# More Trouble for Ca HSR plans



## guest (Sep 20, 2011)

Latest troubling news regarding California HSR:

links to articles:

http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/lawsuits-could-stall-high-speed-rail-plans-12588

http://zocalopublicsquare.org/thepublicsquare/2011/09/19/why-not-blow-9-billion-on-a-cool-train/read/nexus/


----------



## George Harris (Sep 20, 2011)

Once you recognize the names of the authors you can come close to predicting what they are going to say without reading the first word of their writing.

The mindset behind the second one listed is more incomprehensible than the first. The author, Richard White is at a university started with railroad money and that off the first transcontinental which he appears to absolutely desipise. Guess he never heard of the concept of "don't bite the hand that feeds you." He paints the major 19th century railroad building era as somewhere between a eally bad thing and an outright disaster. Doesn't seem to grasp that without it we probably would not be a country, and certainly in a much more primitive condition.

These guys are spouting their opinions and propoganda and trying to masquerade them as factual analysis.


----------



## guest (Sep 20, 2011)

George Harris said:


> Once you recognize the names of the authors you can come close to predicting what they are going to say without reading the first word of their writing.
> 
> The mindset behind the second one listed is more incomprehensible than the first. The author, Richard White is at a university started with railroad money and that off the first transcontinental which he appears to absolutely desipise. Guess he never heard of the concept of "don't bite the hand that feeds you." He paints the major 19th century railroad building era as somewhere between a eally bad thing and an outright disaster. Doesn't seem to grasp that without it we probably would not be a country, and certainly in a much more primitive condition.
> 
> These guys are spouting their opinions and propoganda and trying to masquerade them as factual analysis.


I guess I would feel more comfortable seeing these arguments by opponents refuted on a factual basis rather than reading an attack on the individuals writing them. I'm not sure whether it matters how reprehensible someone may think of an individual; what seems more important is the strength, or lack of strength, of the argument.


----------



## George Harris (Sep 21, 2011)

guest said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > These guys are spouting their opinions and propoganda and trying to masquerade them as factual analysis.
> ...


The information is out there. There are numerous sources, not just from those with a vested interest in th outcome. Would suggest that you do your own searching.

Look at the track record of ones recently completed elsewhere. Example: Taiwan HSR has been open about five years. It is now profitable and local flignts between points servcei are much reduced, as is road traffic on the parallel highways.


----------



## Trogdor (Sep 21, 2011)

George Harris said:


> The information is out there. There are numerous sources, not just from those with a vested interest in [the] outcome. Would suggest that you do your own searching.


That's the attitude that has killed (or failed to generate) grass-roots public support for good rail projects all over the country.

The opponents of rail don't sit back and say, "All the evidence that rail doesn't work is out there. Go do your own searching." Instead they write articles/opinions, books, websites, etc. on their opinions, regardless of how wrong/misleading their comments may be.

Meanwhile, in support of HSR, we get, at best, "go search for it yourself" (and at worst, no response at all). I'm convinced that this attitude by Wisconsin HSR supporters and planners is just as responsible for the death of the Milwaukee-Madison project as Scott Walker's opposition.

If California HSR advocates are going to see this project succeed, it's going to be up to them to actually get the info out there...again and again and again. The public has the attention span of a goldfish, and they are *not* going to do their own research. They are going to listen to whatever talking head can come up with a 60-second 6-second sound bite, and form their opinion based on that. If the response to the sound bite is "go do your own research," then you might as well not even waste your time.


----------



## George Harris (Sep 21, 2011)

Trogdor said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > The information is out there. There are numerous sources, not just from those with a vested interest in [the] outcome. Would suggest that you do your own searching.
> ...


Feel free to provide the pro-high-speed rail information and sources, Mr. Trogdor


----------



## Trogdor (Sep 21, 2011)

I guess you can't be bothered with supporting your own cause, George.

I don't work on high-speed rail. In the case of Wisconsin, there were simple facts that I was never even able to figure out (things as simple as the proposed fare, to counter the runaway popular myth that a one-way ticket would cost $50, $75, or $100 per person). This info should have been made readily available by those working on the project.

I don't have all the facts for California, either (actually, I know less about that project than I did about the Wisconsin project). Since you say those facts are out there, and you know what those sources are, then you should be the one who should be more than happy to provide them. Heck, if the sources are as numerous as you claim, then it shouldn't take you more than a couple minutes to list a few.


----------



## Anderson (Sep 22, 2011)

You know, come to think of it, I can't find a "hard" proposed fare for the Norfolk service, either...the per passenger revenue estimates bounce between about $50 and $90/passenger, depending on the option, etc.


----------



## George Harris (Sep 22, 2011)

So far as I know, there is no place that has built a high speed railroad that is regretting it. For most systems, the ridership has exceeded projections.

Try this: (I have not read it in full.) It is from a group calling themselves CALPRIG - California Public Interest Research Group

http://www.calprig.org/home/reports/report-archives/world-class-public-transit/world-class-public-transit/next-stop-california.-benefits-of-high-speed-around-the-world-and-whats-in-store-for-california

This should get you to a page listing a few reasons and has a link to a 40 something page pdf report that I have yet to read in full or even very far.

Among their points:

High speed rail will result in significant reduction in air travel between points served.

High speed rail will result in reduced intercity automobile travel between points served.

>>>Not in what I have read in this report, but have seen elsewhere, these demand reductions will eliminate or postpone the need to provide increased airport and road capacity. This is also a way of saying, if the money is not spent on the railroad it will need to, as much or more, be spent on capacity improvements for air and road travel.<<<

Between Washington and New York, with service that is slow by most HSR standards, the rail-air division is 62% rail, 38% air. This is not considering travel between intermediate pairs.

>>>In Taiwan within about two years of operation the number of flights between the major end point cities dropped from aboutg 40 per day to about 2 per day. This eliminated the need for airport expansion or simply insufficient flight slots necessary to meet demand. The freed up flight slots has permitted additional flights to other locations, including international flights, to be added.<<<

High speed rail uses considerably less energy per passenger mile than either air or automobile.

Japan states that Shinkansen trains use one-fourth the energy of air travel and one-sixth the energy of automobile. >>>Not stated is that the average Japanese automobile is smaller than the average automobile on US roads.<<<

Safety. There has never been a fatal accident on the Shinkansen and only one derailment, and that in an earthquake above 6.0. Further, everybody literlly walked out from the derailed train. >>>There have been two well known multiple fatality accidents in Europe, but both were on "ordinary railways", That is when operating on tracks that were not used solely by high speed trains. The multiple fatality at Eschede Germany involved a wheel type not used either before, since or ever anywhere else on high speed trainsets. Following the broken wheel there were several other factors that turned a high speed derailment into a major catastrophe. The recent collision in China between two high sped trains in China was not on a dedicated high-speed line, and appeared to be the result of violation of the most basic of operating principles under conditions of signal malfunction.<<<

Reliability. Low visibility / no visibility is not an issue. Most high speed railroads operate with very small delays. The average in Japan is 36 seconds.

Most HSR systems are at worst self sustaining. A lot are profitable.

>>>In Taiwan after just under five years in operation, the system is covering its operating costs, and most if not all the interest costs.<<<

Denser urban areas and less sprawl is a common result of increased travel by rail, as there is less land use for a given amount of capacity than for roads.

>>>The right of way for a high speed railway is approximately the same as that required for a two lane secondary road.<<<

Will these do for a start? Additions from others would be appreciated.

George


----------



## CHamilton (Sep 22, 2011)

The California High Speed Rail Blog is a useful source.


----------

