It is put out by TRAC. And there are plenty of copies sitting there for anyone to take and read. I haven’t had the chance to read all of it. But there is info on routes and costs etc.

well worth a read

I am running for State Controller. You can read about my issues here:

http://www.AndyFavor.net

PS: On my train experience, it may be five times I had trouble because one time there was a flooding problem that I recall causing a problem.

Best regards to all!

PPS: Debbie, I am a little disapointed in the oil drum. They banned me from posting! I was always polite.

This Rider fellow, though, what a movie he must live in! I’d like to borrow the musical soundtrack to his life and listen to it in headphones – just for a little while of course. He looks out at California in the 2010′s and sees a similar landscape to WWII Europe! Partisans and terrorists laying charges undetected and blending back into the forests, perhaps sheltering with sympathetic peasants. Colorful indeed. And an argument against progress in our transportation. NOT.

Hey now that you’re here, Andy – are you not running for Congress again, in the 48th?

I figured I would just paste in Richard Rider’s commentary of today regarding terrorists risks. This train is a bad idea that California can ill afford.

Oh, one more thing, trains are not reliable. Of the last four times I have tried to ride the train to San Diego, not one trip was completed. I have had earthquake, fire and break down all stop my trip and have been force to continue via bus. The forth time I called ahead and it was down for scheduled maintenance. I know a record like that has to be unusual but it is none the less fact.

Anyhow, from Richard Rider today:

Richard Rider Says:
February 9th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
On behalf of terrorists everywhere, let me say that HSR is a Godsend to the Jihad (or whatever cause turns them on).

HSR will be like a plane flying at ground level at supposedly) 220 MPH. Terrorists will take their cue from the French and Russian partisans in WWII who blew up NAZI trains with great success. Planes are hard to bring down — not so for trains.

With HSR, all one need do is put a relatively small explosive charge, properly placed on the rail. Remotely detonate just as a HSR train comes flying up to the spot, and watch the resulting carnage with gleeful satisfaction.

And the best part for terrorists is that one doesn’t even have to be a suicide bomber. Just set the charge, detonate it, and drive away for another bombing later.

One such bombing will be the end of California’s “high speed” rail. For safety purposes, “bullet train” traffic will have to be slowed to 60-70 MPH to reduce casualties from such bombings. Train passenger traffic will plummet, and this useless financial albatross will hang around our necks for decades.

Richard Rider Says:
February 9th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
The normal response of HSR proponents is that terrorists are interested in planes only as missiles they can dive into buildings. But one has to wonder if such Pollyannas have been watching the news since 2001. Does “shoe bomber” or “underpants on fire” ring a bell?

But put that aside. The 9/11 attacks cost the bad guys 20 men. How many must die to blow up a HSR train track? Zero.

A “bullet train,” according to the HSR con men, will carry 950 when fully loaded. Presumably that full load is the terrorists’ target.

So, assuming the bad guys want to repeat the casualties of 9/11 — How may HSR trains much be demolished to kill the same number of people as 9/11?

Three.

With no loss of life to the terrorists.

Richard Rider Says:
February 9th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Remember, our CA HSR is (supposedly) a 220 MPH train. At that speed, if the train left the blown-up track, it would be like a plane coming down.

Almost everyone would likely be killed. Those that weren’t killed, would probably wish they HAD been killed. The graphic pictures of the horribly maimed and dead would be exactly what the terrorists long for.

Most important, HSR an EASY train to wreck. Planes are well protected. HSR takes minimal explosives, and recycles the terrorist. And the terrorists get to pick the worst spot to plant the explosives — perhaps just before reaching a bridge over a river or valley.

Sure, terrorists are willing to die for their cause — but any terrorist (and their bosses) would rather they cause several catastrophes before finally getting killed or caught.

In truth, the terrorists would never get three filled HSR trains to blow up — unless they coordinated the attacks at the same time (sound familiar?). After the attack(s), there would be no more HSR in CA. Just rail.

For that distance it takes longer to go through security at the airport.

It also takes longer to taxi out lift off and land a plane, than the 20 minutes the high speed train will take.

Really think people are not going to use it once they realizes these things?

Building trains is green? How is that?

The “tiny fraction” issue becomes relevant since the weaning off of oil presupposes a significant ridership. The ridership isn’t there because the number of people who want to take a HS train up the coast is minuscule. The real issue of reducing VMTs involves the urban commute situation that every day hits into the millions in southern and northern California.

HSR is a toy designed to make a very few people rich. It makes Metrolink look like a stellar exemplar of public transit.

And BTW, by the time construction is undertaken on the ROW demolition, track and station construction, every AQMD threshold will be obliterated.

But then there’s JOBS. Half a million of them. Economic recovery for our state. A green industrial renaissance for California as we build trains for other states. Weaning off oil. Something that lasts and is useful to all of us, unlike a war. How we got out of the Great Depression.

And this “tiny fraction” estimation of ridership is highly questionable, a worst-case scenario based on cherrypicked statistics by rightwing groups who religiously oppose these kinds of big public projects. Just like they did in the 1930s.

We got trouble right here in(Santa Ana)River City.

Why not just let us keep all that money and stim-u-late the economy ourselves?

I hope some people read the Krugman column I just posted about all the misleading and politically motivated crazy talk about deficits that is suddenly so trendy this month.