Following are some excerpts from Randal O’Toole’s essay on the proposed California HSR — the risks from innovations, which by-definition cannot be anticipated. Nevertheless, Randal speculates on some (obviously likely?) innovations:
(…) Such costs are not so much a risk as a certainty. But there are many other risks involved with high-speed rail, some of which could unexpectedly drive up construction costs even more, and others affecting operations.
Some of these risks were identified in the senate oversight report on high-speed rail, including right-of-way, safety, and ridership risks. One important rish that was not brought out by the senate report is the risk that competing technologies will render high-speed rail obsolete.
(…) it is not clear that the railroads will cooperate. In May, 2008, the Union Pacific Railroad told the Authority that it was not interested in sharing its right-of-way with high-speed trains. “Union Pacific has carefully evaluated CHSAs project,” says a letter from the railroad, and “does not feel it is in Union Pacific’s best interest to have any proposed alignment located on Union Pacific rights-of-way. Therefore, as your project moves forward with its final design, it is our request that you do so in such a way as to not require the use of Union Pacific operating rights-of-way or interfere with Union Pacific operations.”
(…) Competing technologies: One of the examples of optimism bias in the California rail plans is a presumption that there will be virtually no improvements in competing technologies — highways, autos, buses, and air — over the live of the high-speed rail network. Autos are expected to travel just as slowly (if not slower due to increased congestion), airport security will continue to delay air travelers, and both autos and airplanes will continue to use just as much energy as they do today.
As I will discuss tomorrow, the energy assumption is certainly wrong. But the other assumptions can easily be wrong as well. There are many improvements in both technology and systems management on the horizon that will keep high-speed rail from being the grand success its planners claim.
Computer-controlled autos: UC Berkeley has developed a bus that steers itself. On city streets, the bus still needs a driver to start and stop, but on freeways any vehicles using this low-cost technology could safely travel at high speeds, thus greatly increasing the capacities of existing highways.
If you can take your own car from, say, Sacramento to Bakersfield or San Francisco to Fresno on an uncongested highway at 90 miles per hour — and let the car do the driving most of the way, freeing you to read or work — then high-speed rail loses most of its advantage. Sure, the train goes faster, but first you have to get to the train station, wait until the train is scheduled to leave, then when you arrive you are dependent on local transport instead of enjoying the convenience of your own car
(…) Streamlined airport security: Even at 220 mph, high-speed rail can’t compete with 400-mph turboprops, much less 500-mph regional jets. The Authority’s plans count on airport security delays forcing people to arrive at airports an hour or two in advance of their plane’s departure. But if security is streamlined — perhaps by vetting frequent flyers in advance so they can by-pass airport checkpoints — high-speed rail loses this advantage. Since (according to page 19 of the senate report) the Authority is counting on business travelers for 91 percent of its profits, losing frequent travelers means losing the whole ball game.
(…) Improved bus service: So-called Chinatown buses are offering increased competition to Amtrak’s Northeast corridor. Aided by Internet ticket sales, these buses offer very low-cost travel and often provide city-to-suburb or suburb-to-suburb service (thus going people actually live). Even confined to highway speeds, they can be competitive because different buses serve different city pairs, thus avoiding the delays of intermediate stops. Such buses can provide transport to today’s decentralized cities in ways that fixed rail cannot.
These are just a few of the ways that changes in technology and other systems can be foreseen to make high-speed rail a risky investment. No doubt there are many unforeseeable changes as well. California voters who support high-speed rail are betting that none of these changes will take place.



Tonight is the premiere of 





Recent Comments