Comments on: High Speed Rail for High-Tech Economic Development http://scienceprogress.org/2009/01/high-speed-rail/ Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:59:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Plano Electrician http://scienceprogress.org/2009/01/high-speed-rail/comment-page-1/#comment-6622 Plano Electrician Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:40:25 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/?p=1323#comment-6622 I think your blog needs some updating. I would love to read more about this. I think your blog needs some updating. I would love to read more about this.

]]> By: Michael F. Sarabia http://scienceprogress.org/2009/01/high-speed-rail/comment-page-1/#comment-4283 Michael F. Sarabia Mon, 09 Feb 2009 06:04:59 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/?p=1323#comment-4283 The California voters were duped into approving a $9 Billion High Speed Rail project that is expected to cost over $40 Billion, Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee wrote it would be closer to $49 Billion. When their initial 10 trains a day were seen a poor substitute for the 50 flights a day from SFO to LAX, they quickly changed the frequency to 100 trains a day. Just what are those passengers doing now? Are they flying airplanes? There are three airports in the SF Bay Area and four in Southern California. Passengers take whichever is most convenient, but the train will need for all of them to go to one central place to catch the train, is that better? Any energy study of the cost of driving a train at 220 mph with four or five intermediate stops would show that they are not competitive with airplane flights. Environmental Impact: They claim that wet lands where migration birds come every year, East of San Jose, by the thousands will not be affected. Can you imagine how noisy 100 trains would be travelling at 220 mph. I could go on but it is depressing. Two last arguments. 1. If the trains were successful in taking all the passengers from the airlines, is it not a Zero-Sum case? What ia going to keep people working in the airlines? 2. Airplanes fly less about 60 Percent the distance of the train because they fly in an straight line. They fly at twice the speed of the train. They have a higher frequency departures. Why would anybody take the train? The future: The Aerospatiale 380 is already flying to both LAX and SFO, its energy efficiency per passenger is about the same as a motorcycle. Am I suppose to believe the train is more efficient? They like to quote only the energy used in level terrain, in California? They never mention the energy required at each stop to accelerate the train each time. At the last minute, they simply asserted that it would be electric, without a change in the cost. You believe that? ----------- Finally, how about security? Will they have to duplicate the airport facilities for the High Speed Trains? What would happen if a bolt showed up anywhere in the 600 miles of track? Will they need a high fence on both sides? In a recent presentation on BART, they said that such fences would never be approved, again! Elevated trains, like in Japan, have no problems with that. This brings up an important factor. High speed rails work in Europe and Japan because both are relatively compact with short distances between stations. I guess they forgot to look at a map. If the Blended Wing airplane proves successful, the state will have to subsidize travel by train to keep it running. The Blended Wing design has the potential of increasing flight efficiency by something like 20%, or more. The High Speed Rail seems designed for the benefit of some group that is pushing it. If the idea was so good, how come no bank would lend them the money? They been talking about it for more than five years (10 years?), since well before the Recession started. Why not ask engineers at RAND, Aeropace or MIT to do an energy analysis? Are they afraid of numbers? This project is a blemish in the Mechanical Engineering Profession. Must we build it to prove it is too expensive? The California voters were duped into approving a $9 Billion High Speed Rail project that is expected to cost over $40 Billion, Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee wrote it would be closer to $49 Billion.
When their initial 10 trains a day were seen a poor substitute for the 50 flights a day from SFO to LAX, they quickly changed the frequency to 100 trains a day.
Just what are those passengers doing now?
Are they flying airplanes?
There are three airports in the SF Bay Area and four in Southern California. Passengers take whichever is most convenient, but the train will need for all of them to go to one central place to catch the train, is that better?

Any energy study of the cost of driving a train at 220 mph with four or five intermediate stops would show that they are not competitive with airplane flights.

Environmental Impact: They claim that wet lands where migration birds come every year, East of San Jose, by the thousands will not be affected. Can you imagine how noisy 100 trains would be travelling at 220 mph. I could go on but it is depressing.

Two last arguments.
1. If the trains were successful in taking all the passengers from the airlines, is it not a Zero-Sum case?
What ia going to keep people working in the airlines?
2. Airplanes fly less about 60 Percent the distance of the train because they fly in an straight line. They fly at twice the speed of the train. They have a higher frequency departures. Why would anybody take the train?

The future:
The Aerospatiale 380 is already flying to both LAX and SFO, its energy efficiency per passenger is about the same as a motorcycle. Am I suppose to believe the train is more efficient? They like to quote only the energy used in level terrain, in California?
They never mention the energy required at each stop to accelerate the train each time.
At the last minute, they simply asserted that it would be electric, without a change in the cost. You believe that?
———–
Finally, how about security? Will they have to duplicate the airport facilities for the High Speed Trains?
What would happen if a bolt showed up anywhere in the 600 miles of track? Will they need a high fence on both sides? In a recent presentation on BART, they said that such fences would never be approved, again!
Elevated trains, like in Japan, have no problems with that. This brings up an important factor.
High speed rails work in Europe and Japan because both are relatively compact with short distances between stations. I guess they forgot to look at a map.

If the Blended Wing airplane proves successful, the state will have to subsidize travel by train to keep it running.
The Blended Wing design has the potential of increasing flight efficiency by something like 20%, or more.
The High Speed Rail seems designed for the benefit of some group that is pushing it. If the idea was so good, how come no bank would lend them the money?
They been talking about it for more than five years (10 years?), since well before the Recession started.

Why not ask engineers at RAND, Aeropace or MIT to do an energy analysis? Are they afraid of numbers?
This project is a blemish in the Mechanical Engineering Profession. Must we build it to prove it is too expensive?

]]>