California Bullet Train Breaks Ground

[Jimmy Higgins]

In other news, we take our attention to bankrupt airliners.

[TABLE="class: wikitable sortable"]
[TR]
[TD]Eastern Airlines[/TD]
[TD]March 9, 1989[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Ceased operations[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Partnair[/TD]
[TD]October 1, 1989[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Pan American World Airways[/TD]
[TD]January 8, 1991[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Ceased operations; Most assets purchased by Delta Air Lines[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]America West Airlines[/TD]
[TD]June 28, 1991[/TD]
[TD]August 26, 1994[/TD]
[TD]^[3][4][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Sun Country Airlines[/TD]
[TD]January, 2002[/TD]
[TD]2003[/TD]
[TD]Involuntary[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Trans World Airlines[/TD]
[TD]January 10, 2001[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Filed as part of an acquisition by American Airlines[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]US Airways[/TD]
[TD]August 11, 2002[/TD]
[TD]March 31, 2003[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]United Airlines[/TD]
[TD]December 9, 2002[/TD]
[TD]February 1, 2006[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Air Canada[/TD]
[TD]April 1, 2003[/TD]
[TD]September 30, 2004[/TD]
[TD]Canadian airline[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Flash Airlines[/TD]
[TD]March 1, 2004[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Ceased operations[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]US Airways[/TD]
[TD]September 12, 2004[/TD]
[TD]September 27, 2005[/TD]
[TD]Second filing, emerges in conjunction with its acquisition by America West[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Aloha Airlines[/TD]
[TD]December 30, 2004[/TD]
[TD]February 17, 2006[/TD]
[TD]Cargo division continued flying as Aloha Air Cargo[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Northwest Airlines[/TD]
[TD]September 14, 2005[/TD]
[TD]May 31, 2007[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Delta Air Lines[/TD]
[TD]September 14, 2005[/TD]
[TD]April 30, 2007[/TD]
[TD]Included subsidiary Comair[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Maxjet Airways[/TD]
[TD]December 26, 2007[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Ceased operations[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Aloha Airlines[/TD]
[TD]March 31, 2008[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Second filing; ceased passenger operations[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]ATA Airlines[/TD]
[TD]April 3, 2008[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Ceased operations[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Skybus Airlines[/TD]
[TD]April 5, 2008[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Ceased operations[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Frontier Airlines[/TD]
[TD]April 10, 2008[/TD]
[TD]October 1, 2009[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Eos Airlines[/TD]
[TD]August 26, 2008[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Ceased operations[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Sun Country Airlines[/TD]
[TD]October 6, 2008[/TD]
[TD]February 23, 2011[/TD]
[TD]Second bankruptcy[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Primaris Airlines[/TD]
[TD]October 15, 2008[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Ceased operations[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mesa Airlines[/TD]
[TD]January 5, 2010[/TD]
[TD]March 11, 2011[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Arrow Air[/TD]
[TD]July 1, 2010[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Ceased operations and liquidated[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mexicana[/TD]
[TD]August 28, 2010[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Mexican airline; ceased operations[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]American Airlines[/TD]
[TD]November 29, 2011[/TD]
[TD]December 8, 2013[/TD]
[TD]Filed and continues operations; includes parent company AMR Corporation and subsidiary American Eagle Airlines[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[KeepTalking]

For people who commute along the route on a regular basis, my assumption would be a desire to get to their destination about ten times faster than they can now.



For some, I suppose an argument regarding either economic feasibility, or safety has that potential. For others, there may not be any argument, reasonable or not, that would sway them.

Thanks for replying, but that is not exactly what I am seeking. I am asking how any poster who seriously supports HSR feels. Aside from the numbers, what inspires the enthusiasm? There are people who would support any technology project, simply because it sounds novel or challenging. There are others who just think it is just "retro neat". to have trains. Is this something like the space program, that it just sounds like a grand accomplishment?

I have never gotten the sense that anyone supports HSR solely because of some dry cost-benefit study.

I am probably not that poster, as I don't think 'enthusiastic' is the correct word to describe how I feel about HSR. I work in the tech sector, and I like shiny, new tech. The technology exists, and other countries are building them with success. It's just another area among many where American exceptionalism isn't.

Personally, I don't like to fly, I only get on a plane when I have to, and ubiquitous bullet trains running across the country would give me an option with a time to destination comparable to flying. On the other hand, if we had them, I might use them about once a year, provided the ticket price was also comparable to flying. Economically speaking, the proposed HSR in California would cost about the same as twelve F-22 Raptors, and we built 188 of those. I doubt they are helping anyone other than a couple hundred military pilots get anywhere. What's the cost-benefit analysis there?

 

[bilby]

If railways are good enough for Dagny Taggart and Hank Reardon, then they are good enough for me.

I find it hilarious that from the 1830s through to WWII, trains and railways were vital infrastructure that kept the engine of capitalism humming; and that all of a sudden, as soon as the wealthy could afford to own their own cars, railways became the symbol of Stalinist oppression, and building roads (on the taxpayer's dollar) became the symbol of freedom.

Of course, freeways and railroads are neither symbolic of capitalism nor communism; they are two possible solutions to the problem of getting people and stuff from A to B, and they both have pros and cons. 100% private ownership of the permanent way is fairly rare in either case; most of the 'problems' with rail projects apply equally to freeway projects; for example, both require some means of compulsory acquisition of the real-estate on which they are built.

Insofar as support for these schemes is based on emotional rather than rational considerations, it seems that the ideological purists of the right are the ones who have ditched reason from their decision making processes. Propose a new high-speed railway in the USA, and people immediately ignore your cost-benefit analyses, and start talking about how you have other, unspecified but clearly emotion based, motives for supporting the project. It is a classic case of psychological projection - if they could show that the project is incapable of providing benefits that outweighed the costs, then they would do so, and that would be the end of it.

 

[maxparrish]

Thanks for replying, but that is not exactly what I am seeking. I am asking how any poster who seriously supports HSR feels. Aside from the numbers, what inspires the enthusiasm? There are people who would support any technology project, simply because it sounds novel or challenging. There are others who just think it is just "retro neat". to have trains. Is this something like the space program, that it just sounds like a grand accomplishment?

I have never gotten the sense that anyone supports HSR solely because of some dry cost-benefit study.

I am probably not that poster, as I don't think 'enthusiastic' is the correct word to describe how I feel about HSR. I work in the tech sector, and I like shiny, new tech. The technology exists, and other countries are building them with success. It's just another area among many where American exceptionalism isn't.

Actually that is helpful. So you enjoy seeing new technology. Perhaps there is more? After all, some of us enjoy the new super hi-def flat screen TVs but few would get the same thrill out of a national program to distribute them to every consumer (either through sales or government gifting).

However "HSR" and the space program are two examples of big stuff 'glamour' technology. I wonder what atheistic pleasure comes from "big" technology (vs the implementation of equally expensive but obscure projects like cell phone networks). Is it the same "thrill" folks once got from the Hoover dam and Golden Gate Bridge building?

Personally, I don't like to fly, I only get on a plane when I have to, and ubiquitous bullet trains running across the country would give me an option with a time to destination comparable to flying. On the other hand, if we had them, I might use them about once a year, provided the ticket price was also comparable to flying. Economically speaking, the proposed HSR in California would cost about the same as twelve F-22 Raptors, and we built 188 of those. I doubt they are helping anyone other than a couple hundred military pilots get anywhere. What's the cost-benefit analysis there?

You sure? This source says the average cost of the F-22 was 190 million each. Twelve of them would only total a tiny fraction of the cost of California's HSR (65 billion or so).

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/air-forces-newest-fighter-jet-f-22-raptor-makes-combat-debut/

 

[maxparrish]

If railways are good enough for Dagny Taggart and Hank Reardon, then they are good enough for me.

I find it hilarious that from the 1830s through to WWII, trains and railways were vital infrastructure that kept the engine of capitalism humming; and that all of a sudden, as soon as the wealthy could afford to own their own cars, railways became the symbol of Stalinist oppression, and building roads (on the taxpayer's dollar) became the symbol of freedom....

Insofar as support for these schemes is based on emotional rather than rational considerations, it seems that the ideological purists of the right are the ones who have ditched reason from their decision making processes. Propose a new high-speed railway in the USA, and people immediately ignore your cost-benefit analyses, and start talking about how you have other, unspecified but clearly emotion based, motives for supporting the project. It is a classic case of psychological projection - if they could show that the project is incapable of providing benefits that outweighed the costs, then they would do so, and that would be the end of it.

Perhaps, but that tells us nothing about the emotional basis of supporters for HSR - or are you saying their is no emotional attachment to HSR by supporters, it being no more than a wide spread objective evaluation of economic cost-benefit studies?

 

[bilby]

If railways are good enough for Dagny Taggart and Hank Reardon, then they are good enough for me.

I find it hilarious that from the 1830s through to WWII, trains and railways were vital infrastructure that kept the engine of capitalism humming; and that all of a sudden, as soon as the wealthy could afford to own their own cars, railways became the symbol of Stalinist oppression, and building roads (on the taxpayer's dollar) became the symbol of freedom....

Insofar as support for these schemes is based on emotional rather than rational considerations, it seems that the ideological purists of the right are the ones who have ditched reason from their decision making processes. Propose a new high-speed railway in the USA, and people immediately ignore your cost-benefit analyses, and start talking about how you have other, unspecified but clearly emotion based, motives for supporting the project. It is a classic case of psychological projection - if they could show that the project is incapable of providing benefits that outweighed the costs, then they would do so, and that would be the end of it.

Perhaps, but that tells us nothing about the emotional basis of supporter for HSR - or are you saying their is no emotional attachment to HSR by supporters, it being no more than a wide spread objective evaluation of economic cost-benefit studies?

I am saying that there is no evidence that emotion is an important factor in people's support for High Speed Rail, and that your un-evidenced assertion that it is, only reflects the fact that you have an emotional basis for your opposition, and that you try to conceal this by accusing your opponents of the same behaviour in which you yourself indulge.

I note that you have made no attempt to present any evidence that improved links between LA and San Francisco are not economically viable, nor that HSR is economically worse than any of the other means (freeways, air traffic changes, etc.) for achieving such improvements.

Your entire argument to date boils down to 'HSR is bad, and I accuse those who support it of doing so on a purely emotional basis' - which appears to be a purely emotional position.

I don't know whether emotion does or does not play a major part in support of HSR in the USA, but as you are claiming that it does, you need to supply some evidence for your position (if you wish to be taken seriously) - and such evidence should include demonstrating that emotion plays a lesser part in opposition to HSR, than it does in support for it, (assuming that you are going to further suggest that emotion is not a suitable basis for such decision making, which seems to be your implied position).

 

[maxparrish]

Perhaps, but that tells us nothing about the emotional basis of supporter for HSR - or are you saying their is no emotional attachment to HSR by supporters, it being no more than a wide spread objective evaluation of economic cost-benefit studies?

I am saying that there is no evidence that emotion is an important factor in people's support for High Speed Rail, and that your un-evidenced assertion that it is, only reflects the fact that you have an emotional basis for your opposition, and that you try to conceal this by accusing your opponents of the same behaviour in which you yourself indulge.

The only thing I am "projecting" is political science literacy. It's common knowledge that in general, most people's support or nonsupport for political initiatives are based on emotion, self-interest, group identity and/or moral intuition (which itself is usually a feeling). Such is well recognized in the social science literature, as well as by American humorists and public intellectuals since (and likely before) Mark Twain.

For example:

http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/Graham.pdf
http://www.vox.com/2014/4/6/5556462/brain-dead-how-politics-makes-us-stupid

That you claim to have seen no evidence of emotion in HSR is fine - clearly then you are not equipped to provide the information I seek. But you cannot speak for other HSR supporting posters or their feelings, one of which has already provided what you still have not seen.

I note that you have made no attempt to present any evidence that improved links between LA and San Francisco are not economically viable, nor that HSR is economically worse than any of the other means (freeways, air traffic changes, etc.) for achieving such improvements.

Your entire argument to date boils down to 'HSR is bad, and I accuse those who support it of doing so on a purely emotional basis' - which appears to be a purely emotional position.

I did not claim HSR is a bad idea (although it is), I merely inquired as to what are the non-rational sources of its attractions. Most folks don't bother to read even an executive summary of economic analysis of HSR.

I don't know whether emotion does or does not play a major part in support of HSR in the USA, but as you are claiming that it does, you need to supply some evidence for your position (if you wish to be taken seriously) - and such evidence should include demonstrating that emotion plays a lesser part in opposition to HSR, than it does in support for it, (assuming that you are going to further suggest that emotion is not a suitable basis for such decision making, which seems to be your implied position).

Your reading more in implications than is there. I am not suggesting that emotions are unsuitable for decision making, nor that some HSR are (or think they are) rational. I may merely asking supporters to give me their feelings, their subjective attractions to HSR.

 

[bilby]

I am saying that there is no evidence that emotion is an important factor in people's support for High Speed Rail, and that your un-evidenced assertion that it is, only reflects the fact that you have an emotional basis for your opposition, and that you try to conceal this by accusing your opponents of the same behaviour in which you yourself indulge.

The only thing I am "projecting" is political science literacy. It's common knowledge that in general, most people's support or nonsupport for political initiatives are based on emotion, self-interest, group identity and/or moral intuition (which itself is usually a feeling). Such is well recognized in the social science literature, as well as by American humorists and public intellectuals since (and likely before) Mark Twain.

For example:

http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/Graham.pdf
http://www.vox.com/2014/4/6/5556462/brain-dead-how-politics-makes-us-stupid

That you claim to have seen no evidence of emotion in HSR is fine - clearly then you are not equipped to provide the information I seek. But you cannot speak for other HSR supporting posters or their feelings, one of which has already provided what you still have not seen.

I note that you have made no attempt to present any evidence that improved links between LA and San Francisco are not economically viable, nor that HSR is economically worse than any of the other means (freeways, air traffic changes, etc.) for achieving such improvements.

Your entire argument to date boils down to 'HSR is bad, and I accuse those who support it of doing so on a purely emotional basis' - which appears to be a purely emotional position.

I did not claim HSR is a bad idea (although it is), I merely inquired as to what are the non-rational sources of its attractions. Most folks don't bother to read even an executive summary of economic analysis of HSR.

I don't know whether emotion does or does not play a major part in support of HSR in the USA, but as you are claiming that it does, you need to supply some evidence for your position (if you wish to be taken seriously) - and such evidence should include demonstrating that emotion plays a lesser part in opposition to HSR, than it does in support for it, (assuming that you are going to further suggest that emotion is not a suitable basis for such decision making, which seems to be your implied position).

Your reading more in implications than is there. I am not suggesting that emotions are unsuitable for decision making, nor that some HSR are (or think they are) rational. I may merely asking supporters to give me their feelings, their subjective attractions to HSR.

I don't believe you. You are not 'merely asking'; you are trawling for ammunition to use in your emotion driven crusade against trains; and you think you are being subtle, but you are wrong about that too.

 

[maxparrish]

...
Your reading more in implications than is there. I am not suggesting that emotions are unsuitable for decision making, nor that some HSR are (or think they are) rational. I may merely asking supporters to give me their feelings, their subjective attractions to HSR.

I don't believe you. You are not 'merely asking'; you are trawling for ammunition to use in your emotion driven crusade against trains; and you think you are being subtle, but you are wrong about that too.

Okay, now that it is clear I am not going to get anyone (other than one) to tell me the real reason they are in love with HSR, I will also confess that I am utterly perplexed by the adoration. It is certainly not based on reason because HSR for California has been shot down by many studies and many non-political experts. The reason I asked if there was any potential fact that could reverse support, you and others did not respond.

I suspect there is not - the train affection is immune to budgetary facts and consumer preferences.

 

[bilby]

I don't believe you. You are not 'merely asking'; you are trawling for ammunition to use in your emotion driven crusade against trains; and you think you are being subtle, but you are wrong about that too.

Okay, now that it is clear I am not going to get anyone (other than one) to tell me the real reason they are in love with HSR, I will also confess that I am utterly perplexed by the adoration. It is certainly not based on reason because HSR for California has been shot down by many studies and many non-political experts. The reason I asked if there was any potential fact that could reverse support, you and others did not respond.

I suspect there is not - the train affection is immune to budgetary facts and consumer preferences.

Nothing could reverse my support, because I don't have any to begin with. It matters not one whit to me whether the people of California have trains, high speed or otherwise; my interest is purely academic.

The question is, what potential fact could reverse your opposition? It is certainly not based on reason, because every large infrastructure project is different, so studies of other projects are worthless - and presumably, the current project was studied and not found wanting, by at least several experts; for how else could it have been approved up and down the political line to the point where breaking ground could occur?

Politicians may not always be guided by reason, but they are not known for their bravery either. To green-light such a project requires believable assurances to those holding responsibility for the decision.

 

[maxparrish]

Okay, now that it is clear I am not going to get anyone (other than one) to tell me the real reason they are in love with HSR, I will also confess that I am utterly perplexed by the adoration. It is certainly not based on reason because HSR for California has been shot down by many studies and many non-political experts. The reason I asked if there was any potential fact that could reverse support, you and others did not respond.

I suspect there is not - the train affection is immune to budgetary facts and consumer preferences.

The question is, what potential fact could reverse your opposition? It is certainly not based on reason...

Actually it is. If it could be shown to meet some combination of two of three criteria, I would be all for it. They are a) it is the most cost-effective transportation investment compared to all other state options; b) it passes a cost-benefit analysis; c) it is totally self-funded by ticket prices (and advertising).

It is certainly not based on reason because every large infrastructure project is different, so studies of other projects are worthless - and presumably, the current project was studied and not found wanting, by at least several experts; for how else could it have been approved up and down the political line to the point where breaking ground could occur?

Politicians may not always be guided by reason, but they are not known for their bravery either. To green-light such a project requires believable assurances to those holding responsibility for the decision.

Well, I did get a vocal chuckle out of that naive assumption. Politicians are guided by many forces and concerns, reasoning and taxpayer welfare being one the least important. Getting re-elected is their number one concern and in Democratic California you play to (and share in) the prejudices, myths, and emotive attachments of both your voters and campaign donors. I have never seen a Californian politician of the left worry about a cost-benefit study, long-term budgetary inanities, or cost-overruns...not as long as he gets his pork and pleases his unions and the special interests of environmentalists, teachers, public employees, etc.

Nothing like grandstanding and ribbon cutting on a project that won't be completed until after you retire.

 

[maxparrish]

Here is, by the way, an exhaustive report on California's high speed rail. While it is published by reason, the primary author has been a well known advocate FOR high speed rail (wrote two books on it), as well as an AMTRAK spokesperson.

Yet, he finds California's HSR project deeply flawed.

http://reason.org/files/california_high_speed_rail_report.pdf

 

[KeepTalking]

I am probably not that poster, as I don't think 'enthusiastic' is the correct word to describe how I feel about HSR. I work in the tech sector, and I like shiny, new tech. The technology exists, and other countries are building them with success. It's just another area among many where American exceptionalism isn't.

Actually that is helpful. So you enjoy seeing new technology. Perhaps there is more? After all, some of us enjoy the new super hi-def flat screen TVs but few would get the same thrill out of a national program to distribute them to every consumer (either through sales or government gifting).

However "HSR" and the space program are two examples of big stuff 'glamour' technology. I wonder what atheistic pleasure comes from "big" technology (vs the implementation of equally expensive but obscure projects like cell phone networks). Is it the same "thrill" folks once got from the Hoover dam and Golden Gate Bridge building?

I think it is similar to those big glamour projects, and this would be one of those big projects as well. I remember the first time I saw/rode the monorail at the Orlando Airport. I thought that it was really cool, definitely aesthetically pleasing, and I was enamored with the technology involved. I think seeing, or riding, a HSR train for the first time would give me a similar feeling.

Personally, I don't like to fly, I only get on a plane when I have to, and ubiquitous bullet trains running across the country would give me an option with a time to destination comparable to flying. On the other hand, if we had them, I might use them about once a year, provided the ticket price was also comparable to flying. Economically speaking, the proposed HSR in California would cost about the same as twelve F-22 Raptors, and we built 188 of those. I doubt they are helping anyone other than a couple hundred military pilots get anywhere. What's the cost-benefit analysis there?

You sure? This source says the average cost of the F-22 was 190 million each. Twelve of them would only total a tiny fraction of the cost of California's HSR (65 billion or so).

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/air-forces-newest-fighter-jet-f-22-raptor-makes-combat-debut/

I was using the following link as a source for the cost:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/09/24/the-f22-worlds-priciest-fighter-jet-finally-flies-in-combat.html

Two decades ago, the Pentagon planned to buy 648 F-22s for $139 million apiece. But the cost ultimately soared to $412 million, the Government Accountability Office said, making it the most expensive fighter jet ever.

I was using $412 million as the per unit price, but dropped a zero when plugging it into my calculator, so it would be closer to 121 F-22's for the $50 billion cost stated in the article for the HSR in California. Math is hard!

 

[KeepTalking]

I don't believe you. You are not 'merely asking'; you are trawling for ammunition to use in your emotion driven crusade against trains; and you think you are being subtle, but you are wrong about that too.

Okay, now that it is clear I am not going to get anyone (other than one) to tell me the real reason they are in love with HSR,

Whoa there, Max. You may want to pull back on the reins of your iron horse there. I am in no way "in love" with HSR. I specifically noted that I am not even enthusiastic about HSR, much less in love with it. I think it is cool, in the same way I thought the Orlando monorail was cool. Please don't attempt to characterize my emotions, thoughts, or feelings again, as you are rather bad at it. If you must refer to them, please use direct quotes. Thank you.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Here is, by the way, an exhaustive report on California's high speed rail. While it is published by reason, the primary author has been a well known advocate FOR high speed rail (wrote two books on it), as well as an AMTRAK spokesperson.

Yet, he finds California's HSR project deeply flawed.

http://reason.org/files/california_high_speed_rail_report.pdf

First off Reason is a free-market only group, so it is not surprising they oppose it.

Secondly, I'm not sure where you think Joseph Vranich has been a supporter of public rail since he has repeatedly called for the liquidation of all AMTRAK assets and I cannot find any actual citations or statements that he ever supported public high speed rail despite libertarians parroting this claim.

Okay, I found an article from 1998. It looks like he was advocating a full national system back then, which would be too costly and quite the folly.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

But is he wrong?

That is my favorite question with regards to those who try to boost or diminish the credibility of a source rather than look into what the source wrote.

 

[Davka]

It's common knowledge that in general, most people's support or nonsupport for political initiatives

Why do you see HSR as a political initiative? It looks like an infrastructure project to me. It is only the rabid Tea Party opposition that has politicized it - it's not like HSR is a boondoggle "bridge to nowhere," dropping cash into a politician's home district for an unneeded project.

As to why I, personally support HSR - I see it as a superior alternative to widening freeways or increasing jet traffic. Riding in a train is a great way to travel, as anyone who has tried it knows. The biggest problem with train travel in the USA is that there are insufficient destinations. It's hard to get from point A to point B on Amtrack, which is why it's so under-utilized. If we were to construct a European-style light rail + HSR network on the East Coast, I have no doubt that it would be heavily used. The metro trains around D.C. are a good start.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I don't believe you. You are not 'merely asking'; you are trawling for ammunition to use in your emotion driven crusade against trains; and you think you are being subtle, but you are wrong about that too.

Okay, now that it is clear I am not going to get anyone (other than one) to tell me the real reason they are in love with HSR, I will also confess that I am utterly perplexed by the adoration. It is certainly not based on reason because HSR for California has been shot down by many studies and many non-political experts. The reason I asked if there was any potential fact that could reverse support, you and others did not respond.

I suspect there is not - the train affection is immune to budgetary facts and consumer preferences.

If you're seriously not trawling or trolling, please explain how the transition from horse to auto was any different than going to high speed rail?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

California High Speed Rail is a nice idea which isn't going to work.

It sometimes amazes me, this country was able to build the interstate system, but can now no longer maintain it properly. Something really has changed since then, and although I have my evaluation of what has changed that isn't the topic now. The point is, perhaps this could have been done at another time, but it really can't be done now. It reminds me of a scene very late in Atlas Shrugged where it is obvious to everyone that everything is falling apart, and new major government plans are being announced including a giant Particle Accelerator requested by the State Science Institute.

The program is already over budget without a single bit of rail being laid. The program is already deviating from the proposals by having only parts of it be genuinely high speed instead of all of it, with shared track on the parts that aren't high speed. There has been no analysis that shows there would be a sufficient number of passengers to justify the expense. There has been major political pull to put the track through certain districts that would not actually be necessary for the stated goal of linking the major cities of California. The first stretch of track is planned to be from nowhere to nowhere, and then it would go to the cities from there. As has been pointed out, had it started in San Diego going north, the first stretch of San Diego to Los Angeles would at least have some usefulness.

There have been shenanigans over the proposition that initially allowed it and authorized the issuance of bonds. The measure promised that the cost would be partially covered by private investors, but that promise has fizzled badly. There has been a court case over how the plans changed after the proposition was passed. Some studies suggest that even if all the public servants in Sacramento took that to work every day the number of passengers would still not justify the expense.

This could have been a good idea, but really it won't be a good idea. Every logistical aspect of it stinks, and most of the support is from people who might use it once a year. I wouldn't mind a quick and easy trip to San Fran, but I'm not going there every day.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

But is he wrong?

That is my favorite question with regards to those who try to boost or diminish the credibility of a source rather than look into what the source wrote.

I just like to get my information from sources without a strong political or ideological agenda. If you ask a the Mormon Church about Joseph Smith, you will get a strongly biased answer. I expect free market ideologues to look down upon and criticize all aspects of any public project. It's what they do.