Far from being an environmental savior, high- and moderate-speed trains are likely to do more harm to the environment than good. In intercity travel, automobiles are already as energy-efficient as Amtrak, and the energy efficiencies of both autos and airliners are growing faster than trains. The energy cost of constructing new high-speedrail lines will dwarf any operational savings. As the state of Florida concluded in 2005, “the environmentally preferred alternative is the No Build Alternative.” To add insult to injury, the administration is likely to require states that accept high-speedrail funds to regulate property rights in a futile effort to discourage driving and promote rail travel. These regulations will deny rural landowners the right to develop their land while they make urban housing unaffordable and disrupt neighborhoods through the construction of high-density housing.
$80/month for business access is just the tip of the iceberg." (Asheville) Lack of access to affordable equipment (refurbished computers for instance) and readily accessible, unbiased information about hardware choices also imposed a burden. “We did a survey a few years ago asking our small businesses if they had computers and did they know how to upgrade them as needed. We found that there were major gaps in information sources available to these businesses. So often they were purchasing/leasing (inappropriate) computers based on word-of-mouth recommendations.” Finally, the high upfront costs of website development were mentioned by participants. “For our start-up businesses, it’s not necessarily the monthly price tag but the whole process of designing the website. They have to set aside hundreds of extra dollars.” Although participants reported that there was some low-cost help available to assist small businesses in developing websites, this was generally only available for a limited “one-page” approach and didn’t include ongoing expansion and maintenance needs.
KTX trains are operated by the Korea Railroad Corporation (Korail), the national railroad op- erator. A special purpose entity, Korea HighSpeedRail Construction Authority (KHSRCA), was formed in 1992 to construct the initial high-speed track.
In 2005 Korail was split into separate government-owned operating and infrastructure entities. Korail became the operating unit overseeing train and station operations. The Korea Rail Net- work Authority was formed to finance, build, and maintain the nation’s entire railroad infrastruc- ture. KHSRCA was absorbed by the network authority.
The Phase 1 Report into highspeedrail (HSR), published by the Australian Government in 2011, quantified the likely costs to build a HSR on Australia’s east coast, at about $80 billion. The benefits of HSR will be quantified in the Phase 2 Report, due to be completed this year.
The benefits, once quantified, are significant. They include both direct benefits to HSR users and operators (i.e. through time savings and profits, respectively) and indirect benefits to society (called externalities). The main externalities include fewer accidents, lower greenhouse gas emissions, less air and noise pollution, less congestion on roads and at airports and substantial time savings to users. There are significant benefits to regional Australia in towns where the HSR passes through, agglomeration benefits and benefits to cities with a HSR station. Agglomeration and regional rebalancing benefits are not quantified in this report, although they have been in some other recent reports.
Experience is a good teacher, but she sends in terrific bills. This is especially true when it comes to major infrastructure investments. It could be wiser and cheaper to learn through other’s experiences. For some years there has been a discussion on highspeedrail in Sweden and several investigations have been made, including a State inquiry (SOU 2009:74). Nevertheless, the verdict is still out there and the debate is polarized, with some who argue that society benefits from the investment and others who claim otherwise. At least prior to this report, by Professor Gines de Rus, who is extraordinarily suited to help us out in this quandary. The Expert Group on Environmental Studies commissioned him in July 2010 to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the plans to build a highspeedrail between the two largest cities in Sweden, Stockholm and Gothenburg. Not only is he one of the leading researchers in the area and well-known for his integrity. He is also a Spaniard with very good insight in the projects Madrid-Barcelona and Madrid- Seville which are the most similar projects up and running to those discussed in Sweden.
century, but it was paralysed by the arrival of the economic crisis in 2008. In fact, this case has been presented in the international media as one of the clearest examples of the devastating effects of the bursting of Spain’s property bubble. What is more, there is no shuttle connection between the new HSR station and Guadalajara’s city centre because the route would be unsustainable given the very limited number of potential passengers. The existence of the station was the initial excuse to build an ambitious urban development project, but now the new inhabitants face many problems related to the lack of local services and amenities. Even so, the local council of the small municipality of Yebes, in which the majority of this development is located, seeks to continue with its original plan, which includes dedicating part of the land to industrial uses and economic activities.
HS2 (UK) £78.5
Table 4.1 shows the cost of building 1 km of HSR in selected countries. HS2 was classified as the most expensive HSR in the world (Pasha-Robinson, 2017). As it is more expensive to build an HSR, it will be more difficult to recover the construction cost and therefore HSR will never pay back the investment (Muldowney, 2016). Most of the railways worldwide need government subsidies not only for construction, but for operation and maintenance as well (Feigenbaum, 2013). HSR will be sustainable only if benefits exceed the costs. It is difficult to predict future modal shift from roads and airplanes. In the case of HS2 Phase 1, there will only be a shift from roads as there is no direct flight from London to Birmingham (Cornet et al., 2017). The environmental benefit of developing HS2 depends not only on how much traffic shifts from roads and planes but also on the future carbon dioxide emissions from producing the electricity to power the HS2. The increased noise and vibration level along the HS2 route is another environmental concern. Embankments will reduce noise and visual impact, but it incurs a large area, reinforces the separation effect and reduces the available living space (Watson et al., 2017b). It is difficult to predict how HS2 will affect the economy of North-West England, but it looks very promising, because they have what is needed for cities to be able to prosper: a strong economy and vacant land (Wang et al., 2017).
environmentally preferable alternative is actually a program centered on conservation and efficiency. The same conditions do not apply to the high-speedrail project. Unlike the ability to build a “virtual river” out of conservation and efficiency (to continue the comparison to the water conveyance project), video-conferencing and other substitutes to personal interaction and travel will never be a sufficient alternative for regional, inter-regional and north-to-south state travel for people. Many people are interested in actually getting to some other physical location. High-speedrail will be substituting for automobile and air trips, reducing demand for those modes, and potentially slowing or obviating some associated highway or airport expansion. A change or addition to a portion of one segment won’t change that basic fact.
North G3Y Oslo – Trondheim (Hamar & Gudbrandsdalen) South S8Q Oslo – Stavanger (via Vestfold)
O2P Oslo – Trondheim (Østerdalen) S2P Oslo – Stavanger (direct) West N1Q Oslo – Bergen (Numedal) East ST5U Oslo – Stockholm (via Ski)
The next country the rail is planned to pass through is Thailand. In August 2010 it was announced that Thailand’s Prime Minister, Suthep Thaugsuban, was planning to invest in the country’s first high-speedrail line, and that Thailand was going to be included in the connecting train from Laos into Malaysia. China promised to increase rice trade with Thailand and promote the country as a vacation spot for Chinese tourists so that they would be allowed to build the rail though Thailand. This is good for the Chinese considering that “in 2008 Thailand rank[ed] 13th among over 180 countries and 4th in East Asia in the ease of doing business” (Gupta, 2011). Unfortunately, the Kunming-Singapore rail plans were stopped by Thailand’s new Prime Minister, Yingluck Shinawatra. The original construction plans included a 625-kilometer segment to connect Bangkok to Nong Khai, which borders Laos. The second section of train planned for construction has the length of 980 kilometers, from Bangkok to Padang Basar, which borders Malaysia. China’s original agreement with the previous Prime Minister of Thailand also included a $400 million investment
In the event litigation ensues because of the EIR and results in further delay or cancellation of the project, California will miss out on the many benefits high-speedrail brings to those who build it. Part I will outline the history of high-speedrail and will focus particularly on the implementation of high-speedrail systems around the world and the benefits they have created. This part will continue with a look at the recent interest and developments in high-speedrail systems in the United States, beyond the planned route in California. Part II will analyze the specific problems with the May 2008 EIR identified by the court in Town of Atherton v. California HighSpeedRail Authority, and the reaction of the Rail Authority in their effort to comply with this decision. Lastly, Part III will show that the Rail Authority has fully complied with the decision in Town of Atherton and recommend action for future courts to take in the likely event that further litigation will occur.
A recent oversight report on the California high-speedrail project from that state’s Senate Transportation Committee pointed to many specific risks of high-speedrail, including fore- casting, rights-of-way, and safety risks. 68 Unlike running a bus system or even an airline, build- ing a rail line requires accurate long-range fore- casting. Planning and construction can take many years, and the service life of the rail line is measured in decades. A seemingly minor fore- casting error can turn what appears to be a pro- ductive asset into an expensive white elephant. The most obvious forecasting issue is cost. All of the cost estimates for the Midwest, Florida, and California rail projects were made before 2005. Since then, the prices of steel, concrete, and energy have risen dramatically. As a result, it is likely that projected costs need to be adjusted upwards by 50 percent or more.
The alignment heads north-east, again across flat, sparsely populated rural land. The flat land either side of Shepparton makes construction cheaper than following the Hume Highway, where the hills around Glenrowan would be more expensive to traverse. The HSR alignment passes north of the Warby Range, which is part of the Warby-Ovens National Park. This national park also covers a large part of the Lower Ovens River, which must be crossed, involving an unavoidable impact on the area. The hills south-west and north of Albury-Wodonga, along with the Murray floodplain, leave limited options for passing outside the towns within a useful distance. Therefore the option was chosen to run the HSR line alongside the existing highway and rail alignments directly through the town, with an upgraded or new station located at the existing Albury railway station site. A 5.3 km viaduct is used to cross the Murray River floodplain and highway intersections entering Albury from the south.
The Norwegian Rail Administration has been given a mandate from the Ministry of Transport and Communication to assess the issue of a highspeedrail study in southern Norway. 3 corridors from Oslo; north, west and south in Norway, plus 2 corridors to Sweden, south and east have been planned by 4 Norwegian consulting companies, Norconsult , Multiconsult, Sweco and Rambøll. Cost has also been estimated for the corridors in question. Brekke & Strand akustikk have in collobaration with Asplan Viak established the calculation basis which the consulting companies have used in their work regarding noise assessment and cost estimation. , 
detailed operational plan has not yet been released, in the absence of which a ten-minute improvement, to 47 minutes would reflect the most optimistic possible schedule on the Caltrain right of way. Of course, speeds could be materially increased in the unlikely event that sufficient funding is found to complete the Full Build system, as trains would operate over an expanded– four-track main line, fully grade separated, and elevated through the Peninsula communities. In the Gilroy to Palmdale segment, speeds up to 220 mph are vital to both the 2 hour, 40 minute schedule and the 3 hour schedule. However, such peak speeds have not been achieved anywhere in the world. As outlined earlier, the Chinese trains that had approached 220 mph (217 mph) have been slowed to 186 mph. 12 The slowdown occurred to address safety concerns, excessive electricity
First we have the West Coast Main Line. Electrification of this was completed from London direct to Crewe, Manchester and Liverpool in 1966; the route via Birmingham was completed in the following year. Trains heading north from Crewe still had to change to diesel traction at that point until electrification through to Glasgow opened in 1974. None of this route would really qualify as a highspeed route by today's standards. Initially, electric traction was limited to a top speed of 160kmph; later this was raised to 180kmph for locomotives equipped with highspeed pantographs. Nevertheless, the combination of speed and frequency introduced with the new traction was hitherto unparalleled in Great Britain with 25% reductions in journey time being typical. It was on this route, with its numerous curves and gradients - particularly north of Preston - that it was intended to raise speeds further by the use of the 250kmph Advanced Passenger Train (APT), the tilting coaches of which would be permitted to run at higher speeds than those of conventional rolling stock, especially on curves. Although prototype trains of this type made a few runs in service in 1981, they did not achieve the required degree of reliability, and the project was subsequently scrapped (Potter, 1987). With the failure of this train to enter regular service, no major improvement in speeds has yet been achieved on this route.
This paper tries to shed some light on the economic dimension of HSR investment decision, which not only affects the transport sector but has significant effects on the allocation of resources. The European Commission has opted enthusiastically for this technology; meanwhile countries like UK or USA have been reluctant in the recent past to finance with public funds the construction of a highspeedrail network, which is a priority in the European Union. Why some countries like France or Spain are allocating a high proportion of public money to the construction of new lines and others maintain their conventional railway lines? HSR is quite effective in deviating passengers from other modes of transport but the relevant question is whether the sum of the discounted net social benefits during the life of the infrastructure justifies the investment cost.
5) Recognize that some passenger uses are not compatible with freight rail. Mr. Gray identified some issues for mixed use of freight facilities, including dispatch priorities/flow management, capacity for operations and maintenance, and people access control.
3. The Rail Authority prepared an informational pamphlet entitled Your Property, Your High-SpeedRail Project, first published in November 2009, and recently updated in December 2012. This pamphlet is available online via the Rail Authority’s web site at http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov. It states that the Rail Authority is a public agency that has the statutory authority to “purchase private property for public use” under the “California Eminent Domain Law and the state and federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act.” In this article, the author has assumed that the Rail Authority has or can obtain the necessary legal authority to acquire private property through eminent domain.
• The most coherent of the new proposals is the Chicago Hub, which as its name suggests, hubs traffic from other Midwestern cities into Chicago. This proposal has achieved agreement from all of the regional governors, and with a Chicago-based administration in the White House, not surprisingly received a large share of the recent federal allocations ($2.6 Billion). • The proposed Florida High-speedrail system runs from Miami though West Broward, West Palm Beach, to Orlando, Lakeland, terminating in Tampa with about 10 stations planned. Proposed additional extensions connecting Fort Myers, Jacksonville, and Tallahassee and Pensacola have also been drawn on maps, but these are farther into the future. This could be described as an Orlando Hub. Though Miami is a larger metropolitan area than Orlando, the branching structure is naturally geographically based in Orlando due to it centrality on the Florida peninsula, as well as it central location vis-a-vis tourist traffic. Tourist traffic is im- portant to this line, as stops at Disney and Port Canaveral have been included. It is anticipated the line will carry 2 million travelers yearly ( 5500 per day on 12-18 round trips), and is 324 miles in length in total. With 10 stations, there is an average of 32 miles between stations, which will bear nuisance costs, and 10 station areas, which will see accessibility benefits. The line is anticipated to run along the I-4 and I-95 corridors for significant stretches, so those areas already see some accessibility benefits (at on-ramps and off-ramps) and nuisance costs (between interchanges).