Environmental Trade-offs

While many consider high-speed rail an environmental silver bullet for transportation in California, Arpad Horvath, Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Director of the Consortium on Green Design and Manufacturing, punctured those assumptions.

“Our transportation decision-making is based on atrocious environmental data,” he told the audience. Decisions about which transportation modes are greenest must be made not only the basis of tailpipe emissions, but rather, a total life-cycle assessment of the various modes.

These must include manufacturing of the vehicles themselves, their required infrastructure, and the fuel used to power them. High-speed rail will produce some 10 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year during its construction, said Horvath. It will need to run very full trains almost immediately to offset the emissions expended in building tracks, stations, rail cars to “compete environmentally” with air or road travel.

In addition, if the train’s electricity is produced by coal-fired or natural gas-fired plants there will be substantial, harmful emissions produced until cleaner, alternative fuel sources, such as wind power, are available for use.

The bottom line, he said, was high-speed rail “only outperforms other modes if there is a very high passenger load or a very clean energy source, neither of which is assured at the moment.”

As a voter approved proposition, the terms cannot be changed without approval of the legislature and approval of the voters of California.

All of the Authority’s stimulus construction applications, when completed will not result in completed useable segments or corridors.

Therefore, they are not eligible for Prop 1A funding. Yet the Governor and the Authority promised Prop 1A funds would match any stimulus funds the State receives. This is a commitment under the Prop 1A law, they cannot fulfill.

========

Prop 1A/AB-3034

Section 2704.08 …

(K) The authority has completed all necessary project level
environmental clearances necessary to proceed to construction.
(d) Prior to committing any proceeds of bonds described in
paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2704.04 for expenditure
for construction and real property and equipment acquisition on each
corridor, or usable segment thereof, other than for costs described
in subdivision (g), the authority shall have approved and
concurrently submitted to the Director of Finance and the Chairperson
of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee the following: (1) a
detailed funding plan for that corridor or usable segment thereof
that (A) identifies the corridor or usable segment thereof, and the
estimated full cost of constructing the corridor or usable segment
thereof, (B) identifies the sources of all funds to be used and
anticipates time of receipt thereof based on offered commitments by
private parties, and authorizations, allocations, or other assurances

Have you looked at the Amtrac Acela bullet trains serving the Boston and NYC to Phil and DC corridor and their current ticket prices? Peak travel time TODAY, between NYC and Washington, DC is $200 one way! Let’s be realistic in projecting future passenger cost unless there is a massive subsidy paid for by taxpayers who will most likely never board these trains.
Here is a recent article from the east coast that warrants our consideration.
“Acela’s floor is reinforced to protect against debris on the tracks. Unlike Europe’s high-speed corridors, the Northeast Corridor is only partially fenced; it even crosses some highways at grade. Amtrak wanted to run a push-pull configuration, but the FRA under the Clinton administration said a cab car did not meet crashworthiness standards, so another locomotive was added at the other end. The train is overpowered. Even with a single locomotive, the Acela can run at 200 mph, but FRA rules do not allow speeds above 150 mph on tracks shared with freights and slower passenger trains. Acela averages just 80-some mph, and rarely goes faster than 130 for small stretches. Its speed is limited by curves, tight confines in tunnels—especially in Baltimore—freight traffic, and other drawbacks that make true high-speed performance impossible. The high-speed corridors in Europe and Japan are straight, level, sealed from intrusion, and set aside solely for fast passenger trains. To create such a corridor in the Northeast with its dense population would cost tens of billions of dollars and require the purchase or condemnation of more land and neighborhoods.” Source: http://www.chelseagreen.com/content/the-acela-express-aboard-americas-fastest-train/
Have you benchmarked your dream ride against exisiting experience on the east coast?
Readers. I have sent a copy of this post to Chairman Curt Pringle and await his feedback.
With the current financial challenges at both the federal and state levels I do support utilizing the “3P” concept for future transportation solutions. My angst is that, after voting for a tax increase earlier this year, our state anticipates our having a $20 billion budget deficit over the next 18 months yet voters have burdened their children and grandchildren with a massive Bond debt that when combined with our existing debt obligations may reach 10 percent of future CA budgets.
We also have the hurdle of exceeding a preset dollar amount before we qualify for the massive matching federal aid we are seeking as stated in the Prop 1A Ballot.
Looking forward to your rebuttal.
Merry Christmas! Larry Gilbert