The decision to construct the first segment of the state’s high-speed rail line in the least important market is not why I am writing this article. For certain, that is a politically motivated decision to buy votes from that economically devastated region by promising jobs, although it is not the most effective use of the funds from a long-term perspective.
The real issue I have is with high-speed rail itself.
Don’t get me wrong. I am a fan of passenger rail. That is precisely the reason I oppose high-speed rail at this time and for a long time to come.
You might say I have walked the walk and not just talked the talk when it comes to rail travel.
My experience goes back to childhood days when I rode the Congressional between DC and New York and from using the Metroliner for business trips in the Mid-Atlantic. However, my heaviest use of commuter rail was when I served a client in Irvine, sixty miles from my home in Valley Village.
I would drive to the Red Line station in North Hollywood in the early morning, take the subway to Union Station where I would board either a Metrolink or Amtrak train to Irvine. A taxi would take me from the station to the client’s office (I arranged a flat rate with the cab company since I was doing the run every day).
The door-to-door trip was a predictable two hours, compared to ninety minutes by car – barring an accident. The extra half-hour was worth it. I would even enjoy complimentary wine and cheese on the return route when I rode business class on Amtrak. I’d also use the extra time to make cell calls, read, work on Excel spreadsheets (the seating was spacious and there was more than ample table top available both in coach and business class).
I would arrive home relaxed, refreshed and informed.
Bob Hertzberg even issued a certificate that proclaimed I was “Commuter of the Year.” OK, my wife was his district manager at the time, but I really did deserve the recognition.
So how can I be against high-speed rail?
I recall a program on NPR a few years ago. The subject was something like “We have to walk before we could run.” I have searched in vain for a link to it.
The guest discussed why it was more important to develop regional commuter rail before spending a dime on high-speed travel. Perfect economic and practical sense.
For one thing, high-speed rail will not reduce the travel time between Southern and Central California enough to make it worthwhile for commuters to ditch their cars, especially with discount airfares available. For example, flying between Burbank or LAX to and from Sacramento and the bay area is usually fairly affordable – and fast. You might say faster than a speeding bullet train.
If we want to get bang for our bucks from rail, the focus should be on regional applications.
Few people are aware that the engines used by Amtrak and Metrolink are capable of traveling in excess of 100 miles per hour. Sure, that doesn’t match the continuous speed of 186 mph of the Eurostar or the projected 220 mph of the California version (which will only be reached on open stretches, under optimum conditions). But neither is it in the category of “The Little Engine that Could.”
At 100 mph, most commercial centers are within an hour of each other within any given region.
Unfortunately, that level of performance is beyond reach today. That is because Amtrak and Metrolink must share the roadbed with Union Pacific. Freight traffic generally gets priority over passenger consists. To make matters worse, the rails take a beating from the heavy freight, which makes most passenger travel as bumpy as driving on a typical Los Angeles street.
It doesn’t have to be that way.
The state would be wise to drop the high-speed program and invest the funds in acquiring right-of-way and building standard track dedicated to passenger travel, with few (if any) at-grade crossings and probably for much less than a rail system needed to safely manage the velocity of a high-speed train.
We need a Governor Christie, or someone with guts, to block funding of high-speed rail, introduce a measure to rescind the bonds and replace them with bonds to fund regional commuter applications.
With dedicated track, the 100 mph speed could be reached throughout the region and with a ride as smooth as any in the world.
I had the pleasure of experiencing just that in Austria. The only difference in equipment was the use of electric rather than diesel engines here.
Riding the trains there was “like butter,” as Mike Meyers would say about Barbara Streisand’s voice in his old SNL routine.
Let’s face it, the market for commuters traveling through a region, whether it’s from Moorpark to Union Station or Riverside to Anaheim, is much larger and more important than that offered by the very limited service of the high-speed route.
There will always be people who will not abandon their vehicles, but a smooth, reliable train ride along sensible routes would be a far more attractive option than driving for people with better things to do than sit hopelessly on the 5, 405, 605, 710, etc, listening to traffic reports on the radio.
I know.
Howdy neighbor…
I first read your piece with great interest over at City Watch. Nice prose. Cute video. And I don’t disagree that local regional rail needs to be constructed on it’s own bedding and separate from freight.
I am old enough to have ridden the old Pacific Electrics in LA. I boarded them at Chandler and Lankershim platform, where the old Hendrick’s building supply did business in the old SP building across the street from the North Hollywood post office (thank my lucky stars they haven’t changed that to NoHo-PO). We reside in the real North Hollywood, north of Burbank Blvd.
To make a long story more boring, back in the mid 1950s when ol’ Walt was building Disneyland down in the orange groves of Orange County he hired Alweg to construct the monorail that was completed in 1959 that operates there. But little do people recall that the Alweg company put forth a deal to the city and county of Los Angeles to build and operate a regional monorail system during the period. In 1963, Alweg proposed a monorail system that would be designed, built, operated and maintained by Alweg. Alweg promised to take all financial risk from the construction, and the system would be repaid through fares collected. And their plan was a true regional wide system. Well, be it that the Alweg company was originally from Sweden, one of those “socialist-communist” countries and the fact that we were in the throws of the of the cold-war, the plan went over like the proverbial lead-balloon.
And as you most likely know it didn’t stop Seattle, I rode that in 1963. Nor did it stop the Japanese from constructing the systems. I first rode the Tokyo line during the Olympic Summer Games in 1964. In the intervening years Hitachi-Alweg is still in business.
Oh well, no forward looking to the future folks back in the 1960s with the monorail deal. And for those who cannot look forward into the future now, maybe there will be someone like myself some 50 to 60 years from now wondering and writing why the heck a high speed rail system was never constructed between Northern and Southern California back in the early part of the 21st century.
And just to let you know, I’ve ridden rail on every continent on earth. The only time I fly is when rail cannot transport me.
I hope I haven’t bored you by now and thanks for the opportunity to connect.
Oh and one more thing, diesel-electric for passenger use is fuel inefficient and so passe…
Thank you for your kind reply and insight.
Monorail systems have always intrigued me. I watched a special on the Natl Geo Channel many months ago about how the monorail concept has matured and is growing in popularity in Southeast Asia. It’s worth considering as an alternative to the subway to the sea. They rin on either electricity or bio fuel and take even less space than the Disney line.
I’ll try to find a link to the broadcast, if one exists.
For many years I lived in Japan, a country with extensive rail throughout its borders. The densely populated city centers such as Tokyo, Yokohama and Osaka obviously had envisioned all kinds of rail service from the very beginning. I think your point is well made: with vision and planning, right of way should be incorporated into local budgets with the goal of providing rail into the next century. We need pragmatic leaders to step forward and lead the way. If light rail, subways and local commuter trains are built, they will be used by the public. You have highlighted a very common sense approach. Kudos to you.
Too often, projects are selected because they are sexy. No doubt HSR is about as sexy as it gets, but I am more convermed about effective use of limited capital funds. Regional commuter rail will have more practical benefits and be more effective for getting cars off the road than the HS train. Sure, plenty of people will still drive, but others will certainly use a reliable and fast train.
We will need local shuttles, such as Disney offers its employees to get them from its offices to Meterolink, or courtesy vans similar to the ones used by car rental companies to move people from the stations to the business centers. Some stations will be close enough for people to walk.
But if we plow billions into HS rail, we will be lucky to get a Mickey Mouse hand car to serve the local population.
[…] I’ve always been a proponent for fast and reliable regional rail serving major population cent…, such as the Southern California market. At least the so-called experts recognize the importance of that much, but they are still clinging to a multi-billion dollar train wreck of a plan connecting north and south. […]
[…] consider alternatives, including the development of local and intra-regional commuter rail – a subject I addressed in a widely-viewed article back in […]
[…] as I pointed out in a widely-read article a few years ago, capital investments in intra-regional rail systems will yield a far greater reduction in road […]