Posts

High-Speed Rail Expands from 14 to 24 Countries

By Worldwatch Institute (11/8/11)

The number of countries running high-speed rail is expected to double over the next few years, according to new research by the Worldwatch Institute. By 2014, high-speed trains will be operating in nearly 24 countries, including China, France, Italy, Japan, Spain, and the United States, up from only 14 countries today. The increase in HSR is due largely to its reliability and ability to cover vast geographic distances in a short time, to investments aimed at connecting once-isolated regions, and to the diminishing appeal of air travel, which is becoming more cumbersome because of security concerns.

In just three years, between January 2008 and January 2011, the operational fleet grew from 1,737 high-speed trainsets worldwide to 2,517. Two-thirds of this fleet is found in just five countries: France, China, Japan, Germany, and Spain. By 2014, the global fleet is expected to total more than 3,700 units.”

A 2006 comparison of greenhouse gas emissions by travel mode, released by the Center for Neighborhood Technologies, found that HSR lines in Europe and Japan released 30-70 grams of carbon dioxide per passenger-kilometer, versus 150 grams for automobiles and 170 grams for airplanes.

Although there is no universal speed definition for HSR, the threshold is typically set at 250 kilometers per hour on new tracks and 200 kilometers per hour on existing, upgraded tracks. The length of HSR tracks worldwide is undergoing explosive growth in order to meet increasing demand. Between 2009 and 2011, the total length of operational track has grown from some 10,700 kilometers to nearly 17,000 kilometers. Another 8,000 kilometers is currently under construction, and some 17,700 kilometers more is planned, for a combined total of close to 43,000 kilometers.

By track length, the current high-speed leaders are China, Japan, Spain, France, and Germany. Other countries are joining the high-speed league as well. Turkey has ambitious plans to reach 2,424 kilometers and surpass the length of Germany’s network. Italy, Portugal, and the United States all hope to reach track lengths of more than 1,000 kilometers. Another 15 countries have plans for shorter networks.

But in Europe, France continues to account for about half of all European high-speed rail travel. HSR reached an astounding 62 percent of the country’s passenger rail travel volume in 2008, up from just 23 percent in 1990, thanks to affordable ticket prices, an impressive network, and reliability. And in Japan, the Shinkansen trains are known for their exceedingly high degree of reliability. JR Central, the largest of the Japanese rail operating companies, reports that the average delay per high-speed train throughout a year is just half a minute. On all routes in Japan where both air and high-speed rail connections are available, rail has captured a 75 percent market share.

Investments for Expansion of HSR

A draft plan for French transportation infrastructure investments for the next two decades allocates 52 percent of a total of $236 billion to HSR.

In 2005, the Spanish government announced an ambitious plan for some 10,000 kilometers of high-speed track by 2020, which would allow 90 percent of Spaniards to live within 50 kilometers of an HSR station.

Currently, China is investing about $100 billion annually in railway construction. The share of the country’s railway infrastructure investment allocated to HSR has risen from less than 10 percent in 2005 to a stunning 60 percent in 2010.

Intercity rail in Japan accounts for 18 percent of total domestic passenger-kilometers by all travel modes—-compared with just 5 to 8 percent in major European countries and less than 1 percent in the United States.

In France, rail’s market share of the Paris-Marseille route rose from 22 percent in 2001 (before the introduction of high-speed service) to 69 percent in 2006. In Spain, the Madrid-Seville rail route’s share rose from 33 to 84 percent.

Reports and High-Speed Rail and Advanced Transportation

Worldwatch Institute High-Speed Rail Report

Spain HSR Traveler’s Experience

Scenario to Reduce California Emissions by 80 Percent

What If…?

…someone invents an economically-competitive energy storage technology that could be deployed at any electricity substation at megawatt-hour scale?

…the power grid were brought up to 21st Century standards to match the true power quality needs of our increasingly digital society?

…high-speed rail was not the exclusive province of Europe and Asia?

…customers had real choice about electricity supplies, via ubiquitously cost-effective on-site generation options?

…cities and industries pursued viable cogeneration options with real vigor, and companies like Echogen revolutionize the capture of waste heat?

…the use of fracking was reliably paired with other technologies and solid oversight to assure that local water quality is not harmed when shale gas is produced?

…recovering coal and tar sands was undertaken only via mining approaches that don’t leave huge gouges in the earth’s crust?

…all companies involved in the mining and burning of coal would honestly acknowledge and deal responsibly with the environmental challenges associated with coal?

carbon sequestration technologies are more than just a pipe dream and can be widely applied with confidence that no leakage will occur?

…environmentally-responsible technologies were commercialized to produce oil from shale in the Piceance Basin, making the U.S. self-sufficient for years to come?

Joule is really onto something and can produce liquid fuels for transportation directly from the sun?

…fuel cells expand beyond niche markets via continuing improvements in technology and economics to penetrate mass-market applications?

nuclear fusion could ever become viable as a technology for generating electricity?

…new technologies for the production and use of energy in a more environmentally-sustainable matter were responsible for a major share of new jobs and economic growth in the U.S.?

…we stopped sending hundreds of billions of dollars overseas every year to fight both sides of the war on terrorism?

…we stopped subsidizing mature and profitable forms of energy?

…we determined that climate change was simply too big of a risk to keep ignoring and decided to tackle the issue out of concern for the future?

…Americans were willing to pay at least a little bit more for energy to help defray the costs of pursuing much — and achieving at least some — of the above?

…we later found out that we didn’t spend that much more money and also found ourselves living on a healthier planet and in a more fiscally-solvent country with a viable industrial future?

…certain fossil fuel and other corporate interests would cease misinforming the public on many economic and environmental issues related to energy consumption?

…Democrats and Republicans could come together and do what’s best for the country rather than what’s best to strengthen or preserve their party’s political power?

…more Americans cared about the above than who wins American Idol, Survivor or Dancing With the Stars?

California’s Electric Transit Ride


Proterra Foothill chargingstation 300x195 California’s Electric Transit RideBy John Addison

People take hundreds of million electric rides each year in California. The big news is not the electric car drivers or those happily screaming on Disneyland rides; the larger story is network of connected electric rail, buses with cutting edge electric drive systems, and electric cars.

No LA and SF are not yet NY or Paris, but they are showing off a future of low-carbon and zero-emission transportation solutions. A couple of weeks ago, I went to the highly informative CAPCOA Climate Change Forum which included a couple of hundred leaders from California government, industry, and non-profit. Many of these people have decades of success in improving the health of our air, water, and environment. Now they are taking on the tough challenge of reducing the greenhouse gas emissions of a state that emits more than entire nations such as Spain, or Saudi Arabia, or hundreds of smaller countries. The number one GHG emitter in California is vehicles. Add the emissions of its oil refineries and you have the majority of greenhouse gas emissions in California.

Electric Light-Rail and Electric Trolley Buses

To the rescue are major public transportation operators who are electrifying their rail and bus fleets. These transit operators are unclogging the roads for those who really need cars, reducing air pollution, and reducing California’s carbon footprint.

In fact, I got to the Climate Change Forum on an electrically powered bus. I walked two blocks and boarded a trolley bus connected to special overhead power lines. The electricity is from hydropower. San Francisco has over 300 electric trolley buses, 40 cable cars that use under-street cables powered by electric-motors, an extensive electric light-rail system, and 460 diesel buses which are increasingly hybrid-electric. Like most cities, no one mode is best for the 235 million rides taken in SF each year; what’s best is a portfolio of solutions.

Electric light-rail is popular in many cities. Sleek cars on rail invite people to hop on and off. On their dedicated rail lines they are often the fastest way to get to a city’s major destinations. The rail cars often last 40 years compared to diesel and trolley buses which may only last 12.

Only a handful of transit operators still use the electric trolley buses with rubber-tired vehicles powered by electricity collected from fixed overhead wires. San Francisco and Seattle actively use trolley buses; cities like Boston and Dayton have a few. These buses, connected to overhead electric lines, fight through the car traffic, stop at every red light and stop sign, and require slower boarding than light rail. Transit operators no longer like electric trolley buses. They like the long life, speed, and ridership appeal of electric light-rail. Trolley buses cost more to buy and maintain than diesel hybrid-electrics. Unfortunately, adding a light-rail line can cost $20 million per mile; in a city like SF, $60 million.

A good combination for public transportation is light-rail corridors for the most heavily traveled segments that is well integrated with bus service, bicycling, walking, car sharing, electric car parking, and other modes.

Hydrogen Fuel Cells Extend Electric Range

My wife and I are planning to buy an electric car with 100 mile charge range. That more than meets our daily needs. If you’re driving a 40-foot bus full of people for 12 to 16 hours daily, however, you probably need more than batteries to extend the range to 300 to 400 miles. Hydrogen fuel cells compliment lithium batteries by freeing electrons from hydrogen to feed electric motors and batteries added electricity. Finish the long day with a 10 to 15 minute fill-up of hydrogen and your ready for another day.

AC Transit is currently servicing some Berkeley and Oakland routes with 4 hydrogen fuel cell buses with pure electric drive systems with 8 more on order for the Bay Area. These workhorses go for hours on end, even taking battery draining steep grades. These Van Hool buses use Siemens electric motors, EnerDel lithium batteries, and UTC fuel cells. AC Transit Director Jaimie Levin reports that their UTC fuel cells have worked so well, that they will redeploy several of the older fuel cells in the new buses, even though they have in excess of 7,000 hours of continuous operation on each system, without any failures or repairs, or loss of power.

The AC Transit fuel cell buses provided an inspiration for the Winter Olympics. At CAPCOA, I talked with Dr. Paul Scott, ISE Chief Scientists about the 20 hydrogen fuel cell buses that were used in Whistler for the Vancouver Winter Olympics. Dr. Scott told me that those BC Transit buses have successfully logged 500,000 km in a few months. I estimate that they provided over 100,000 rides during the Olympics. The Vancouver New Flyer buses use Ballard fuel cells, Siemens electric motors, and ISE drive systems and software.

LA Metro subway, light-rail, CNG buses, 40% electric, candidates 300kW pilot

Metro serves a vast geography that extends to the far reaches of the Los Angeles basin.I rode their system for a week, traveling from remote Pasadena to the LA Convention Center faster than I could drive.

At the heart of Metro is an electrically powered subway and light-rail system. From those main arteries, 2,500 CNG buses reach streets and neighborhoods that could never be covered with electric rail. In the long term, up to 40 percent of these CNG buses could be replaced with battery-electric buses for rush hour coverage. Although CNG buses have a range of at least 300 miles and can stay on road for 16 hours daily; battery electric buses are well suited for six to 8 hours of daily use during peak service periods. LA Metro plans to pilot test an electric bus with 300kW lithium battery pack, giving it 100-plua mile range appropriate for peak hours.

Foothill Transit Goes Electric

The Ecoliner silently glides along the streets in San Gabriel Valley giving passengers a break from the famous grid-lock traffic that extends east from Los Angeles for a hundred miles. The Ecoliner is Foothill Transit’s new pure battery-electric 35-foot bus built by Proterra, which is headquartered in Golden, Colorado. The Proterra BE35 is propelled with UQM electric motor using innovative lithium batteries that keep the big bus moving for 3 hours and are then quick-charged in ten minutes. The buses range is extended because the Proterra is aerodynamic made with lightweight composite material.

Proterra’s system allows a battery electric bus to pull into a transit center terminal or on-route stop and automatically connect to an overhead system that links the bus to a high capacity charger without driver involvement, even while passengers load and unload. The charging station technology includes advanced wireless controls that facilitate the docking process and eliminate any intervention from the driver. Proterra’s FastFill™ charge system is comprised of the software and hardware to rapidly charge the TerraVoltTM Energy Storage System from 0% to 92% energy charge efficiency in as little as 6 minutes.

Under California’s zero-emission bus program, 1,000 zero-emission (fuel supply to wheels) buses will be in service by 2020.

Commuter Rail and HSR

Metrolink rail and the Subway link some major Southern California light-rail and bus systems and BART and Caltrain link some Northern California systems. As a rider of these systems, I can testify that navigating through multiple systems is often slow and confusing. Using Google Maps on my smartphone makes the navigation possible.

In the future, California’s 25 major transit systems will be linked with an 800-mile high-speed rail network. Voters approved the system because it is a less expensive solution than widening highways and expanding airports. Because it depends on local and public-private partnership funding, as well as state and federal funding, it will be built in sections. First online are likely to be areas that are currently overwhelmed with passenger vehicles crawling on freeways that should be renamed “slowways.” Likely to be among the first in service are the Orange County – Los Angeles section.

Big Oil Fights Back

California is electrifying cars, transit, and high-speed rail at the same time that it expands its use of renewable energy including wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, agricultural waste, and even ocean power. The transition may reduce the state’s overwhelming dependency on petroleum for over 97 percent of all transportation. By comparison to other nations, California is the third largest market for petroleum. Only the USA as a whole and China use more. California uses more petroleum than Japan, Germany, India, and other nations.

Reducing the use of petroleum, of course, would cost oil companies billions. Texas oil companies are spending million to encourage Californians to vote “yes” for Proposition 23 this November. The proposition would require the State to abandon implementation of a comprehensive greenhouse-gas-reduction program that includes increased renewable energy and cleaner fuel requirements, and mandatory emission reporting and fee requirements for major polluters such as power plants and oil refineries, until suspension is lifted.”

Prop 23’s biggest backers, Valero and Tesoro, are responsible for 16.7% of California’s emissions, according to the California League of Conservation Voters. Prop 23 will allow California oil refineries to avoid paying over one billion dollars for carbon emissions, so they are attacking California Global Warming Solutions Act supported by the majority and California’s Republican Governor. Prop 23 is promoted as a jobs creation proposal, but a recent UC study reported that California’s successful efforts to become cleaner and more efficient have saved us money and grown the economy, resulting in the creation of 1.5 million jobs with a total payroll of over $45 billion. Opposition to Prop 23 fears that the law would open a Pandora’s Box of lawsuits against anything that reduces greenhouse gas emissions. CLCV Prop 23 Details

Currently California leads the nation with 25,000 electric cars on the road and thousands of new electric charge stations are scheduled for installation. Hundreds of millions of rides are taken on electrified light-rail and commuter rail. Zero emission buses are on the roads. Renewable energy is growing by gigawatts. In a few weeks, we will learn if California moves ahead with efficient and electrified transportation, or if its initiatives are derailed.

China Invested $88 billion in High Speed Rail in 2009

Clean Edge’s 2010 Clean Energy Trends forecasts growth for high-speed rail and renewables
Clean Edge included high-speed rail (HSR) for the first time in its annual Clean Energy Trends report which tracks key developments in clean-energy markets. China is leading the surge in HSR according to Clean Edge:

China’s Ministry of Railways spent $88 billion on HSR projects in 2009 – part of an existing $300 billion plan to expand and connect all of the country’s major cities with a projected 10,000 miles of dedicated HSR lines by 2020.

There will be more high-speed rail added in China over the next five years than the rest of the world combined, says Keith Dierkx, director of IBM’s Global Rail Innovation Center in Beijing. Global HSR manufacturers like Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Alstom, GE Transportation, Siemens, and others have formed joint ventures or partnerships in China. A Canadian-Chinese joint venture, Bombardier Sifang, recently won $4 billion from the Chinese government to manufacture up to 80 high-speed trains. These same companies are developing opportunities in other emerging countries like Brazil, Russia and South Korea.

HSR’s main development challenge is its high price tag. The 800-mile Beijing-to-Shanghai line will cost an estimated $32 billion – in the same cost ballpark as the gargantuan Three Gorges Dam hydroelectric project.

Maglev potential projects in Japan, China, and the United States are also discussed in the Clean Energy Trends.

A United States 17,000 mile high-speed rail system is envisioned. With 30 states committed to renewable energy growth, electric HSR will help the nation be less dependent on oil. Clean Fleet Report forecasts that high-speed rail ridership will exceed one billion within three years, from over 600 million today. Clean Fleet Reports about U.S. High-Speed Rail.

China Also Leads in Renewables Growth

“Despite severe economic conditions, clean-energy markets were able to hold their momentum in 2009 as many regional and federal governments and private corporations focused on clean-energy investments as a way to pull out of the global economic tailspin,” said Ron Pernick, Clean Edge co-founder and managing director. “From the smart grid and energy efficiency to renewable energy generation and advanced battery storage, clean tech continues to be a major driver of regional job growth, economic recovery, and technological competitiveness.”

China is expected to lead RE growth. China could end up spending $440 billion to $660 billion toward its clean-energy build out over the next ten years, according to estimates discussed in the Clean Energy Trends.

The annual Clean Energy Trends report, now in its ninth year, can be downloaded for free.

John Addison publishes the Clean Fleet Report and speaks at conferences. He is the author of the new book – Save Gas, Save the Planet – now selling at Amazon and other booksellers.

High-Speed Rail Unlocks Intermodal Potential

By John Addison. Intermodal solutions allow people to effectively navigate major cities such as New York, Washington D.C., Paris, Madrid, and Tokyo. Subway and light-rail are especially effective, but expensive to build. As cities grow, change, and morph, not every potential route can be served with subway and light-rail. Bus rapid transit is a cost effective way to duplicate some of the benefits of light-rail, at a fraction of the capital expenditure. Buses, taxis, car sharing, bicycling, and walking are all parts of the solution. For many, cars are their preferred way to get around, yet if all transportation were cars then cities would be frozen in gridlock.
High-speed rail integrates all these systems together and moves people from city to city at high-speed. When the distance is only a few hundred miles, high-speed rail coupled with city transit beats airplane and car every time.
Now an 800 mile high-speed rail network is being started in California. Because it depends on local and public-private partnership funding, as well as state and federal funding, it will be built in sections. First online are likely to be areas that are currently overwhelmed with passenger vehicles crawling on freeways that should be renamed “slowways.” Likely to be among the first in service are the Orange County – Los Angeles section and the San Jose – San Francisco section.
San Jose provides an example of current transportation problems as well as the future promise of high-speed rail integrated with intermodal solutions. Currently, during rush hour, cars crawl from all directions into San Jose, the self-proclaimed capital of Silicon Valley. Vehicles overload some of the nation’s busiest highways – 680, 880, 101, 280, 87, and 17.
Commuters to and from San Jose have a number of options. Many require multiple transit agencies and added time to reach their destination. Caltrain services cities from San Francisco to San Jose, at times taking only an hour, at other times being less frequent and taking much longer. Several transit agencies have special commuter shuttles including AC Transit and Santa Cruz Metro.
Major San Jose employers promote carpool and van pool commute programs. Shuttle buses run to the nearby airport. Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority’s (VTA) light-rail and buses effectively cover major parts of the city and connect to other systems. A variety of private bus, shuttle, car sharing, taxi, and other services all help. A network of bicycle trails and paths helps some enjoy their commute and stay in shape.
A central hub for VTA, Caltrain, and Amtrak is the Diridon Station in San Jose, named after Rod Diridon who provided leadership for the modern transportation system in the greater area as six-time chairperson of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and Transit Board. He has also been chair of the American Public Transit Association; he is the Executive Director of the Mineta Transportation Institute and Chair Emeritus of the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CAHSR).
When I met with Rod Diridon last month he was optimistic about CAHSR breaking ground within two years, and carrying a high volume of riders on at least one segment within ten years. The reasons for success are compelling: high-speed rail is less expensive than freeway expansion, less expensive than airport expansion, secured voter approval during a severe recession, will create up to 400,000 new jobs, integrates all of California’s major transit systems, reduces petroleum use, and helps prevent increased climate change damage. Mr. Diridon feels that support is also strong, because each year of delay could add millions to the ultimate cost of the 800 mile system.
In ten years, the Diridon Station is likely to see high volumes of travelers as high-speed rail shuttles people to and from San Francisco in 30 minutes. The CAHSR system will share the corridor currently in place for Caltrain. The station will allow passengers to board Amtrak and continue on to places like Los Angeles and Sacramento. Eventually, the high-speed rail will continue to those destinations, as all right-of-way and not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) issues are resolved.
In ten years, increased VTA light-rail traffic will flow through the system as San Jose continues to grow. VTA Transportation Planner Jason Tyree described how light-rail will be supplemented with advanced bus-rapid transit that will rapidly move people with modern features such as level boarding, automated fare handling, signal prioritization, and potentially dedicated lane sections. The 60-foot buses will be hybrid diesel.
People from the East Bay area may connect to the station via an extension to BART. Feeding off BART will be AC Transit’s ultramodern buses including its expanded fleet of hydrogen fuel cell buses.
The Diridon Station ten-years from now could well have zero-emission electric bus shuttles from the nearby airport or even a more advanced people-mover service. Preferred car parking at the station is likely to be for electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. San Jose, home to advanced vehicle and technology companies like Tesla, is committed to an extensive city-wide vehicle charging infrastructure.
Although many electric vehicles are criticized for only having less than 100 mile in range per battery charge, such range is good for several days when combined with effective public transportation systems. Another way to cover the last miles to and from home and work is the good old bicycle. Bicycle boarding will be permitted on high-speed rail and the other public transportation systems.
As cities are connected with high-speed rail, similar multimodal systems will also be connected in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, Sacramento, and other major cities in this state of 40 million people; soon to be 50 million people.
The new high-speed rail and the light-rail transit systems use electricity not petroleum. Electric rail is many times more efficient than diesel engine drive systems. In ten years, by law 33 percent of the electricity will be from renewable sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal. In 20 years, especially with the benefit of California’s new cap-and-trade of greenhouse gases, renewable energy is likely to be less expensive than natural gas and nuclear, with coal already being phased out in California. In other words, the high growth part of California transportation is likely to be zero-emission providing significant relief in emissions and energy security.
Combining improved multimodal transportation with high-speed rail with renewable energy is bringing climate solutions just in time. California’s busy Highway 101, which stretches over 800 miles and which carries millions daily, will find major sections under water if the sea rises only 16 inches.
As leading delegates from 175 nations now meet to discuss climate solutions scientist agree that global warming is accelerating and the artic ice cap is disappearing.
The multimodal transportation that serves millions of Americans is experiencing record use and provides the foundation for a more promising future.

John Addison is the author of the new book – Save Gas, Save the Planet.

Voters Approve High-Speed Rail for California

By John Addison (11/11/08). California is moving ahead with an 800-mile high-speed train system serving Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento, the Central Valley, the Inland Empire, Orange County and San Diego. High-speed trains will be capable of maximum speeds of 220 miles per hour, covering San Francisco to Los Angeles in 2 hours and 40 minutes. The system is forecast to carry over 100 million passengers per year by 2030.

California voters approved the bond measure that commits state funds of almost $10 billion only when matched by $10 billion of federal funds and another $10 billion of public-private partnership funds. Congress and the new president are likely to support matching federal funds for high-speed rail. In this tight economy, high-speed rail will get better results for less money than using federal funds to widen California’s freeways.

Last May, President-elect Obama said. “We are going to be having a lot of conversations this summer about gas prices and it is a perfect time to start talking about why we don’t have better rail service. … [I]t works on the Northeast corridor. They would rather go from New York to Washington by train than they would by plane. It is a lot more reliable and it is a good way for us to start reducing how much gas we are using.”

Public-private partnership funding is also likely, because the rail system will be profitable. Build-own-operate models are popular in transportation with those that are likely to bid on building the system and providing the equipment. The McKinsey Quarterly in February 2008 reported that the world’s 20 largest infrastructure funds now have nearly $130 billion under management.

Support for rail and public transportation is nationwide, not just in California. Voters across the country in 16 states approved 23 measures out of 32 state and local public transit ballot initiatives, authorizing expenditures approximating $75 billion. For example, in Los Angeles, a $40 billion measure passed that will finance new and existing bus and rail lines. In the Seattle area, people voted to expand commuter rail and express bus service and to create a 55-mile light rail system by approving $17.8 billion.

Will Californians park their cars and ride the rails? Last year, LA Metro carried 64 million riders. In the Bay Area, BART carried 104 million riders. The new California High Speed Rail will link both these systems and 25 multi-modal public transportation systems in total. The forecast of 100 million passengers per year by 2030 may be conservative.

Because the rail will be powered by electricity, it is valuable to look at the power sources. In California, by law, 20 percent of the electricity will be from renewables by 2010. By 2020, it must be at least 33 percent. California is subsidizing one million solar roofs that include net metering. Pacific Gas and Electric is installing 800 megawatts (MW) of utility scale solar photovoltaics (PV). For 20 years, Kramer Junction has been delivering 350 MW of concentrating solar power. Added megawatts of wind, geothermal, and biogas projects are being added. By law, utilities must be 33% renewable by 2020. With California’s implementation of greenhouse gas emission cap and trade, renewables are likely to be the low cost source of electricity by 2030.

Using renewable energy, California’s High-Speed Rail is likely to be zero emission before 2030, saving over 20 billion pounds of CO2 annually and over 12 million barrels of oil annually.

In addition to 160,000 construction jobs over the next two decades, high-speed trains will generate 320,000 permanent jobs by 2030, growing to 450,000 jobs in 2035, according to the business plan.

For the LA to SF travel, train fares are expected to be 50 percent of an airline ticket. In 2030 LA-SF travel is forecasted at high-speed trains will carry 45%, air transportation 26%, and the automobile 29% of the total transportation market between the two biggest metropolitan areas in California. This will keep intra-state air travel constant and avoid an airport overcapacity crisis.

California High-Speed Rail builds on the success of other systems around the world.

The 456-mile Northeast Corridor (NEC) which links Boston, New York and Washington D.C. is a successful rail corridor which is vital to the economy of the northeastern United States. It currently carries well over 200 million rail passengers. There are over 500 passenger trains per day in and out of New York City, 400 commuter trains, and 100 Amtrak trains.

Amtrak’s Acela service which operates on the NEC between Boston, New York City and Washington, D.C. is the only passenger rail service in the United States that approaches high-speed standards traveling at maximum speeds up to 150 mph on about 35 miles. In comparison with high-speed trains operating in Europe and Asia, the Acela service would be considered a conventional rail operation. For example, Acela trains make the 226-mile trip between New York and Washington D.C. in about 2.75 hours, traveling at an average speed of about 80 mph.

In years past, I conducted many workshops on the east coast. It was always faster and easier to take Amtrak from Washington D.C. to Philadelphia and on to New York, than to fly. The stations are conveniently connected to public transportation, rental car service, and car sharing.

For 40 years, Japan, has been the role model in high-speed rail. The entire Japanese high-speed train network of 1,350 miles currently carries over 335 million passengers a year.

In France the TGV network, consisting of over 1,160 miles of new interconnected high-speed lines, carries over 100 million passengers each year. Spain and Germany continue to expand high-speed rail. London to Paris can be pleasantly traveled in 2 hours and 15 minutes. Eventually most of the European Union will be seamlessly integrated.

Twelve countries around the world take advantage of high-speed rail – from the United States to China. Soon the number will be 20 countries as Mexico, Russia, and others add their systems.

Oil usage in the United States and many other countries has peaked. At the moment, this is largely thanks to drivers’ reacting to high oil prices and a recession by replacing solo drives with employer commute programs and public transportation. Oil usage is likely to continue declining as efficient multi-modal transportation systems are linked together with high-speed rail – a cool solution for a heating planet.

John Addison publishes the Clean Fleet Report and speaks at conferences. His book, Save Gas, Save the Planet, will be published on March 25, 2009.

Voters and Congress Decide the Fate of Public Transportation

By John Addison (10/31/08). A record number of Americans are saving thousands per year by using public transportation from one day per week to living car free. In 2007, a 50-year record was set of 10.3 billion transit trips per year, saving over 4 billion gallons of car gasoline use. 2008 will set a new record that may approach 11 billion trips as more commuters leave their cars parked to brave standing-room-only train and bus rides.

Public transportation and corporate commute programs have helped America finally reduce its dependency on oil, with vehicle miles traveled reduced for the first time. Now, our financial crisis is putting this in jeopardy.

Although public transportation is rescuing Americans, will Americans rescue public transportation? Record ridership, shrinking tax revenues, frozen funds, and fuel prices are overwhelming transit budgets. Where more routes and buses are needed, cutbacks are instead being made.

This Tuesday votes in 33 states will make decisions about the fate of transit funding. In California, decided will be the fate of High Speed Rail.

The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) called on Congress on October 29 to pass economic stimulus legislation that includes funding public transportation projects to create new jobs. APTA has identified 559 public transit “ready-to-go” projects, worth $8 billion, from Chicago to Atlanta, and from NY to LA.

Testifying before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, APTA Chair Dr. Beverly Scott, who is also general manager and CEO of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), testified, “We simply must get our economy back on track, and the most important way to do that is to create new jobs, and give our citizens the tools they need to find jobs and keep working.”

Dr. Scott continued, “Not only do transit systems need assistance for capital projects, transit providers also need help to maintain their current services. Transit systems across the United States are being forced to choose between raising passenger fares or cutting service to make up for shortfalls in local funding and the increased cost of diesel fuel this past summer. The burden is so great that 35 percent of public transportation providers who responded to another recent APTA survey have been forced to cut or plan to cut the level of passenger service they provide in spite of the growing demand. Transit needs to be part of the solution to – not the victim of – the current economic crisis. This could not happen at a worse time. Public transportation ridership has grown dramatically this year, and we need to continue that growth.”

Even the collapse of AIG is having a devastating effect on transit. Dr. Scott as testified, “From the early 1990s to 2003, the Federal Transit Administration urged transit systems to enter into innovative financing deals known as Sale-in/Lease Out and Lease-In/Lease Out (SILO/LILO) transactions. These transactions helped transit systems finance large, capital intensive projects by selling their assets to investors and leasing them back. The transit agencies received up-front one time payments in consideration for future tax benefits for the investors, until these transactions were prohibited in 2003. To secure these transactions, sale proceeds in the form of Treasury securities were placed into an account that AIG and a small number of other insurers guaranteed. Under the terms of the contracts, transit agencies are responsible for replacing the guarantors of the secured assets if they fail to maintain a certain bond rating- often ‘AAA’ status. Unfortunately, because AIG and the other insurers have lost their ‘AAA’ rating, and there are no available financial institutions to replace them, the equity investors are able to find the transactions in default. Under this scenario, through no fault of their own, transit agencies could be forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in fees to make the investors whole. The banks have the opportunity to gain 100 percent of the tax benefits that have been disallowed, which would in turn devastate transit agencies, which will be required to pay more than $2 billion to the banks immediately.” Congressional Testimony

Will we keep America moving, our will be go back to being stuck in our cars in gridlock, burning billions of dollars of extra gasoline from countries that are glad to take our money?

John Addison publishes the Clean Fleet Report.

Keeping America Moving

By John Addison (10/11/08). A record number of Americans are saving thousands per year by using public transportation from one day per week to living car free. In 2007, a 50-year record of 10.3 billion trips per year, saving over 4 billion gallons of car gasoline use. 2008 will set a new record that may approach 11 billion trips as more commuters leave their cars parked to brave standing-room-only train and bus rides.

Fifteen thousand who run global transportation systems convened in San Diego from October 6 to 8 to examine a range of strategic issues and to review 800 exhibitors at the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Expo.

As transportation managers accommodate record numbers of passengers, they face challenges. Most transportation funding is spent on highways, not on public transportation. Fare revenue is only a fraction of budgets. Loss of property and sales tax funding is forcing operators to cut budgets. Diesel fuel prices have increased 166 percent in four years.

Buses designed to stay on the road for 12 years are being kept in operation longer. When new buses are ordered, reduced fuel cost is a priority. 63 percent of buses ordered in 2007 were alt-powered using hybrid technology, natural gas as a fuel, or both. City light-rail is typically powered by electricity. Public transportation is increasingly using renewable energy (RE) by installing more solar power and contracting for RE with public utilities.

The shift to fewer car miles on highways and alt-powered transportation is helping the nation need less oil. U.S. use of oil refined products in transportation is estimated to be reduced 5 percent this year. Should rail and public transit resolve their budget crises, oil use will drop further.

Member organizations were encouraged to overcome all obstacles in accommodating record riders by Dr. Beverly Scott, APTA’s new Chair and also CEO of MARTA in Atlanta. When federal funding of public transportation expires in 2009, APTA will ask the new Congress for a $123 billion 6-year funding package.

Pushed to the wall, several major transit systems are making politically unpopular fare increases. Some are cutting routes, frequencies, and making layoffs.

In his speech, Jim Simpson, Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) Administrator encouraged executives to consider public-private partnerships (PPP). At the Expo, I visited with Veolia (NYSE: VE), the world leader in transportation service contracts and management. Veolia has 120 contracts to run transportation in 30 countries for annual revenues of about $8 billion.

A good example of an effective PPP since 1993 is Veolia’s partnership with the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) of Southern Nevada. I have personally been impressed in using their bus rapid transit while attending Las Vegas conferences. During the life of this partnership, ridership has increased from 15 to 60 million per year. At the APTA Expo, on of Las Vegas’ new 62-foot rapid transit vehicles was on display, looking more like a bullet train than a bus. The vehicles are designed by Wright with ISE doing the hybrid-electric drive systems using Siemens components. Fifty of the new vehicles will be delivered to Las Vegas.

For transportation operators that cannot make capital expenditures, PPP can provide a way for private corporations to buy needed equipment, then utilize the rail and buses as part of service contracts. Unfortunately, the expansion of public-private partnerships (PPP) envisioned by the FTA goes in the face of some of its obsolete legislated rules for funding.

In the long-term public transportation will serve a growing number of Americans because of increasing oil prices, plus increased preference for urban living by the young, by families, and by retiring boomers. As transit stops being a neglected child compared to highway funding, it will meet the financial challenge of expanding routes and increasing frequency by adding rail, adding buses and employing more drivers and maintenance professionals. Significant growth will reduce or oil dependency, make people more productive, and unclog the streets and freeways. Even those who never use transit will benefit from lower gasoline prices, less time in gridlock and breathing cleaner air.

Significant growth will be supported by high speed rail linking suburbs and linking transportation systems. Jim Simpson, (FTA) Administrator, regularly takes the 3 hour Amtrak Acela regularly from New York to Washington, D.C. Often he cannot get a seat as record demand soars ahead of investment in more rolling stock. Amtrak carried a record 28.7 million people in fiscal year 2008. The company has posted six years of ridership and revenue growth, recently benefiting from high gas and airline prices. The number of trips over the past year increased 11% and revenue 14%.

On November 4, voters in 33 states will be making decisions about approving transportation funding. In California, voting on Proposition 1A will decide if the nation has a second high-speed rail system that could cover 800 miles and carry forecasted ranges of 32 to 68 million annual rides by 2020. It will cost far less than the alternative of expanding highways and airports. Should voters give the system the green light, the $10 billion of California taxpayer funded bond will need to be matched with $10 billion federal and $10 billion of public-private partnership money. The system will be electric, using no petroleum.

A study by the American Automobile Association (AAA) shows that the average cost of owning and operating a passenger vehicle is 54.1 cents per mile. The IRS allows you to deduct 58.5 cents per mile for business. This is over $8,000 per year per vehicle, based on 15,000 miles of driving. Depreciation is part of that cost. Anyone who has bought a car for $20,000 and later sold it for $5,000 understands depreciation. Fuel, maintenance, tolls, parking, insurance, and tickets add up. Most households have two vehicles, costing them over $16,000 per year.

More Americans will save thousands by using public transportation. For some it will be one day per week, for others it will be the primary way that they travel. City and regional systems are offering trip-planners, dynamic maps, and realtime GPS information to those using the Internet, text messaging, and smart phone technology. I have frequently used Google Transit to plan trips that have several transit legs. Enjoy the savings of time and money from public transportation.

John Addison publishes the Clean Fleet Report with over 100 articles and reports about vehicles and transportation. Disclosure: the author is a modest long-term stockholder in Veolia. All his stock holdings are getting more modest every day. John now uses transit more frequently than his car.

California High-Speed Rail

By John Addison (Earth Day 2008). Fiona Ma was nervous about getting on a train that was about to set a world speed record. Just before Easter 2007 in the countryside outside Paris, she saw the people lining the green and flowered route. The French were flying flags, waving, and cheering. Less reassuring were those of faith who crossed themselves as the new train accelerated past 200 miles per hour. The people blurred into a collage of spring time colors. The train vibrated much as when a jet plane roars down the runway and starts to ascend. Fiona hoped that this train would not leave the tracks.

At three hundred miles per hour, the train was still on the tracks, accelerating. Out the window, only one image was distinct. A plane that was filming the historic event flew along side the train. Surrealistically, Fiona and the eleven other dignitaries could see what was filmed from the plane on a screen inside the train. Another LCD displayed their world record – 357 miles per hour on a train. Everyone cheered. The train slowed over the next few miles. Fiona took a deep breath, exhaled, and smiled; she took part in history.

These days, Fiona Ma, needs to find new courage every day. As California Majority Whip, she takes on the tough issues and is a force in making things better. For every important issue, there are vested interests on all sides whether it is better health care, better transportation, stopping global warming, or keeping California’s $1.7 trillion economy moving forward. Among her many responsibilities, Assemblywoman Ma chairs the Legislative High Speed Rail Caucus.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) believe they just may have the answer — an 800 mile statewide high-speed rail system that would serve more than 32 million passengers per year by 2020. Because the rail will be powered by electricity, and because of the efficiency of moving up to 1,200 people per train, CO2 emissions may be reduced by 12 billion pounds per year by 2020, and 18 billion pounds by 2030.

If you have ever been stuck in gridlock trying to get to work between Orange County and LA, or between San Jose and San Francisco, you will appreciate that the high-speed rail would add the equivalent of a 12-lane superhighway. Express high-speed trains will take one hour and fifteen minutes between San Diego and Los Angeles, and a little over two and one-half hours from San Francisco to Los Angeles.

CHSRA is upgrading their 2020 forecast to 68 million, from 32 million, and 94 to 117 million passengers by 2030. As Hall of Fame baseball great Yogi Berra observed, “It is difficult to forecast, especially about the future.” 2020 annual passengers will depend on California voters approving the November bond, matching funding, and regulatory approval. CHSRA forecasts are achievable. By comparison, Europe already provides 250 million annual rides, and Japan over 300 million.

High-speed rail systems, using the new grade-separated high speed lines planned for California have not had one fatality in 41 years. Neither automobiles nor airplanes can match the safety of high speed rail.

California high-speed rail addresses a number of goals. Our current highways cannot support the planned growth to 50 million people. Only the USA and China use more oil than California. If there are more price hikes, or if supply is disrupted by war or terrorism, where will California get its needed billions of gallons of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel? Draughts, likely caused by climate change, are already hurting California agriculture and industry. California is unlikely to meet its targeted reduction of greenhouse gases without high-speed rail. Especially damaging are the greenhouse gas emissions from short-haul air travel. The per passenger greenhouse gas emissions of flying from LA to SF are equivalent of each person driving solo in a large SUV. Carbon Calculator

Although California faces rush-hour gridlock without high-speed rail, a project with a starting price north of $33 billion is certain to face some opposition.

With HSR, it’s about money. Proposed is that Californians approve a bond of $10 billion for one-third of the cost. One-third would be matched by federal funds and one-third by private investment. Although some anticipate cost overruns, more are worried that the price of not acting will be much higher. Because California is implementing AB32, the high-speed rail may be able to sell carbon credits to help finance the project and operations.

Since high-speed rail will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 18 billion pounds per year, you would think that all environment groups would support the measure. While there has been some support, the Sierra Club opposed disrupting environmentally sensitive areas and areas of wildlife migration, specifically in the Los Banos area. Beyond some local opposition, however, the national Sierra Club strongly supports high-speed rail.

Southwest Airlines successfully sued and stopped high-speed rail in Texas in the 1990s. Texas is now staring at a $183 billion price for the Trans Texas Corridor as a 4,000-mile-long stretch of 10 auto lanes and six railroad tracks for high-speed freight and commuter trains. This is over twenty times higher than if they had not been stopped from implementing high-speed rail years ago. Opponents of high-speed rail carefully follow Mark Twain’s advice, “Never put off until tomorrow what you can do the day after tomorrow.”

Airlines may not oppose high-speed rail. Today, Southwest cannot get the expanded gates and routes in California due to lack of airport expansion everywhere from San Diego to Los Angeles to San Francisco. Some airlines may support high-speed rail as it will more easily bring people to SFO and be part of bringing passengers to other airports more quickly.

Most are optimistic that voters will approve a bond issue for high-speed rail. Voters are faced with record gasoline prices and concern about California’s economic future. More people are commuting longer distances as they are unable to sell their homes in today’s difficult real estate market.

The major concerns are addressed in new legislation proposed by Assemblywomen Cathleen Galgiani and Fiona Ma – AB 3034 “Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century.” The governor wanted more private funding of the rail. The new bill allows for private rail funding provided by law. The Sierra Club does not want a Los Banos station. The new bill provides: “Preserving wildlife corridors and mitigating impacts to wildlife movement, where feasible as determined by the authority…” Also the bill, “Prohibits a high-speed train station between Gilroy and Merced.”

On April 14, the legislative committee approved the bill with 10 voting yes and no one opposing. It is expected to get the approval of the full Assembly and Senate and the Governor. Read the Bill and Post your Comment

Even if voters approve the bond, high-speed rail will not move forward unless there are matching federal funds. Congressman Jim Costa believes that will happen. As he states in his op-ed: “Congress has begun to take action to help make the idea of high-speed rail in California a reality. Two bills I introduced, HR 4122 the American Investment in Safe, Reliable High Speed Rail Act and HR 4123, the High-Speed Rail Authority Development and Formation Act, will help bring federal dollars to California to invest in the proposed high-speed rail system. The Senate also passed S. 294, which will help high-speed rail development in America…. Overall, for every dollar invested in this system, we will see two dollars in return.” Capitol Weekly Article

Will Californians park their cars and ride the rails? Last year, LAMTA carried 64 million riders. In the Bay Area, BART carried 47 million riders. With gasoline prices rocketing, Amtrak ridership on the Capitol Corridor is up 16% this March over a year ago; on the San Joaquins it has jumped 27%. Although Californians will not exclusively ride rails and rapid transit, but they will ride more and drive less. In fact, high speed rail will integrate with public transportation. All 25 HSR stations will be multi-modal. For example, to get to Sacramento I currently take BART to Richmond, then get on Amtrak in the same station.

As a manager covering several states, I used to travel weekly on airplanes. Point-to-point always required at least four hours to get to the airport, get thru security, taxi in the runway, fly, taxi in the runway, then rent a car. In contrast, when taking a train from Washington D.C. to New York, I found that train travel was faster than airlines and better integrated with public transportation. With high-speed rail, airline travel to cover a few hundred miles would never be a personal option.

Travel between Washington D.C. and Boston is now even faster with speeds of up to 150 miles per hour on Amtrak’s Acela, the only high-speed rail in the United States. Now you can get from the nation’s capital to downtown Manhattan in less than three hours; an impossibility with airline travel and the fastest taxi driver in New York history. Over ten million passengers road this Northeast Corridor in 2007, making it the most popular train route in the U.S. Acela is now profitable.

In 12 years, 32 to 68 million passengers may be riding on an even faster system in California. The high-speed rail will keep California’s economy moving forward, with more jobs, more energy security and far less emissions.

Copyright (c) 2008 John Addison. This article may be reproduced if it preserves this copyright notice. John Addison publishes the Clean Fleet Report.