There's lots in this article, below, by Candace Lombardi to disagree with, but I don't want to waste space deconstructing all the mistakes.
I do want to call attention to one central issue noted here and derived from a recent report that I have not mentioned previously in these blogs, the 56 page study High-Speed Rail in America 2050:
http://www.america2050.org/pdf/HSR-in-America-Complete.pdf
That study begins with a discussion of those "mega-regions" most appropriate for HSR development, including the Los Angeles-San Diego route (which is one of the most heavily trafficked routes in the US.) What's important to us is that the San Francisco to Los Angeles route, while not ignored in this document, is also not identified as the highest priority corridor that should be developed.
Get that? This study is unambiguously pro-HSR. HSR supporters love it. Nonetheless, our precious HSR route between SF and LA, so highly touted by the CHSRA (of course!) and represented as the leading candidate for development, is not regarded that way in this study; it's not at the top of or even on the 'short list.'
Note also the date of 2050. That would suggest there is no need to consider the current California project for at least that long a time. It's the "top performing corridors in each region determined to have the greatest potential demand for high-speed rail ridership. . .," as the study points out, and our California's 800 mile fantasy is not among them.
As you know, the states currently leading in obtaining federal stimulus funds for HSR are Florida and California. John Mica, Congressman from Florida, is the new head of the House Transportation Committee. You would think that he would want to "deliver the goods" to Florida. However, he points out that while he's not going to terminate all HSR efforts in the US, he does believe that the most worthy corridor for such expenditures is in the NorthEast, Boston/Washington population region.
All of which is to ask, why in hell is California getting all the federal dollars for a train we don't need and don't want? It couldn't be politics, could it? It couldn't be that Feinstein, Boxer and Pelosi are from California and that California is as blue a state as any in the US, could it?
One last point. Ridership. Big issue and open question since we haven't had an authentic declaration of ridership projections since this California project began as a concept. One problem is that we don't really know the current passenger-miles usage between SF and LA via air or vehicle. This article points out that it is possible to get much more reliable data about that; that is, how many people are actually travelling between these two cities annually, and by which modality, highway, air or rail? Why isn't that information more readily available? Perhaps the rail authority already knows but isn't telling.
See also the blog comment from FORBES about the 8 more eligible mega-regions suitable for HSR.
===========================================
FORBES
TECHNOLOGY
Jan. 13 2011 - 9:51 pm
A clutch of heavily-traveled regional corridors in the United States are ripe for high-speed rail networks, according to a major new study released this week by America2050 called “High-Speed Rail in America.”
The study identified the high-speed rail corridors connecting populous regions with large job centers with the greatest potential to attract ridership in the nation’s so-called “mega-regions” based on several demographic and financial factors. “Ridership potential” was the primary factor used to evaluate the suitability of a corridor for investment.
The leading corridors included:
1. New York-Washington, DC
2. Chicago-Milwaukee;
3. Los Angeles-San Diego
4. Tampa (via Orlando) to Miami
5. Dallas-Houston
6. Atlanta-Birmingham
7. Portland-Seattle
8. Denver-Pueblo
================================
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20028400-54.html#ixzz1B2kfH8SF
January 13, 2011 9:43 AM PST
Report: Start high-speed rail plans in metro areas
by Candace Lombardi
A study released Tuesday by urban planning initiative America 2050 recommends the U.S. Department of Transportation refocus its high-speed rail hopes on "megaregions" in order to be effective.
The term "megaregions" refers to the greater metropolitan areas concentrated throughout the U.S., which happen to consist of roughly 70 percent of the U.S. population and jobs, according to America 2050.
The 56-page study "High-Speed Rail in America" (PDF) claims to generally support the push that has been championed by politicians from both the Republican and Democratic party in certain regions of the country to introduce high-speed rail in the U.S. But it argues that funding and placement decisions should be more data-driven, and based on demand.
"The top performing corridors in each region determined to have the greatest potential demand for high-speed rail ridership include corridors, such as: New York-Washington, D.C.; Chicago-Milwaukee; Los Angeles-San Diego; Tampa (via Orlando) to Miami; Dallas-Houston; Atlanta-Birmingham; Portland-Seattle; and Denver-Pueblo," according to America 2050.
In making its case, the report offers a plethora of interesting U.S. maps illustrating regional air traffic, existing passenger rail use, and population rings surrounding key train stations.
The report argues that high-speed trains can provide better service than current regional air service because, in addition to using less fuel and costing less to run, trains can quickly transfer large numbers of passengers at multiple stops it makes along a route. Planes, in contrast, have more limited capacity, and must deal with the time-consuming task of take-off and landing for each stop made to transfer passengers.
The report also suggests the U.S. government should use the latest technology to collect more precise data on car traffic patterns.
The last study on interstate traffic patterns was conducted in 1995 and is "outdated and of limited use," according to the report.
"A new American Travel Survey should be initiated, making use of mobile and GPS technologies, while protecting privacy data," said the report.
The Northeast region, one of the places recommended by America 2050 for high-speed rail due in part to its exorbitant amount of regional air traffic between nearby cities.
Politicians from New York and Chicago have been lobbying the federal government for additional high-speed rail funds, while those from Ohio and Wisconsin have declined to participate in high-speed rail projects slated for their states. The report argues that this sort of local interest and political will should be taken into account if high-speed rail is to be financially viable long-term.
"Especially as we emerge from a recession, investing in projects that can realize their promised benefits and gain a measure of financial self-sufficiency is paramount," the report says. "While the potential to gain ridership is certainly not the only factor in a project's success (the ability to secure funding, maintain local support, and overcome design and engineering challenges is equally critical), ridership demand is important enough to be used as a preliminary screen of a proposed project's utility."
America 2050 is an urban planning initiative chaired by the Regional Planning Association, and sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation, the Doris Duke Charitable Trust, and the Ford Foundation, among others.
The Regional Planning Association, it should be noted, is a New York-, New Jersey- and Connecticut-based organization. So while the organization has been researching and promoting responsible urban planning since 1929,it also happens to be rooted in one of the megaregions it recommends for high-speed rail.
