Another Defense of High Speed Rail (Source: Curbed LA)

Link: Curbed LA: Updates Coming on Mysterious Crenshaw Line

Streetsblog Los Angeles » Another Defense of High Speed Rail

Thursday, August 27, 2009
Another Defense of High Speed Rail

by Sarah Goodyear on August 27, 2009

Today on the Streetsblog Network, we've got a post from Yonah Freemark at The Transport Politic on the importance of funding both intercity and intracity rail, despite limits on the amount of money available. Freemark takes on the argument that investment in transportation within cities should trump the construction of more efficient rail connections between cities:

High-speed trains in Taiwan. Photo: loudtiger/Flickr.
[I]nvestment is needed in both intercity and intracity corridors. Claiming that we should not fund high-speed rail because urban transit is more important is equivalent to saying that federal subsidies to air travel and non-urban highways should simply end, because metropolitan areas need more investment and travel between cities is less important.

The U.S. certainly has “scarce resources” at the moment; the $9 trillion government deficit over the next ten years will likely force budget cuts and require a reevaluation of spending in all executive branches, including the Department of Transportation. But the question here is not whether to invest in urban or long-distance travel systems. The country continues to grow relatively quickly, and both in-city and intercity travel demand will have to be met. Thus, we simply cannot devote all funds currently designated for the latter type of travel to the former; while we certainly should commit more funds to urban transit, we also need to find new and better ways to move between cities, since more and more people will be doing exactly that.…

Arguing that improving urban transit should be prioritized over high-speed rail is acceptable, but ignoring the needs of long-distance travel is not. The United States has a serious need to invest in both intercity and intracity travel, and for trips of between 200 and 600 miles between large cities, high-speed rail is usually the most appropriate investment. In the pursuit of better transit within a city, we cannot forget that we also need to get between cities.

Be sure to also check out the piece Freemark had Tuesday on The Infrastructurist, in which he sharpened his pencil and re-ran the numbers on Ed Glaeser's unfavorable analysis of high-speed rail on the New York Times website. Freemark writes:

By populating his model with a better set of assumptions, we hope to show how badly the economist missed the mark even on his handpicked example of an HSR link between Houston and Dallas. In reality, a well-designed high speed intercity rail project between the two largest cities in Lone Star State would likely produce a net economic benefit -- not at all the white elephant Glaeser suggests. In this more comprehensive model that takes into account trivialities like regional population growth and a reality-based route, the annual benefits total $840 million compared with construction and maintenance costs of $810 million. Which is to say, our numbers show that HSR pays for itself rather handily.

St. Louis Urban Workshop takes the stuffing out of another HSR hater today. Check out the site's priceless "re-mix" of Robert Samuelson's Newsweek piece claiming the Obama Administration's rail plan is "a high-speed boondoggle."

Plus: How many folding bikes does it take to fill up a parking space? Cyclelicious has the photographic answer, which is sure to especially delight Brompton-lovers.

California Applies for $1.1 Billion in HSR Stimulus Funds (Source: California High Speed Rail Blog)

California High Speed Rail Blog: California Applies for $1.1 Billion in HSR Stimulus Funds

Tuesday, August 25, 2009
California Applies for $1.1 Billion in HSR Stimulus Funds

Applications for Phase I of federal HSR stimulus funds were due yesterday, and California's request totaled $1.1 billion, focused on the Transbay Terminal train box:

$400 million of the application sent Monday would go toward a “box” to be built 100 feet below the redeveloped Transbay Terminal that would contain a future station for high-speed rail and Caltrain service connecting San Jose and San Francisco. Proposals for spending the remaining $700 million are scattered around the state for various intercity rail projects, Diridon said.



Note that this is just for one specific, narrowly-focused pot of HSR stimulus - applications for another pot of money with more flexibility what qualifies for funds are due in October. Diridon still believes CHSRA, through the state of California and Caltrans in particular, should apply for $4 to $6 billion in that Phase II round of requests.

It is highly likely that CA will get its $1.1 billion request, and we are still in a very good position to get some of the larger request that will be made in October and decided in early 2010.

UPDATE: The Business Insider says "give all the money to California" (h/t to Streetsblog LA):

One of the biggest problem with building a high speed rail system in the United States, is all the unknowns. That's why we get highly questionable, back of the envelop guess work done by Harvard's Ed Glaeser.

If we built the train system proposed for California, we would get real, measurable, results. If the train is a flop, at least we'll know for sure. If it's a raging success, then we can choose the next part of the country in which to build a better train system....

California is ready to go. It has a plan in place for high speed rail system. California voters approved a $9.95 billion bond sale to fund the rail line. Add in $13 billion from the federal government, and the project is more than half way funded....

We can get a big shiny play thing out of our stimulus. It's the type of project--whether it's successful, or a boondoggle--that we can say came about because of the Great Recession....

Spread the wealth around, and it's just going to look like more of the same.


Were it not for the Congressional politics of funding anything - where people want to ensure their states and districts get a little something - I'd call this not only a very good idea, but a politically sensible approach. Congress and the Obama Administration ought to split the difference and help seed other HSR projects, even if they're not true bullet trains - but ensure that our flagship project here in CA gets the money it needs to be built and built the right way.

Atrios makes this point as well.
Posted by Robert Cruickshank at 11:53 AM

L.A.-Las Vegas train a good thing (Source: LA Daily News)

L.A.-Las Vegas train a good thing - LA Daily News

L.A.-Las Vegas train a good thing
By Michael D. Antonovich Michael D. Antonovich represents northern Los Angeles County on the L.A. County Board of Supervisors.
Updated: 08/26/2009 09:45:19 AM PDT

I have consistently advocated and supported strong coalitions among private and public stakeholders to address our region's pressing transportation challenges. One such partnership has resulted in the first segment of the DesertXpress high speed rail project that will connect Southern California to Las Vegas - and will feature a rapid extension from Victorville to Palmdale, which will also link with Metrolink and the Palmdale airport. The DesertXpress will also connect with the California High Speed Rail Network that will run between Northern and Southern California.

By combining the technical know-how and creativity of the private sector with the responsible stewardship and policy support of the public sector, we are creating a sustainable, long-term alternative to the severe traffic congestion and environmental challenges facing the region.

Operating on all new, high-quality, fully grade-separated tracks largely within the I-15 right of way between Las Vegas and Victorville, DesertXpress will be the nation's first dedicated, interstate passenger-only electric high-speed rail system. The Palmdale extension will travel primarily within or adjacent to the right of way of the planned High Desert Corridor to Palmdale.

The DesertXpress breaks ground next year, followed by four years of construction and testing. The rail line will have trains departing from both ends every 20 minutes during peak periods and will operate at speeds of more than 150 mph.
Advertisement

The High Desert Corridor Joint Powers Authority is working in cooperation with colleagues from San Bernardino County, the cities of Victorville and Palmdale, collaborating with the California High Speed Rail Authority. Las Vegas, the congressional delegations of both states and DesertXpress are committed to finalizing the route and completing the environmental clearances required in time to start building the 49-mile Palmdale extension prior to the 2013 opening of the initial leg between Las Vegas and Victorville.

Ready to break ground early next year with private financing, DesertXpress will create thousands of jobs while improving mobility, air quality and convenience. DesertXpress will be the poster child for what can be done when business leaders, elected officials, and community and environmental planners join forces to solve regional problems through public-private partnerships.

Opponents seek to derail $45B bullet train Cities sue to change planned 800-mile route (Source: San Francisco Business Time)

Link: Opponents seek to derail $45B bullet train - San Francisco Business Times:

Friday, August 21, 2009 | Modified: Wednesday, August 26, 2009, 1:01am PDT
Opponents seek to derail $45B bullet train
Cities sue to change planned 800-mile route
San Francisco Business Times - by Eric Young
Paolo Vescia
“I’m apoplectic over high-speed rail. They have this thing so wrong that’s it’s mind-bending,” says Cobb.
View Larger

California’s proposed bullet train has left the station at the federal and state level.

Now its biggest challenge is trying to get some neighborhoods on board.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority, the state-chartered body in charge of planning and building the $45 billion system, is locked in a dispute with cities along the Peninsula that could delay — or possibly upend — the ambitious project.

Menlo Park and Atherton joined a group of nonprofit transportation and planning groups in a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the environmental study — and the rail alignment through Santa Clara County’s Pacheco Pass — for the state’s bullet train.

A ruling on the suit, filed in Sacramento Superior Court, is expected by Aug. 27.

The lawsuit alleges the rail authority deliberately slanted an environmental study to lead the authority’s board into selecting a route through the Pacheco Pass instead of through the Altamont Pass in the East Bay.

“We were very disappointed in the environmental document that was ultimately produced,” said Menlo Park Mayor Heyward Robinson. “We felt we needed more meat on the bones.”

Other communities along the planned 800-mile bullet train route have expressed concern about noise and design, but so far none have filed suit.

Some observers question whether the plaintiffs will prevail. Even if the cities win in court, state lawmakers may still decide to push ahead, said Bruce Balshone, a principal at Pacific Resources Engineering and Planning, a land use and civil engineering firm. “This is something really significant to the state of California. I don’t know if the legislature is going to allow some little cities to stop a statewide project.”

Still, if a court ruling goes against the rail authority, it might be forced to complete another environmental study and reconsider the route. That could delay the start of construction, which is supposed to happen by 2012 or it could put at risk federal funds that are likely to be spent on the bullet train.

The battle over the rail route linking the Bay Area to the Central Valley has been waged for years. Altamont Pass backers said that route would attract more riders and allow bullet trains to serve long-distance commuters. Pacheco Pass supporters said that route would provide a more direct way from the Bay Area to Los Angeles, the route expected to provide 70 percent of revenue on the system.

The state’s high-speed rail program has received big boosts lately. In 2008, state voters approved almost $10 billion in bonds for the project. Earlier this year federal transportation officials said California is one of two states that are leading candidates to secure some of the $8 billion in stimulus cash for high-speed passenger-rail service. The rest of the money is expected to come from private investors.

“If we don’t stub our toes,” said high-speed rail board member Rod Diridon, “we’re due to receive a lion’s share of that stimulus money.”

The train project’s forward momentum, however, could turn on the outcome of the Peninsula lawsuit.

“I’m apoplectic over high-speed rail. They have this so wrong that it’s mind-bending,” said Mike Cobb, a longtime Palo Alto resident whose house is three blocks from the proposed route. Palo Alto submitted a legal brief supporting the lawsuit filed by Menlo Park and Atherton.

Cobb said running the bullet train down the Peninsula will lead to more headaches than benefits. He and other bullet train opponents said they expect that some people living near the line will lose their homes through eminent domain. Many others will have to live with the noise and vibration of the train, Cobb and others said.

Mehdi Morshed, the executive director of the high-speed rail authority, said both concerns are overblown.

Train technology and new rails mean that “there will be considerably less noise (with a bullet train) than there is now” with Caltrain, he said.

The authority has the power of eminent domain. But Morshed said it is unlikely it will be used.

“There are very few places where there is the need for additional right of way,” he said. “Based on what we know there will be very little or no residential taking.”

eyoung@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4969

Momentum Builds for CA High Speed Rail (Source: Streetsblog Los Angeles )

Link: Streetsblog Los Angeles » Momentum Builds for CA High Speed Rail

Momentum Builds for CA High Speed Rail

by Damien Newton on August 25, 2009

CBS Looks at CA's HSR Application via California High Speed Rail Blog

Now that the first round of applications to the federal government for the $8 billion in High Speed Rail which means it's more than past time to make the case that California deserves more than its share of those funds. California has two applications in to the the USDOT for two segments of the project that should eventually connect San Francisco to San Diego.

The first is local and would connect Los Angeles to Anaheim. The cost for completing that segment is $3 billion. The second corridor would connect San Francisco to San Jose at somewhere between $4 billion and $5 billion. The L.A. to Anaheim line could be completed by as early as 2018.

The case has already been made that California is ahead of the game when it comes to planning for High Speed Rail. In addition to having a route ready to go, last November voters approved a $9.9 billion bond for the project that will cover nearly one quarter of the $40 billion project.

In fact, California is so far ahead of other states, that The Business Insider, a publication that until recently had been questioning the potential success of sending money towards High Speed Rail, suggested that instead of helping every deserving project around the country the federal government should send all of the money to California. They propose that California's High Speed Rail project could be the "interstate system" of this "great recession."

If we built the train system proposed for California, we would get real, measurable, results. If the train is a flop, at least we'll know for sure. If it's a raging success, then we can choose the next part of the country in which to build a better train system.

However, if we give a $76 million to North Carolina, and $28 million to Pennsylvania, what will really learn?

We've seen a lot of controversy created against the concept of High Speed Rail by east-coast columnists who can't think outside of the box. Yesterday, DC Streetsblog's Ryan Avant took apart a Washington Post columnist who used the bizarre argument that America didn't have the density to support High Speed Rail as they do in Europe. While Avant blew that argument out of the water nationally, the California High Speed Rail Blog took it a step further and looked at the density of the counties that would be served by High Speed Rail when it comes to California.

San Francisco County – 9,999
San Mateo County- 1,575
Santa Clara County- 1,303
Merced County- 109.2
Fresno County- 143.1
Tulare County- 76.3
Kern County- 81.3
Los Angeles County 2,344.1
Orange County- 3,607.5

average: 2,138 persons per square mile over nine counties served by HSR.

This is just for the San Francisco to Irvine section, but I think we can safely lay density to rest as an argument.

Stimulus… More Like Stymied (Source: I Will Ride Blog)

I Will Ride Blog

Stimulus… More Like Stymied
Posted by Albert

Three articles in Friday’s editions of the Los Angeles Times and the Los Angeles Daily News focused on the the Subway to the Sea and its federal funding status (status: unknown). Now we support the Subway to the Sea as much as your average West LA folk, so there’s no issue with the project itself. Mass transit options, whatever and wherever they are, are good. The whole county is in dire need of a legitimate public transit alternative to the congested freeways as well as freedom from the polluted air that comes with traffic snarls.

In one Los Angeles Times report, it was revealed that much of the federal stimulus money that California had received for transportation was going to “routine” projects – not toward projects that President Obama had hoped “would both be built quickly and achieve long-term goals such as reducing pollution and congestion.” Now if you’re a Foothill Extension supporter, you can’t help but read this and scream: Oh come on! The explanation for perhaps why the ready-to-go Foothill Extension was stymied and not put up for federal stimulus money can be found in this excerpt:

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority thought about applying for stimulus funds to stretch the Red Line light rail to the sea but scrapped the idea when officials realized the project couldn’t be completed in the timeline the president outlined, said David Yale, MTA’s deputy executive officer of regional programming.
“The president’s charge was to get the economy jolted, so we needed to identify projects that could move quickly and get out to bid quickly,” Yale said.

Source: Stimulus funds in California mostly go to routine projects, study says, Los Angeles Times

The Foothill Extension seems to fit that “charge,” seeing as how with the help of federal funding, the entire line to Montclair can be finished and operating by 2017. Not to mention the thousands of construction jobs that would come with it, the billions of dollars that would jolt the San Gabriel Valley economies, the reduction in congestion on the 210, and the improvements in air quality for millions of residents.

However, all is not lost, as a group of the Subway’s biggest supporters –including Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky – are urging “local governments to put aside their differences over planned transportation projects and launch a coordinated effort to secure enough federal stimulus dollars and matching funds to expedite the subway extension as well as other much-anticipated projects to be financed by Measure R, the county’s new transportation sales tax.” The list of projects they want to come along with the ride to the federal government?

Those include the Expo Line light-rail route from downtown to Santa Monica with a completion date in 2015, the Gold Line’s Foothill extension to perhaps Azusa by 2017 and a downtown light-rail line to connect the Blue, Gold and Expo lines by 2025.

Source: L.A. mayor wants to speed up work on Subway to the Sea, Los Angeles Times

Though we’re currently emphasizing the use of federal funds to build out these projects, remember that the revenue from Measure R’s half-cent sales tax increase is still slated to pay for the majority, but not all, of the cost of these lines. And with the Subway to the Sea doing its best roommate-who-raids-your-part-of-the-fridge-without-paying-their-fair-share impression, Supervisor Michael Antonovich’s office seems to be having none of it:

Tony Bell, spokesman for county Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, said the subway extension will only serve three of the county’s 88 cities, all of which will be required to “foot the bill.”

“The residents of the San Fernando, San Gabriel, Santa Clarita and Antelope valleys will all be paying for a gold-plated, multi-billion dollar underground subway that will have no impact on our regional transportation crisis,” Bell said. “In fact, it will funnel money away from projects that will improve mobility on a regional basis.”

Source: Subway to sea gains footing, Los Angeles Daily News

We’re encouraging our readers to send their thoughts to the newspapers in 150 words or less by emailing letters@latimes.com and dnforum@dailynews.com. Do it! And please send us a copy at info@iwillride.org when you do.

L.A. authority collects soil samples for proposed subway extension (Source: www.progressiverailroading.com)

Link: L.A. authority collects soil samples for proposed subway extension

L.A. authority collects soil samples for proposed subway extension

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) recently completed exploratory drilling in West L.A. as part of the planning and environmental process for the Westside subway extension.

LACMTA collected soil samples at 70 Westside locations over the past two-and-one-half months. The samples will be tested in labs to assess underground soil conditions and help determine an optimal subway route based on drilling and construction techniques. LACMTA needs to complete testing before it can prepare the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report.

After the agency completes the environmental review process next year, LACMTA officials will recommend a route, or the locally preferred alternative, that will include the mode, alignment and station locations. The board will need to approve the route before any final environmental analysis, design/engineering or construction can begin.

The agency currently is considering two options: a Wilshire subway that would extend the Metro Purple Line via Wilshire Boulevard and a Wilshire/West Hollywood subway that would incorporate all of the Wilshire subway as well as a spur from the Metro Red Line in Hollywood via Santa Monica Boulevard.

LACMTA estimates project costs at $4.1 billion for a partial Wilshire subway to Westwood/405, $6.1 billion for the full Wilshire subway alternative to Santa Monica and $9 billion for the Wilshire/West Hollywood subway combination. The Measure R county sales tax would partially fund the project.

The New York Times' Second Punch on HSR (Source: California High Speed Rail Blog)

California High Speed Rail Blog: The New York Times' Second Punch on HSR

Friday, August 21, 2009
The New York Times' Second Punch on HSR

Yesterday we looked at Edward Glaeser's silly attack on HSR in the New York Times' Economix Blog. Today we have another attack on HSR in the New York Times - this time from Eric Morris at the Freakonomics Blog. Ryan Avent summed it up well via Twitter:

Eric Morris closes HSR series by referring readers to Randal O'Toole. You know, in case you thought he and Glaeser were aiming for an honest critique.


Sure enough:

Certainly neither Glaeser nor I pretend to have the last word on this topic. We are looking to start some debate, not finish it. So if you want to learn more on the pros of true HSR, check out the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s site, or this report for the views of an articulate critic, the Cato Institute’s Randall O’Toole.


Either Morris is joking or is even more in the tank against HSR than we ever thought. Randall O'Toole as a credible source on passenger trains?!?! This is the same guy who thinks riding a train is more harmful than driving an SUV and whose difficulties with facts and evidence has been well documented.

But it's not just the company Morris keeps that damns his blog post. Morris has a rather interesting justification for his work on HSR planning:

I have extensive experience planning, designing, constructing, financing, and operating HSR networks; these have spanned the nation and have been terrifically elegant, with state-of-the-art locomotive technology and thousands of miles of flat, straight track to keep speeds high.

However, those HSR systems were built from electricity, not steel. And while the HSR currently being proposed will cost tens of billions, the cost of my HSR network was comparatively modest: perhaps $30 in fixed costs for the purchase of the computer game Sid Meier’s Railroad Tycoon, plus negligible variable costs for the power to run my computer and depreciation on my mouse button. The sum total of the utility I experienced from this kind of HSR paid for those costs many times over.


That's like saying I can run a street gang because I played Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. How ridiculous do economics bloggers for the NYT not named Paul Krugman have to get before we stop taking them seriously?

The primary problem that afflicts Morris's attack on HSR is the exact same problem that afflicted Edward Glaeser's articles as well: they persistently refuse to examine HSR costs in context:

Costs in the real world are quite different. HSR is an exciting idea, and if we could make it appear by magic wand it’d be a terrific addition to our transportation network. But everything has a price, and the way things currently stand, the projected costs look like they outweigh the benefits. If the thought of some ominous budget numbers lurking on a piece of paper in far-off Washington doesn’t move you, consider the opportunity costs of this spending, in terms of health care, education, the economy, defense, or a (more effective) method of slowing global warming. Or if you want to keep the money in the realm of transportation, it could go to address what I consider to be the more serious problem we are facing: moving people around within our cities, not between them.


There are innumerable flaws with this analysis, which is actually the heart of Morris's post. Morris claims to speak of opportunity cost, but where is the estimate of how much it will take to expand roads and airports in California to handle the passenger loads that HSR will handle? Estimates for that range from $80 billion to $160 billion. But nobody aside from Morris Brown thinks California HSR will approach even the lower range of that estimate.

Morris appears to think that air travel will continue to remain cheap, plentiful and affordable. A kind of perpetual 2007. Last year we talked quite a bit about the airline crisis - how rising oil prices have jeopardized the easy air travel that we have come to expect here in the US. Airports in smaller cities have begun bribing airlines to maintain service, and cities like Fresno and Bakersfield have struggled to maintain the airline service they still have.

For Morris to basically ignore the problems of the airlines he has to ignore the all-important question of whether oil prices will remain at the same price they're at now. There is ample reason to believe they will not. Even during a severe recession gas costs at least $3/gal across most of California, the threshold that once crossed in 2006 helped burst the housing bubble. Once growth resumes, whenever that might be, oil prices are widely expected to rise again, especially considering the steady increase in global demand.

HSR is not the same as ongoing expenditures for health care or education. Like the Golden Gate Bridge or the Shasta Dam, it is a piece of infrastructure that enables economic activity to continue and grow well into the future. It enables health care and education spending to continue, rather than become strangled by gridlock.

And yes, Eric Morris, HSR will help intracity transportation just as it will provide intercity transportation. In California HSR will be used by commuters within regions just as it will be used by commuters between regions. The HSR route will serve as a transit spine for the state, with its key nodes (SF Transbay, SJ Diridon, LA Union Station) becoming the centerpieces of local rail. HSR is a rising tide that lifts all transportation boats.

Unfortunately, Morris is so in thrall to Randall O'Toole's anti-rail jihad that he won't stop to consider these aspects. Instead he uses the same arbitrarily limited and therefore insufficient scope to mislead readers about the true costs of projects. The Golden Gate Bridge might not have penciled out in the first 5 years from its opening in 1937, but hardly anyone today would argue the Bay Area is better off without it. 30 years from now, when Californians travel around their state on high speed trains, they too will wonder why anyone thought building it was anything but a sensible and farsighted idea.
Posted by Robert Cruickshank at 3:13 PM

Gold Line Extension Targets Mid-October Opening (Source: ladowntownnews.com)

Link: Gold Line Extension Targets Mid-October Opening

Gold Line Extension Targets Mid-October Opening
Published: Friday, August 21, 2009 3:41 PM PDT
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES - The Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension, once expected to open in September, will now debut in mid-October at the earliest, Metro spokesman Marc Littman said last week.

The agency is slated to begin “stress tests” at the end of August, during which all aspects of the equipment and infrastructure is tested. The next and final step is pre-revenue testing, a five-week period when the trains run exactly as they will once the line opens — the only missing piece will be the riders. The $899 million project includes a new station in Little Tokyo at Second and Alameda Streets, and will connect Downtown with East Los Angeles. “We haven’t set a date,” Littman said. “But theoretically, the earliest would be mid-October.”