Major NYT piece on Cal HSR Plans

Getting Up to Speed

This is a story not about Amtrak but about trains, and the problem with any story about trains in America is that you often find yourself thinking about Amtrak, and you often find yourself thinking about how nice it would be if you weren’t thinking about Amtrak. This is especially true when you’re actually riding on Amtrak, which happened to be the case one morning in March when I boarded the Pacific Surfliner in downtown Los Angeles for a 500-mile trip, mostly up the coast, to Sacramento. Anyone who lives in California can tell you that this is folly: other ways of traveling from Los Angeles to Sacramento are quicker and less frustrating and not much more expensive. You can fly in 90 minutes for around $100. Or you can drive in six hours for less than $50 in gas. For $55, my Amtrak journey was scheduled to take at least 12 hours 25 minutes. With any luck, I would arrive there by 9 p.m. And it was fairly obvious to me that I would need some luck...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/magaz ... f=magazine

a very well written article .
Hopefully it will come to fruitition in the near future .

An exceptional article, no doubt helped by its insertion in the NYT Magazine, which allows more in-depth reporting. The parts about engineering challenges as well as information about Alstom's AGV development were especially good. Funny quote towards the end of the piece, when the writer was having a conversation with the Governerator:

"Look at the train system. They’re running the same speed as they were 100 years ago. Is that what No. 1 does? Live in the past?” I didn’t have the heart to tell him that some trains actually run slower now than they did nearly 100 years ago.

The article presents an appealingly can-do attitude. I'm not sure it'll work out, but at least they're going ahead with it. And that attitude may very well be the most important legacy of CAHSR.

I really enjoyed this article. I've never had a firm grasp on what exactly the CAHSR plan consisted of, or what stage it was in. This helped a lot. It makes me want to head out to CA in a few years for an engineering job on the new corridor! Many obstacles remain, but it is inspiring to see such an ambitious project well underway.

Its going to be interesting to see what sort of relationship develops between the private los Vegas line , and the Califionia public one . a cooperative one i hope . And to see which one gets built first .

The author of this article is my neighbor, and he is an excellent journalist, as this article shows. In fact, I babysat his kid while he had a telephone interview with the Governator. Unlike many journalists, he actually bothered to ride the current system to examine it up close. I applaud him for this very informative article.

A suprisingly realistic approach to a topic which is prone to distortion when unrealistic expectations on the part of the public collide with economic and technical reality. The author doesn't devote much effort to one of the core issues -- dealing with the physical (mountain pass) barriers that the service will have to confront, or how the private/freight vs public/passenger conflict developed -- but he does convey, from the very first paragraph, the point that the proposed service is only marginally compatible with conventional rail operation.

And it should further be noted that while the shorter-distance Amtrak services within California are one of Amtrak's biggest success stories when using conventional equipment, the author's deliberate choice of an incompatible route for a longer distance journey both identifies the issue and underplays the adaptability of rail transit.

Probably the strongest single argument raised in this analysis is that and HSR network, once completed, could actually provide enough utility in reduction in travel times to overcome the automobile's inherent advantage in personal autonomy. A paralell might be drawn using travel patterns in Hawaii, where travellers between the islands fly, then rent autos for the short trips at the destination island (Auto-ferry service between the Hawaiian islands is strongly discouraged due to dangerous ocean currents).

But in the end, the ultimate success or failure of HSR, whether in California or any part of North America, rests upon the ability of technology to deliver a service which the public will find it advantageous to patronize of their own free will. Regretably, I remain convinced that the embrace of this technology by those who see further public-sector encroachment as the way to go in just about everything increases the likelihood that it will become the over-bureaucratized expedition cited by its biggest opponents.

As the author points out, long-term energy and other market trends may make HSR the only alternative in the far future, and at greater cost. But the question remains, "How many twists and turns in public policy will we have to endure along the way?"

2nd trick op wrote:A suprisingly realistic approach to a topic which is prone to distortion when unrealistic expectations on the part of the public collide with economic and technical reality. The author doesn't devote much effort to one of the core issues -- dealing with the physical (mountain pass) barriers that the service will have to confront, or how the private/freight vs public/passenger conflict developed -- but he does convey, from the very first paragraph, the point that the proposed service is only marginally compatible with conventional rail operation.

And it should further be noted that while the shorter-distance Amtrak services withing California are one of Amtrak's biggest success stories when using conventional equipment, the author's deliberate choice of an incompatible route for a longer distance journey both identifies the issue and underplays
the adaptability of rail transit.

Probably the strongest single argument raised in this analysis is that and HSR network, once completed, could actually provide enough utility in reduction in travel times to overcome the automobile's inherent advantage in personal autonomy. A paralell might be drawn using travel patterns in Hawaii, where travellers between the islands fly, then rent autos for the short trips at the destination island (Auto-ferry service between the Hawaiian islands is strongly discouraged due to dangerous ocean currents).

But in the end, the ultimate success or failure of HSR, whether in California or any part of North America, rests upon the ability of technology to deliver a service which the public will find it advantageous to patronize of their own free will. Regretably, I remain convinced that the embrace of this technology by those who see further public-sector encroachment as the way to go in just about everything increases the likelihood that it will become the over-bureaucratized expedition cited by its biggest opponents.

As the author points out, long-term energy and other market trends may make HSR the only alternative in the far future, and at greater cost. But the question remains, "How many twists and turns in public policy will we have to endure along the way?"

At some point, as our population density increases, this country will have to start thinking in terms of urban planning around it's transportation system, rather than trying to adapt fixed rail to our sprawling suburbs. This is really nothing new, as that sort of urban expansion was exactly what happened when the railroads were built a hundred years ago. Many cities owe their existence to the building of the railroads. As automobiles became available, the country completely abandoned the notion that urban centers required reliable public transit....after all, everyone had a car.

As is always the case, anytime you try to "fix" something after the fact, it is expensive. Now we are faced with not only trying build a "fix" by adapting rail to our urban sprawl, we are also having to fight the entrenched viewpoint that the car should remain as the primary method of movement during our everyday lives...going to work, to the theater, etc. We are seeing cities beginning to plan commuter rail, then plan urban centers along those rail lines. The car is not going away, but there is no sane reason why, with proper planning, the car can't remain in the garage more often.

The car is not going away, but there is no sane reason why, with proper planning, the car can't remain in the garage more often.

Good point warren1949. Nobody (save perhaps a few enviro-extremists) is advocating a car-less society, rather a society with a balance (and choice) of modes. Unfortunately, in the U.S. there is a prevalent way of thinking where: if you're for A, you must be against B, or "you're either with us or against us". This swing for the fences/all or nothing way of doing things can be counterproductive.

Or another angle . a multiple car family can become a one car family , or get a smaller car . That large car that might be really only be needed for the annual vacation can be disposed of , and high speed rail and a rental car used instead .
i guess that explains why there is a large lobby against high speed passenger rail , or passenger rail in general .

David Benton wrote:

Or another angle . a multiple car family can become a one car family , or get a smaller car . That large car that might be really only be needed for the annual vacation can be disposed of , and high speed rail and a rental car used instead .

That might be feasible within most major population areas, but 60 million Americans, one-sixth of the nation's population, is classified as rural, meaning living in counties not affiliated with any metropolitan area, large or small. And that doesn't include large portions of "exurbia" counties, where the population density and infrastucture to feed a non-auto-oriented system has yet to develop.

But I'm not ruling out some of that coming to pass; the oil squeeze of 2005-2008 served notice that energy realities will act as a limiting factor on exurban expansion from here to the end of the Age of Petroleum. What I do see is further development of smaller vehicles, and those will, by their very nature, encourage consumers to seek alternatives for longer journeys.

Nor do I see any trend away form the multi-vehicle household developing outside of heavily-urbanized America. The need to juggle multiple responsibilities and the dispersal of the facilities needed for daily life in the post-industrial economy simply render centralized transit systems unworkable in those areas, and non-fossil-fueled alternatives are already under development.

But neither of those points inveigh against the expansion of rail-based systems within the growing number of regions for which an open economy makes them increasingly suitable. It's merely that the decision must rest with the individual consumer, rather than those who think Washington knows what's best for all of us.

2nd trick op wrote:Nor do I see any trend away form the multi-vehicle household developing outside of heavily-urbanized America. The need to juggle multiple responsibilities and the dispersal of the facilities needed for daily life in the post-industrial economy simply render centralized transit systems unworkable in those areas, and non-fossil-fueled alternatives are already under developemnt.

My parents have two cars, as they sometimes are going in different directions at the same time. But those cars are a 2008 Honda Accord and an old 1994 Toyota Tercel with manual everything that my dad drives. I think you'll see growth in the market for cars of that size, and contraction in the truck/SUV market. With rising fuel costs, fewer people will be driving around a 12 mpg Chevy Suburban for local errands!

Actually a Chevy suburban is terrific for running errends, particularly full size sheets of sheet rock or plywood. My wife's VW cabriolet is about useless as grocery getter. What we need in this country is the right to drive what we think we need without any interference. Its called freedom.

RickRackstop wrote:Actually a Chevy suburban is terrific for running errends, particularly full size sheets of sheet rock or plywood. My wife's VW cabriolet is about useless as grocery getter. What we need in this country is the right to drive what we think we need without any interference. Its called freedom.

And Americans will no doubt retain that right long into the future. But some may still choose, or for financial reasons be forced to choose, to drive something different or not drive at all if a suitable alternative exists. For those of us whose daily errands don't include hauling sheet rock, a smaller vehicle may be more than adequate.

I look forward to the eventual implementation of CAHSR plans and the changes they will hopefully bring to California and to the national outlook on high speed rail. I worry about it not being done "right," though. What we don't need is a HSR debacle that sets us back another 50 years.