# Brightline, "conservative" policy, and the future of rail



## Tlcooper93 (Sep 7, 2021)

I recently had a discussion with my best friend, and roommate of 4 years at Oberlin, who happens to be on the conservative side of the coin. We had an amazing discussion about rail, and the history/present/future of Amtrak and other intercity rail companies.

One point he really took to heart was the loss of rail infrastructure in the 1960's-80's. He agrees we really were short-sighted, and later called it "tragic."
What he was most interested in, however, was the fact that the two places in the country where private rail companies really are a reality (or close to it) are Texas and Florida. He personally believed that lack of draconian regulations, and lack of governments which "overspend and overreach," (his words) contribute to a rail friendly place and then cited the California HSR project which we had discussed at length earlier in the conversation. I did pose the point that private rail companies are _not _providing a public good (per say), and at any point can yank their service for any reason (like Brightline during covid).

While he admits that the current administration is more rail friendly than any in recent history, his primary concern with the current bill is that a lot of money will be lost in various fees and porky items (unions, DEI jobs, lawsuits) long before any shovels hit the ground.

*I'm now curious on all of your thoughts.*
While there does seem to be a trend that left leaning governments tend to favor rail a little more than right leaning governments (this, I think, is by no means a rule), do you think it is a coincidence that private rail companies have appeared in states like Texas and Florida?
Furthermore, do you think the current bill will actually help (rail) infrastructure, or do you think money may get lost in the shuffle of things and eventually very little will be spent improving our system for the better.

And finally, what, if any, ways are there for someone like myself to get involved in my local rail scene (Boston) to have a say in how things get done? However small a say it may be. Are organizations like TransitMatters the way to go? What about hsrail.org, which seems to really be more of a helpful advertising tool than anything else.


----------



## jis (Sep 7, 2021)

In New England there are at least two major advocacy groups active. One of course is RPA, which has a pretty active group in New England. The other is Rail Users Network or RUN as they call themselves.

RPA is better at manipulating the big picture, like getting desirable language into bills and thence into CFR. Of late they have been good at running specific local campaigns like the SW Chief campaign, and the current Gulf Coast campaign, and of course rallying the troops to send letters and messages focused on a specific issue to the relevant legislators. RUN OTOH is more into strategizing, somewhat like hsrail.org.

There are several other smaller groups focused on specific areas. You can see a complete list of such at:









Local & Regional Organizations | Rail Passengers Association | Washington, DC


Local & regional advocacy coalition partners; national & international organizations; industry & labor groups.




www.railpassengers.org


----------



## Exvalley (Sep 7, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> I did pose the point that private rail companies are _not _providing a public good (per say), and at any point can yank their service for any reason (like Brightline during covid).


Once a right of way is fully developed, isn't it fairly easy for a governmental agency to take it over?


----------



## jis (Sep 7, 2021)

The thing is, by no stretch of any imagination was the Brightline service between Miami and West Palm Beach an essential service. No government in its right mind would have bothered to take it over given that there was an alive and kicking government run TriRail service available less than a mile or two from it for every possible station.

If anyone thought that Brightline should be essential service they'd have placed it under STB jurisdiction, which even the full service to Orlando won't be at least for now. So for now at least it is just a vanity service by agreement among all involved apparently. Maybe when its full utility is realized by the powers that be it will be brought under the STB, or the Florida Legislators will put it under similar restrictions regarding arbitrary service cancellation. I am sure my state senator Debbie Mayfield would be very happy to twist Brightline's tail if she gets a chance 

Just being a private owned service does not make it immune from the jurisdiction of the government regarding control over service discontinuance or suspension. Ask any of the erstwhile private passenger service operators before A-Day. It was there and it could very easily come back if operators misbehave too often.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Sep 7, 2021)

jis said:


> The thing is, by no stretch of any imagination was the Brightline service between Miami and West Palm Beach an essential service. No government in its right mind would have bothered to take it over given that there was an alive and kicking government run TriRail service available less than a mile or two from it for every possible station.
> 
> If anyone thought that Brightline should be essential service they'd have placed it under STB jurisdiction, which even the full service to Orlando won't be at least for now. So for now at least it is just a vanity service by agreement among all involved apparently. Maybe when its full utility is realized by the powers that be it will be brought under the STB, or the Florida Legislators will put it under similar restrictions regarding arbitrary service cancellation. I am sure my state senator Debbie Mayfield would be very happy to twist Brightline's tail if she gets a chance
> 
> Just being a private owned service does not make it immune from the jurisdiction of the government regarding control over service discontinuance or suspension. Ask any of the erstwhile private passenger service operators before A-Day. It was there and it could very easily come back if operators misbehave too often.



Good points. 
I suppose evaluating Brightline’s possibilities and level of possible government manipulation is tough until the service and ROW it utilizes is fully developed and upgraded.

Texas Central and Brightline, until we see what they (hopefully) become, will be nothing more than vanity projects.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Sep 7, 2021)

jis said:


> In New England there are at least two major advocacy groups active. One of course is RPA, which has a pretty active group in New England. The other is Rail Users Network or RUN as they call themselves.
> 
> RPA is better at manipulating the big picture, like getting desirable language into bills and thence into CFR. Of late they have been good at running specific local campaigns like the SW Chief campaign, and the current Gulf Coast campaign, and of course rallying the troops to send letters and messages focused on a specific issue to the relevant legislators. RUN OTOH is more into strategizing, somewhat like hsrail.org.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the resource. 
My current “dream” for getting involved is to write content for like organizations, but my knowledge is not quite there.


----------



## jis (Sep 7, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Good points.
> I suppose evaluating Brightline’s possibilities and level of possible government manipulation is tough until the service and ROW it utilizes is fully developed and upgraded.
> 
> Texas Central and Brightline, until we see what they (hopefully) become, will be nothing more than vanity projects.


Texas Central BTW, unlike Brightline, is under STB jurisdiction, even though they are intra state. But they plan to provide through ticketed interstate service in collaboration with Amtrak, unlike Brightline.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Sep 7, 2021)

jis said:


> Texas Central BTW, unlike Brightline, is under STB jurisdiction, even though they are intra state. But they plan to provide through ticketed interstate service in collaboration with Amtrak, unlike Brightline.


very nice to know. Thanks.


----------



## cirdan (Sep 8, 2021)

Rail projects typically take multiple decades to become reality. The Texas project is not the first attempt at high speed rail between those cities. In Florida Brightline would probably never have come to be if the Florida HSR had not been cancelled. So quite often one project has ancestry in another, and the entire chain of processes outlasts several governors and legislatures and that often also means changes of political focus, priority and dogma (even if it is nominally still the same party).

Thus I claim that rail policy is not partisan policy, or should not be. Rail should be supported by as broad an alliance as possible.

It is very difficult to operate rail profitably in the present climate in which freeways and airports are not held up to the same standards. I am all in favor of the private sector myself, but there needs to be a level playing field.


----------



## jpakala (Sep 8, 2021)

Brightline is essential according to our relatives in West Palm Beach because, for example, I-95 is crazy. Nobody elderly, or a new driver or not a highly attentive, experienced driver with excellent fast & correct decision-making skills should drive to Miami. With fast population growth, countless visitors and all sorts of drivers it's becoming even worse.


----------



## jis (Sep 8, 2021)

That is not very convincing since they could always use TriRail in the absence of Brightline. That is why Brightline could cancel service for a year with impunity and no one complained.


----------



## Nick Farr (Sep 8, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> What he was most interested in, however, was the fact that the two places in the country where private rail companies really are a reality (or close to it) are Texas and Florida. He personally believed that lack of draconian regulations, and lack of governments which "overspend and overreach," (his words) contribute to a rail friendly place



I don't think the lack of progress in HSR has _much_ to do with left or right leaning governments. Texas Central and Brightline Florida are taking advantage of the same mix of conditions in their respective service areas:

1) Dense population centers that are just far away enough to be considered separate metroplexes, but close enough to have relatively strong ties. (Generally no more than 300 miles, a bit more than the distance between NYC and DC)
2) Readily available Right of Way
3) Horrible, horrible, horrible traffic
4) Real Estate development opportunities
5) Friendly local governments who haven't built a service similar to what you're offering

Absent this set of conditions (especially #4), there's not enough to convince a sufficient base of investors to invest in your plan. Brightline, if it does manage to build to Orlando, will probably have enough experience to replicate their plan in the other areas they've already identified--each of which are just slightly bigger than what they're doing in Florida (i.e Los Angeles and Las Vegas).

Your friend is generally right about one thing: Advocacy or development of Intercity passenger rail is hampered by the "bailout organization that was built to fail" nature of Amtrak.

Becoming a part of any local/county government that has some jurisdiction over mass transit is probably the best way to become involved, if you want to have a say in how things are done. Grassroots advocacy is the best way to bring about really big systemic change, but that's more like playing the lottery than grinding towards a goal. You never know which person you influence will be the one that sets off the huge change.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Sep 8, 2021)

Nick Farr said:


> I don't think the lack of progress in HSR has _much_ to do with left or right leaning governments. Texas Central and Brightline Florida are taking advantage of the same mix of conditions in their respective service areas:



Thanks for the lengthy reply, especially regarding getting involved.
I really wasn't thinking about HSR specifically, but any basic decent HrSR system done privately. Brightline is not HSR but still has the potential to become a decent and useful rail system.

Your 5 points are basic and make sense, but there are plenty of other places in the country that have roughly the same perfect storm, and don't have anything close to Brightline. The 300 miles surrounding Indianapolis is actually quite a highly populated area, with the corridor from Columbus to Indianapolis to Chicago having _nearly_ every point you mentioned (along with several other corridors that could provide the necessary population). The Ohio governor however, returned the funds from the Obama-era HSR package, funds which could have easily been repurposed for any decent rail project (as far as I know. Please correct if I'm wrong on that one).

Obviously, California has everything you mentioned, hence the CHSRA.



jpakala said:


> Brightline is essential according to our relatives in West Palm Beach because, for example, I-95 is crazy. Nobody elderly, or a new driver or not a highly attentive, experienced driver with excellent fast & correct decision-making skills should drive to Miami. With fast population growth, countless visitors and all sorts of drivers it's becoming even worse.



As other pointed out, I really don't think by any stretch of the imagination is Brightline (with the service it offered pre-pandemic) an essential service.


----------



## cirdan (Sep 8, 2021)

jis said:


> That is not very convincing since they could always use TriRail in the absence of Brightline. That is why Brightline could cancel service for a year with impunity and no one complained.



maybe no one complained because the service was still new and nobody had yet got accustomed on it sufficiently to rely on it as a sole means to travel, or structured their life around it.

If the NEC were to go down for a year the consequences would be quite different.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Sep 8, 2021)

cirdan said:


> maybe no one complained because the service was still new and nobody had yet got accustomed on it sufficiently to rely on it as a sole means to travel, or structured their life around it.
> 
> If the NEC were to go down for a year the consequences would be quite different.


To compare the NEC, one of the busiest train corridors in the world, handling in some portions close to 1400 trains per day, and 500,000 passengers a day, to a corridor which even in its most utilized form will handle an order of magnitude less than that, is nonsensical.


----------



## Nick Farr (Sep 8, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Thanks for the lengthy reply, especially regarding getting involved.



You're most welcome.



Tlcooper93 said:


> Your 5 points are basic and make sense, but there are plenty of other places in the country that have roughly the same perfect storm, and don't have anything close to Brightline.



Outside of Los Angeles/Las Vegas (i.e. Brightline West), I'm not sure there really is a good city pair for a Brightline that has a relatively clear ROW. Even Texas Central is being held up by one rancher who refused to allow survey crews onto his land.

Given that we can't even rehabilitate a ROW to expedite Michigan Trains into Chicago Union Station, I'm not sure how a Brightline plan would work anywhere in the Midwest--even if it would be an amazing way to rehabilitate the rust belt.

The other thing about Brightline and Texas Central is that they're connecting just the large population centers with really almost nothing but agriculture in between. There isn't a distinct population center like Lafayette, IN between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. They are making no intermediate stops which of course increases speed. Florida and Texas communities are mostly OK with that, given that there isn't a whole lot between their planned routes and those residents are fine with driving to one or the other cities.

The problem with CHSRA is California Politics, namely California Water politics. The Central Valley Farmers don't want any infrastructure investment going through their Almond groves unless there's some kind of water diversion project to give them maybe another 5 years before droughts do them in entirely.


----------



## MARC Rider (Sep 8, 2021)

Nick Farr said:


> The problem with CHSRA is California Politics, namely California Water politics. The Central Valley Farmers don't want any infrastructure investment going through their Almond groves unless there's some kind of water diversion project to give them maybe another 5 years before droughts do them in entirely.


Well that's easy to solve. Five years isn't too long a time. Just wait them out, after they go belly-up, the state can buy out the land for pennies on the dollar.


----------



## cirdan (Sep 9, 2021)

Nick Farr said:


> You're most welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Texas Central is still far from being a fact and there are still plenty of things that could scuttle the project. Ditto for Brightline West.

At its Houston end, Texas Central will not be coming anywhere near the downtown area but stopping just before things get difficult. This will save costs and headaches and thousands of legal objections, but will mean the line will not be a genuine downtown to downtown connector but passengers who don't want to catch a bus will need a taxi or rental car to continue their journey. Maybe in car-centric Houston this would happen anyway, so maybe its not such a big handicap. But in California public transit is much more built out and also used, at least in the bigger cities, and any new system cannot afford to ignore that. CA HSR planners decided not to build a new line from city center to city center but to upgrade existing commuter tracks for the end segments, which may save some costs but also grandfathers in old problems and compromises, as well as imposing slow speeds and having to compete for slots with slower commuter trains which could threaten punctuality. CA HSR will also be crossing mountain ranges and need longer tunnels and other structures that will need to be built in difficult terrain. Brightline West and Texas Central are far easier to build in comparison.

I think the California project would be beyond the reach of any private enterprise.


----------



## neroden (Sep 10, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> While there does seem to be a trend that left leaning governments tend to favor rail a little more than right leaning governments (this, I think, is by no means a rule), do you think it is a coincidence that private rail companies have appeared in states like Texas and Florida?



Yes, it's definitely a coincidence. Texas Central has had constant, outright hostility from the state government. It is pure coincidence that they're trying to build their project in a right-wing state, and they'd have a far easier time of it if they weren't. But it does have some big cities with cheap farmland in between them, which have no existing rail service, so it's a logical place to try running a new passenger rail line.

There is one way in which it's not a coincidence: when starting a for-profit company, you never want competition, so a state which trashed its existing passenger rail service (like the right-wing states mostly did) is a better chance to become a monopoly than a state which already has some potentially-competing service. Las Vegas-LA, however, is essentially the same situation: no existing rail service in Nevada, empty desert between there and LA, which is why that's being tried too -- and Nevada and California are both "blue" states now. So it's not directly related to the politics, it's related to the lack of competition.

In Florida I can even explain exactly how the coincidence happened. Brightline exists because a particular billionaire passenger rail supporter ended up controlling the company which owned the Florida East Coast Railway, one of the few Class II railroads in the country which was viable for passenger service. If he had ended up owning the Iowa Interstate instead (which is equally viable for passenger service), that's where we'd see the Brightline project. If he'd ended up owning Montana Rail Link, that's where we'd see the project. If he'd owned Ferromex, the project would be in Mexico.



> Furthermore, do you think the current bill will actually help (rail) infrastructure, or do you think money may get lost in the shuffle of things and eventually very little will be spent improving our system for the better.


It'll help. How much, and where, I dunno, but the 2008 bill helped significantly *despite* anti-rail governors rejecting money (it helped the states which cooperated instead), and this one will too. Massachusetts actually got a lot out of the 2008 bill.



> And finally, what, if any, ways are there for someone like myself to get involved in my local rail scene (Boston) to have a say in how things get done? However small a say it may be. Are organizations like TransitMatters the way to go? What about hsrail.org, which seems to really be more of a helpful advertising tool than anything else.



TransitMatters is absolutely the way to go in Boston -- they are *spectacularly* effective, easily one of the most effective advocacy organizations I've ever seen. They are actually listened to by the state government. In fact, if you plan to advocate for passenger rail somewhere other than Boston, I would learn what they're doing and copy them!

Hsrail.org is from what used to be called the Midwest High Speed Rail Alliance, and is one of the better organizations in terms of advocating successfully for service radiating out of Chicago, but none of them have been nearly as effective as TransitMatters.

The Rail Passengers Association is national and... frankly, tries to keep all the different local groups talking to one another.


----------



## cirdan (Sep 10, 2021)

jis said:


> That is not very convincing since they could always use TriRail in the absence of Brightline. That is why Brightline could cancel service for a year with impunity and no one complained.



As a private enterprise with no contractual obligation to provide a passenger service, Brightline is free to cancel its service whenever it wants.

But I think in terms of the message of confidence this is sending out, for example to people considering buying a property based on the assumption that there will be a rail service, this is counter-productive.

That said, this is still early days and Brightline does not yet have that dependent customer base. So better to shut down for a year now than later.


----------



## Nick Farr (Sep 10, 2021)

neroden said:


> In Florida I can even explain exactly how the coincidence happened. Brightline exists because a particular billionaire passenger rail supporter ended up controlling the company which owned the Florida East Coast Railway, one of the few Class II railroads in the country which was viable for passenger service. If he had ended up owning the Iowa Interstate instead (which is equally viable for passenger service), that's where we'd see the Brightline project.



While I agree that Brightline exists because of billionare largess, it could not be replicated in Iowa for three reasons:

1) There's no way you can get ridership numbers like Brightline had in Iowa. In their peak months, Brightline carried the equivalent of Davenport, IA's population.

2) There's no way you can charge Brightline fares to ferry people around Iowa. That market isn't going to be attracted to a luxury product like people who live Miami-Dade or Los Angeles/Las Vegas.

3) There aren't even remotely as many lucrative rail-tied redevelopment opportunities in Iowa as there are in Miami-Dade.

Iowa Interstate could absolutely be the base for a government-sponsored passenger rail service, but I can't see how it could form the base of a profitable private passenger railway.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Sep 10, 2021)

cirdan said:


> As a private enterprise with no contractual obligation to provide a passenger service, Brightline is free to cancel its service whenever it wants.
> 
> But I think in terms of the message of confidence this is sending out, for example to people considering buying a property based on the assumption that there will be a rail service, this is counter-productive.



From what I understand, Brightline is primarily a real estate company that _happens _to run a railroad. I know that’s not how it’s branded, and that’s not how they intend to be known as, but on paper, this is the case. Please correct me if you think I’m wrong.
By structuring this way, it allows them to cancel service, and still more or less not lose THAT much.


----------



## cirdan (Sep 10, 2021)

... absolutely.

But that's still a lot of money they spent on getting Brightline up and running as well as the money still being spent or going to be spent for the Orlando extension plus further extensions.

Even if they have very deep pockets and overall all that is small change to them, they are hardly going to build all that and then not use it optimally.


----------



## jis (Sep 10, 2021)

The capital for constructing Brightline came mostly from bonds. There would have been no Brightline if the tax free bonds did not happen. They did consider the possibility of a RIFF loan for a while too, and that probably was their fall back if the bonds did not come through. The operating losses that they have been eating have all been in house. That is why they shut down operations ASAP and furloughed/laid off everyone except for skeletal equipment maintenance staff and a dozen managers needed to continue supervising the construction.


----------



## cirdan (Sep 10, 2021)

jis said:


> That is why they shut down operations ASAP and furloughed/laid off everyone except for skeletal equipment maintenance staff and a dozen managers needed to continue supervising the construction.



I thought the shutdown was needed so they could get PTC installed?

And even if the actual design and installation work was done by external contractors, such things would presumably still require active supervision by management as well as a subsequent knowledge and skills acquisition, which might require more that just skeletal staff.


----------



## jis (Sep 10, 2021)

cirdan said:


> I thought the shutdown was needed so they could get PTC installed?
> 
> And even if the actual design and installation work was done by external contractors, such things would presumably still require active supervision by management as well as a subsequent knowledge and skills acquisition, which might require more that just skeletal staff.


I am just stating what actually happened. It was fortuitous luck that they had a good excuse to use for messaging. If there had been no COVID they’d have had to shut down under FRA order or continue operating either with a large daily fine or operate just one or two trains. I suspect they’d have shut down with some exciting different messaging. 

In actuality they reduced their total employee population to well under two dozen. Even the marketing VP was sent on vacation.


----------



## neroden (Sep 11, 2021)

Nick Farr said:


> While I agree that Brightline exists because of billionare largess, it could not be replicated in Iowa for three reasons:


Omaha/Council Bluffs - Des Moines - Iowa City/Cedar Rapids - Quad Cities - Chicago works fine.

A line connecting areas of 1 million - 700K - 430K - 400K - 9.5 million works.

So far, all Brightline has done is run commuter service within the 6.2 million person Miami metro area. And it wasn't profitable. Their plan is to connect the 2.6 million person Orlando area to the 6.2 million person Miami area, which might be profitable.

Whether there's enough money in Omaha and Des Moines to make connecting them to Chicago profitable, or whether there's more cultural resistance to rail, or whatever, are open questions, but there's definitely enough *people*. Gravity model of ridership says Iowa should actually do slightly better.

Are you *really* sure there aren't as many lucrative rail-related redevelopment opportunities in Iowa? I guess right now urban Chicago real estate is still readily available and not that expensive, so not that much. If Chicago demand rebounds like all the coastal cities have, though...


----------



## jis (Sep 11, 2021)

One difference with Iowa though is that a significant proportion of the projected ridership between Orlando and Miami has nothing to do with the population of either city. They are visitors from elsewhere, many from out of state. At least so was stated in the EIS. The FDOT (both Florida and Federal) traffic demand analysis places the Miami - Orlando - Tampa corridor as one of the top ten in the country irrespective of where the traffic components come from (i.e. local population or visitors). I know very little about Iowa, so cannot comment on that.

The Brightline Project is really not designed to serve local residents that much for local rides. As long as the Miami catchment area folks are going to Orlando or vice versa, Brightline in its original projections, is primarily interested in those and not someone traveling from Fort Lauderdale to Miami that much. So it is not surprising that their toy service did not come anywhere near breaking even. They were carrying incidental customer who the system is not really designed for. It has been like pulling teeth trying to get them to serve local traffic demands.

As for MSAs and mega-regions, I find the map published by Amtrak in the ConnectUS Report quite useful and illuminating....


----------



## danasgoodstuff (Sep 11, 2021)

I've spent a good bit of time looking at that 2050 map, and I see some opportunity to expand service for sure, but some real geographic/demographic challenges too. Ideally I think you'd want heavy service within regions/corridors/whatever and light links between - and the two probably don't need to be the same trains or through trains since the good schedule for one part of a really long route means a bad one for other parts. And keeping things reasonably on schedule would be much easier if you're not trying to do that on a 2,000+ mile route. It would take a lot of analysis to figure out, and maybe someone has already done this, but what if you had, just for instance, separate CA to DEN and DEN to CHI trains and frequent N/S connections at DEN? I can imagine an ideal, fully hooked up system, but the hard part is what to do first, especially if you don't have enough money to do enough all at once to really maximize benefits. A lot of hard choices, and that's to make it even a halfway realistic pipe dream!


----------



## me_little_me (Sep 11, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> From what I understand, Brightline is primarily a real estate company that _happens _to run a railroad. I know that’s not how it’s branded, and that’s not how they intend to be known as, but on paper, this is the case. Please correct me if you think I’m wrong.
> By structuring this way, it allows them to cancel service, and still more or less not lose THAT much.


That was true of most of the original railroads including the UP and CP, builders of the first transcontinental RR. Government bonds and free government land paid for them.

I've always said, local transit systems and Amtrak should monetize their rails where possible by buying land near potential stations or those which will have expanded service before announcing where they will be.


----------



## Nick Farr (Sep 11, 2021)

neroden said:


> Omaha/Council Bluffs - Des Moines - Iowa City/Cedar Rapids - Quad Cities - Chicago works fine.
> 
> A line connecting areas of 1 million - 700K - 430K - 400K - 9.5 million works.



That would work for a subsidized network where you link together the largest cities in the midwest.

However, it would not be large enough for a Brightline or private plan to work because there's not enough demand for luxury travel in that corridor. People in Iowa are used to driving. The distance to cover between Omaha and Chicago is simply too large. You don't have enough population density or tourist demand anywhere in that corridor like you do in Southern Florida.

My feeling is that Brightline is actually going to crash in the next economic downturn, I simply don't think that regularly scheduled passenger rail travel in the US can be profitable while public transit is still targeted towards the working poor and cars are still relatively cheap to own and run.



neroden said:


> So far, all Brightline has done is run commuter service within the 6.2 million person Miami metro area. And it wasn't profitable. Their plan is to connect the 2.6 million person Orlando area to the 6.2 million person Miami area, which might be profitable.



The profit is not in the rail service, the profit is in the real estate development opportunities they own on or near the train stations. Florida real estate is all about location, and they're creating demand for location near those stations which they own. They also went into the project owning the Right of Way for the most population dense sections.



neroden said:


> Whether there's enough money in Omaha and Des Moines to make connecting them to Chicago profitable, or whether there's more cultural resistance to rail, or whatever, are open questions



It's not really open question, given how cheap real estate is everywhere outside of Chicagoland. Even the real estate market in Chicago is showing signs of weakness. There are a lot of tourist opportunities there, but not so much in Omaha or Iowa. 

There is absolutely an opportunity for a publicly subsidized service connecting the area, but none of that is even remotely profitable.


----------



## neroden (Sep 12, 2021)

danasgoodstuff said:


> I've spent a good bit of time looking at that 2050 map, and I see some opportunity to expand service for sure, but some real geographic/demographic challenges too. Ideally I think you'd want heavy service within regions/corridors/whatever and light links between - and the two probably don't need to be the same trains or through trains since the good schedule for one part of a really long route means a bad one for other parts.



I generally agree. But the Chicago-centered region practically runs into the NEC-centered region, which practically runs into the Piedmont-Atlantic region. So you basically need a continuous network of multiple trains per day from Chicago to the NEC and the NEC to Altanta.



> And keeping things reasonably on schedule would be much easier if you're not trying to do that on a 2,000+ mile route. It would take a lot of analysis to figure out, and maybe someone has already done this, but what if you had, just for instance, separate CA to DEN and DEN to CHI trains and frequent N/S connections at DEN?



I would not have a problem with that. The reason Amtrak doesn't do this is to avoid the increased overhead cost of maintaining a maintenance base at Denver.


----------



## neroden (Sep 12, 2021)

Nick Farr said:


> My feeling is that Brightline is actually going to crash in the next economic downturn,


You're probably right; I figure its billionaire backer may be able to back it indefinitely, though. Which would be just as true in another location. Billionaire-subsidized service isn't that different from government-subsidized service, and can be even less logical.



> It's not really open question, given how cheap real estate is everywhere outside of Chicagoland. Even the real estate market in Chicago is showing signs of weakness.


Fair enough. That will change in the next 20 years, but it'll take time. The smart money is predicting a migration towards the Great Lakes as other areas of the country are on fire or flooding.


----------



## cirdan (Sep 12, 2021)

jis said:


> View attachment 24341



is that map suggesting that there still won't be a Sunset East by 2050?


----------



## jis (Sep 12, 2021)

cirdan said:


> is that map suggesting that there still won't be a Sunset East by 2050?


There are no plans anywhere credible for a Sunset East. There are some plans for a daily New Orleans to Florida service that is not Sunset East. But the ConnectUS plan does not include it because the corridor in question does not meet the projected traffic threshold used by ConnectUS.


----------



## toddinde (Sep 12, 2021)

neroden said:


> Omaha/Council Bluffs - Des Moines - Iowa City/Cedar Rapids - Quad Cities - Chicago works fine.
> 
> A line connecting areas of 1 million - 700K - 430K - 400K - 9.5 million works.
> 
> ...


I’m from the Upper Midwest, and developing the old Rock Island corridor is fine with me, but there are some cold, hard facts. Iowa is not supportive, is not congested, and isn’t growing. In fact, without immigration, population will probably decline. The growth, congestion, and pollution is in the south and west. Tucson-Phoenix is absolutely, hands down, the best corridor to develop. Phoenix is the fastest growing city, and Tucson is right up there. The highway linking them has a long, four lane stretch. The existing rail line, with the exception of about 30 miles of the Sunset Route, is underutilized and happens to go to all the right places; growing communities, the two major state universities, the state capital complex, corporate headquarters, major sports teams, public transit connections on either end, etc. This is the biggest rail passenger no-brainer in the country, bar none.


----------



## neroden (Sep 12, 2021)

toddinde said:


> I’m from the Upper Midwest, and developing the old Rock Island corridor is fine with me, but there are some cold, hard facts. Iowa is not supportive, is not congested, and isn’t growing. In fact, without immigration, population will probably decline. The growth, congestion, and pollution is in the south and west. Tucson-Phoenix is absolutely, hands down, the best corridor to develop. Phoenix is the fastest growing city, and Tucson is right up there. The highway linking them has a long, four lane stretch. The existing rail line, with the exception of about 30 miles of the Sunset Route, is underutilized and happens to go to all the right places; growing communities, the two major state universities, the state capital complex, corporate headquarters, major sports teams, public transit connections on either end, etc. This is the biggest rail passenger no-brainer in the country, bar none.



It should certainly be built. I wouldn't bet on Phoenix expansion continuing for more than 20 years, however. I haven't done the detailed projections on when Phoenix runs out of water, but, uh... it'll be a lot sooner than the local governments would like.


----------



## Eric S (Sep 12, 2021)

Iowa as a whole is a relatively slow growth state, no doubt. But the Des Moines, Iowa City, and Omaha (mostly in Nebraska, but partially in Iowa) metro areas did see significant population growth in the 2010s. In fact, Des Moines is one of the fastest growing metro areas in the Midwest, with a growth rate slightly higher than Seattle, Denver, and Las Vegas.


----------



## Nick Farr (Sep 12, 2021)

neroden said:


> It should certainly be built. I wouldn't bet on Phoenix expansion continuing for more than 20 years, however.



I would. Phoenix is leading the nation in wastewater reclamation projects and making sure new development doesn't outstrip the water supply. 

As a state, Arizona is far more prepared for the looming water crisis and doing more to replace infrastructure to conserve water than any other state.


----------



## danasgoodstuff (Sep 12, 2021)

Nick Farr said:


> I would. Phoenix is leading the nation in wastewater reclamation projects and making sure new development doesn't outstrip the water supply.
> 
> As a state, Arizona is far more prepared for the looming water crisis and doing more to replace infrastructure to conserve water than any other state.


And the last time I checked on Google, the Rock Island station & tracks were still there on the edge of downtown Des Moines. I lived there in the '80s and Iowa is its own unique thing.


----------



## neroden (Sep 12, 2021)

Nick Farr said:


> I would. Phoenix is leading the nation in wastewater reclamation projects and making sure new development doesn't outstrip the water supply.
> 
> As a state, Arizona is far more prepared for the looming water crisis and doing more to replace infrastructure to conserve water than any other state.


I'd like to believe that, but I'll believe it when they rip out the golf courses.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Sep 12, 2021)

Nick Farr said:


> Phoenix is leading the nation in wastewater reclamation projects and making sure new development doesn't outstrip the water supply.


New demand has been outstripping new supply for decades, Arizona is the low man on the water rights totem pole, and Phoenix is jockeying with Las Vegas to see which major American city can run out of water first.



Nick Farr said:


> As a state, Arizona is far more prepared for the looming water crisis and doing more to replace infrastructure to conserve water than any other state.


Which sounds great until you realize that no state is well prepared for a long trip through a severe water crisis.


----------



## Nick Farr (Sep 12, 2021)

Devil's Advocate said:


> New demand has been outstripping new supply for decades, Arizona is the low man on the water rights totem pole,



Arizona is also not entirely dependent on the Colorado River for water *or* power, unlike Las Vegas. Their junior rights to the Colorado are primarily why they've been doing more to prepare than Las Vegas.

Phoenix is 70/30 split between river and groundwater, whereas Las Vegas is 90/10 river groundwater.

Las Vegas is also way, way behind in wastewater reclamation, whereas Phoenix has excess capacity.

Eventually, all desert cities are going to have to embrace toilet to tap. At least Phoenix is prepared.


----------



## jis (Sep 12, 2021)

But doesn't the groundwater require the lack of endless droughts to get sufficiently replenished? Or do they have a seemingly infinite paleolithic source of water underground?


----------



## Nick Farr (Sep 12, 2021)

jis said:


> But doesn't the groundwater require the lack of endless droughts to get sufficiently replenished?



Groundwater sources get replenished from many different places. They're also harder to cut off entirely, unlike say the Colorado River.


----------



## jis (Sep 13, 2021)

Nick Farr said:


> Groundwater sources get replenished from many different places.


Then the question of specific interest would be where does the aquifer delivering ground water to Phoenix get replenished from. One cannot just arm wave away the core issue of aquifer replenishment and pretend that it does not matter.

The users of the Everglades Aquifer tried to get away with doing that for many years. Now they are slowly getting to panic about it.


----------



## Nick Farr (Sep 13, 2021)

jis said:


> Then the question of specific interest would be where does the aquifer delivering ground water to Phoenix get replenished from.



Mostly rainwater, runoff and reclaimed water. They actually treat wastewater specifically for groundwater replenishment.


----------



## jis (Sep 13, 2021)

Nick Farr said:


> Mostly rainwater, runoff and reclaimed water. They actually treat wastewater specifically for groundwater replenishment.


But of course in prolonged severe drought condition presumably there will be a dearth of rainwater too, no?


----------



## Nick Farr (Sep 13, 2021)

jis said:


> But of course in prolonged severe drought condition presumably there will be a dearth of rainwater too, no?



The question is not so much the amount of rainfall as much as what's captured over a very long period and what leaves the area (into the ocean). 

The primally problem with most drought areas is fresh water bring flushed out into the ocean faster than it gets replenished, usually with snowpack.


----------



## MARC Rider (Sep 13, 2021)

jis said:


> Then the question of specific interest would be where does the aquifer delivering ground water to Phoenix get replenished from. One cannot just arm wave away the core issue of aquifer replenishment and pretend that it does not matter.
> 
> The users of the Everglades Aquifer tried to get away with doping that for many years. Now they are slowly getting to panic about it.


I guess I'm supposed to know something about this, as I worked for over 20 years as a ground-water geologist.

Aquifers are, indeed recharged from rainfall, and usually from rain that fall pretty much in the general vicinity of the aquifer. That is usually on the order of a few tens of miles or less. There are regional artesian aquifers that can be recharged from some distance away.

I don't know the details of the hydrogeology of the Phoenix area, but I suspect that the amount of water being recharged into the local aquifers by the scant rainfall in the area is far less than the amount of water being used by the population. Even if they recycle more of the wastewater than they now do, there will always be some losses due to evaporation and such, so if the population increases they will never actually reach a point of self-sustainability in terms of water supply. Out in the desert, by the way, evaporation is much more of an issue than here in the East, which is why open reservoirs and flood irrigation are foolish choices.

Florida is a different setting, but the same principles apply. There's lots of rain, and the limestone aquifers are highly permeable, but there is a limit on how much of the rain actually enters the aquifer. Also, if you pump an aquifer heavily, you change the flow field within the aquifer, and you can induce the salt water that almost surrounds Florida (it is a peninsula) to move towards the pumping centers and thus contaminate the wells with salt water. It can also capture what would normally be streamflow, so you can dry up streams or upset a complex ecology, as the seem to be doing in the Everglades.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Sep 13, 2021)

For many years Arizona was "replenishing" ground water usage with surface water rights to balance their books. When it was clear that surface sources would become severely constrained that system lost effectiveness and new use water rates began skyrocketing. This threatened to stall Arizona's suburban sprawl and as a result the state started buying out Indian water rights to help keep their growth expanding. Last I checked toilet water processing was able to reclaim around 5% of the all water used and they can probably double or triple that amount in the future but it will never be enough to save Arizonans from their own hubris. That being said not everyone will suffer equally and if you bought the right land from the right people at the right time you will be fine while everyone else is screwed.


----------



## Nick Farr (Sep 13, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> I don't know the details of the hydrogeology of the Phoenix area, but I suspect that the amount of water being recharged into the local aquifers by the scant rainfall in the area is far less than the amount of water being used by the population.



Most of Phoenix's water comes from salt river valley snowpack. By virtue of being a valley with one outlet, the area is more suited for groundwater replenishment than other desert cities.

You're always going to have some evap, especially in sprinkler usage. 

The critical thing is making sure runoff goes to groundwater rather than the ocean.


----------



## 87YJ (Sep 13, 2021)

I live in AZ and Nick is mostly right  . We have been in our 20 year dry times(right after the 20 year wet times). Just know, that's still not much of a water diff(dry to wet) to most people who live in the US.


----------



## cirdan (Sep 13, 2021)

neroden said:


> I would not have a problem with that. The reason Amtrak doesn't do this is to avoid the increased overhead cost of maintaining a maintenance base at Denver.



I think that a service immediately becomes less attractive when you have to change trains.

This is not just about the inconvenience of getting out of your seat and dragging your luggage onto another train. There is a time penalty involved which further lessens the attractivity of train travel, and more important than this there is always the latent risk of a missed connection. At busy travel times a missed connection may also imply loss of a reserved seat or room and thus a continuation of the journey under less pleasant conditions.

Maybe if you could get trains running every hour or so, the significance of a missed connection would fade to insignificance, but as things are now, this would not be acceptable.

I would rather a train like the CZ ran a couple of hours late than being forced to spend a day waiting for the next train in Denver because my train narrowly missed the connection. And if the connecting train is going to wait, then you might as well continue running the train through as one anyway.


----------



## MARC Rider (Sep 13, 2021)

Nick Farr said:


> Most of Phoenix's water comes from salt river valley snowpack. By virtue of being a valley with one outlet, the area is more suited for groundwater replenishment than other desert cities.
> 
> You're always going to have some evap, especially in sprinkler usage.
> 
> The critical thing is making sure runoff goes to groundwater rather than the ocean.


"Snowpack" is just frozen rainfall.  It might be true that the Phoenix area is better suited for ground-water infiltration than other desert cities, I still suspect that the total precipitation averaged over years is still a good deal less than the water used by the population. 

From what I can read, the Salt River Project is mostly reservoirs and canals, so I expect evaporation is a big source of water loss. The Central Arizona Project may rely more on closed pipelines, but the big reservoirs (Lake Mead, Havasu Lake, Lake Powell) are still evaporating water like crazy. Also, it's not just evaporation, there's also transpiration, the uptake of water by plants. Desert plants can develop really deep, extensive root systems to seek out underground moisture and suck it up. And in deserts, evaporation from sprinkler and flood irrigation are not negligible, and those sorts of water uses should probably be banned. Finally, the water rights issues make things even more incomprehensible to an Easterner like me who just deals with riparian water rights.


----------



## Nick Farr (Sep 13, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> "Snowpack" is just frozen rainfall.



Yet, you know it's measured differently from precipitation that falls on the population area and the volume of supply is known months in advance so you can plan accordingly. There's not much you can do when you count on unpredictable rainfall.

An area that gets virtually no precipitation can survive just fine off of snowpack from nearby mountains.


----------



## MARC Rider (Sep 13, 2021)

cirdan said:


> I think that a service immediately becomes less attractive when you have to change trains.
> 
> This is not just about the inconvenience of getting out of your seat and dragging your luggage onto another train. There is a time penalty involved which further lessens the attractivity of train travel, and more important than this there is always the latent risk of a missed connection. At busy travel times a missed connection may also imply loss of a reserved seat or room and thus a continuation of the journey under less pleasant conditions.
> 
> ...


Most of the ridership of the California Zephyr aren't going to be traveling through Denver. And the people who do are already willing to tolerate delays on their through trains, so why not a reliable scheduled delay? Also, remember that the original transcontinental rail service required changes of trains in Chicago, Omaha and Ogden. Changing trains for through passengers could be eased by having redcap transfer of luggage. A break out of the train might be a nice change of pace. You could enjoy a nicely cooked meal served to you while sitting in the lobby of the Crawford Hotel waiting for your connection. 

Actually, in an expanded rail passenger world, trains that terminate at intermediate points don't have to replace the long-distance through train. It's just that some intermediate points can't be served at reasonable hours by trains that travel the whole long distance corridor. For example, a train that serves Cleveland at a reasonable hour can't serve both Chicago and the east coast at reasonable hours. What the passengers in Cleveland really need are Chicago-Cleveland trains and East Coast-Cleveland trains _in addition to_ the existing Capitol Limited and Lake Shore Limited. They could probably even use more trains than that to provide additional departure and arrival times, just as New York has the Empire Service to provide additional trains to Albany and Buffalo from New York City. I'm not sure mow much market there is for additional east-west trains out of Denver, but corridor service along the Front Range would probably be well patronized. However, I don't think they need to run a Cheyenne - Albuquerque through train.


----------



## MARC Rider (Sep 13, 2021)

Nick Farr said:


> Yet, you know it's measured differently from precipitation that falls on the population area and the volume of supply is known months in advance so you can plan accordingly. There's not much you can do when you count on unpredictable rainfall.
> 
> An area that gets virtually no precipitation can survive just fine off of snowpack from nearby mountains.


Unless climate change messes up the reliability of the snowpack from year to year.


----------



## Nick Farr (Sep 13, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> Unless climate change messes up the reliability of the snowpack from year to year.



Well, you know how much snowpack you have for the year by late February.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Sep 13, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> Most of the ridership of the California Zephyr aren't going to be traveling through Denver. And the people who do are already willing to tolerate delays on their through trains, so why not a reliable scheduled delay? Also, remember that the original transcontinental rail service required changes of trains in Chicago, Omaha and Ogden. Changing trains for through passengers could be eased by having redcap transfer of luggage. A break out of the train might be a nice change of pace. You could enjoy a nicely cooked meal served to you while sitting in the lobby of the Crawford Hotel waiting for your connection.
> 
> Actually, in an expanded rail passenger world, trains that terminate at intermediate points don't have to replace the long-distance through train. It's just that some intermediate points can't be served at reasonable hours by trains that travel the whole long distance corridor. For example, a train that serves Cleveland at a reasonable hour can't serve both Chicago and the east coast at reasonable hours. What the passengers in Cleveland really need are Chicago-Cleveland trains and East Coast-Cleveland trains _in addition to_ the existing Capitol Limited and Lake Shore Limited. They could probably even use more trains than that to provide additional departure and arrival times, just as New York has the Empire Service to provide additional trains to Albany and Buffalo from New York City. I'm not sure mow much market there is for additional east-west trains out of Denver, but corridor service along the Front Range would probably be well patronized. However, I don't think they need to run a Cheyenne - Albuquerque through train.



to me, this makes a lot of sense. There is a huge market for Cleveland in education, arts, sports, etc... much of which comes from Chicago and the coasts. Had there been a reliable train there aside from LSL, I would have definitely used the train to get to oberlin.

United/JetBlue charged $350 for their direct flight tickets anyways... I would have gladly booked a sleeper on LSL if it didn’t drop me off in Elyria at 4:50am.


----------



## sttom (Sep 13, 2021)

When it comes to talking with conservatives about the value of rail travel, I was able to get some of my conservatives friends to agree that funding Amtrak on par with the interstate highways is worthwhile. Which would be paying for capital expenditures and operation costs. I was able to do this just by citing that the economic impact of increase building, business activities, and that direct spending from tourists will generally exceed the total operating subsidy. I also brought up how much we subsidize our highway network and how the associated traffic is more of a drag on our economy than we really get out of it. Depending on the person, you might be able to explain to them that Brightline is not a very applicable model to work off of. Since its basically being built and run to spur real estate development. And if it were a widely applicable model, the railways would start doing it and forsake Amtrak.

The main rules I have for talking with conservatives about trains are:
1) Don't mention Europe or the Environment.
2) Do explain the cost of roads and how you get more bang for the buck with Amtrak funding.
3) Show them that the economic benefits greatly exceed the costs to build and operate the services.


----------



## Cal (Sep 13, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> I'm not sure mow much market there is for additional east-west trains out of Denver


I think someone here had an idea for this run similar to the Palmetto.


----------



## jis (Sep 13, 2021)

Nick Farr said:


> Well, you know how much snowpack you have for the year by late February.


That is exactly what is giving California conniptions these days. Drastically reduced snow packs most years.


----------



## danasgoodstuff (Sep 13, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> Most of the ridership of the California Zephyr aren't going to be traveling through Denver. And the people who do are already willing to tolerate delays on their through trains, so why not a reliable scheduled delay? Also, remember that the original transcontinental rail service required changes of trains in Chicago, Omaha and Ogden. Changing trains for through passengers could be eased by having redcap transfer of luggage. A break out of the train might be a nice change of pace. You could enjoy a nicely cooked meal served to you while sitting in the lobby of the Crawford Hotel waiting for your connection.
> 
> Actually, in an expanded rail passenger world, trains that terminate at intermediate points don't have to replace the long-distance through train. It's just that some intermediate points can't be served at reasonable hours by trains that travel the whole long distance corridor. For example, a train that serves Cleveland at a reasonable hour can't serve both Chicago and the east coast at reasonable hours. What the passengers in Cleveland really need are Chicago-Cleveland trains and East Coast-Cleveland trains _in addition to_ the existing Capitol Limited and Lake Shore Limited. They could probably even use more trains than that to provide additional departure and arrival times, just as New York has the Empire Service to provide additional trains to Albany and Buffalo from New York City. I'm not sure mow much market there is for additional east-west trains out of Denver, but corridor service along the Front Range would probably be well patronized. However, I don't think they need to run a Cheyenne - Albuquerque through train.


Another example of this would be Spokane, the biggest City in eastern WA and the biggest for hundreds of miles, its metro area has grown by leaps and bounds since Amtrak was started, but the only service is the Empire Builder in the middle of the night. Tiny towns in MT on the EB route get much better service. I love those towns (Cut Bank, etc.), but a Seattle - Yakima (no current service) - Spokane loop service that arrived at and left Spokane pretty much any time other than the middle of the night would be a major improvement. Boise which is nearly as big has no current service at all and has also grown since the last time it did. We need to think in different terms than they did in 1971, much less 1950 - it didn't even work well then, and the world is a very different place now.


----------



## west point (Sep 15, 2021)

JIS has it right about Florida service. However I am disappointed that the Orlando - Tampa extension is going to take so lone in getting started. My one ride on the Star from FLL to Orlando I could not believe the number of passengers north of Palm Beach ( 4 coaches almost all full ) until I saw all the ones getting off at Tampa. It would be interesting for some rider report on the Star now with its reduced consist.

Yes Tucson - PHX - LAX has a very high ridership potential. All that is really needed is reopening the PHX - west line to at least HrSR speeds.


----------



## neroden (Sep 16, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> "Snowpack" is just frozen rainfall.  It might be true that the Phoenix area is better suited for ground-water infiltration than other desert cities, I still suspect that the total precipitation averaged over years is still a good deal less than the water used by the population.
> 
> From what I can read, the Salt River Project is mostly reservoirs and canals, so I expect evaporation is a big source of water loss. The Central Arizona Project may rely more on closed pipelines, but the big reservoirs (Lake Mead, Havasu Lake, Lake Powell) are still evaporating water like crazy. Also, it's not just evaporation, there's also transpiration, the uptake of water by plants. Desert plants can develop really deep, extensive root systems to seek out underground moisture and suck it up. And in deserts, evaporation from sprinkler and flood irrigation are not negligible, and those sorts of water uses should probably be banned. Finally, the water rights issues make things even more incomprehensible to an Easterner like me who just deals with riparian water rights.



Yeah, to me Phoenix looks like they're hardly doing anything to conserve their limited and decreasing water supply. They haven't covered the Salt River Project canals, they're still doing sprinkler and flood irrigation, they haven't even shut down the golf courses. Certainly Las Vegas is doing *worse* -- it is the poster child for never planning for the future, as you'd expect from a town whose primary industry is gambling -- but that isn't saying much.

Snowpack in Arizona? Will definitely be shrinking a lot from now on. That much climate change is baked in and unavoidable now. Could have stopped it back in 2000, but not now. 2019 might even be the last reservoir-refill year ever, and they aren't planning for it.









How experts say climate change is impacting Arizona snowpack, water supply


As our climate changes, the snowpack in Arizona is becoming less dependable.




www.abc15.com





A smaller Phoenix will still deserve a Phoenix-Tucson rail line and a rail connection to LA, but don't kid yourself, Phoenix is going to shrink; they have no option.


----------



## cirdan (Sep 16, 2021)

jis said:


> That is exactly what is giving California conniptions these days. Drastically reduced snow packs most years.



So this means there is not actually less precipitation than before, it just comes down as rain rather than snow?

Then surely this could be fixed by building reservoirs to capture it?


----------



## sttom (Sep 16, 2021)

The problem here in California is that the state government doesn't have much of an appetite to do anything. This isn't the days of Pat Brown and the State Water Project, these are the days of the Austerity Democrats. At least when it comes to big infrastructure projects outside of highways or whatever the counties break down and pay for. Which is a really bad way to run a lot of things, Water distribution included.


----------



## jis (Sep 16, 2021)

cirdan said:


> So this means there is not actually less precipitation than before, it just comes down as rain rather than snow?
> 
> Then surely this could be fixed by building reservoirs to capture it?


How did you arrive at that conclusion?  Assuming that total precipitation has not changed is your fantasy, not fact.


----------



## Ryan (Sep 16, 2021)

sttom said:


> The problem here in California is that the state government doesn't have much of an appetite to do anything. This isn't the days of Pat Brown and the State Water Project, these are the days of the Austerity Democrats. At least when it comes to big infrastructure projects outside of highways or whatever the counties break down and pay for. Which is a really bad way to run a lot of things, Water distribution included.


Are there actually any serious plans for infrastructure projects that would actually make more water available?


----------



## John Bredin (Sep 16, 2021)

neroden said:


> Yeah, to me Phoenix looks like they're hardly doing anything to conserve their limited and decreasing water supply. They haven't covered the Salt River Project canals, they're still doing sprinkler and flood irrigation, they haven't even shut down the golf courses. Certainly Las Vegas is doing *worse* -- it is the poster child for never planning for the future, as you'd expect from a town whose primary industry is gambling -- but that isn't saying much.


Without digging to see if Phoenix is doing better than Las Vegas, your remark about Las Vegas not planning for the future is not borne out by reality. I recall from some home improvement TV show that the Las Vegas water authorities are paying people to remove lawns. This page, this page, and this page bear that out and describe various other measures being taken. Forbidding new lawns, requiring removal of existing grassy areas nobody walks on, and paying people to remove existing lawns don't sound like measures someone blowing off the problem would be taking.



Las Vegas Valley Water District said:


> The community used 23 billion gallons less water in 2020 than in 2002, despite a population increase of more than 780,000 residents during that time. This represents a 47 percent decline in the community’s per capita water use since 2002.


I don't know if that's enough for the size of the problem (I live in metro Chicago with a huge lake on our doorstep, so I lack perspective) but it doesn't support the implication that Las Vegas is sitting back and doing nothing.


----------



## 87YJ (Sep 16, 2021)

I agree that their are too many people in Phoenix area for the amount of rainfall.


----------



## Willbridge (Sep 16, 2021)

Cal said:


> I think someone here had an idea for this run similar to the Palmetto.


There are several ways of restructuring the CZ route and they all have pluses and minuses. There are a lot of minuses if someone thinks that it could be done without a net increase in train miles. Most of the coach loads turn over at Denver, the sleeper occupancy less so, but the through rider revenue could be lost in the shuffle.


----------



## jis (Sep 16, 2021)

Willbridge said:


> There are several ways of restructuring the CZ route and they all have pluses and minuses. There are a lot of minuses if someone thinks that it could be done without a net increase in train miles. Most of the coach loads turn over at Denver, the sleeper occupancy less so, but the through rider revenue could be lost in the shuffle.


The Palmetto like train clearly has to be a second train on the route, just like the Palmetto is on its route.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Sep 16, 2021)

cirdan said:


> So this means there is not actually less precipitation than before, it just comes down as rain rather than snow? Then surely this could be fixed by building reservoirs to capture it?


Yeah, we'll just turnkey a few mountain sized reservoirs. Piece of cake.



John Bredin said:


> Forbidding new lawns, requiring removal of existing grassy areas nobody walks on, and paying people to remove existing lawns don't sound like measures someone blowing off the problem would be taking.


Are they responding to the threat? Sure. Is continued growth safe from decades of increasingly severe droughts? Nope. This is a multi-state problem which needs a multi-state solution but is hindered by archaic water laws that never considered something like a hundred years of climate change.


----------



## sttom (Sep 16, 2021)

Ryan said:


> Are there actually any serious plans for infrastructure projects that would actually make more water available?


Other than the Delta Tunnels that politically died when Brown left office, no. Plenty of people have ideas, me included, but if there is one thing I have learned from going on lobby days in Sacramento is that they don't really care what we have to think. I have talked with at least a dozen members of the legislature or their staffs and only 1 of them really seemed to give a damn about us. Part of this is down to only having 120 legislators for 40 million people. They need a political career to get there and they all are worried about their next job in politics, not if we have a stable water supply, good schools or any other thing in 20 years.


----------



## neroden (Sep 16, 2021)

John Bredin said:


> Without digging to see if Phoenix is doing better than Las Vegas, your remark about Las Vegas not planning for the future is not borne out by reality. I recall from some home improvement TV show that the Las Vegas water authorities are paying people to remove lawns. This page, this page, and this page bear that out and describe various other measures being taken. Forbidding new lawns, requiring removal of existing grassy areas nobody walks on, and paying people to remove existing lawns don't sound like measures someone blowing off the problem would be taking.
> 
> 
> I don't know if that's enough for the size of the problem (I live in metro Chicago with a huge lake on our doorstep, so I lack perspective) but it doesn't support the implication that Las Vegas is sitting back and doing nothing.


Well, credit to Las Vegas! That is fairly new and a good change.


----------



## Exvalley (Sep 16, 2021)

I wonder how feasible it would be for Arizona to buy desalinated water from Mexico. There seems to be a business opportunity there. 

Israel has shown that it is viable, even if it is not ideal.








Israel Proves the Desalination Era Is Here


One of the driest countries on Earth now makes more freshwater than it needs




www.scientificamerican.com


----------



## MARC Rider (Sep 16, 2021)

Ryan said:


> Are there actually any serious plans for infrastructure projects that would actually make more water available?


Well, perhaps they (California) could build desalination plants and use seawater, at least for domestic use. Of course, the expense is pretty high, and the water bills would me much higher than in non-arid states.

I had a former colleague who wend to grad school in Tucson in the 1980s; he said water bills out there were very high, on the order of what we would pay for electric bills back east. Thus, they were already starting to encourage people to rip out lawns and such. Piping desalinated water from the coast to Arizona might be possible, I guess, but the costs would be really high. Combined with the ridiculously high temperatures in the summer, I would imagine that the big Arizona metro areas will be less attractive as a place to live or develop businesses in the coming years.


----------



## Exvalley (Sep 16, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> Well, perhaps they (California) could build desalination plants and use seawater, at least for domestic use. *Of course, the expense is pretty high, *and the water bills would me much higher than in non-arid states.


From the 2016 article that I cited, above:
_Desalination used to be an expensive energy hog, but the kind of advanced technologies being employed at Sorek have been a game changer. Water produced by desalination costs just a third of what it did in the 1990s. Sorek can produce a thousand liters of drinking water for 58 cents. Israeli households pay about US$30 a month for their water — similar to households in most U.S. cities, and far less than Las Vegas (US$47) or Los Angeles (US$58)._

And this is from a country that in 2018 got 70% of its electricity from natural gas. (Which admittedly creates its own set of problems.) On the other hand, Israel is much more compact than the American southwest, which makes distribution cheaper.


----------



## toddinde (Sep 16, 2021)

neroden said:


> It should certainly be built. I wouldn't bet on Phoenix expansion continuing for more than 20 years, however. I haven't done the detailed projections on when Phoenix runs out of water, but, uh... it'll be a lot sooner than the local governments would like.


Phoenix isn’t going to run out of water. That’s completely absurd. 80% of the water usage is agriculture. It’s more likely that nobody is going to be living in Iowa in 20 years, or the average age will be 85.


----------



## sttom (Sep 16, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> Well, perhaps they (California) could build desalination plants and use seawater, at least for domestic use. Of course, the expense is pretty high, and the water bills would me much higher than in non-arid states.
> 
> I had a former colleague who wend to grad school in Tucson in the 1980s; he said water bills out there were very high, on the order of what we would pay for electric bills back east. Thus, they were already starting to encourage people to rip out lawns and such. Piping desalinated water from the coast to Arizona might be possible, I guess, but the costs would be really high. Combined with the ridiculously high temperatures in the summer, I would imagine that the big Arizona metro areas will be less attractive as a place to live or develop businesses in the coming years.



One development I've seen with desalination or at least potential technology is to use the designs of a solar thermal power plants as a way to boil ocean water and desalinate that way. The Saudis have even put money behind it so it might become viable in the next few years. The problem here in California is our breed of environmentalist is quite a bit dumber than in most of the US from what I've heard others here say. They certainly wouldn't go for desalination even if it was from a massive solar plant. It's a moral hazard to them, but potential starving or dying in a forest fire is just something they can't fathom even though that is increasingly becoming a risk.


----------



## west point (Sep 16, 2021)

Why ship desalinization water to Arizona ? There is ways to shave the cost of shipping water to inland cities. Instead use the plants to supply water to coastal cities, Then the water saved directed to the inland cities. Less pumping water uphill. However inland cities would have to pay fully for the operation of the plants on the coast of quantities water used.


----------



## me_little_me (Sep 16, 2021)

Ryan said:


> Are there actually any serious plans for infrastructure projects that would actually make more water available?


I'm not sure but I got a call from Newsom asking me to donate a couple of bottles of water to his campaign. I put some tap water in a few excess gallon containers and mailed them to him. He won the recall so I'm sure it will continue.


----------



## cirdan (Sep 17, 2021)

John Bredin said:


> Without digging to see if Phoenix is doing better than Las Vegas, your remark about Las Vegas not planning for the future is not borne out by reality. I recall from some home improvement TV show that the Las Vegas water authorities are paying people to remove lawns. This page, this page, and this page bear that out and describe various other measures being taken. Forbidding new lawns, requiring removal of existing grassy areas nobody walks on, and paying people to remove existing lawns don't sound like measures someone blowing off the problem would be taking.



personally I believe grass and lawns are important for the microclimate and also to make otherwise ugly areas look more friendly.

Rather than remove lawns I would encourage planting with stuff that needs less or even no added water. so less manicured lawns and more tufty prickly desert grass, which can look very pretty if done well.


----------



## neroden (Sep 20, 2021)

cirdan said:


> personally I believe grass and lawns are important for the microclimate and also to make otherwise ugly areas look more friendly.
> 
> Rather than remove lawns I would encourage planting with stuff that needs less or even no added water. so less manicured lawns and more tufty prickly desert grass, which can look very pretty if done well.


Xeriscaping with native Arizona plants is cool.


----------



## cirdan (Sep 20, 2021)

neroden said:


> Xeriscaping with native Arizona plants is cool.



I had to look that word up, but I like it.


----------

