This article, by Frank Maccioli, is an example of the kind of writing that sends some of us up in flames. He's a HSR promoter writing for the Bakersfield Examiner blog.
What am I talking about? Something that's easy to miss. Get this. Talking about the HSR train in the Central Valley, Maccioli says, ". . . because they will be powered by electricity that could be generated by renewable and sustainable sources such as wind and solar, they will improve the air quality in the Valley by emitting far fewer pollutants than would otherwise be generated by burning fossil fuels." In other words, they could use non carbon fuels to generate electricity, therefore they will improve air quality. Well, no. Only if they do use non-carbon fuels, etc. But, that's not so likely. Our track record in the US so far isn't very good for using renewables and alternatives.
It is far more realistic that California's power needs, as they increase, will have to be met by buying off the grid fed by midwestern coal-burning power plants. It should also be pointed out that trains operating at 220 mph are huge consumers of power; far greater than ordinary electric trains.
In other words, Maccioli's ambiguous statements are the kind that permeate all the marketing rhetoric of the rail authority and are then parroted by writers like Maccioli. You can see this sort of double-talk in all the pro-HSR blogs and news articles. Each and every one should be de-constructed to expose it's logical and ambiguous flaws intended to mislead the reader.
In other words, Maccioli's ambiguous statements are the kind that permeate all the marketing rhetoric of the rail authority and are then parroted by writers like Maccioli. You can see this sort of double-talk in all the pro-HSR blogs and news articles. Each and every one should be de-constructed to expose it's logical and ambiguous flaws intended to mislead the reader.
Even earlier in the article, Maccioli, while endorsing HSR with sweeping predictions, covers himself with qualifying terms like "potential" and "may." "A potential solution to part of that problem may lie with a high speed railway being proposed by the California High-Speed Rail Authority." That's highly speculative and uncertain -- even wimpy -- for something costing this much, but most readers will remove those conditional terms in their mind when they read this promotional advertising. That's the way TV commercials are also prosed out.
Note this article closer: "What this means for those who are unemployed and those who must breathe the bad air in the Valley remains to be seen." This is one last evocation of the problem of unemployment and polluted air to make the HSR-as-solution case more persuasive but without actually saying so. The sentence is content-free but highly suggestive. We are supposed to believe that without HSR in the Central Valley, everybody living there will just about die of starvation for lack of of income and will be poisoned by the air they breathe. It's a thinly veiled threat. Build this train or DIE!!!
The fact is that there are many ways to increase employment and clean up the air pollution that don't involve the construction of high-speed rail. Furthermore, the very HSR construction process itself will pump contaminants into the air, and also create employment dependency that goes away with construction completion.
The fact is that there are many ways to increase employment and clean up the air pollution that don't involve the construction of high-speed rail. Furthermore, the very HSR construction process itself will pump contaminants into the air, and also create employment dependency that goes away with construction completion.
My point is that we should all be constantly on the alert -- our 'crap detectors' working full-time -- when reading the verbiage of the high-speed rail authority and it's promoters and advocates.
Projecting nearly half a million permanent (!)new jobs in California is about as rash a forecast as anyone can make. This state has lost tens of thousands of permanent manufacturing jobs which all the high-speed trains in the world won't bring back. To attribute so much positive economic impact from the building of a passenger train between San Francisco and Los Angeles is presumptuous in the extreme, and challenges plausibility.
If far fewer people ride the train than projected (see the 'ridership' debacle), what will that do to such optimistic economic impact projections?
The author repeats the CHSRA mantra about 100,000 construction jobs. Is the rail authority really talking about 'man-years' and will it therefore actually be far fewer by number? And will those jobs not be temporary? Inflated promises produce powerful disappointment! One can argue that there is a cost/benefit equation and that true number projections will tell us that the benefits are far too little and the costs are far too much.
Anyhow, by now we know that high-speed rail is in trouble nationally. The House Republicans have begun to make that clear as they look at discretionary spending budget slashing. The current Republican budget shopping list includes HSR for removal.
The correct answer to the question asked by the article headline is, I hope so.
===========================
Are McCarthy and Republicans "derailing" high speed rail in Valley?
November 24th, 2010 11:44 am PT
Those of you who live in Bakersfield and elsewhere in the Central Valley know that the air quality here is one of the worst in the nation. More than half of the smog formed in the Valley can be attributed to transportation sources.
A potential solution to part of that problem may lie with a high speed railway being proposed by the California High-Speed Rail Authority. The project, which has been slowly making its way through all the bureaucratic hoops, will ultimately connect San Francisco to Los Angeles/Anaheim via the Central Valley, with side branches to Sacramento and San Diego.
The proposed trains will operate at speeds up to 220 miles per hour, allowing for a trip between San Francisco and Los Angeles in under 2 hours and 40 minutes. Additionally, because they will be powered by electricity that could be generated by renewable and sustainable sources such as wind and solar, they will improve the air quality in the Valley by emitting far fewer pollutants than would otherwise be generated by burning fossil fuels.
An added benefit will be the addition of short term and long term jobs, both in construction and operation of the system. According to the Rail Authority, the project will result in over 100,000 new construction jobs and over 450,000 permanent new jobs resulting from the economic growth the project will help to generate. This is especially important to residents of Bakersfield and Kern County as the proposed line will run right through Bakersfield and the area is vying for a railroad maintenance facility to be built nearby.
All this may be for naught, however, as local House Representative Kevin McCarthy (R) - Bakersfield, has reportedly thrown his support toward a new bill that would take away a significant portion of the previously approved funding for the project. (Ref: Bakersfield Californian, Nov. 24, 2010.)
House Bill H.R. 6403, introduced by Rep. Jerry Lewis (R), Redlands, would rescind several billions of dollars that have previously been approved by Congress and The President, including billions of dollars for the high speed railroad construction. The bill, introduced last week, asks that all unobligated discretionary stimulus funds that were previously appropriated for use by division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5), be rescinded as of November 15, 2010.
(Note: According to the Rail Authority's website, no construction can begin until all of the environmental reviews are completed, which aren't expected until September of 2011.)
Unemployment in the Valley has been hovering near 15%. The air quality in the Valley is so bad that that San Joaquin Valley APCD has proposed additional fees be charged to Valley residents who own vehicles to pay for anticipated fines by the USEPA for not meeting air quality standards.
According to The Californian, McCarthy has expressed doubts that the project is economical.
Although he did not say he opposed the project, he indicated that this might not be a good time for the federal government to go further into debt (even though the funds have already been appropriated).
Lewis' bill will now make its way through various House Committees. Given the success of Republicans in taking over control of the House of Representatives, its passage seems more likely than if it had been introduced in last year's House. What this means for those who are unemployed and those who must breathe the bad air in the Valley remains to be seen.
