Opponents of California high-speed rail don't understand the law

San Jose Mercury-News ^ | 3/15/10 | Quentin Kopp

[Willie Green]

Throughout California history, our economic might and transportation advances have led to progress and development — first with construction of railroads and ports, and later by large public investments in highways and airports. Now, California must connect our major metropolitan cities with an economically viable, environmentally friendly, sustainable high-speed rail system.

Since introducing the legislation creating the California High Speed Rail Authority in 1996, I've pursued the most logical transportation option for Californians, a 220 mph train system carrying passengers from downtown San Francisco to downtown Los Angeles.

Californians agree. Their endorsement of Proposition 1A in November 2008 defined the high-speed train system as "the corridor of the high-speed train system between San Francisco "... and Los Angeles," so it's disingenuous for opponents to advocate ending the system in San Jose.

The so-called "hybrid" or "no-build" notion of terminating high-speed rail in San Jose and forcing passengers to transfer to Caltrain is both against the law and the will of the voters. It's also intended to destroy the system. In their increasingly frenetic desire to stop the voter- and lawmaker-approved undertaking, it's no wonder the public might be confused. Let's correct the record once and for all.

[alaskanfan]

They spend money on crap like this and wonder why they have budget problems. How do you spell Amtrak.

[edcoil]

Since the law has not allowed us to build a power plant in 30 years - how we suppose to power this high speed rail system?

[paul51]

Now, California must connect our major metropolitan cities with an economically viable, environmentally friendly, sustainable high-speed rail system.

I doubt it will be any of those

[Uncle Miltie]

What is the cost per rider for a decade given:

(Capital Costs +
Eminent Domain Costs (properly paid)+
Operating Costs)
/ Riders for 10 Years

?

[mnehring]

High Speed Rail- The Obamacare of transportation.

[equalitybeforethelaw]

Since the law has not allowed us to build a power plant in 30 years - how we suppose to power this high speed rail system?

Simple, outlaw all big screen TVs and build windmills. Its CA, the laws of physics do not apply. Shoosh, where have you been for the last 30 years edcoil?

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

Certainly these trains are not economically viable. The ones in Japan went bankrupt and the govt ended up giving them (no capital cost) to private operators. The only way these make a profit is if the cap cost is zero (taxpayers get hosed).

[edcoil]

“Simple, outlaw all big screen TVs and build windmills. Its CA, the laws of physics do not apply. Shoosh, where have you been for the last 30 years edcoil?”

Clearly not building power plants...)

[wita]

Quentin Kopp is a retired judge and a member of the High Speed Rail Authority.

Of course he is! He and the Christmas goose have a lot in common.

[GonzoGOP]

economically viable, environmentally friendly, sustainable high-speed rail system.

At best they are going to have to pick two but you aren't likely to get all three. If it low construction and maintenance costs and low environmental impact it won't be high speed. Turn of the century interurbans and modern light rail are the most obvious example here.

If you have the 100% grade separation needed for 70 mph and higher speeds then you have crushing construction costs. Also be prepared for some real fun filling out all those environmental impact forms when you try to throw the right of way across the county side.

If you want 150 mph speeds in a hot climate like Southern California you are going to have high maintenance costs. Steel rails expand when heated by the sun and shrink at night. The heat kinks created in the rail aren't a big problem at low speed, but ruin the ride at high speeds. The French TGVs have to run special rail alignment trains every day in order to ensure proper track alignment for sustained high speed service. All of this is doable, but it isn't cheap and you won't have an economically viable railroad. The French TGVs, Japanese Shinkansen and German ICE trains all run at a loss and require large government subsidies on a per passenger basis.


There are also issues of earthquakes in Southern California, but fortunately the Japanese have developed Urgent Earthquake Detection and Alarm System (UrEDAS) for their Shinkansen to deal with exactly the same issues. Unfortunately UrEDAS doesn't come cheap.

Also be prepared to deal with the EPA complaints about noise pollution, unless you put it under ground or install noise walls along the entire line. It is a choice between environmentally friendly or more construction costs. Unless the only environmental concern you are talking about is carbon reduction.

[Willie Green]

What is the cost per rider for a decade given:
(Capital Costs +
Eminent Domain Costs (properly paid)+

Zero.

That's because these are not costs but a long term investment in infrastructure assets.

In particular, it is ludicrous to amortize the eminent domain "cost". The investment in acquiring the real estate right-of-way is an asset that will only appreciate in value, not depreciate.
Similarly, rail rolling stock and terminal buildings, stations, etc. all have real economic lifespans that far exceed the ten-year period that you mention. And any competent economic analysis would recognize their true economic life, and the fact that their true value as assets often appreciate, not depreciate.

[qwertypie]

I was obliged to ride the Portland metro light rail last year. I was forced to ride with the nosering and tattoo crowd, people that I would never let ride in my car. Never again if I can help it.

Airlines are bad enough. But public rail transportation is for losers.

[wildbill]

If they build it I hope they use the interior vally instead of the scenic coastal route. More quakes and fire, landslide, damage possible and terrain is friendlier (flatter) in the valley I think.

Maybe some Californians will comment.

[WOBBLY BOB]

How is it “sustainable” in a country/state that’s broke?

[Da Coyote]

“Now, California must connect our major metropolitan cities with an economically viable, environmentally friendly, sustainable high-speed rail system.”

Then let folks who actually have the capability of producing anything do it.

THIS LEAVES OUT THE DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS AND THE MSM.

[SoCal Pubbie]

So how exactly are the investors (taxpayers) of the trains going to recoup their investment based on those “assets?” There is going to be a cost to obtain them, operate, and maintain them, but they will add no revenue whatsoever to the equation.

[Willie Green]

So how exactly are the investors (taxpayers) of the trains going to recoup their investment based on those “assets?” There is going to be a cost to obtain them, operate, and maintain them, but they will add no revenue whatsoever to the equation.

The direct revenue collected by the transit system is only part of the taxpayers return on investment. As the transit system enhances commerce in the region it serves, taxpayers derive additional benefits from the economic growth and expansion of the tax-base.

[Vaduz]

The only construction of railroads in LA needs to be right down the center of the 405 freeway.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Why hasn’t that happened with Metrolink then? All levels of government in California are broke. You are touting pie in the sky benefits that cannot be measured nor used to hold those in favor of high speed rail accountable