When the Media Gets It Right – By Riding the Shinkansen
Whenever we criticize the media for not understanding how high speed rail works, we usually suggest they go to Asia or Europe, ride a bullet train, and see for themselves how well the trains work. Happily, some California journalists are doing exactly that, including the San Francisco Chronicle’s Michael Cabanatuan. He traveled to Japan to ride the Shinkansen, and wrote a good and worthwhile article on what “California can learn from Japan’s Shinkansen”:
The Shinkansen, as the speedy train network is known in Japan, is not considered futuristic, fancy or for the elite, as some critics of California’s high-speed rail plans have scoffed. Rather, it’s part of the fabric of daily life, something not so much taken for granted as relied upon. The sleek trains – better known outside Japan as bullet trains – shoot through much of the nation almost unnoticed every few minutes, efficiently hauling more than 300 million riders per year.
And the Shinkansens have been doing that in Japan for 45 years, using cutting-edge technology in the process.
(A word about that: some HSR deniers criticize bullet trains as being “19th century technology.” Guess what else is 19th century technology? The automobile. Flight dates to 1903, so it’s essentially 19th century tech as well. What matters isn’t when a concept was invented, but whether it works well and meets our needs.)
Cabanatuan explains how the Shinkansens have become a basic part of daily life in Japan:
Japan’s high-speed trains run with an efficiency, frequency and reliability unimaginable to those familiar with Amtrak or U.S. commuter railroads. The sleek trains with the distinctive long noses depart as often as 14 times an hour – and they’re almost always on time. Over the past 45 years, the average delay is less than one minute – and that includes stoppages because of floods, earthquakes, accidents and natural disasters. Rail officials also note their safety record: There’s never been a passenger fatality on the Shinkansen….
Commuters account for about 5 percent of riders, railway officials say, but the reclining airline-style seats (but with more legroom) are also filled with business travelers, families, students, shoppers, weekend adventurers and a few wide-eyed foreign tourists.
In short, the trains are popular with every segment of the Japanese population, in a country that has been experiencing 20 years of slow economic growth. There is every reason to believe we’ll see the same thing here in California, which is why we’re so determined to bring the bullet trains to the Golden State.
Cabanatuan does discuss some perceived obstacles to bringing that success to California:
“Japan, especially Tokyo, is the epitome of rail culture,” said Tomohiko Tanaguchi, a senior adviser for the Central Japan Railway, “and California, especially Los Angeles, is the epitome of car culture.”
Tanaguchi is simply wrong here, dramatically understating the levels to which urban Californians already rely on trains and buses to get around. The SF Bay Area has the second highest proportion of people in the nation – 14% – using public transit to get to work, according to the Brookings Institution. The Los Angeles bus system is the 2nd busiest in the nation behind NYC, and the Metro Rail system gets very heavy use.
More significantly, by 2020 – the date the SF-LA HSR route is slated to open – LA will have one of the most extensive mass transit networks outside the New York area, assuming the 30/10 plan is adopted. As is already the case in SF, LA proper will be able to offer a car-free method of getting around the key parts of the city (though by no means around the entire city).
What that suggests is the notion of California’s “car culture” is widely misunderstood. It’s not that Californians won’t take mass transit instead of a single-occupancy vehicle – it’s that most Californians simply don’t have any other option to them. When those options are provided – and when those options enable timely, reliable service – Californians have shown they’ll use them.
If there is any flaw with Cabanatuan’s otherwise excellent article, it’s that he agrees with Tanaguchi even though as a longtime transportation reporter, Cabanatuan probably knows that California has more extensive transportation options than Tanaguchi’s “car culture” argument assumes:
California lacks such an extensive transit network, even in the Bay Area, and the tradition of traveling by train disappeared more than half a century ago, replaced by a culture of driving and flying. California doesn’t have the same population density as Japan either, and it’s only been a recent convert to building around transit stations. But that will probably change with high-speed rail, as it has in Japan.
Cabanatuan isn’t quite right here. California does have an extensive transit network, both in terms of buses and trains, in the Bay Area and in Southern California. It’s not as extensive as in NYC, but it’s getting there, especially with the LA 30/10 plan.
More importantly, Cabanatuan’s “cultural shift” argument – that Californians decided one day they didn’t like trains and shifted to cars and planes – gets the history wrong. Starting in the 1950s, massive government subsidies were spent on prioritizing planes and cars, making such travel much faster and more affordable than trains. Soon thereafter, passenger trains fell on hard times, and many closed down.
But by the late 1970s, the rail renaissance was underway. Local and intercity trains in California have had a lot of success, with dramatic ridership gains over the last 10 years in particular. As Cabanatuan knows well, the SF Bay Area has a “Muni culture” or a “BART culture” – the Muni trains and buses and BART trains are widely popular and used heavily by residents there.
Still, Cabanatuan is right to point out that HSR will provide a massive boost to greater urban density and TOD, as it has in Japan.
One of the most interesting parts of the article – and of extreme importance to the Peninsula, as well as suburbs in Southern California and the towns of the Central Valley – is what Cabanatuan heard from officials in smaller Japanese towns:
Deputy Mayor Kimiharu Yamamoto believes the station saved Kakegawa City, and advises smaller cities to embrace high-speed rail.
“If we didn’t have any station, there would be no industrial park, no businesses,” he said. “We would just be left alone as a farming town.”
This matches what was found by smaller cities in Spain, such as Ciudad Real and Zaragoza, which have witnessed significant economic boosts by having HSR stations that connect them to the country’s larger cities.
Cabanatuan also found some interesting things about noise, one of the top concerns on the Peninsula:
High-speed trains don’t just deliver prosperity, though. They also come with problems, and noise has been a primary concern, much as it is on the Peninsula where some residents and cities are fighting with the High-Speed Rail Authority.
Japan has a national noise standard for the Shinkansen, limiting the noise it generates to 70 decibels in residential areas and 75 decibels in commercial districts. For comparison, a vacuum cleaner at 10 feet produces 70 dB, and a car passing 10 feet away measures 80 dB.
To meet Japan’s stringent standards, rail officials say, they use lightweight trains with sleek and sometimes odd-looking noses, design windows, doors and the spaces where cars connect to be as smooth and aerodynamic as possible, cover the wheels, and work to quiet the overhead electrical supply system, a major noise source. The railways also install sound-walls in some locations along the tracks, ranging from roughly 2 to 12 feet high, and they travel at reduced speeds in the densest areas.
From beside the elevated tracks in the countryside, the Shinkansen is definitely noticeable as it whips past at top speed. But the low rumble and swishing sound it produces seems quieter than a passing BART train or Caltrain. There’s no high-pitched screech or metallic roar, and no blaring horns. In urban areas, where the trains travel at lower speeds, the sound is mostly a muffled rumble.
I wish I could print that selection out and mail it to every single resident living within a mile of the Peninsula rail corridor. It proves what we’ve been saying for years now: high speed rail will produce a quieter Peninsula rail corridor, which in turn will fuel increases in home values. NIMBYs who have worked themselves up into a lather over HSR are shooting themselves in the foot and costing themselves a lot of money in the process in lost real estate values.
Cabanatuan’s article goes on to explain how Japan has successfully operated HSR in a country prone to earthquakes, with obvious implications for California, and concludes by quoting Japanese officials who say that California makes a perfect place for HSR success. It’s worth a complete read.
Overall, despite the flubs on “car culture,” Cabanatuan’s article is a fantastic and valuable look at a similar HSR system. Instead of assuming California’s project exists in a vacuum, he went over to Japan to actually see how HSR works, and brought back valuable knowledge about HSR, specifically about noise.
It is essential that other reporters on the HSR beat in California adopt a similar approach to covering the subject. As many as possible should travel to Japan, Spain, or France (for example) to see first-hand how HSR works, who rides it, what the trains look like, where the routes go, how the tracks and other infrastructure are built, how its finances work, and so on. Instead, too many reporters refuse to make these comparisons, instead comparing HSR to a massive freeway tunnel (the Big Dig) or to slow diesel long-distance trains (Amtrak).
If more reporters acted like Michael Cabanatuan, Californians would be better informed about the HSR project and better able to make decisions about this extremely important project.
And you know why Japan was able to build Shinkansen back in the 1960s? Because NIMBYs shut up on the euphoria of the Tokyo Olympics. Either that or stubborn people were forcefully moved out by the help of the yakuza who were backed by the government How do you think Japan was able to make a miraculous economic recovery? Because they STFU and build, build and build.
That’s the biggest obstacle of bringing HSR to California. NIMBYs. These guys should just shut up and move the heck out; what’s their problem anyway? They’re gonna get paid to move out? Stupid materialistic selfish bastards, that’s what they are.
If you want a democratic way, do it legally by pouring more money into HSR lobbies, control the media and make them look like these guys are the biggest obstacles to getting anything done in this country today. Make them fear media backlash when it turns against them. Reform the law so NIMBYs have no say on projects like these. Stop adding waste time and money to these idiots and BUILD BABY BUILD!!! We’ll never beat Chinese efficiency with this slow and wasteful “democratic” process intact.
Heck, I’ll make it simple: CA can give me the funds to buy houses along the route. Then I’ll act as an individual to buy these houses. Then I’ll sell it back to CA with a promise of building upscale condos and business malls near the station. Problem solved: NIMBYs don’t know what hit them and stupidly sell their homes to me, I’ll sell it back to CA while making huge profits down the road through businesses and condos near the train station.
Tom Reply:
May 12th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Another really intelligent comment, there, Nana. Weren’t you the same one who proposed calling out the hitmen on the so-called nimbys? What are you talking about “pour money into HSR lobbies”? Isn’t that what all the developers, rail car makers, and others are already doing? “Control the media.” Have you ever heard of the concept of the free press? “Make them fear the media backlash when it turns against them.” What are we supposed to fear? “Reform the law so nimbys have no say on projects like these.” Sounds like you’d be pretty happy living in China or Russia where the government just runs over you. “Stupid materialistic selfish bastards.” “Nimbys”. Nothing like name calling to prove your point.
nanashi Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 10:47 am
Yeah and at the same time China is maximizing their Communist efficiency to pawn us on everything by building 10,000 miles of high speed rail track in less than five years from blueprint to startup, exporting their HSR expertise around the world raking in billions in high speed rail projects in places like Turkey and Brazil, while we stick around do nothing because we get derailed by NIMBYs like you which hinders our progress to do anything, build something fast, gain expertise, and export that knowledge to rest of the world.
If it weren’t for hardheaded arrogant and selfish people like you, US would’ve had high speed rail before CEQA, we would’ve had the technology to export it to rest of the world, we could’ve been running our own US company Made in USA trains, and we would’ve been the ones that won the half a trillon dollar HSR contract in China, and we still had something that the Chinese would want to export to them, and every country in the world would be running Made in USA trains that would’ve helped our economy now.
But Noooo, because of you types we let the Germans, French and the Japanese win all those contracts, while the US sticks its thumb up its ass and says duh…why do we still have trillion dollar debt to China?
Maybe it’s time you start looking at the bigger picture instead of your own selfish reasons. YOU ARE THE RATS OF OUR SOCIETY THAT HINDERS ANYTHING GETTING DONE IN THE US, YOU ARE THE MAJOR CAUSE WHY WE LOST PRODUCTIVITY HERE AND WHY WE CAN’T MAKE ANYTHING ANYMORE!!!
Peter Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 11:03 am
Oh wow, dude. I think you really need to look at what is going on in the world.
We live in a democracy. China is not a democracy. Hence we do not do things the way they do over there. Thank GOD for that.
Blaming NIMBYs for why we don’t have HSR yet is just dumb. Is it true that they can use CEQA to fight a project? Yes, but a lot of the CEQA lawsuits don’t go anywhere. Because the system works exactly the way it’s supposed to. You cannot stop a project based on CEQA/NEPA alone. Now, if the NIMBYs managed to convince the Legislature to defund the project, that’s a different matter. But then the fault is not with the NIMBYs but with the elected officials who decided it would be politically more expedient to kill the project than to stand up for it. Political willpower is more of a threat than any number of CEQA suits. Those just get knocked down one at a time.
BTW, the French, Germans, and the Japanese all have environmental laws that are just as strong as CEQA, and their environmental review process takes just as long as our’s does.
If you don’t like the way it’s done over here, by all means, move to China.
nanashi Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 11:15 am
Political willpower, yeah I’ve seen that happen before. All these political guys care about one thing: winning the next election. Wake up to the fact that democracy isn’t perfect much like Communism isn’t perfect, it has its inefficiencies too and NIMBYism is the one of the weaknesses in a democracy.
Let me get this straight: I’m just being the opposite end of the argument on why NIMBYs suck. Sure we live in a democracy; then there’s a democratic way to fight against NIMBYs. Lobby, lobby and lobby! Start pouring support to hsr advocacy groups, fight against NIMBYisms, create private partnerships and silence these folks out. Heck, that’s how GM-NCL cronies got us to drive cars, we can do the same. More media attention, these newspapers are squabbling for ad money, if hsr companies start advertising on their newspapers these journalists will change their tone immediately for pro-HSR to satisfy their major sponsors. If we don’t have the billions, start talking to HSR companies all around the world to help us with lobby funds. Heck the US Supreme Court recently passed laws which now allowed foreign firms to lobby in the US right?
nanashi Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 11:23 am
Start talking to struggling companies in Detroit that used to supply parts to car makers which can upstart their companies by making parts for HSR. Start talking to steel industry workers which will supply the tracks. Start talking to computer manufacturers and IT companies in Silicone Valley which can see incentives for high speed rail IT infrastructure. Talk to the biggest powerhouse of all: the electric companies which powers the juice for HSR (biggest industry to fight against oil companies). Construction companies, cement makers, contractors. Window makers for windows of trains, heck bring in the MythBusters team from the Discovery Channel for all I care, all these can be potential help to fund true HSR lobbies.
Peter Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 11:29 am
Those are all acceptable approaches, but calling for a Chinese-style approach to infrastructure projects (i.e. we know what’s best for you and therefore get out of our way (and your house), and if you oppose us you disappear) is only acceptable under a totalitarian regime, NOT in a democratic society. Go vent in yahoo news comments if that’s how you feel, but that’s not acceptable here.
nanashi Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 11:42 am
Not acceptable here? I thought we lived in the US, where I have freedom of expression and speech?
I’m not promoting Communism or Chinese efficiency, I’m just stating facts so people can wake up to realize the big picture why they are kicking our butts at things like these. Then this wake up call leads to another discussion: what ways can we do it that’s acceptable in a democracy? That’s how we got to lobbies and finding more support from a larger pool of potential sponsors. See? This why you need people like me to jump-start discussions like these. The seemingly nut-case on the surface but a calculated person who makes people think.
nanashi Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 11:57 am
At least HSR advocacy groups are doing something right these days as here in LA we’re see more Siemens commercials on the radio and TV which promotes HSR. But it needs to be more aggressive to silence NIMBYs out. Ads on newspapers = major sponsors for struggling newspapers = jounalists become pro-HSR. Start driving through these NIMBY areas to make them realize how valued these corridors are. HSR advocacy groups can pay for everything with $2 bills or Sacagawea dollar coins to make businesses there realize how much money is going through their areas from commuters alone. Any businesses that can directly benefit from a HSR like local contractors? Give them priority contract deals.
If all else fails, then re-route to bypass these cities and make new ones along the way. The whole point is to connect SF and LA; if they don’t like it, no need to satisfy current owners, satisfy new owners in newer classier cities Their loss for being stubborn anyway and when the realize the mistake they made for being against HSR, all they can do is blame themselves.
Peter Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
“re-route to bypass these cities”
And where would you reroute to, pray tell?
“I’m not promoting Communism or Chinese efficiency”
You are doing precisely that. You first called for the elimination, by murder, of obstructionists. Then you call for elimination of an environmental process that is designed to protect neighborhoods from being destroyed by projects that tear up entire blocks and cut a swathe straight through the heart of the community. Those are PRECISELY the tactics used by totalitarian regimes.
You can’t hide behind 1st Amendment rights when you call for murder, and you can’t seriously argue that calling for the use of tactics only used under totalitarian regimes is not calling for doing things their way. That’s pure bull.
Peter Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
“nanashi
May 4th, 2010 at 19:45
#16
I’ve said it before and said it again; the Chinese method works best. STFU and BUILD BABY BUILD. Opponents mysteriously disappear never to be heard from again. Keeps costs down and gets things done quickly before material prices rise.”
Was this not your comment?
nanashi Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Oh yeah and comments like “kill the Commie/Iraqi/Muslim/illegal alien/tree-huggers/conservatives/liberals/teabaggers/bailout execs/insert anything people have hatred for” are acceptable? Lemme guess, you’re one of those types who actually want those to happen but when tables are turned toward you you say boo-hoo, I’m the victim, eh? My words are equivalent to those except it makes it wrong because the target are NIMBYs, eh?
Shallow and typical NIMBY: can’t think anything straight except what’s their own best interest than helping the better good for everybody else.
Just answer me this: what’s your main malfunction on why you don’t want HSR to happen? Seriously, they’re gonna pay for it and it’ll bring economic upbringing to your community. What’s not to like? Or are you just plain happy with clogged streets as it is?
nanashi Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
My reroute is noted below: Castle Rock, Boulder Creek and Santa Cruz to Gilroy. This whole NIMBY mess is just taking too much time and money, it’ll be faster to reroute it to the West a bit and build new cities there. They’ll win the economic recovery, you guys will lose. Then decades later you’ll all be like “duh, why are all the jobs and people moving to Castle Rock, Boulder Creek and Santa Cruz?”
Same ol thing when the Tokaido Shinkansen was built. Cities that were for it won all the economic miracles. The towns and villages that could’t see the bigger picture withered away and died out, blaming themselves why they didn’t go for when the initial proposal said so.
Bianca Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
nanashi, if you would have read a little more of the comments on this blog you would know that Peter is no NIMBY. To the contrary, he supports HSR. It’s not an either/or situation, you know. People can object to your rhetoric and your tone, without automatically joining the opposition.
If you are going to throw a bunch of labels around, at least inform yourself beforehand. Calling Peter a NIMBY just makes everything else you say carry even less weight than it did before. Just chill out and go walk around the block before hitting “submit comment.”
Peter Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
You are apparently new to this blog. If you had been following it, you would see that I personally am advocating for HSR to be built along the currently planned route at the lowest cost possible.
I just think that discussing it can be done in a civilized manner, without calling for murder. In other words, I don’t believe that the ends justify the means, whereas you apparently do.
Talk about trying to shift blame. I show you a statement that YOU made that calls for killing people, and you then accuse me about thinking the same, but being a hypocrite and just not admitting to my true leanings. Very mature of you.
Peter Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
What Bianca said.
nanashi Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Fine, I’ll take your advice and go take a walk around the block.
Clearly my mind is just too hot-heated right now for I can make a cell phone call half way around the world and video chat with my relatives abroad, yet with all these technology today we can’t even get this project moving forward; whereas 140 years ago we were able to link up the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean with the transcontinental railroad in five years. Argg!!
nanashi Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
And the one thing that ticks me off the most is that all this dilly-dallying and wasteful time and money will bite us back in the end with tremendous cost overruns (studies after studies, meetings after meetings, spending billions before a shovel is put to ground, also higher material prices, etc.) which could’ve been avoided if we just built it faster and sooner.
Anyhow, I’ll go take a walk to cool my head.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
The cost of building a train is about one twentieth the cost of building the cars it removes from the road. There’s a reason there are entire metro areas built around auto production and none built around rolling stock production.
As for Chinese efficiency: I’m not sure what adjectives to use for a developing country that spends almost as much money per-km on subway construction as countries with six times its per capita GDP. However, none of them is “efficient.” Chinese rail construction is much like American road construction: it’s not efficient – it just gets inordinate amounts of money.
nanashi Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Quite frankly, I think that’s in the long run, that’s the cheapest and fastest approach: bypass these hardheaded lugnuts and build new cities along the way. Why work so hard to satisfy NIMBYs when they’re so against it? It could be much cheaper and faster in the long run to reroute it via the 1 via Castle Rock, Boulder Creek and Santa Cruz to Gilroy. Win for these guys and they can build their towns and cities with HSR station to their areas, loss for the NIMBYs who fail to realize the big picture.
K.T. Reply:
May 12th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Hey, calm down…
FYI, most the the right-of-way used in Tokaido Shinkansen was already secured during WWII for the original “bullet-train” project.
Peter Reply:
May 12th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Lunatic fringe HSR fanatic is all I can say…
YesonHSR Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 12:03 am
Nimbys are not the “victims” they make them selfs out to be..more like rich arrogant ass holes ..At least in the case of Menlo
nanashi Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
BTW that’s another part CAHSR got it wrong: they should’ve expect activist NIMBYs. That’s why in other like Japan, France and Germany, they let cities, town, and villages bid each other on where they want the tracks to be brought to. Places that don’t want it are left alone, places that want it will allocate a portion of the land to bring it over.
Seriously, poor planning on CAHSR also brought upon this mess; don’t expect places to go along just because you think it’s the best route to go. Pick the major areas like SF Transit Bay and SFO to San Jose and Gilroy. How the tracks are laid out between, have neighborhoods and cities bid each other.
Also, HSR lobbies should also work stronger to repeal that stupid law where we’re not allowed to build tracks on the Interstate. Dumbest idea ever, seriously.
Peter Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
That assumes that CHSRA did not expect opposition. In fact, lawsuits and opposition to major infrastructure projects are expected and built into the project’s time line.
nanashi Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Okay, came back after a walk. Head much cooler than before.
Kinda funny in this case where in contrast at Japan, there are lawsuits done by cities for NEGLECTING high speed rail projects going through their cities. I think the maglev project in Japan is facing severe lawsuits from the city of Nagoya because it won’t pass through their city.
Spokker Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Never change. Viva la HSR!!! DESTROY THE INFIDELS.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 7:24 pm
Nanashi….here is a link to sink you teeth into the nimbys if you like….www.paloaltoonline.com..the person writing about HSR always has some article about it and always in a bad light
Alon Levy Reply:
May 14th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
The maglev line is slated to run from Shinagawa to Nagoya. The cities that are to be bypassed are in between, for example Kofu, and are much, much smaller than Nagoya.
Not a bad article — some inaccuracies (Shinagawa Station is not served by any subway lines; there are over 30 subway lines in Japan, not 19) and some muddling of facts ()
California lacks such an extensive transit network,
Contrary to what Robert asserts, the author is correct. California may have a transit network that is above average by American standards, but it is woeful compared to anything you might find in Japan. That the modal share of transit even in the Bay Area is only 14% — and this is for commuting only, not overall — says a lot when you consider that Tokyo’s share is over 40%, and this is generally sustained throughout the day. Obviously, sprawl and relatively low density are part of the reason for this, but even small-city and rural transit in California is poor or non-existent.
Also, one issue that has emerged with the Shinkansen is complaints from municipalities along the line that wouldn’t get stations, as well as from residents who worry that local lines that parallel new Shinkansen lines will be shut down, ending service for many communities. (This last point is due to the policy of turning over these paralleling local lines to local governments to run. Although the various JR companies provide some subsidies to operate the lines, ultimately they can’t remain profitable with only local trains when a much faster Shinkansen is providing long-distance service right next door. See this article for details.)
Spokker Reply:
May 12th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Japan is not a good comparison. Spain is better.
James Fujita Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 3:35 am
Japan is to the United States what Starfleet is to NASA. Yes, it’s not a perfect comparison, but we would be overjoyed to have half of what they have. Japan works perfectly well as a goal to aim towards, and there are plenty of things that we can learn from them.
orulz Reply:
May 12th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Shinagawa might as well be on the Asakusa line. Technically it’s on the Keikyuu line which runs into the Asakusa line but that’s splitting hairs IMO.
And sure, LA and SF have transit networks that pale in comparison to Tokyo, but to say they pale in comparison to anything in Japan is quite a stretch. Less than Tokyo, Osaka, or Nagoya – I’ll give you that. But take pretty much any other city in the country, and the transit networks aren’t all that extensive or amazing.
Andrew Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 7:59 am
Kyoto, Kobe, and Hiroshima all have fine transit networks. I’ve never been to Fukuoka or Sapporo, but those seem really good as well.
While it’s true that car use in Japan is a lot higher than the article would make it seem, especially in rural areas, one generally has more options for getting around in Japan than in California. Cities tend to be denser and more compact, well suited for walking and bicycling, and trains and buses run more often than for Californian cities of similar size.
trainsintokyo Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
But take pretty much any other city in the country, and the transit networks aren’t all that extensive or amazing.
Actually, most small- to mid-sized Japanese cities have very good bus networks with high frequencies (especially in central areas where lines overlap), and quite a few have decent tram or rail lines to complement them. And, of course, they all link up to the national rail network in a comprehensive manner.
Compare that to, say, Modesto, Bakersfield, or Redding, which have poor bus transit even at the best of times, and little to no local or intercity rail service. There are a lot of reasons for this, but the point remains that Japanese public transit is overall far superior to that in California.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 12th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
I didn’t say California had a network as extensive as Japan’s – instead my point is that we DO have a network, in contrast to the article’s suggestion that one doesn’t exist.
Spokker is right that a comparison with Spain is more accurate.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 12th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
California has a proto-network. Its only saving grace is that LA and SF’s networks are so monocentric that they’re decent at getting you to and from the HSR stop, while sucking at getting you anywhere else.
The comparison with Spain is not that accurate, either. Madrid and Barcelona both have large, fast-expanding subway systems, and Madrid also has a small RER network. There aren’t many places left in the first world with lower rail ridership than the US, even its more transit-friendly areas like SF.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 12:33 am
San Francisco Bay Area has a very good transit..at least for the hooter villlle USA
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 6:10 am
Hooterville was car free. The only way to get to the Shady Rest Hotel was by train. Drucker’s General Store was by the tracks so people could get there…
Alon Levy Reply:
May 12th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
The article has a lot of other inaccuracies – for example, the top speed isn’t really correct. It’s 186 mph now, but there’s a planned speedup to 200 at the end of this year. For another example, the part about punctuality is almost certainly false; the Shinkansen has only been this punctual in the last 15-20 years, as a result of decades of effort to improve on-time performance.
I’m pretty sure that Tokyo’s transit share is much higher than the 45% in your link. 45% might be transit share out of the total number of trips, not just work trips. For work trips, cities with transit systems that are manifestly smaller achieve shares in the 40s, for example Paris at 44%.
James Fujita Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 3:45 am
Regarding Shinagawa…. trying to figure out what is a subway train and what is a commuter train in Japan is kind of tricky.
So, you have “commuter” trains such as the Yamanote “loop” Line, which behaves like an express subway. Subway trains start underground in downtown Tokyo and can continue on for miles as suburban commuter train lines. It’s all the same equipment, and it’s a wonderful system which I wish we had more of in the United States (instead of the diesel commuter train equipment we tend to use).
Agree with orulz comments about density of transit networks outside of the major Japanese conurbations. I live in Sapporo, a spread-out city which has a metro population of around 2 million- outside of the CBD and inner suburbs, which are served by subway, streetcar, and railway lines, people are overwhelmingly dependent on the automobile. It helps somewhat that the bus system is centered around terminals adjacent to the few railway/subway stations, but overall residents of the sprawly outer suburbs have no better choices than say, people in San Jose.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 12th, 2010 at 10:45 pm
The Sapporo subway has 250 million annual riders, which is higher than BART and the LA Metrorail combined. Greater Sapporo’s per-capita subway ridership is higher than Greater New York City’s – 100 annual trips versus 75. The JR Hokkaido network would add another 60 trips per capita or so, compared with 15 for the combined total of PATH, NJT, the LIRR, and MNR. It’s still better than most European cities of similar size. It’s not Tokyo, but it’s not Houston, either.
It may not be surprised that there is so much misconception on California’s “car culture” not by people outside of California or outside the United States (as was the case with the JR official), but even among residents themselves. Much of the misinformation is spread by people who are ignorant of transit planning or history. In fact, it is quite surprisingly that many Angelinos never knew that Los Angeles once had an extensive streetcar and inter-urban system decades before the modern system existed which pales in comparison to the long-gone system. Ordinary Californians, journalists, elective or appointment officials, and business groups need to be better educated about transit so they can be better citizens in which benefits this state. Ignorance of matters importance to citizens is poor citizenship.
Dan S. Reply:
May 12th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
Here’s a thought-experiment for those of you who are baffled by the proposal that LA epitomizes American “car culture.” What city in the states *is* the best example of “car culture?” Frankly, my answer is LA!
I think of crowded freeways, ridiculous interchanges, drive-in fast food joints, the movies LA Story and Swingers, the smog cloud I used to see looking north when I lived in San Diego, etc, etc. Sure, LA has public transit, and it’s getting better all the time. But there is no denying there is a “car culture” in the states, no matter what interests put it in place.
Ever heard the expression, “People just love their cars?” I think that’s what the author was referring to, and I didn’t pick up on the implication that transit is non-existent in the City of Angels. Tanoguchi-san hit the nail on the head IMHO. In Japan, people take the train and the bus all the time, and not even just the poor people (!). It’s natural. In the states, transit is about everyone’s least-enthusiastic choice! (You know, present company excepted.)
Robert, I don’t think you have to wear the evangelist hat quite so tightly there! ;-)
Joey Reply:
May 12th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
I think people would ride fast, clean, comfortable, efficient transit if it were available. The problem that results from our “car culture” is that it never gets built.
wu ming Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 1:21 am
LA’s car culture pales in comparison to houston.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 7:52 am
That “expression” is misleading for the reasons I gave in the post. Californians have repeatedly demonstrated that when there is a viable alternative to the car, many will take it. The notion of “car culture” is that Californians will always choose the car over a train or bus even when the train or bus are viable alternatives, and that notion is totally false.
The problem in CA isn’t a cultural choice, but a political problem – for most people, a train or a bus aren’t viable alternatives to the car. Again, not because Californians are anti-train, but because subsidies were shifted massively toward cars in the 1950s and 1960s and that lost ground has still not yet been made up.
Missiondweller Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 9:32 am
“California car culture” is an expression that pretends San Francisco doesn’t exist. We have extensive bus, light rail and of course BART. Not only are they used, they’re often uncomfortably packed with people. Why do so many use mass transit in SF? Density. Where you have density and reliable service people naturally flock to transit.
To pretend LA somehow represents all of California is ridiculous and as I’ve showed, even here in CA people will use rail and mass transit where its useful and convenient.
AndyDuncan Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 9:43 am
As has been pointed out on this blog, if you took a San Francisco-sized area out of the mid-wilshire area, you’d have more people in that same acreage than SF. LA is actually quite dense in places, and the fact that the only transit much of LA has are busses is really quite criminal. (the fact that we’re building light rail to monrovia instead of prioritizing rail for the dense areas is beyond criminal, but it’s politics)
mrcawfee Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
“beyond criminal” Those comments drive me bonkers, so what you are saying is.. the COUNTY tax that pays for rail projects should only be used in dense areas, but the rest of the county has to pay for it? I hate to break it to you, but most of the money going to these projects is from the lower density areas, and they deserve the the benefits as much as other areas. Not to mention that good transit will increase the density in these areas anyways.
Going extreme by saying “beyond criminal” doesn’t get your point across and just makes you look like a jackass.
Spokker Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 6:48 pm
“but most of the money going to these projects is from the lower density areas”
It’s a virtuous cycle where tax policies create a situation in which the suburbs become more highly developed. More people move out there. More people pay sales tax there. Those people demand bad, wasteful rail project to the suburbs to combat suburban traffic. Cities are screwed the entire time.
Here’s a more academic explanation about what I’m describing. http://www.csus.edu/indiv/w/wassmerr/fiscalizationnews.pdf
“In Los Angeles County
that year, the central places of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Pasadena, and
Lancaster lost nearly $4.6 billion in business activity to the suburban fringes.”
So here’s the cause, according to the article.
“The cause of these lopsided retail ledgers is simple, really. Cities and counties
get to keep a percentage of the sales tax that’s generated within their
boundaries. From the standpoint of the “big-box” retailers, regional shopping
malls and auto malls, land is less expensive and more available in the suburbs;
central cities are older and harder to redevelop. Outlying jurisdictions are
actively luring big retailers because they know taxable sales will mean money
for local coffers.
Fundamentally, it’s a matter of cents. For every one dollar in taxable retail sales,
one penny goes to the place where the sale was made. Those pennies add up
to millions of dollars each year for California’s cities and counties. To be exact,
this system meant nearly $48 million in local discretionary monies for the city of
Sacramento in 1998-99, and just over $71 million for the unincorporated areas of
Sacramento County. Local governments must compete for every cent.”
This in and of itself is not a bad thing. But Prop 13 changed the playing field quite a bit.
“Fiscalization of land use” is public-policy shorthand for suggesting that
California’s local planning and zoning decisions are being made at least partly
to maximize local tax revenues that the land might produce. As Proposition 13
and subsequent state laws made property taxes a smaller share of local
treasuries, local emphasis had to shift to generating local money from sales
taxes.
…
From all these statistics emerges a pattern: California’s local reliance on sitebased
sales-tax revenue encourages the fiscalization of land use, which results in
greater retail sales in outlying areas than the economics of those areas justify,
which in turn fosters sprawl.
Hurt by this most, besides Sacramento, are central places in the metropolitan
areas of Oakland, Ventura and Orange, which would have generated,
respectively, 46, 45 and 33 percent more retail activity in 1997 if outlying
jurisdictions hadn’t acted on incentives to lure more sales taxes.”
More info on how Prop 13 fuels all this: http://www.facsnet.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=257:prop-13-and-fiscalization-of-land-use&catid=75:archives&Itemid=100003
“Before Proposition13, property tax rates were individually levied according to the city, county, school district, and state’s assessed value. Each ‘agency’ could independently assess the value of a property and levy a tax based that value. Overall tax rates were often in the range of 2 percent to 3 percent of a property’s assessed value.
Passage of Proposition 13 changed all that. The initiative restricted the property tax rate to 1 percent of assessed value, and it prohibited reassessment of property except when it was sold. Thereafter, annual increases can amount to no more than 2 percent of the rate of inflation, whichever is less.
Proposition 13 was good for the taxpayer, but not for local governments; it cut local tax revenue by about 53 percent, dramatically altering the way local governments fund public services. In the wake of Prop. 13, cities, counties and school districts all found themselves scrambling for a cut of the tax revenue, lobbying Sacramento for their share.
…
Proposition 13 may have cut into local governments’ share of the property tax, but the measure did not cut into its share of sales tax – and this didn’t go unnoticed. Local governments receive 1 percent of the state’s 7 percent sales tax for sales in their local districts. So in addition to exacting fees on developers, local governments also started encouraging development that increased sales tax revenue, such as shopping malls, car dealerships and hotels. By contrast, land uses that produce only property taxes and have a high public service cost — especially moderately priced housing — became less desirable.”
You might even be able to see a connection between fiscalization of land use and the Foothill Extension. Rail stations = development = more retail = more sales taxes.
At least that’s the idea.
Spokker Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
And then the SGV turns around and plays the victim! That’s the best part.
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
To be fair, it’s not the density that encourages the rail projects in the “suburbs” of Los Angeles County. It’s the fact that the voting members of the Board of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority is comprised of the five County Supervisors, the Mayor of Los Angeles, three appointees of the Mayor, and councilmen from four separate cities in LA County.
As a result, it’s near impossible to get projects approved that do not in some way benefit jurisdictions outside the City of L.A. However, it’s crucial to note that because most of the cities besides are either to the south of east of downtown and support less dense zoning.
AndyDuncan Reply:
May 14th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
No, what I’m saying is that transit should be built where more people are going to use it. Cost per rider should be the overwhelming factor, not dragging light rail 30 miles into the IE to make Rancho Cordova feel loved.
And your comment about tax revenue coming from the exurbs? You’re fucking kidding right? Monrovia is bringing in more tax revenue per capita than Santa Monica? More than West Hollywood? More than mid-wilshire?
AndyDuncan Reply:
May 14th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
“the COUNTY tax that pays for rail projects should only be used in dense areas, but the rest of the county has to pay for it? “
As opposed to spending money on things that less people will use? People are going to be paying for stuff they might not use, that’s why it’s a tax. With low ridership per dollar spent, a greater number of people end up paying for stuff they don’t use, like when the rest of the county subsidizes your suburban sprawl.
Anthony Reply:
May 14th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Where is this “smog cloud” I look outside on most days and there is no HAZE. Sometimes there is but that’s rare. I am a serious car nut and auto racing fanatic, however I see the value of rail and that’s way before I went to Europe. I would use rail more if it wasn’t so dam slow! It takes 50 mins to go from my front door to the North Hollywood Station and then another 20-25 mins from N.Hollywood to say Downtown LA (LA Auto Show).
I avoid being charged for parking downtown and save about $6 in gas, but the trip take too long overall to consider public transportation viable every day of the week. So we use are cars more in LA because WE HAVE TOO, not because we’re provided more choice, the choices are limited.
30 to 10 will give some real options especially the subway from Downtown to Santa Monica, that would take thousands of cars off the 405 just with doing that.
Peter Reply:
May 14th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Well, the public health detriments of smog (ozone) are present at much lower levels than those that are visible to the naked eye. It’s there no matter whether you can see it or not. It’s just worse when you can see it.
Here’s an interesting article from the Mountain View Voice on what Mountain View is doing to work along with HSR/Caltrain. It also contains some interesting design drawings of what downtown Mountain View could look like. Too bad Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton are so litigious. Link: http://www.mv-voice.com/news/show_story.php?id=2853
I’ve been taking the train lately to get a sense of the parameters. Amtrak does not go directly into LA from SF for some reason. The station at LAX is amazing, though, when you get there. I am so looking forward to the high speed rail; it will eliminate much of the carbon associated with plane travel, and this form of travel connects one to place more, increasing environmental sensitivity.
rafael Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 11:09 am
Amtrak can’t get trackage rights from UPRR to use the Tehachapi Loop, so passengers have to transfer to a bus between Bakersfield and LA.
The only other existing rail line is down the central coast, which is served by a single daily Coast Starlight plying the Seattle-LA corridor. Unfortunately, it is very slow and often suffers massive delays. It doesn’t stop in SF proper because there’s the Bay in-between, but Amtrak does provide a shuttle bus to the Emeryville stop.
Amtrak California would like to add a daily Coast Daylight service between SF 4th & King and LA Union Station, but the state can’t afford the operational subsidies right now. Basically, until HSR becomes a reality, rail is simply way too slow compared to plane travel between those two cities. Sure, rain fans, people who are afraid to fly and residents of towns along the way would use it, but that doesn’t add up to sufficient ridership.
synonymouse Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 11:26 am
Mine the ***ing tunnel under Tejon. Case closed
Anthony Reply:
May 14th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
That’s how they’ll end up doing HSR anyway, it has to be straight track for the most part or we’ll be investing in tilting train sets to deal with all the curves…
The Los Angeles metro area has17.7 million inhabitants and the Paris region 11 million.
The Paris subway+RER (not counting driverless trains to airports and light rail) has 2 billion riders/year.
LA Metro has 100.6 riders/year. Taking population numbers into account, that makes ridership 1/32 of what you have in Paris.
I’m sorry but, by world standards, LA has no public transit to speak of.
AndyDuncan Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 9:27 am
“LA has no public transit to speak of.”
We do but it’s all busses. The vast majority of public transit in LA is done on a bus and you can get anywhere in the city, so long as you’re not in a hurry. LA metro’s weekday ridership is around 1.4 million, of which about 1.1 million are bus trips. If you’re going to include all 17 million people in the greater LA area, then you need to include Santa Monica’s bus service (another 50k), culver city (10k), OC Transit (over 200k) plus metrolink (38k), the commuter busses, UCLA and USC’s busses, and all the other various little one-line bus agencies around LA.
We’re still nowhere near Paris or Tokyo, but a large number of Angelinos ride public transit. That people are willing to ride busses in such large numbers is both a factor of how much driving in LA sucks, and how not in love with their cars many Angelinos are. I don’t know a single person who is excited about having to drive to work, and Cheviot/Beverly Hills NIMBYs aside, people in LA are fully supportive of rail and transit improvements. I mean christ, we got a supermajority to pass Measure R’s sales tax increase, you can’t get a supermajority in this country to agree on the color of sight.
nanashi Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 10:36 am
snore: buses. Yeah, what good is something that gets stuck in traffic along with cars, limited seats and standing spaces (this city is so behind on placement of seats; they should be parallel to the side to maximize standing room space and better flow of people within the bus to the entrance/exits) and that has no consistent frequency whatsoever, and a TAP (scoff) system that barely works that doesn’t even have a cash value option to it.
synonymouse Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 10:59 am
The reason why buses abound is because they represent the minimal level of transit, just above jitneys and they take advantage of a ROW paid for by others. Rail systems are more expensive to build and maintain. In times past traction companies were often required to maintain the pavement as well as the track.
LA had an extensive rail system. The whole story is told in that one famous image, the photo of the LARY streetcars stacked four-high in a junkyard ca. 1954.
nanashi Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 11:05 am
Yeah I know all about that and the GM-NCL cronies. What makes me chuckle is why so many cities across the nation were so stupid back then to let this happen and how the perpetrators got away with it only a $1 fine.
Well maybe in about thirty years when gas prices reach $10 gallon and US lost all productivity to make anything, people will wake up and really thing why this happenned.
Andre Peretti Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Many Paris suburbs have no station and have to rely on buses. The total bus ridership was 1.2 billion in 2004 (couldn’t find anything more recent).
I must say that one of the reasons Parisians use transit is because everything is done to make life miserable for non-taxi, non-bus drivers. Buses have dedicated lanes and seem to get all the green lights. The space alloted to ordinary drivers seems to shrink year after year.
When you drive into Paris you really feel your car is unwelcome. The mayor calls it “dissuasion” which in fact means war on cars. You finally get rid of your car in one of those multy-story parks costing an arm and a leg. The next time you have to go to Paris you take the train, like everybody else.
The situation seems to be just the contrary in America where everything is done to make it easy for cars. That means an uphill battle for HSR, with no equivalent anywhere else in the world.
Spokker Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Of course, if Paris welcomed personal vehicles, it wouldn’t quite be Paris anymore.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Bien sur.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Precisely, that’s why nobody flies in the US – because its so easy and nuisance free to drive. There is no congestion on US streets and parking is always free and readily available, everywhere. If it wasn’t for that, Americans would ride in planes.
Unless, of course, local transport and intercity transport are distinct tasks with distinct characteristics.
Anthony Reply:
May 14th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
But when you look at it like I do, we have a chance to be unique.
Germany’s car culture is similar to ours, but many people have cars and drive, but they also use bikes and public transportation. When the ash cloud hit Western Europe, people that couldn’t fly out of Germany had to use whatever they could find. Germany’s rail system handled it perfectly, ridership went up 30% and while many had to stand in crowded rail cars, they got where they wanted to go with minimal delays.
Its nice to have OPTIONS, once HSR is up and running in California, it will be a real viable option to flying between SoCal and the Bay Area. With 30 in 10, we’ll have real options from the valley to the Downtown area for Staple Center, LA Convention Center and Dodger Stadium. When the secondary HSR is up, you’ll be able to fly out of Ontario Airport, Long Beach Airport or take the train all the way to Las Vegas.
Sure much of this will not be available until 2025 or 2030, but once the ball is rolling it will be hard to stop continued development of rail especially in LA where its badly needed.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Greater Paris has 3.7 billion unlinked transit trips per year (though the numbers within the Métro are linked). This is more than 300 per capita, which compares with 60 in the LA urban area (less if you include the Inland Empire).
Here’s a food for thought: build the cheaper portion (the SF to LA leg where there’s nothing in between except Fresno) first and build the ends last. When people see how good it is but wonder why it doesn’t go into the city, they’ll see a sign that says “X miles to downtown SF/LA: roadblock NIMBYs.” It’d be just like the train that goes right up to the DMZ in Seoul, South Korea: a sign to Pyongyang but cannot continue until times change. But at least the public is made aware that the real problem are NIMBYs.
nanashi Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 8:36 am
Frankly, I think billboards like that are the most affective whenever there’s a transit system that has a missing link to somewhere important. Like a billboard right at the Aviation/LAX station of the Metro Green Line saying “why doesn’t this go straight to the airport? Find out more at http://www.greenlinetolax.com” or something.
Andy Chow Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 10:01 am
My thought is that the first portion should go between Bakersfield and Lancaster. Once that portion is done, you can run through train outside the HSR section, and eliminate the current bus bridge over I-5. Trains can continue to Sac or Oakland via the San Joaquin route, or to San Jose via the ACE route.
Anthony Reply:
May 14th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
HSR is suppose to go through the Landcaster/Palmdale already, just build it. As people are saying in comments, these NIMBY’s will get defeated in court. I believed they planned for this and this is typical occurrence in Democratic Society.
Work with these people as best you can but at the end of the day its going to get built and it needs to be as straight as possible, that means its going to go “In Your Backyard” weather you like or not, for the majority and the grander good, this will not get stopped, the voters have spoken.
If you’re happening to be in the Bay Area next week:
BayRail Alliance general meeting (5/20) – Transbay Terminal/Caltrain Downtown SF extension update
Time/date: Thursday, May 20, 2010 6:45PM -8:30 PM
Robert Beck from the Transbay Joint Powers Authority will provide an update on the project to extend the rail alignment for Caltrain and California High Speed Rail to a new Transbay Transit Center in downtown San Francisco. This project has made a tremendous progress since last year. Later this year, the current terminal is expected to be demolished and AC Transit operation will be transferred to a temporary terminal.
Location: Cafe Yulong, back room, 743 W. Dana St., Mountain ViewDate/time: Thursday, May 20, 2010 6:45PM -8:30 PM
Cafe Yulong is located two blocks from the Mountain View Caltrain Station (between Castro and Hope Streets). We meet in the back room of the restaurant. Dinner will be available for a $11 charge, your choice of beef, chicken, pork or tofu.
Apparently I’m a NIMBY but I actually liked the article. My favorite was what a part your quoted, Robert: “Japan has a national noise standard for the Shinkansen, limiting the noise it generates to 70 decibels in residential areas and 75 decibels in commercial districts.”
I know for me personally that if CHSRA commited to those noise levels a lot of opposition would pass. But if you read the EIR it states that up to 93db are possible with not commitment to make it lower because this apparently is considered good enough.
It is this kind of gulf that make people like me want to fight the CHSRA arrogance as opposed to giving them a pass. I know for me personally that I would be much less upset up the coming giant elevated structure if CHSRA would come out and say its going to be nearly silent – but unfortunately their stated numbers are very different.
A commitment about noise would also show that CHSRA actually gives a rats a## about people who might be impacted.
Spokker Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
The current train horns are federally mandated to be at minimum 93 dB and at maximum 110dB at 100 feet. There are some differences depending on risk level, though.
http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/trainhorn_2005/amended_final_rule_081706.pdf
Jim Wunderlich Reply:
May 14th, 2010 at 8:57 am
Did you even read my comment? I wasnt talking about horns – since all you know there wont be horns in CSHRA since grade separation is required. I was suggesting something that would go a long way toward reducing opposition – some commitment from CHSRA about noise level – not some general discussion about noise mitigation. Why is it the legislature has to step in to get other government agencies to do what is common sense?
Peter Reply:
May 14th, 2010 at 9:07 am
Jim, I think you have good news coming your way. The Authority is, in conjunction with the FRA, in the process of developing new noise guidelines for high speed trains in the U.S. The previous federal guidelines that dealt with this issue (issued in 2004 or 2005, I believe) were based on first-generation European trains. Technology has improved a lot since those trains were top-of-the-line, and the Authority staff members recently made trips to Spain and Taiwan to get new data for the updated study. That study should be released soon, probably by July or August (based on comments at the Gardner AA Open House in March).
So hold your horses until then.
hsradvocate Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Horns are federally mandated. If you and some of your constituents who are for HSR but worry about blaring horns, write to your congressperson to get this law changed to lower levels.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
They didn’t pull those numbers out of thin air. There are Federal standards for noise. Roadway noise. Railroad noise. Airport noise…… Noise in residential areas, noise in commercial areas, noise in the workplace….
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
http://www.calhsr.com/resources/quiet-zones/
Spokker Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
They’ve been trying to establish quiet zones around here for years.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Quite zones are for grade crossings. HSR won’t have any grade crossings. Your FUD is showing.
If there’s one thing that Japan can teach to California, it’s the difference between a Super-Express train, a Limited-Express train, a Semi-Express, Limited Local and a Local train.
In other words, there should be trains that go Los Angeles-San Jose-San Francisco and zip past Fresno (slowing down for safety’s safe, but not stopping). There should be trains that go Los Angeles-Bakersfield-Fresno-San Jose-San Francisco and even trains that go Los Angeles-Fresno nonstop, not to mention the Clovis-Fresno-Selma-Visalia-Tulare commuter train.
The same goes for Los Angeles-LAX express.
It should be noted that this article was in essence underwritten by the Japanese Government to give a positive view of high speed rail.
That said, the article simply doesn’t accentuate and soft-pedals the synergy between HSR in Japan and California.
First, the largest metropolitan area in both Japan and California accounts for around 25% of the total population. And the state has many population centers that are wedged on coastal plains near the ocean. Plus California has a higher degree of people living in urban areas than Japan. But both have their largest metropolitan areas within a four-hundred mile radius of each other.
The big difference between California and Japan is that California’s settlement patterns are based on federally or state subsidized irrigation and could change over time. But being that, I’d echo what others have said that Japan has a car culture and in the majority of the country it’s helpful to have one.
trainsintokyo Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
Japan has a car culture and in the majority of the country it’s helpful to have one.
There’s a difference between needing a car to get around and that being equivalent to having a car culture. If you visit any small or mid-sized Japanese city, it will have railway service, and most local residents and businesses will have a timetable posted somewhere handy. This is true even when personal car ownership is over 100% (Toyama Prefecture). Train travel still holds the imagination of people in Japan to a far greater extent than does the car and does not earn contempt as it often does in America. You can see this by the generally high support for Shinkansen extensions in the countryside, something that would be (and is) much more controversial in America. Yes, due to high ownership rates many businesses are oriented towards the car (drive-thrus, parking lots, etc.), but there is no car culture in Japan like there is in America.