Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q
I only read a couple of pages of this thread, but I have a question: are there any plans to use the HSR infrastructure for freight as well? If not, you should keep that in your minds. People who aren't terribly familiar with transportation tend to not think about that when they compare planes, trains, and automobiles. Airports do both, highways do both, and U.S. freight rail is the envy of the world. Most Americans don't realize that - they look to European and Asian train systems with fawning envy, but it's really the U.S. leading the way on freight, and that is a much larger economic contributor than passenger rail.
I'm not saying anything in particular, I don't know enough about the Cali project specifically to comment intelligently. But I see a lot of politicized highway vs. train banter in here, as if it was somehow a normal liberal vs. conservative issue, which is absurd.
Passenger rail (if it is passenger only) is at an automatic disadvantage when compared to other modes. Partially because it only services a portion of overall transportation needs, and on inter-city routes especially, freight is a significant driver (humans are only one of the many loads we have to move about!). If, for example, I-5 is congested in rural areas because of high intercity traffic, which would be highly unusual - it's rare in the U.S. that expansions are needed outside of metro areas - the better answer might be to divert more freight to rail, rather than focus on passenger transport.
And also the last-mile problem. It's possibly less of a problem in CA (big problem in Colorado), at least in the Bay Area, where non-auto connections would be easy and efficient. Bakersfield, on the other hand...what do you do when you get off the train? Rent a car? Not a deal-breaker, but it reduces ridership in a major way, which reduces the utility/benefit of the investment, relative to other investments. Passenger rail obviously serves denser areas better because destinations are reachable from stations. I don't know about L.A... I do know that a park-n-ride based intercity rail system will lose much of its advantage over air travel.
None of that's deal-breaking in a lot of circumstances. But comparisons to Europe (where more freight moves by road, making passenger movement by rail make even more sense) or Japan (where densities, distances, and connecting passenger transit infrastructure aren't even in the same league) are mostly useless. This "the rest of the world has figured it out" stuff only comes from people with a very rudimentary understanding of the whole transportation picture - different modes/methods work better in different places for different reasons. You really have to look at it holistically, and then decide if a $100 billion passenger-only system is really your best investment (I have no idea whether it is or not). Slogans are a terrible way to plan/design infrastructure.
(Sometimes I wonder to myself what would happen if everybody got as involved and passionate with water/wastewater planning as they are with transportation. Can you imagine the fights about pipe sizes, grades, treatment methods... a random politician screaming about how "that pump isn't needed" - it'd be good fun. And no different from laypeople arguing about runway capacities.)
|
So, you claim that supporters of HSR who cite other nation's successful use of rail for passenger transport as not understanding the "holistic" picture of transportation, when it is in fact opinions such as yours that are not understanding the big picture at stake here.
To base your reasoning on the typical business school cost vs. benefits argument is not being very holistic, and it refuses (whether willingly or through ignorance) to acknowledge the other externalities at risk. We know that humans are probably going to continue to procreate at a level that will be unsustainable for the environment, all these present and future humans will need alternate ways to get from place to place, for business, recreation, etc. It takes a massive amount of fossil fuel to suspend an enormous hunk of metal (along with all the obese American passengers) in the sky. Choking our highways (and expanding those highways) with more and more private automobiles is also an insane waste of energy. High-speed rail uses a lot of electricity, but it is from a more centralized source, which can be regulated easier than spending gobs of money trying to make every last automobile owner comply with the latest emission standards. In addition, rail takes up less room for the amount of passengers (and light cargo) that it can accommodate.
You only think HSR supporters are misinformed because you adhere to the classic, market-orientated arguments, ignoring the fact that the environment does not give a damn about our petty notions of economic persuasions. If we, as a global society do not create ways to soften the blow of running up against environmental constraints, now, while we still have a little breathing room, there will be a lot of human (and other species) suffering when crunch time occurs. Laying the infrastructure for a proven, fast, reliable way of commuting passengers now, even though it might not make sense from an "investor's" point of view, is one of those things that needs to be started.