn't tunnel under the Alps with the long rail tunnel to replace Gotthard Pass with a straighter, more direct and higher speed route until just recently. The technology to do that project existed quite a while back, however. Even Amtrak builds this way now with the 250 mph technology available. They incrementally raise speeds and redesign the older lines where they can as we move into the future. The NEC is not a wholesale replacement project. They only intend to replace the parts where it is not already able to support the speeds they want.
Most of Britain is still stuck on 125 mph HSR rail. Not because the routes can't be corrected to run higher speed trainsets but because Britain is not willing to really spend the money yet and seems content with things the way they are.
CMStPnPWell it's certainly news to me as I am going to presume it is to Japan that they started with a 200+ mph railway system.
They started in 1964 on a new RofW as the Shinkansen runs on standard gauge while the norma speed system is narrow gauge. It was built for high speed from the beginning though the trains were not capable of 220 mph at that time.
CMStPnPIt has always been built incrementally by the state sponsored systems as the technology matured (Germany, France, Japan)
That is only partly true. The French and German railroads started to improve their existing trackwork. In Germany it was improved for speeds of 125mph and sometimes 143 mph. All true HSR-lines with speeds above 155 mph were newly built to the according high-speed standards in Germany as well as France and Japan.
In France newly built routes were not built to a 220 mph standard from the beginning as trains weren't expected to get that fast at the time of construction. SNCF is now looking for ways to upgrade the early routes from 170 mph and 186 mph to 220 mph.
CMStPnPAdditionally, I might point out that the Swiss didn't tunnel under the Alps with the long rail tunnel to replace Gotthard Pass with a straighter, more direct and higher speed route until just recently.
The first studies for a Gotthardt Basis Tunnel started in the early 1960s. A rezession beginning in 1973 posponed decisions. It took some time until more capacity was required again. Around 1990 was decided to build the tunnel.
CMStPnP The NEC is not a wholesale replacement project. They only intend to replace the parts where it is not already able to support the speeds they want.
One can't compare NEC with California HSR. NEC is an existing line in need of expensive upgrades, California HSR is a completely new built line. From my point of view it doesn't make sense to build to lower speed standard and than upgrade later. The technology for 220 mph trains is here already.
CMStPnPMost of Britain is still stuck on 125 mph HSR rail. Not because the routes can't be corrected to run higher speed trainsets but because Britain is not willing to really spend the money yet and seems content with things the way they are.
The british existing routes can't be upgraded because of the small load gage. As everywhere they need new lines for HSR. The have one line called High Speed 1 from London to the Eurotunnel. A second, High Speed 2, is going to connect London with Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester. Planned opening is from 2026 in phases till 2033. Designed for speeds up to 250 mph.Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHR A second, High Speed 2, is going to connect London with Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester. Planned opening is from 2026 in phases till 2033. Designed for speeds up to 250 mph.
Will this line be built along existing rights-of-way or will it require a new right-of-way?
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
PJS1Will this line be built along existing rights-of-way or will it require a new right-of-way?
I don't know of any old rail lines in Europe whose complete alignment were good enough for upgrading to more than 143 mph. That doesn't exclude that there are stretches straight enough for ue in the HS2.
The High Speed 2 phase 1, London to Birmingham, will be built on a new alignment: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/HS2_phase_1.png/800px-HS2_phase_1.png
In some places, like going into the cities, old trackage might be used.
High Speed 2 phase 2, Birmingham to Manchester and Birmingham to Leeds, seems to contain a section on the old RofW: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/HS2_phase_2.png/800px-HS2_phase_2.png
Regards, Volker
You could easily answer this yourself without googling High Speed 2 by simply looking at that "up to 250mph".
The original TGV specs assumed largely new line construction anywhere high speed was anticipated. Even at 186mph equivalent the effects of vertical curvature and concomitant spiraling of proper form ... which involve very heavy grading and then careful attention in maintenance ... become essential; I don't think I need to mention horizontal.
A good rule of thumb is the one we use today, for example with PRIIA derivatives, which can be recognized in no small part from the British experience with the APT (which didn't pay) and the HST (which most certainly did). The point at which new lines become essential starts around 125mph and is clearly recognizable even at Acela speeds.
Where your question applies much better is where the line transits urban areas where there are to be stops. In the old days of grand new-line projects, one answer was to put the stations at the high point of viaducts or careful use of terrain, so that the gravity drag would aid deceleration into the stop and then acceleration away from it. However, common sense was observed very early in Europe regarding compatibility of TGVs and other high-speed services with older, in some cases much older and slower, infrastructure in and out of existing station areas, and this is the area where CMStP&P's comment about California 'perfect' HSR construction would be most applicable.
There is, of course, a tradeoff in practical minimum speed vs. enormous capital and political cost. It is also quite practical to put some relatively small compromise into initial route planning to tolerate slow terminal (and other 'expedient' track use, as in tunnels or a local equivalent of Abo Canyon) while optimizing all the construction for later unrestricted buildout that 'throws away' a bare minimum of initial costs.
I admit I'm not entirely convinced that a full "Gateway-like" tunnel all the way into Euston is a better use of the money than, say, the proposed quick link from HSR 2 to HSR 1 between Old Oak Common and Chalk Farm ... it appears that, as with Gateway, there is some expedient providing of 'necessary' new platform capacity for all services rolled into the high-speed project at a political level.
As far as I can see, the HSR 2 planning was very carefully done with implicit connections to 'classic compatible' services at a number of points, some I think not associated with the through stations explicitly optimized for through high-speed trains. To an extent I think this also addresses your question: wherever new line construction is not anticipated, existing track would be used without much expensive modification, both initially and as more and more of the actual high-speed route is built out.
Also, regards to Germany. See attached Der Spiegel article that compares Germany to France:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/frozen-in-ice-how-can-germany-s-high-speed-trains-get-back-on-track-a-699847.html
Had a good chuckle about the placement of stations on a high speed line due more to politics than actual ridership. Having the whole discussion in Texas with the proposed HSR line to Houston having a lack of station stops.
CMStPnPSee attached Der Spiegel article that compares Germany to France:
Nein! Ich will NICHT mein Adblocker deaktivieren fur Der Spiegel!
So you might want to recap some of the points in the article in greater detail...
CMStPnP Also, regards to Germany. See attached Der Spiegel article that compares Germany to France: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/frozen-in-ice-how-can-germany-s-high-speed-trains-get-back-on-track-a-699847.html Had a good chuckle about the placement of stations on a high speed line due more to politics than actual ridership. Having the whole discussion in Texas with the proposed HSR line to Houston having a lack of station stops.
Thanks for linking the article. It is good and mostly correct. There are some differences one should know for a fair comparison.
France is a centralist political system with all power in Paris. Germany is a federal system with a lot of power in the federal states and not that much in Berlin.
If Paris says there are no intermediate stops than that is it. When Berlin requires no intermediate stops the federal state might not approve the line. So the states usually win.
If you look at the map of newly built TGV lines it becomes apparent that all lines go to Paris: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/France_TGV.png
The German High-speed rail started as a network in 1971 connecting the German population and economical centers. It were initially 4 lines with service every two hours, later hourly: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/DB_IC-Netzplan_1971.png
In 5 cities, Hannover, Dortmund, Cologne, Mannheim, Würzburg one was able to change between two lines on the same platform within 10 minutes.
This design was kept in the ICE train system: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/ICEtracks.png
That makes real HSR lines on many relations less practically.
And a last point. Topography makes building HSR line much more expensive in Germany than in France.
Germany: http://www.mygeo.info/landkarten/deutschland/Deutschland_Relief_Topographie_2009.png
France: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/France_cities.png
The two coutries had completely different goals. France to connect cities with Paris, Germany to connect different cities wth each other.Regard, Volker
I have no problems with interference when reading Der Spiegel International or the regular edition: relatively few ads, full features, no pay barrier. Ads are the price one pays for free access.
OvermodSo you might want to recap some of the points in the article in greater detail...
Its too long. Also, I don't like cutting and pasting content from another source. Most discussion forum Mods do not like that and could land a person in suspension land.
Also, the ads are all clean and Americanized.
Der Spiegel has looked at Germany's problems in high speed rail, but sometimes these links and information disappear. First, they found that without government supervision, ICE-3 trains were made with bad air conditioners, bad toilets, bad couplers, bad axels, and bad doors. Siemens has been made to fix these problems in the latest ICE-3 trainsets that Germany is buying.
Second, compared to France, Germany's high speed trains are slow. This is due to slow tracks, too many stops, a lack of city bypass tracks, and poor (political) decisions on station location, such as in Frankfurt. France has fast tracks and bypass tracks around Lyon and Avignon, which makes an express train from Paris to Marseille, (411 miles), very fast. Germany's ICE-3 trains are capable of 250 mph, but are required to stop at stations with few or no passengers and travel on tracks with lower speed capability.
Volker's map link to Germany's track speeds shows why their trains are slow. To go from Berlin to Munchen, (Munich), which has the most 190 mph track and 1-2 trains per hour, you start with 125 mph track to Leipzig. This is followed by improved track to Erfurt at up to 190 mph. You can also bypass Leipzig, but at less than 96 mph. Following the stop at Erfurt, half the speed is at 190 mph max and half at less than 96 mph, to the stop at Nurnberg. Nurnberg to Munchen is similar with half at 190 mpg max and half at less than 96 mph or 125 mph. The only other 190 mph track is between Frankfurt and Cologne, but to be fair, there is also some 160 mph track. This uneven performance is repeated in every direction in Germany's complex system. However, compared to the United States, barely attaining 160 mph, Germany's rail system is fantastic.
If we apply the above principles determined in Europe, California's high speed rail system should have been a straight shot in the central valley, with lower speed access to stations in Madera, Fresno, Kings/Tulare, and Bakersfield in the present construction. This would allow some nonstop express trains at 250 mph and somewhat slower local trains. The 2016 Report discusses the increased costs to go into Fresno, and the 2018 Report shows $2.8 billion to go into Bakersfield with 10.8 miles of viaduct and bridges. You would have to subtract the bypass cost to get the actual additional cost. As a comparison, Bakersfield all the way to Palmdale is expected to have 11.4 miles of viaduct and bridges.
Both France and Germany are making improvements to their high speed rail systems. Perhaps our federal government can start to extend our high speed system to Florida, to Chicago, and further, recalling what was learned in Europe and California.
Jim200 Perhaps our federal government can start to extend our high speed system to Florida, to Chicago, and further, recalling what was learned in Europe and California.
Where would the federal government get the money?
The federal debt burden is approximately $21.5 trillion. Add in state and local government debt, and the tab reaches $24.5 trillion. Or to look at it at the personal level, it comes to approximately $216,000 for every federal taxpayer with a tax liability, i.e. a person who files a tax return and actually pays some personal income tax.
By privatizing the interstate highway network, selling it off to make them taxi-paying toll roads!
daveklepper By privatizing the interstate highway network, selling it off to make them taxi-paying toll roads!
Interestingly, FDR toyed with the idea of a national highway system that would be paid for with tolls. It did not fly for political reasons.
To toll the highways or ramp up fuel taxes to cover the total cost of driving would cause a massive economic disruption. It probably would make the Great Depression look tame.
Had I been in charge, I would have paid for the Interstate Highway System with tolls. Moreover, I would flow the the total cost of driving through to motorists so they could see the actual price of driving at the pump. Doing so probably would have reduced the urban sprawl that the Interstate Highway System encouraged, at least in part, and may have led to be better balanced transportation system. But we are where we are, and it not likely to change dramatically rolling forward.
PJS1 daveklepper By privatizing the interstate highway network, selling it off to make them taxi-paying toll roads! Interestingly, FDR toyed with the idea of a national highway system that would be paid for with tolls. It did not fly for political reasons. To toll the highways or ramp up fuel taxes to cover the total cost of driving would cause a massive economic disruption. It probably would make the Great Depression look tame. Had I been in charge, I would have paid for the Interstate Highway System with tolls. Moreover, I would flow the the total cost of driving through to motorists so they could see the actual price of driving at the pump. Doing so probably would have reduced the urban sprawl that the Interstate Highway System encouraged, at least in part, and may have led to be better balanced transportation system. But we are where we are, and it not likely to change dramatically rolling forward.
The economy has already absorbed the costs of the highway system thru other subsidies for the highways, or eventually will thru debt payment. The fed gas tax has not been raised in 25 years. Your thoughts on flowing the driving costs thru the drivers is your own best argument for raising the gas tax.
MidlandMike The fed gas tax has not been raised in 25 years. Your thoughts on flowing the driving costs thru the drivers is your own best argument for raising the gas tax.
I favor increasing the federal and state fuel taxes to eventually cover the cost of the federal and state highway systems. There are, however, two it barriers to do so.
The first is that it would have to be increased gradually so as to prevent serious economic dislocation. The other second is a bigger challenge. There is no political will to raise fuel taxes. Simpson-Boyles recommended increase the fuel tax by 25 cents a gallon over a period of five years, I believe, and it was soundly turned down.
From its inception until 2008 the fuel taxes collected for the Highway Trust Fund were sufficient to pay for the Interstate Highway System. However, by 2008, because of transfers to the Mass Transit Fund, plus the refusal of Congress to increase the tax, the government had to tranfer monies from the General Fund to the Highway Trust Fund.
PJS1 From its inception until 2008 the fuel taxes collected for the Highway Trust Fund were sufficient to pay for the Interstate Highway System. However, by 2008, because of transfers to the Mass Transit Fund, plus the refusal of Congress to increase the tax, the government had to tranfer monies from the General Fund to the Highway Trust Fund.
blue streak 1 How much have Federal fuel tax revenue decreased due to more efficient cars and other vehicles ?
PJS1 blue streak 1 How much have Federal fuel tax revenue decreased due to more efficient cars and other vehicles ? According to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), fuel tax revenues for the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) increased from $34.2 billion in 2012 to $36.4 billion in 2016 or 6.4 percent. State fuel tax revenues probably showed similar increases. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the average miles per gallon (mpg) of U.S. personal vehicles as opposed to commercial vehicles increased from 23.8 in 2012 to 24.7 in 2016 or 3.8 percent. From 2012 to 2016 the average price of a gallon of regular gasoline dropped from $3.64 to $2.14 or 41.2 percent. All gasoline and diesel saw similar price declines. In 2012 motorists consumed 168.6 billion gallons of fuel; by 2016 it had reached 176.9 billion or an increase of 4.9 percent. Highway gasoline consumption increase from 131.3 billion gallons in 2012 to 135.5 billion in 2016 or by 3.2 percent. Vehicle Miles Traveled on all roadways increased from 3 trillion in 2012 to 3.2 trillion in 2016 or 6.7 percent. So, although motor vehicles were more efficient on average in 2016 compared to 2012, more drivers drove more miles and, therefore, consumed more fuel, which resulted in higher roadway tax revenues in spite of the dramatic decline in the price of fuel. But the rate of increase did not keep pace with the escalating costs of building and maintaining the nation’s roadways, thereby leading to the need to make-up for the shortfalls in highway funds by transfers from other government funds.
And with all that - state governments are crying that the increased efficiency of today's vehicles are screwing up their projections of fuel tax income that were based on the vehicles of yesteryear.
Governments at all levels, can't understand when they apply taxes on things that taxpayers can take actions to minimize - taxpayers will take those actions.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Folks often say California is a mess. Maybe the HSR is endangered, but huge budget surpluses.https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Californians-want-state-to-spend-on-health-care-13462049.php?fbclid=IwAR1uk4leSWOvDoe2bpHMP8skVSxSMZtd1w3-N2XoEJ5KoIlH0DDqsLQf2ik
charlie hebdoFolks often say California is a mess. Maybe the HSR is endangered, but huge budget surpluses.
From the state that still has not got a grip on it's water supply, electric supply, or forestation management systems......where do they want to spend the money? More social programs. Why not, the rest of us bail California out via Federal Funds everytime they have a disaster in one of the above infrastructure programs they are lacking in.
As a North Texan I say spend the money on social programs, raise taxes again if you have too. I am enjoying the exodus of large companies to North Texas from California and think that needs to continue. Let's see, paid $148k for my all brick house new in 1999, it should be worth at least $500k in the next 10 years or less the way California is driving development here........not bad.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.