High Speed Rail and Security Theatre

[kevin_standlee]

I've been reading a number of news stories and opinion pieces about the California High Speed Rail projects hesitating steps forward. We might really be able to vote on the massive bond issue this year. Given a chance, I will vote for it, even though I think the route they've picked is wrong. (They caved in to political pressure from San Jose and picked the Pacheco Pass route through San Jose, rather than the Altamont Pass route. In essence, San Jose's politicians said, "All trains must stop in our city, or we'll kill your project." This means the route will go through more undeveloped, sensitive areas instead of serving more built-up areas that could really use it -- it's more than just a mechanism for moving people between San Francisco and Los Angeles. But I digress.)

In reading some of the opinion pieces out there, some of the things I read that leave me shaking my head in frustration with my fellow humans:

One piece said, more or less, that if the ridership projections are correct, trains would have to run every fifteen minutes, and of course that would be technically infeasible; nobody could possibly run trains that close together. Presumably the writer has never actually looked at how trains run in the real world. And not just in countries that haven't mostly forgotten how to run a railroad like Japan. Right here in the Bay Area we have rail systems running on tight headways. There's certainly nothing earth-shattering about it.

Another piece claimed that the time savings you get by taking the train -- much of which is because you don't have to arrive two hours before your 40-minute flight in order to satisfy security theatre at the airport -- would be negated, because naturally you'll need to arrive just as early for your train trip, because passengers will have to be screened airport-fashion for your safety. The only way I see that happening would be if the airlines were able to twist the government's arm into requiring it. (You can't hijack a train and drive it into the side of a building.) And if you need this security theatre for high-speed inter-city trains, then why isn't it necessary to ride Caltrain or BART -- or AC Transit, Muni, Greyhound, or MegaBus for that matter?

On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if someone in the state legislature or the US Congress who never actually uses train travel his/herself figures that airport-style screening for intercity rail systems would be a good thing. After all, Don Phillips, who used to write on transportation issue for the Washington Post, wrote a few years ago in his column in Trains magazine that his editors were aghast when they discovered that you could get on a train without having to go through metal detectors and the same sort of mess that makes the airline travel experience so irritating.

When I see things published that seem so obviously wrong to me, I have to wonder if the people writing them genuinely believe these things. Alternatively, do they just have to find a way to object that doesn't sound like "I don't want trains near me" or something the writer knows will be seen as absurd on the surface, so they hunt around for things that are plausible sounding.

Comments

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I expect that in areas where, for whatever reason, they are unable to grade-separate or close grade crossings, the trains will instead run at current speeds (max 79 mph). That's a little unfortunate, but it also shows the value of using equipment that is compatible with the existing infrastructure.

Also note that while I did unscreen your comments, I much prefer that people sign their posts if they don't have an LJ account.

[(Anonymous)]

CHSRA wants to use European and/or Japanese rolling stock, which doesn't have the buff strength (crash protection) the FRA normally mandates. The federal agency normally considers passenger trains to be also-rans on freight lines, which must therefore be constructed to let passengers survive low-speed crashes with freight trains. This focus on passive over active safety is analogous to NHTSA's position for passenger cars.

It explains why passenger trains in the US use locomotives and rolling stock that's far heavier than it really needs to be - plus, they are limited to 79mph. In many places, the tracks are actually in such poor state of repair that the top speed is just 30-40mph. Btw, track and track bed wear and tear increase dramatically with rising vehicle weight, again analogous to road infrastructure.

Rail freight companies enjoy special privileges that protect them from eminent domain proceedings, so cannot be bothered to invest in positive train control and other modern crash avoidance technology. HSR trainsets use modern in-cab signalling and therefore need dedicated track for very high speed operation. To avoid a redesign of the trainsets, the FRA will be asked to issue a regulatory waiver for HSR to cover the small portions that are shared with freight trains. Whether it will do so is still uncertain, its Record of Decision from 2005 merely states that a Rule of Particular Applicability *may* be required for operation above 200mph and shared-use rail corridors.

http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/RRDev/hst_rod.pdf

The section of the network where this will be most problematic is the LOSSAN corridor from LAUS to Irvine, because there is only room for two tracks. Unlike the East Bay spur, the Peninsula corridor between San Jose and San Francisco actually carries very little freight traffic and has room for four tracks. It also already features numerous over- and underpasses, but closing the many remaining level crossings will remain difficult. Worst case, operation there will be limited to 110mph.

rgseidl