California Needs High Speed Rail
- Thread starter ish6
- Start date
- Status
I might also point out that Wendell Cox is a leader of the anti-rail movement. He has a proud history of cherry picking his "evidence" to prove that anything not running on rubber tires is the prelude to the Apocalypse. Most neutral examinations of his studies indicate that they tend to be a half step above actual fiction, with wildly exaggerated costs and heavily discounted benefits.
We can't say that high speed rail will succeed in America, but since it hasn't been tried, we also can't say that it will fail.
On the other hand, we can see the air travel collapsing in front of our eyes. Air hub congestion is reaching the breaking point (and thank God for the economic collapse that gave them breathing room) and it's becoming nearly impossible to find a place to expand the airports. We've been trying to build a new airport in San Diego for half a century, and so far all we've come up with is a possible site in the next county (with a high speed train to get there.)
The airport is a misery to go through, and then you have to wedge yourself into those tiny little seats so the plane can taxi out and sit in line waiting to take off.
And air travel is the most polluting and inefficient means of travel. Given a viable chance, a lot of people would gladly ride high speed rail. Pack your bags and head to Paris or Tokyo and try one. You'll see why.
Claude
We can't say that high speed rail will succeed in America, but since it hasn't been tried, we also can't say that it will fail.
On the other hand, we can see the air travel collapsing in front of our eyes. Air hub congestion is reaching the breaking point (and thank God for the economic collapse that gave them breathing room) and it's becoming nearly impossible to find a place to expand the airports. We've been trying to build a new airport in San Diego for half a century, and so far all we've come up with is a possible site in the next county (with a high speed train to get there.)
The airport is a misery to go through, and then you have to wedge yourself into those tiny little seats so the plane can taxi out and sit in line waiting to take off.
And air travel is the most polluting and inefficient means of travel. Given a viable chance, a lot of people would gladly ride high speed rail. Pack your bags and head to Paris or Tokyo and try one. You'll see why.
ClaudeI noticed that 2 of the 3 sponsors of that report have had funding from ExxonMobil, who IIRC are well known for having sponsored anything and anyone who casts doubt on Global Warming.
The report asks some good questions, but it universally takes a worst case scenario, and some fairly pessimistic assumptions, and extrapolates them as hard fact. There are also some minor issues (such as train capacity) which are worked up into major stumbling blocks by the report. There are a few over-optimistic assumptions in the State's website as well - the truth will be somewhere in-between.
Having ridden both high speed rail and short-haul air, I know which I'd rather, given a comparable travelling time. The key to the success of the train will be how convenient it is compared to flying and driving for it's users. Air will probably retain a fair proportion of the LA-SF traffic, but other places in California will be much better reached by Train.
In these times of financial insecurity, large infrastructure projects are often seen as a good way of stimulating the economy. They create jobs, both directly, and in other construction related fields (tax cuts often just increase imports of consumer goods). The trains themselves may be imported, but everything else can be sourced in the USA. Of course it helps if the government actually has some money in the first place...
Paul
The report asks some good questions, but it universally takes a worst case scenario, and some fairly pessimistic assumptions, and extrapolates them as hard fact. There are also some minor issues (such as train capacity) which are worked up into major stumbling blocks by the report. There are a few over-optimistic assumptions in the State's website as well - the truth will be somewhere in-between.
Having ridden both high speed rail and short-haul air, I know which I'd rather, given a comparable travelling time. The key to the success of the train will be how convenient it is compared to flying and driving for it's users. Air will probably retain a fair proportion of the LA-SF traffic, but other places in California will be much better reached by Train.
In these times of financial insecurity, large infrastructure projects are often seen as a good way of stimulating the economy. They create jobs, both directly, and in other construction related fields (tax cuts often just increase imports of consumer goods). The trains themselves may be imported, but everything else can be sourced in the USA. Of course it helps if the government actually has some money in the first place...
Paul
Let's see
This has been a spirited and enjoyable debate. I agree that if given a choice between air travel and high speed rail, or for that matter an ox cart, I'd do almost anything to avoid being packed into one of those cattle cars that hops between the Bay Area and LA.
The real issue is whether high speed rail will do what is advertised for it. Let's watch and see what happens. It is being built now and this experiment will provide a factual answer. BTW, if it is finished in my lifetime I hope to snag a seat on the inaugural train somehow.
Bernie
This has been a spirited and enjoyable debate. I agree that if given a choice between air travel and high speed rail, or for that matter an ox cart, I'd do almost anything to avoid being packed into one of those cattle cars that hops between the Bay Area and LA.
The real issue is whether high speed rail will do what is advertised for it. Let's watch and see what happens. It is being built now and this experiment will provide a factual answer. BTW, if it is finished in my lifetime I hope to snag a seat on the inaugural train somehow.
Bernie
Maybe we ( Californians ) are missing something in this conversation. Why should our taxes pay for this? If it is such a woderful thing, private companys will make it happen. Are the airlines publicaly owned? No. It made sense to offer this service so private companies made it happen. That is the way it is done here in America, at least until Jabnuary 20th.
Yes, as in airlines and bus lines, public funds can be involved as in the air traffic control system and roads, but if private companies see no point in creating it, what makes one think government can do any better?
Yes, as in airlines and bus lines, public funds can be involved as in the air traffic control system and roads, but if private companies see no point in creating it, what makes one think government can do any better?
You guys really have nice discussion here, and many good points in both side. But before I continue, I'm from Florida, so I'm speaking generally.
I think it will service the communities and residents in those/surrounding communities to have a high speed rail -- it would certainly be new alternative to getting around. Politics aside, the line will help the elderly, people with children, and those without licenses, and those people strapped for cash for gas (yeah, I know it has gone done, $1.80 but it could go up just as fast as it went down)! I can go one and list a thousand reasons; But a high speed rail line is very useful, and long over due I say.
Everyone should chip in a bit: private companies, government funds, and the residents of Cali. Regardless, if anyone is for or against the high speed rail line, the government will always take your money, for one reason or another anyways, (ex: bailing out the banks, auto industry, mortgage firms and credit companies = 700 billion and climbing) ... matters well get the thing built ! It will indeed service the communities in those areas for years to come!! So for those who speak about government taxing you for projects that will end up in private companies hands, it happens everyday!
Built the thing, and people will use it more than they will use there cars, in the long run!!
Ish
I think it will service the communities and residents in those/surrounding communities to have a high speed rail -- it would certainly be new alternative to getting around. Politics aside, the line will help the elderly, people with children, and those without licenses, and those people strapped for cash for gas (yeah, I know it has gone done, $1.80 but it could go up just as fast as it went down)! I can go one and list a thousand reasons; But a high speed rail line is very useful, and long over due I say.
Everyone should chip in a bit: private companies, government funds, and the residents of Cali. Regardless, if anyone is for or against the high speed rail line, the government will always take your money, for one reason or another anyways, (ex: bailing out the banks, auto industry, mortgage firms and credit companies = 700 billion and climbing) ... matters well get the thing built ! It will indeed service the communities in those areas for years to come!! So for those who speak about government taxing you for projects that will end up in private companies hands, it happens everyday!
Built the thing, and people will use it more than they will use there cars, in the long run!!
Ish
http://cahsr.blogspot.com/
A good blog on the subject
http://sfcityscape.com/maps/california_high_speed_rail.html
rockin map of the system, by my friend Steve B.
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/
CAHSR home page with quite a few good vids on how things will look
I for one am happy it passed, along with the Smart Train, and the mass transit mesure in LA.
Look like by the time HSR is built here to SF, I can take it to LAUS and then take the subway to Santa Monica, to hang at the beach. Fun times
A good blog on the subject
http://sfcityscape.com/maps/california_high_speed_rail.html
rockin map of the system, by my friend Steve B.
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/
CAHSR home page with quite a few good vids on how things will look
I for one am happy it passed, along with the Smart Train, and the mass transit mesure in LA.
Look like by the time HSR is built here to SF, I can take it to LAUS and then take the subway to Santa Monica, to hang at the beach. Fun times
If trucks are so wonderful why aren't the private trucking companies building the interstates? If airlines are so great why do we need public money to build the airports. Can't that be done by the airlines themselves?
If public infrastructure investment is such a terrible thing, why have railroads at all? They were all started with public funding to build the tracks.
It would be nice if we could do multi billion dollar investments with purely private money, and if you happen to know a visionary investor with 50 billion dollars of loose change and a willingness to wait 10 to 15 years for the pay-off, send him over and I'll get him started.
Long term, this could be exceptionally profitable if done right, but it won't make a return within the next fiscal quarter. Name a company that is willing to invest beyond the next profit statement and we might have a chance of doing this with private money.
But until then, fast, comfortable and efficient passenger traffic will have to be done with public bonds, because no private company has the vision to try some "untested" technology, no matter how profitable it has been everywhere else.
Claudebassist118
Suffering for his art.
We have to ask what the price will be of strengthening flood defenses, easing famine, disease and all the other climate change issues because tax payers kick off about paying a little extra now to pay for it. This global economic crisis has it's roots based on energy prices and our obsession with the car/plane. As energy prices will only rise as theres less and less oil in the ground. We need to get our heads out of the oil producing nations and be self reliant, the world needs projects like this. 1 man in a car burns 1 kg pf carbon per 10 miles. 1 man on a train uses 1 kg per 250 miles for diesel and 1000 miles for electric. You do the maths, I don't particularly want my grand kids growing up under a big glass dome because of people's blatant tightness. Sorry for going on but it's the same argument as the people who moan about wind turbines spoiling their view. We don't so stuff like this then there wont be a view to spoil.
Last edited by a moderator:
WE can't afford things like this. More importantly we don't NEED things like this. Greenies will be the death of us, not polution, in my not so hunble opinion. How the BLEEP did the human race survive with hundreds of thousands coal and oil burning steam locomotives running around? Just fine, thank you.
/rant mode off
/rant mode off
The question is can you afford the highway upgrades, new runways, congestion, smog, road casualties, and nose to tail commutes?
This scheme will almost certainly run an operating profit big enough to cover all of it's future costs, so unlike highways with an ongoing maintenance budget, it's a one-off investment, and cheaper than any of the alternatives (other than do nothing).
Oh, and hundreds of thousands of steam locos created a lot less CO2 than the current fleet of hundreds of millions of cars and trucks, but even then contributed to some pretty serious air quality issues in some cities. Even if you ignore the green argument, this is a significantly worthwhile step forward in increasing mobility (and therefore economic activity) for many Californians in a way that will not just result in more traffic.
Paul
Our use of fossil fuels for the past 150 years or so is finally catching up to us. Our ancestors didn't worry about that because they would not be around to see it and did not know any better. We do and our children will be around: that is the problem. One only needs read the abundance of scientific research that shows how ice caps are melting, how weather patterns are changing and how glaciers are melting away. In doing a lesson for my students on Global Issues, I was shocked to see how many people thought global warming was a myth.
For better or for worse, we all need to use less fossil fuels on a daily basis. America has the wealth, educated workforce, political freedom and ability to lead the way and so it must. If it does not, it will fall along with the rest of the world...
One such way is to discourage the use of cars, planes and other inefficient modes of transportation and I'm all for it.
That being said, one would have to do a feasability study (to see if people would actually use it, if it would be worthwhile in all senses and what the ecological impact would be).
In my hardly humble opinion, it is the people who do not care, who refuse to see what is right in front of them or those who continue to accept that everything is just fine without thinking twice that are being the death of us.
My 1/2 a cent
:wave:
Gisa ^^
Yes, we can afford highway upgrades, new runways and road casualties. We always have, though there was not much use for runways prior to 1903.
As for smog, we have defeated that monster, at least here in the Bay Area. I have lived here for 64 years and I know what smog was. I have not seen it in many years. Yes, I know there are those that still try to scare us with the smog monster because a scared populace can more easily be maniulated, like voting for publically financing high speed rail service.
Then there is the BIG scary mythical beast called man made global warming. Just look what that "big lie" has done to many of you. You might want to ask yourselves what those behind the big lie are trying to accomplish and why they must lie to get their way. Climate change happens. Get used to it.
Back to high speed rail. When was the last time you have been stuck in a nose to tail commute on I-5 between the Central Valley and the Grape Vine? It does not happen. So we do not need this unafordable boondoggle to relieve " Commute " traffic. Come on folks. THINK!
What are we going to power these trains with? Coal? Or are we finally going to get some new nuclear power plants around here? We are already having rolling blackouts as it is. Will the trains be shut down for hours at a time in 110 degree heat? Come on. THINK!!
Some would have you believe we are about to run out of oil. Yet another big lie. We have plenty for at least another 50 years, perhaps even a hundred plus. Before we start running out, our cars, trucks and busses will be running on fuel cells. In the mean time we must build new refineries and nuclear power plants.
Oh yes, and DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW!!
As for smog, we have defeated that monster, at least here in the Bay Area. I have lived here for 64 years and I know what smog was. I have not seen it in many years. Yes, I know there are those that still try to scare us with the smog monster because a scared populace can more easily be maniulated, like voting for publically financing high speed rail service.
Then there is the BIG scary mythical beast called man made global warming. Just look what that "big lie" has done to many of you. You might want to ask yourselves what those behind the big lie are trying to accomplish and why they must lie to get their way. Climate change happens. Get used to it.
Back to high speed rail. When was the last time you have been stuck in a nose to tail commute on I-5 between the Central Valley and the Grape Vine? It does not happen. So we do not need this unafordable boondoggle to relieve " Commute " traffic. Come on folks. THINK!
What are we going to power these trains with? Coal? Or are we finally going to get some new nuclear power plants around here? We are already having rolling blackouts as it is. Will the trains be shut down for hours at a time in 110 degree heat? Come on. THINK!!
Some would have you believe we are about to run out of oil. Yet another big lie. We have plenty for at least another 50 years, perhaps even a hundred plus. Before we start running out, our cars, trucks and busses will be running on fuel cells. In the mean time we must build new refineries and nuclear power plants.
Oh yes, and DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW!!
Hmmm. Somehow I've never bought the 'Global Warming is a Myth' conspiracy theory. It's taken along time, against much opposition from vested interests to establish what the cast majority of climate scientists now agree on. I find it difficult to believe that the vast weight of scientific evidence is somehow wrong, or that it is some kind of conspiracy. If it is a conspiracy, then who's behind it? All of the money is in oil, autos, air travel, road construction, and these people have a huge amount of influence in government the world over, not least in Washington. It's in their interest to cast doubt on global warming. On the other hand, taking moves to alleviate climate change is awkward for politicians, and has little immediate attraction to established big business (not that there wont be opportunities for making money).
And if you can afford the highways and airports, then why not build the train if it's nearer half the price? Unless you believe that the world should be car-shaped, better public transport is needed to keep our cities from becoming half paved unmanageable sprawls in which you are a second class citizen if you don't drive. Admittedly cities like LA have gone so far down that road already that it takes a long time, and a scary amount of investment to do anything about it, but the transport networks in Europe's large cities weren't built in a day, and can still be improved...
As for power, the amount needed to run a network like this is a drop in the ocean compared with California's total energy consumption, and California is ideal territory for solar technology. It's also easier to contemplate CO2 sequestration and other exhaust scrubbing measures at a handful of power plants instead of on a million tailpipes. Trains run at high speeds in comparable temperatures in other parts of the world - it should work fine in California too.
If this really was untried technology, or worse one that was a proven money pit, I'd be concerned, but really it's well established in much of the world. I just can't see why it wouldn't work in California.
The oil may last for another 50-100 years, but the price will be astronomical well before that. Peak oil is not the end, just the beginning of a spiral of increased production costs in ever more marginal oilfields. So long as we're prepared to pay ever more at the pump, someone will squeeze the last few drops from the earth...
Paul
Superfudd!
Right on. Do you remember back in the 70s when you couldn't see the Santa Cruz mountains from San Jose because of the smog? I do. Now the only time they disappear is when we have fog, not smog.
As for global warming, it is not astonishing that Earth has warmed a bit, in view of the fact we have been coming out of an ice age since about 1850. It also might be worthwhile to point out that Earth has been cooling the past 7 or 8 years. What? Yes. Caused by Man? No. Caused by the good old star we call Sol, which is incomparably more powerful that any wimpy thing Man can do.
Does this mean we can just trash Earth? No. We owe it to past and future generations not to. But this does not mean we need high speed rail to do what is already being done perfectly well.
It's the same old story. If you can't sell your product, manufacture a "crisis" of some sort and get the government to mandate its use.
Bernie
Right on. Do you remember back in the 70s when you couldn't see the Santa Cruz mountains from San Jose because of the smog? I do. Now the only time they disappear is when we have fog, not smog.
As for global warming, it is not astonishing that Earth has warmed a bit, in view of the fact we have been coming out of an ice age since about 1850. It also might be worthwhile to point out that Earth has been cooling the past 7 or 8 years. What? Yes. Caused by Man? No. Caused by the good old star we call Sol, which is incomparably more powerful that any wimpy thing Man can do.
Does this mean we can just trash Earth? No. We owe it to past and future generations not to. But this does not mean we need high speed rail to do what is already being done perfectly well.
It's the same old story. If you can't sell your product, manufacture a "crisis" of some sort and get the government to mandate its use.
Bernie
Last edited:
Well put. I admire your reasoning, support and logic. I could not have put this better myself if I tried a thousand times. Thank you for writing this...
:wave:
Gisa ^^
bassist118
Suffering for his art.
More ignorance
You what!!!!!! You're blind to it coz you live in semi tropical region. THINK. Up here the flowers are flowering earlier each year the leaves are turning brown later and later. Birds arn't migrating for the winter. The uce caps have lost over 1000 sq miles of ice. Global rain fall levels have been on the increase for the last 50 years. All this wouldn't happen if the Earth was getting cooler. THINK, Its the suckers that are licking the oil producing nations arses, notice too that most of the oil producing nations are into terrorism. THINK. America has 'tried' to invade most of 'em Oh by the way 1 car 4 - 5 people, 1 train 2 power cars 250+ people emmiting the same carbon emmisions as 5 cars. THINK. On the same token you must be saying that volcanic eruptions are a myth coz they effect the weather cycle inthe same way just to a lesser degree coz they don't erupt all the time. THINK!!!
You what!!!!!! You're blind to it coz you live in semi tropical region. THINK. Up here the flowers are flowering earlier each year the leaves are turning brown later and later. Birds arn't migrating for the winter. The uce caps have lost over 1000 sq miles of ice. Global rain fall levels have been on the increase for the last 50 years. All this wouldn't happen if the Earth was getting cooler. THINK, Its the suckers that are licking the oil producing nations arses, notice too that most of the oil producing nations are into terrorism. THINK. America has 'tried' to invade most of 'em Oh by the way 1 car 4 - 5 people, 1 train 2 power cars 250+ people emmiting the same carbon emmisions as 5 cars. THINK. On the same token you must be saying that volcanic eruptions are a myth coz they effect the weather cycle inthe same way just to a lesser degree coz they don't erupt all the time. THINK!!!
bassist118
Suffering for his art.
Thank you if more of us thought like this then we may just not have to sped the rest of our lives under a huge glass dome having to pay tax on clean air.
Wessex_Electric_Nutter
New member
Smog can happen, it did happen, but thankfully, it wasn't heard of in the US. London (UL) suffered a sort of smog that did kill thousands in the city in 1952.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_1952
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/education/secondary/students/smog.html
The problem is, we are facing a population epidemic as humans, now we are reaching 6bn living souls, there are estimates that by 2020, 60% or more will be living in cities. Thankfully, I am not one of those 60%, but it is rather frightening to think about. You then have a number of questions to ask, like:
How are the utilities (water, gas, electric) going to be run?
How are the city inhabitants going to travel around?
How can we sustain employment levels and not have more unemployed than employed?
Each of these questions have another question, what fuel? The oil reserves are a finite source of power and once that finite source runs out, we have more and more questions to ask our own selves.
50 years? Its still finite! The developing nations need to be able to catch up as well and they are the ones harboring at-least 40% of the worlds population (that is India and China). It is great if we can encourage rationing and at least in the UK, because of the "credit crunch", some of those that used to travel by car, are rethinking the way they travel.
Drill here and drill now is a bit of a short sighted view in my humble opinion, without through planning and foresight. I guess I am used to thinking of the impact a structure is likely to have, the benefits and drawbacks and what to do with the area once the desired use is completed.
Tokkyu40 said:
Err, has it not now? "High Speed Rail" can have a surprisingly loose term. What was the Acela units designed for? Ok, not a dedicated high speed rail link, but it is reasonable, rather like our East/West Coast Main Line or Great Western Main Line (Latter uses diesel trains)
- Status