# HSR nay-sayers already out in full force



## saxman (Feb 4, 2010)

As with anything good that happens with rail, there will be nay-sayers. Here's an editorial from the St. Louis dispatch quoting "HSR: a bridge to the 19th centery."

And a response by the well know Wendell Cox: "Opposition to High Speed Rail Grows"

He also wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal. Unfortunately, many of the commenters are critics as well.

A few more for your reading pleasure:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/colum...ste-211864.html

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/l...0,2585805.story

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/opinion/mai...1cc4c002e0.html

So go out there. Correct many of the misconceptions. It's our job to refute the critics and debunk the myths about train travel.


----------



## acelafan (Feb 4, 2010)

saxman said:


> As with anything good that happens with rail, there will be nay-sayers. Here's an editorial from the St. Louis dispatch quoting "HSR: a bridge to the 19th centery."
> And a response by the well know Wendell Cox: "Opposition to High Speed Rail Grows"
> 
> He also wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal. Unfortunately, many of the commenters are critics as well.
> ...


You are right...it's the same myths and opinions out there. Someone has a 1977 list of reasons why rail investment is so bad and it gets repeated over and over again.

If the airline experience keeps degrading at its current rate then more folks will likely take to trains...but we need more trains and higher frequency or else there won't be any open seats!


----------



## birdy (Feb 5, 2010)

Well, you are preaching to the choir here. That does no good. When you notice something like that, quickly and politely respond with a very short and fact-based rebuttal. No need to critique the whole article just discredit them on one or two things.

The WSJ is the worst offender. Their editorial staff evidently feels no obligation to check facts.

For example, I noticed the WSJ contained one bald-faced one (air traffic is not subsidized) and a highly misleading statement that air traffic thrives in competition with HSR routes. You might want to cite to the correct figures on these points. Its easy enough to google them up, or even to leave them bookmarked. Like this: http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_subsid.../figure_06.html


----------



## George Harris (Feb 5, 2010)

Look up Wendell Cox and his foundation and you will find that they have lots of things on them, but they mostly reference each other. There are a few others like him. Dig into their references and you will find yourself literally going around in circles. I know a man doing 20 as a guest in the gray hotel because he operated his businesses that way. (Multiple corporate names giving glowing references to each other. Difference is, he used it to borrow money and then did not pay his loans and other things.) They call using yourself for references fraud when money is involved.

That is a worthwhile thing to show to anybody seriously interested in finding the truth. For those that are only interested in finding proof for their preconceived notions, don't bother.


----------



## birdy (Feb 6, 2010)

Well, Saxman's hypothetical little comment would be pitched to the casual reader, not the editorial board of the WSJ.

Its important to make the corrections when you find them, otherwise these things can take on a life of their own. Look at the "billions of dollars of subsidies for Amtrak" canard--really the figure was more like $675 million per year, but after restating the same thing and getting away with it, it becomes received wisdom. This is especially so if the hearer doesn't have much point of reference to what is being said; Amtrak is high profile and paid for by the government, therefore it seems plausible to the casual reader that it is highly subsidized.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Feb 6, 2010)

all those guys are nothing but pull string dolls. pull their string and they say the same thing over and over cause that's all their programed to say.


----------



## George Harris (Feb 9, 2010)

amtrakwolverine said:


> all those guys are nothing but pull string dolls. pull their string and they say the same thing over and over cause that's all their programed to say.


Exactly ! ! !


----------



## saxman (Feb 11, 2010)

Also notice how they never offer a solution to traffic problems. My city is expected to double in population over the next 50 years, and the nay-sayers will always tell you how transit doesn't work, using all kinds of statistics, but never offer their solution. I'm always in an argument with one particular guy in the comments section of my local paper. I always ask him what his idea of a solution to our population growth is, and his answer is always, "its not rail!"


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Feb 11, 2010)

saxman said:


> Also notice how they never offer a solution to traffic problems. My city is expected to double in population over the next 50 years, and the nay-sayers will always tell you how transit doesn't work, using all kinds of statistics, but never offer their solution. I'm always in an argument with one particular guy in the comments section of my local paper. I always ask him what his idea of a solution to our population growth is, and his answer is always, "its not rail!"


I had a friend try a solution; 10 passenger vans. He had stats that show the vans are better than rail in every way. Until I pointed out to replace BART trains you'd need over 10,000 vans! Yeah, we got room for 10,000 long wheelbase vans on the highways here. (SF Bay Area)


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Feb 11, 2010)

why should they offer a solution to the problem. there paid big $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ by the auto makers the oil company's the airlines etc.


----------

