There are now daily articles about high speed trains. Everybody has
an opinion. Interestingly, those in favor get much more newspaper
"real estate" than those who oppose it. Why do you suppose that is?
"Follow the money?" At least this article by Ed Perkins, in last
Sunday's Chronicle, makes some telling points, such as the enormous
cost of this project, that it can be effective at no more than 350
miles, the problem with so-called "profitability," and so forth. His
reference to the Eurotunnel and its train omits a number of facts,
among them that this has been an enormous money sink-hole and is
carrying far, far fewer passengers than promised. His last sentence,
about letting your legislators know, should include your opinion if
you disapprove of this boondoggle.

Another point rarely discussed: Energy conservation. First of all,
Interstate #5 between SF and LA is not gridlocked with private cars.
The heavy traffic is freight and the HSR won't get those trucks off
the road. Furthermore, energy conservation comparisons are very
tricky and highly subject to knee-jerk sound-bites. To begin with,
the carbon producing energy the construction process itself will
consume for this mega-project, will take a generation or more to
amortize. Furthermore, electricity as a power source is not, repeat,
is not carbon neutral. In other words, this issue cannot be reduced
to a black-and-white comparison.

Repeat after me: California high-speed rail is a financial
train-wreck waiting to happen!
=============================================================
Published Sunday, May 13, 2007, by the San Francisco Chronicle
U.S. high-speed rail should be fast-tracked
By Ed Perkins

SNCF-French National Railway made international news last month with
a new world speed record of 357.2 miles per hour. Given the sorry
state of railroading in the United States, the news caused many
Americans to wonder if -- and when -- we could ever enjoy really
high-speed rail travel in this country. The short answer is that
neither we, nor the French, will routinely travel at 357 mph anytime
soon. But existing European and Japanese rail technology currently
does 200 mph, with 250 mph on the near horizon. Our failure is a
failure of will and money, not of technology. Here are some specific
lessons we can learn from overseas.

-- Go for 250, not 350: The record-breaking French run was a test of
the new TGV Est roadbed and signaling under extreme conditions, not a
proving run for actual service. The train was specifically modified
for the test -- a design that will never see revenue service. But TGV
and similar trains in other parts of Europe already routinely cruise
along at close to 200 mph, with speeds up to 250 mph coming soon. And
for most applications, that's plenty fast enough.

-- Forget maglev: In recent years, some "experts" have touted maglev
(magnetic levitation) as an alternative to conventional high-speed
rail. To me, the new French test is the final nail in a coffin that
has been ready for burial for some time. Conventional rail can be
almost as fast as maglev; it's less expensive to build and maintain,
deals with intermediate station stops more easily, and integrates
more smoothly into current transportation infrastructure. Maglev,
today, is what monorail was to the 1950s and 1960s: A gimmick with
lots of hype but limited application.

-- It's short haul, stupid: The "sweet spot" for high-speed rail is
in distances up to 350 miles.

At distances up to 350 miles, travel time by high-speed rail can
beat flying time, city center to city center. Also, rail can serve
suburban and intermediate-city station stops, while flying can't. And
even second-class rail is vastly more comfortable and hassle-free
than flying, with its difficult and expensive airport access, long
check-in time requirements, and cattle-car accommodations. It's no
surprise that the Eurostar Chunnel train has grabbed most of the
London-Paris and London-Brussels travel markets.

High-speed rail requires new or vastly improved roadbeds, which are
hugely expensive. The investment can be justified only where traffic
can support high-frequency service -- every hour or so -- and that
means heavily traveled short-haul "corridors" in populous areas.
There is simply no place in the high-speed rail spectrum for the
once-a-day (or fewer) long-haul services that Amtrak now provides.

-- The U.S. disadvantage: Unfortunately, high-speed rail works better
in Europe than it would in the United States. European populations
and employment centers are much more concentrated in and near city
centers than is the case here, where suburban housing sprawl and
office parks have become the norm. Low-end, high-speed rail is
working already in the one part of the United States best adapted
to rail travel: the corridor between Boston and Washington.
Transportation mavens cite a "California Corridor" linking
Sacramento, San Francisco and Los Angeles as a likely prime target
for new high-speed rail, along with some routes radiating from
Chicago. But even those are a bit of a stretch. Elsewhere, it's
hard to find corridors with enough city-center demand to fill those
hourly trains.

-- Public support needed: High-speed rail can't be supported out
of the fare box; it requires big public investment. But there is a
rationale: High-speed rail can ease what will otherwise be inevitable
congestion problems and inadequate capacity at many of our major
airports, and it can substitute for massive new highway construction.
Moreover, rail is more energy-efficient than flying or driving.

Ultimately, you, the taxpayers, will have the final say. If you
support the idea of high-speed rail, let your elected officials know.

E-mail syndicated columnist Ed Perkins at eperkins@...

-- 
**********************
Martin Engel
1621 Stone Pine Lane
Menlo Park, CA 94025
650:323-1670
martinengel@earthlink.net
**********************