Why California High Speed Rail Will Never Happen--But Should

We need nationwide (except Hawaii) high-speed rail, not just in California. I am a native Californian now living near Seattle, and would have used a Seattle - San Francisco line perhaps 50 times in the last twn years. Existing services are unreliable. For example,

*) My last Seattle-Los Angeles trip was six hours late when Alaska Airlines had maintenance problems.

*) Prior to that, I attended an evening college reunion at Berkeley. I chose Greyhound, which is supposed to leave Oakland at 1:30 am. But no vehicle was available for tha trip. We reached Seattle three hours late. I missed the last local bus from downtown Seattle to my neighborhood.

*) Before that I was headed to Asilomar Conference Center, near Monterey. I took Amtrak's Coast Starlight Seattle-Salinas (with a bus connection to Monterey). We were delayed two hours leaving Seattle because BNSF was working on the tracks. Later our passenger train repeatedly waited for Union Pacific freight trains coming the opposite direction. We reached Salinas about five hours late, causing me to miss the conference's banquet dinnet. The return trip was four hours late, again causing me to miss the last bus home from downtown Seattle.

These situations occur while freeways are collapsing in Oakland (both recently and during the Loma Prieta earthquake). We hear about CalTrain (but not BART) hitting pedestrians and automobiles because crossings are not grade separated. California's population is growing fast. The existing transportation infrastructure is vastly insufficient for the 21st Century.

Transportation is not the only infrastructure need. The Mississippi River overflowed near Missouri last decade, and the Katrina disaster should have reminded everyond that levees everywhere need upgrading. Now it is overflowing again.

This should be a major issue in the presidential compaigns, but neither party mentioned infrastructure during the recent debates.

Like Peter, I'm a native Californian living in Seattle, though I am moving back in a month, to Monterey specifically. I think Peter's points are good, although I think we need to start building a national network in localized pieces. The CHSRA plan is a very good one, and would be an excellent building block for a western network down the line.

As to John's article, I think his most important points are the first and fourth. Not having a champion makes it difficult to motivate the public to care - global warming has been known for 15 years but it was only when Al Gore championed the matter in a film did we see significant public movement on it.

Few in the California public appear to even know an HSR plan exists. When it is discussed in the media, such as in an LA Times article a few weeks ago, it is cast usually in terms of "will Californians who love their cars abandon them for some train, when the Amtrak system is already so bad?" Little if any publicization of the stunning success of HSR in Europe, of the high levels of ridership on Amtrak California despite its problems, and of the sustainability, climatic, and jobs issues that make HSR such an attractive plan.

That is why keeping the plan on the November 2008 ballot is so important - we need the time to rally the public support that I believe to be there, but in a latent form. I agree with John that it would be better for our elected officials to lead on this and avoid the ballot box, but at the same time voter support can be an important card to play especially with the federal government. Let's hope that at minimum, Sacramento Democrats protect the CHSRA's funding from Arnold's proposed cuts.

Thanks for this terrific and timely article. The author is 100% on target. I totally agree with everything he says. HSR should have been built twenty years ago. It
may be too late. When the oil crisis hits in a few years we will not have an alternate choice. Like the author said I gave up along time ago. I live in Los Angeles where it took 100 years to get a Rapid Transit
system. So perhaps in 75 more years we will see HSR

Absolutely true. There's an international conference in LA in mid June which will review rail connections to airports, including high speed intermodalism, which readers interested in the topic might like to attend. www.iaro.com/laconference

I listen to CJAD talk radio 800AM Montreal. About April 5, 2007 they read my e-mail with the discussion of those 350MPH French super train.
My opinion on it is from a technical perspective.
For one thing Canada have abundant hydro-power. These trains are zero emissions. What vehicle travels that fast on the ground? In the rust belt states/& Canada provinces, do they salt the tracks/bridges and other infrastructure that supports those super train tracks? Nooooooooo. In Quebec road salt is eating Quebecers alive not only in rusting out cars but also men have a higher rate of prostate illnesses. These trains are also equipped with the state of the art electric speed control drives that supply the right about of power to the Traction motors that propel those trains ( Variable frequency drives for the traction motors can also adjust some of the horse power that may not be needed if the train has a light passenger load) . Besides those electric engines last years longer, than conventional fossil fueled vehicles/aircraft etc . I would even bet fuel cells are not as good because the basics of electric rail technology has been proven successful for well over 100 years.
The reason why in the USA such systems don't exist because it is not technical or population densities. Highly paid lobbyiests from auto manufacturing, oil companies, airline industries, road building contractors will do anything to keep such systems out of California or the rest of the country. I think Canada especially in the Quebec region may see those supertrains before the USA will ever see them.
The simple answer to the problem is that it is political economics VS honest economics.

Paula W. -Industrial Electrician
and advocate of all types of electric railway systems

Mr. Shields' commentary overlooks one key political reality: The youth vote of this last Nov. 2006 election makes it clear the 18-30 year-olds want a change and a FUTURE. High-speed rail is definitely on their agenda.

What he says is true about the failed Boomer generation's indifference to the public good. Sadly, our Boomer, me-me-me generation has foregone many an advance in technology to greenie irrationalism.

But now there is reason to not be, as Mr. Shields says he is, "frustrated." Lyndon LaRouche and the youth movement associated with him is on the move not only for IMPEACHMENT OF CHENEY-first, but for high-speed rail and other technologies of the future. Two such activists with the LaRouche Youth Movement -- Quincy O'Neal and Wynneal Inncentes -- were elected to the California Democratic Party's Black Caucus and Filippino-American Caucus, respectively on just such a forward-looking agenda.

On funding, Mr. Shields is exactly 100% right. Great infrastructure projects, for the public good, have always been successful when adopted as part of a national mission. Witness the great works of FDR still providing cheap, clean energy to millions who before his efforts lived a life of poverty. LaRouche has proposed, and is circulating on Capitol Hill and in state legislatures, a Capital Budgetting approach to funding the multi-trillion dollar infrastructure deficit we must address if the nation is to survive.

On leadership -- or the lack thereof -- Mr. Shields is, again, exactly correct. Leadership is always key to organizing a future. The LaRouche Youth organizers have taken up that task across the country. To once again provide optimism and a mission for the future.

One slight glimmer of hope from the Boomers was a recently conducted hearing in Washington, DC on high-speed rail. You can read my article on it at:
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_10-19/2007-19/pdf/55-57_719_congressrail.pdf

Here's to the future -- one in which Mr. Shields with his stated expertise has a critical role to play.

Tell your US Senators you want improved rail service. Before we can get high speed rail, we need higher passenger volumes and more frequent and fast trains. Improved railcars and on-time performance is also highly desireable in order to get the public support needed to make high speed trains happen. Contact your Senators for free and tell them to support S. 294, a bill that will provide infrastructure and other improvements in our national rail network.

http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/rail_bill_clone

I think this is pure politic in the US. If the TGV version is implemented on US soil many airline companies may go bankrupts and it may affect other economic sectors. These people will do everything in their power to prevent such high speed train from being successful.

Interesting that Spain, which just 15 years ago was the European equivalent of Mexico, has hundreds of miles of Alto Velocidad (AVE) tracks with train service stretching from one side of the country to the other, and is currently upgrading the Barcelona-Perpignon line to connect its network with France's. Incredible that a country that has 10% more people, is 30% smaller, and has a smaller GDP than California can make this commitment.. What's wrong with us?

I'm actually surprised at the Governator (being from Austria and all), as well as the tepid response from the california legislature. As the author and the reader so aptly put it, Airlines, concrete companies, asphalt companies, et al will all work to kill the proposal.

Wake up Californians! Imagine if the ferry boat companies had twarted the building of the state's bridges...

Mr. Shields,

You say:

"The following don't want HSR, under any circumstances!:

AIRLINES, ESPECIALLY SOUTHWESTOIL COMPANIES (IMAGINE THE BUCKS THEY HAVE!) AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS HIGHWAY CONTRACTORS (THE CONCRETE GUYS)"

It sounds like you support HSR. I am strongly encouraging you to be less cynical and to try to spread more optimism. The glass is half-full, not half empty.

The HSR situation is not like the situation Californians faced back in the 1930's - 1950's when the large automobile and oil companies killed light rail and street car transit. HSR is not going to remove the basic reliance on automobiles. The HSR has only limited routes -- as with all trains – and I find it hard to foresee HSR ridership can replace even close to half of the trips generated locally or regionally by commuters or travelers… at least not for several decades.

And, HSR will not remove truck and all other commercial traffic.

Hence:

1) The auto industry and oil industry today just do not have as strong an incentive as they did 50 years ago to kill rail. People will continue to buy lots of cars. Today, alternative energy sources and hybrids present a greater “threat” to the oil companies than a limited number of HSR routes.

2) HSR will not result in existing roads being torn up. And it arguably will not even interfere with the plans to develop new highways, including the new Highway 65 – or whatever it is called – planned to run along the foothills north-south on the east side of the Central Valley. Contractors will have plenty of work to do, forever.

3) HSR will bring its own economically incentivized supporters: the steel companies that will sell the rails and the contractors that will build and operate the system.

4) And, I agree with the above comment by MJ Freeman that we have a more enlightened and educated public. We just need more support and enlightenment from elected representatives.

Cheers and here’s hoping for a one-hour trip from my home in Fresno to Downtown SF.

Tony Cresap

I'm an American living in Korea.

The KTX is great and convenient, if a bit uncomfortable with the cheap seating that was installed. Usually, you're not on the train long enough to be too uncomfortable.

When the KTX was first opened here, the numbers were way under predictions and people were talking about how it wasn't paying, etc...

After two years, it's OVER predictions and people can't imagine life without it.

When I return to the USA, the transportation options are so limited. I feel like I'm going back in time.

It's a travesty that even after the lessons of 9-11, our citizenry and government don't have the sense to see the incredible benefits of high speed rail. Do we want to be Brazil or Europe?

If it weren't for Eisenhower's foresight with the Interstate Highway System and FDR's CPA programs of the 1930's, North America might look alot like Russia these days.

Where did George Bush get the idea that driving around in an F150 is the "American Way"? Our grandparents rode trains. It's only since the 1950's that the modern "American Way" (suburbia and car based development) has been shaped. Wake up to reality and the future. Either the USA gets with it or gets left behind by other more efficient economies.

Lack of leadership and vision is evident, as is crony capitalism and corruption.

"Field of Dreams"

BUILD IT AND THEY WILL COME!!!

Post a comment