Janet Napolitano’s Reckless and Ignorant Rail Screening Proposal
So far, high speed rail and other trains have benefited from the public uproar over the Transportation Security Administration’s new unsafe backscatter machines and “enhanced” patdowns, which many have equated to sexual molestation. I’ve heard and read a lot of “next time I’m taking the train” comments, enabled by the fact that the nation’s rail system has been immune from these kind of security theater arrangements.
Unfortunately, that immunity may be coming to an end if Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano has her way (h/t to Clem):
“[Terrorists] are going to continue to probe the system and try to find a way through,” Napolitano said in an interview that aired Monday night on “Charlie Rose.”
“I think the tighter we get on aviation, we have to also be thinking now about going on to mass transit or to trains or maritime. So, what do we need to be doing to strengthen our protections there?”
While The Hill’s headline – “Next step for body scanners could be trains, boats, metro” – seems to jump the gun, since Napolitano did not exactly propose that, these comments are still very disappointing. There is no reason at all to impose the kind of security theater nonsense on the nation’s intercity trains – including California’s bullet train system – and putting these scanning practices on metro and commuter rail systems would simply be a ridiculous move that would breed chaos and make the transit system unusable.
One of the worst aspects of the DHS is that it flatly refuses to look at and learn from security practices in other countries. A good example is Spain, which has faced a constant and much more serious terrorist threat than the United States over the last 30 years. Whereas terrorists targeting the US have always targeted airlines, terrorists in Spain have targeted – and of course, have struck – the rail system in Spain. Significantly, the March 11, 2004 attacks in Madrid targeted the commuter rail system, because Spain’s AVE high-speed trains had efficient and effective security procedures that nevertheless did NOT resemble the TSA’s invasive procedures. To board an AVE train in Spain, you place your bag through an x-ray machine, walk through a metal detector, and that’s it.
As far as I am aware, the Cercanías train system which was actually bombed on 11-3 has NOT implemented these kind of procedures – and if they have, it’s obviously much less than what the TSA currently uses at US airports. Of course, Spain has seen frequent terrorist attacks by ETA at public locations across the country for many decades and still hasn’t felt the need to implement TSA-style security measures.
Another issue is whether bullet trains present the same kind of target for terrorists as airplanes. An electric train running on a dedicated track that can be stopped remotely via automatic train control doesn’t pose the same kind of threat as a September 11-style attack where jets are commandeered by suicide pilots. One could see a hostage situation on a train, but then that could happen at literally any public place.
Bombing a train might be another threat, but again, a suicide bombing could happen anywhere large numbers of people are gathered, at any time. The US has either gotten lucky that it hasn’t faced that threat, or perhaps suicide bombers aren’t that interested in striking the US.
Which brings up a core point. The US government and the DHS in particular have believed that the only and best way to stop terrorism is through increasingly pointless and invasive security procedures. Yet the only proven way to stop terrorism is to resolve the underlying political conflict that spurs someone to undertake an act of terrorism.
Terrorists are not born, they are made. There aren’t people out there who inherently hate America or Americans and will not rest until we are dead; there are instead people whose politics have driven them to justify violence against civilians. But because US foreign policy does not want to resolve those underlying issues, whatever they may be, Americans have to suffer “security theater” in order to sustain the foreign policy and protect civilians from the blowback.
HSR activists might be tempted to sit back and watch the passengers head toward the trains to flee the idiocy of the TSA. But unless we join in the fight against this unnecessary and intrusive scans, HSR systems will eventually be burdened with them. After all, Michael Chertoff has more scanning machines to sell, and there are a lot of train stations out there. And as Clem mentioned, PB is already assuming TSA-style procedures will be required at California HSR stations, and designing the stations with that in mind. We can’t let that happen, not if we want HSR to be as effective a method of travel as it should be, not if we want it to attract as many riders as possible.
You have got to be kidding me, this just shows why the security theater needs to be dismantled.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 23rd, 2010 at 3:11 pm
It’s also a reason to get of that oil diet, which is very largely driven by the “Happy Motoring utopia” dream. How much power, how much influence, would the Saudis and Osama Bin Laden, and other like them have if the oil market collapsed from lack of demand, in particular because a nation that used 25% of the total world oil demand decided it had enough of bankrolling kings, dictators, terrorists, and fudal corporatists?
Wouldn’t it be cool to just reduce them to being crazy people in the desert, with no ability and no interest in hitting us in the first place?
Isn’t the best way to fight to avoid the necessity to fight in the first place?
I don’t know about Cali, but the existing stations on the NEC would be very difficult to apply TSA-style “security” procedures to.
political_incorrectness Reply:
November 23rd, 2010 at 3:09 pm
We do not even want to go to that point. It is completely ridiculous on how much of a show the TSA provides at the airport.
This proposal makes no sense whatsoever. At least in the case of an airplane it requires a very small bomb to cause the plane to crash. In the case of a bus or a train a bomb is no more dangerous than it would be in a theater or restaurant. Even if you think that HSR is a waste of money, you should oppose this idiotic proposal. Also we need people in charge of the HSRA that don’t assume that we’ll do stupid things like screen passengers – such assumptions tend to become reality.
Nathanael Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
It’s amazing that lunatics in the US government want to burn our resources on more security theater.
They really need to be stopped. Perhaps they *will* propose body scanners at all restaurants next.
Neither Japan nor Italy, my two most recent HSR-experiences, screen at all. The platforms and trains are completely open. You wait at your designated boarding line (per your reserved seats), wait for the train to arrive and arriving passengers to de-board, and then get on and find your seat.
Clem Reply:
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:17 pm
While dragging a large suitcase that never passed through any sort of screening.
Eric M Reply:
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:47 pm
Yeah, I just recently boarded an ICE in Munich Germany recently and I was early. The train didn’t leave for 11 minutes and I didn’t know what to do with myself. LOL.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 3:51 am
Well, the “lame stream” media is at work, telling us sheeple what to do:
http://news.travel.aol.com/2010/11/23/what-not-to-wear-how-to-speed-through-airport-security/?icid=main%7Chp-laptop%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk1%7C186066
I wonder what Peter and Spokker would use for undies to mess with the TSA people.
Funny cuz we just got a memo and signage at amtrak today to the effect that measures will be tightening, with random checks and new, screening procedures. I don’t know the full details ( and even if I did I couldn’t say) But things are going in the direction of tightening up. This has to be coming from washington to because here on the ground we’ve already discussed the realities. Its all about DHS and the administration no doubt, not amtrak management.
Nathanael Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
The Amtrak random bomb-sniffing dog squads are actually a useful security measure.
Everything else proposed is crap. I hope Amtrak pushes back hard against any “airline-screening-style” “security” apparatus exists just to enlarge itself and abuse people, no matter how harmful the effects on individuals and commerce. And if they get away with that, it that will start the countdown clock for the collapse of the government, because that sort of thing is like a cancer.
The problem we have as american citizens is that we don’t know what the real story is. We don’t know if its a case of some govt agency that doesn’t know what its doing… ( we think that automatically because we are a very negative, bitter angry people these days) or is there something that intelligence knows that we just aren’t and never will be privy too, in which case maybe they do know what they are doing and all of being pissed off is too bad since its for our own good. There is no way to know where we really fall in that spectrum.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:34 pm
There’s no intelligence in the US government, certainly not in what is euphemistically called the intelligence community. They do what the power-tripping idiots in charge think should be done so that they look like they’re doing something. None of this has anything to do with safety; when an attack is thwarted it makes the news, and so far all thwartings have involved either old-fashioned detective work (usually not by the CIA goons, who think all intelligence boils down to being able to read your email) or passengers fighting off terrorists themselves.
jimsf Reply:
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:38 pm
there’s no way you can know that though. We only see up so far.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 2:30 am
I guess that when they couldn’t predict the Soviet Union’s fall, that was just a hidden success, too.
jimsf Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 4:54 am
Who didn’t predict it? We engineered it.
Nathanael Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
The CIA didn’t predict it. Right up to the day it happened they were issuing reports claiming that the Soviet Union was strong, solid, and powerful, that Gorbachev was just like Brezhnev, etc.
Where were you?
Most of the federal intelligence agencies are *worthless*. There are some exceptions (State Department intelligence still has a good reputation). The inertia of insitutional culture means that once one of these agencies “goes bad”, it’s very hard to repair it except by wiping it out and starting a new agency.
The CIA’s been nearly worthless since the 50s. Unfortunately several of the better intelligence agencies had their cultures destroyed by Bush, and DHS was worthless from the start.
If something was being proposed by an agency with a good record, or a new agency staffed by people with decent records, that would be, as they say, different. I might be inclined to give *them* the benefit of the doubt. At the moment the agency with the best anti-terrorism record in the US is the NYPD. No joke. They aren’t proposing any of this bullshit, are they?
Alon Levy Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 11:17 pm
NYPD? Oh, sure they are. I think it’s NYPD that’s responsible to turning the sidewalks around Atlantic Terminal into a bollard-ridden obstacle course.
They’re probably smarter than the CIA and other federal alphabet soups, but that doesn’t say much. Smarter than the CIA is like less totalitarian than the Stasi – everyone clears that bar.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
We do know that countries like the UK and Spain that have dealt with far more substantial terrorist threats for far longer periods did not address the issue with the TSA “gadgets to make you safe” approach …
… and we also know that they do not outsource the job to McDonald’s rejects, which is what the Republicans want to do and why they are fanning the flames of this right now.
Nathanael Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Sorry, we do know that this is a case of useless, wasteful, pointless security theater. Maybe you don’t know. We do know.
There simply isn’t any significant scenario such that wasteful security theater on TRAINS would prevent it.
Assuming these enhanced airline security procedures are effective, they are totally unnecessary for rail. A bomb small enough to be hidden in one’s shoe or underwear can still be powerful enough to bring down a plane flying at altitude (and therefore killing everyone on board and possibly people on the ground). But a bomb that small is not powerful enough to derail a train. Traditional airport-type security (searching for guns and larger bombs) that they currently use on high speed rail in Europe is sufficient.
jimsf Reply:
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:00 pm
I was watching some news show last night and a guest made a good point, that in trying to keep the terrorists off the planes, we have created a situation where we have backed up hundreds and hundreds of people in one place at the tsa screening, so potential terrorist could target that large crowd just outside screening, and effectively still bring aviation to a standstill… one such event would have people staying away from airports in droves. and the goal is to disrupt our economy.
I personally don’t mind all the screening, xrays, pat downs, whatever. Doesn’t bother me at all and I want as much done as possible. but the fact is we are just as vulnerable anywhere. The mall, major bridges ( that is if they aren’t already falling down on their own due to lack of infrastructure maintenance) sports events, you name it. Aside from actually stopping attacks, a lot of what we do is done to make people feel safe.
AS long as america makes an effort to cooperate with, and be allies with as many other people around the world as we can, to have the greatest circle of freinds, to be the most inclusive and leave as few people as possible behind or disenfranchised, we will have the greatest success. The more people we leave left behind, the more people who don’t share in global prosperity, abroad and even here at home, the more threat we create for ourselves.
Good luck with that argument these days though. What a mess.
Clem Reply:
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:32 pm
But they don’t use airport style security screening on euro HSR, excepting Spain and Eurostar, which account for only a minority of HSR in Europe. Everywhere else you schlepp your suitcase aboard with absolutely no screening.
Andre Peretti Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 5:05 am
The low passenger density of high-speed trains makes them a very unlikely target for terrorists. All their attacks on TGVs were reported as failures by the media. What terrorists want is terror, not ridicule. So, Carlos the Jackal’s attempt was the last one.
The bloodiest islamist bombings in Paris took place on a subway platform at rush-hour; in a large store during discount sales; on the Champs Elysées near a crowded metro exit.
Walmart is certainly a far better terrorist target than HSR.
Nathanael Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
And Eurostar mainly uses security because it does border control.
We might as well set up the Nude-o-scopes at gas stations – just THINK what a terrorist could do there!
BruceMcF Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
We of course lose more people on average to overdoses of over the counter pain medication, so we also need to set up the Nude-o-scopes at Walgreens.
jimsf Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Muni buses probably kill more people than terrorists each year. So all buses will need to be retrofitted with nude-o-scopes as well as busy intersections.
And leave us not forget the tobacco terrorists from NC who kill 300,000-400,000 people per year in the US alone, still receiving their government subsidies.
The US has either gotten lucky that it hasn’t faced that threat, or perhaps suicide bombers aren’t that interested in striking the US.
They weren’t suicide bombers but the dead people in New York and Chicago from the bombs were just as dead. Chicago’s first one was in 1886. There was a doozy in Jersey City.. well that wasn’t a bomb it was in incendiary device on a Central of New Jersey dock that happened to be warehousing explosives…. 1916, rattled windows in Philadelphia…
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:08 pm
A few other big bangs, all in North America:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_Disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Chicago_disaster
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:24 pm
And a few more; not all of them are ancient history or from wartime:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEPCON_disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Fauld_Explosion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Shoe_Factory_disaster
And I haven’t even gone into coal mine disasters caused by a mixture of methane gas and coal dues, of which there have been several over the years, but thankfully at nothing like the rate they were a century ago.
Airport style security stops will be highly disruptive to all of our mass transit systems and will effectively make them not usable. It is easy to see such security procedures and roadblocks extending to commuter trains. After all, wasn’t the Madrid train bombing of a commuter train? Terrorists have also targeted subways and buses. I was in London when the Underground was attacked and blew up double decker buses. London does not even have xray or metal detectors to get on the tube or on buses.
I think the most effective way to fight airport style security stops is to argue that states should have the right to set security procedures for trains that are completely intrastate. After all, states are in the best position to balance the costs of such security screening with the benefits to its residents. Meanwhile, it will give time for people to remain used to train travel without the intrusive security measures found in airports.
Actually, I don’t believe they’ll get what they want mostly because Congress won’t allocate the funds. DHS won’t be able to put anything in place without the funds to do so. QED
Nathanael Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Congress refused to allocate the funds for the radioactive nudie scanners at the AIRPORTS. The DHS shifted money around from other accounts in order to shovel it to Mr. Chertoff’s cronies.
jimsf Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
While I do’t think rail should be as restrictive as flying, I don’t see what all the fuss is about these scanners and pat downs. I honestly don’t. I really think its more a case of americans reacting with pavlovian response to everything mentioned on the news. I think that you could announce,
“chocolate cake found to be beneficial when eaten at least once a month throughout adulthood” and you would wind up with a poll that shows 72 percent of americans view chocolate cake unfavorably. I swear that’s what would happen.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-high-speed-rail-email-20101124,0,525426.story?page=2&track=rss
Now THIS is fabulous. It certainly illustrates that all activities and decisions made by the board up to the point since the inclusion of any conflicted board members have absolutely been compromised. This is not simply a matter of ending the conflict and ‘no harm no foul – lets all move forward from here. No way, no how.
Peter Reply:
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:21 pm
I have my doubts that Pringle will be reappointed at year’s end, and Katz is going away in a few days.
“all activities and decisions made by the board up to the point since the inclusion of any conflicted board members have absolutely been compromised”
I highly doubt that, given the fact that the remaining board members were NOT similarly conflicted.
peninsula Reply:
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:34 pm
but look at the kind of deep influence on the direction of the project that was exercised, evidenced in the email. The types of the decision – study/don’t study – how the employees were directed to perform their functions, who was given access to internal information, (control of information), the aspects of the project that received attention, or got unceremoniously stomped out. What was brought before the board, even before it got there, was clearly influenced behind the scenes. Its all laid out pretty nicely here. And all this time I thought Medhi was a bungler – little did we know the kind of losers and power hungry chumps he was working for.
There’s no way in hell Pringle will be back. There’s a very good chance that this taints everything done by the authority, and every decision taken by the board since they’ve been there.
Jack In Fresno Reply:
November 23rd, 2010 at 11:10 pm
You’ve been pushing this line since CAARD came out with the incompatible offices offensive. Holding incompatible offices does not cancel decisions. We would have heard from Morris & Co. in the form of a lawsuit long ago if this was the case.
Peter Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 8:54 am
I was thinking about this last night.
Were Katz and Pringle primadonnas? Yes.
Were they trying to affect the project in ways that would benefit their “other” agency? Apparently, yes.
With that being said, you need to consider what the end result was. I can only think of examples for Pringle.
1) Pringle wanted his Mega-ARTIC-Super-Station to include HSR. It doesn’t.
2) Pringle wanted HSR tunneled through Anaheim. Those plans have been scrapped.
3) I’m not sure whether Pringle wanted this or not, but it’s looking more likely that LA-Anaheim is going to be a shared-track alignment with Metrolink. That is NOT a gold-plated solution for Anaheim.
It appears that saner, non-conflicted views won the day with respect to these decisions. So I really don’t see how this “tainted” the Authority’s decision-making.
synonymouse Reply:
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:40 pm
And Quentin “BART” Kopp is not conflicted by his decades-old hostility towards Caltrain? And you find fault with Tolmach being on the board?
morris brown Reply:
November 23rd, 2010 at 11:13 pm
We are finally in the last few weeks, beginning to see some real investigative reporting uncover the basic political corruption of the entire process. Early on, it was San Jose dictating Pacheco or lose their support of the project. What about the faulty ridership projections?
Still somehow, the project seems to move ahead, although, further funding is certainly not to be found for the next several years.
It will be very interesting to see what new revelations will be brought forth in the next few weeks or months.
Nathanael Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
So far I haven’t seen any political corruption uncovered in the HSR project. In Fatherland, I mean Homeland Security, now, that’s another mater.
jimsf Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 5:09 am
I don’t see anything in that article that’s meaningful. So two people on a board argued over stuff and sent nasty little emails back and forth… oooooooooooooohh wow. If someone got hold of your emails what conclusions might they come to about you? What, yopu don’t think people on boards and committee s everywhere have power struggles. Ridiculous. yawn.
mrcawfee Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 11:59 am
Yes and no, it does seem to illustrate that Anaheim is getting a better deal than other cities (although it does also seem like they aren’t getting the gold plated solution assuming they end up sharing track)
jimsf Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
yes but so what, that’s how politics works on every level and every issue. What’s news here? Guess what else, politics also dictates that southern california gets all the freeways and water it wants while the rest of the state goes begging for scraps. surprise surprise. When you have more people who want stuff and fight for it versus less people who hem and haw and are indifferent to stuff, guess who winds up getting the stuff? It never fails to amaze me when americans act all surprised by this. Helllooooooo???
dfb Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 10:44 pm
Please do not compare SoCal and SF Bay Area water diversions. Both areas get a large percentage of water from outside their local watersheds. For example, SF gets its water mostly from Hetch Hetcy in Yosemite National Park, East Bay MUD also gets most of its water from the Sierras, and LA gets a lot ofits water from the Eastern Sierras and some from the Colorado River. In fact, SoCal gets a larger percentage of its water from local sources than the SF Bay Area according to the State Water Plan. :-)
I can’t say much about the freeways, but having lived in both areas it seems the freeways are largely to be the product of how much the local transit agencies value them.
It wouldn’t be that hard at all for Japan to screen their Shinkansen passengers, but they don’t.
The Shinkansen entrances and exits are separate from the regular commuter train and subway tracks, even when they share the same station building. People have special tickets for the Shinkansen and limited access to the HSR platforms, but beyond that they don’t screen at all.
Of course, screening the Tokyo subway would be physically impossible. You’d have to close dozens of exits. After the Aum sarin attacks, they beefed up their security somewhat, but nothing even remotely resembling what we do at airports. It would be absurd to even try.
The irony here is that the United States has one of the least well developed rail transit systems in the First World, and yet we are attempting to implement one of the most stringent security regimes.
Nathanael Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:07 pm
The “security” goons are simply trying to feather their own nests.
Amtrak already has a very sensible security system involving random screenings by bomb-sniffing squads. Anything else is just theater.
You know I think maybe americans now are being just a wee bit whiney. This is not the first time we have had to suck it up and make some sacrifices for national security. I mean for real, I can only imagine what would happen today if americans were called on to make the sacrifices that had to made during wwlII. You know, going without fuel and tires and butter and synthetics, being asked to keep quiet and not discuss certain things with neighbors ( loose lips sink ships) having for instance, in san francisco, to have blackouts and keep the city completely dark at night so enemy planes couldn’t find it. etc etc, not to mention a draft. And now we cry about a pat down. I mean really people. We are spoiled babies. That’s why we are in the mess to begin with. The unwillingness to sacrifice now for later. ( house as ATM anyone?)
Nathanael Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
The problem is not that, it’s that the so-called “sacrifices” are bullshit. They don’t make us any safer.
What would make us safer would be getting off of imported oil, shutting down the overseas military bases, ending the foreign wars, and signing the START treaty with the Russians to get rid of more nuclear weapons (currently blocked by the lunatics calling themselves Republicans in the US Senate).
I’m happy to make sacrifices for that — reinsulate houses, install solar panels and wind farms everywhere, use smaller electric vehicles, ride trolleybuses instead of driving, deal with taking care of a large number of now-unemployed members of the military, et cetera.
Here is an item that Robert should want to chew on.
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=146804&title=Mayors%20to%20California%20High-Speed%20Rail%20Authority:%20Hit%20%E2%80%98reset%E2%80%99%20button
Mayors to California High-Speed Rail Authority: Hit ‘reset’ button
Apparently Eschoo thinks she can re-write both Prop 1A and all restrictions in ARRA funding.
“A point of unification could be around Caltrain. Electrification of Caltrain needs to be done and HSR money can be used to achieve it,” Eshoo said. “Caltrain should be first and foremost. It is the spine of our transportation system.”
Peter Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 9:11 am
“Here is an item that Robert should want to chew on.”
Morris, you are a tool. Robert and CA4HSR called for a “Peninsula Reset” over two months ago. Maybe you missed the discussion on that, AGAIN.
And I’m REALLY not seeing where you get “Eschoo [sic] thinks she can re-write both Prop 1A and all restrictions in ARRA funding” from. You’re pulling that straight out of your ass.
Peter Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 9:39 am
I find it interesting, though, that while Nagel wants to see an in-depth discussion of aerial vs. tunnel, Burt just wants a tunnel, with NO discussion of “unfavorable solutions, including an aerial viaduct”, if the city doesn’t want that discussion.
In other words, Burt doesn’t want a reset of relations with the Authority in order to enable an intelligent discussion. Instead, he just wants a reset of the entire environmental review process in order to have things to go “his way”. His statement can only be interpreted as “Tunnel or Nothing”. THAT is not how reasonable compromises get made.
synonymouse Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 10:15 am
Once Jerry Brown comes to recognize the true magnitude of California’s structural budget shortfall and further how much greater will be the ongoing government funding of the CHSRA scheme there will a not a “reset” but an agonizing reappraisal.
Who do you think will prevail – his hardcore welfare constituency or PB? You can be sure he has not forgotten the fate of Gray Davis
Peter Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 10:24 am
Troll.
Clem Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 10:38 am
Is it possible to have a discussion with you without ad-hominem dismissals of anything you don’t agree with? I for one feel that your old fogeys and trolls have excellent contributions to make, and your self-appointed role of comment police is starting to wear on me. If you’ve got nothing substantive to add, set a good example and pipe down.
Peter Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 10:47 am
Clem, if synonymouse ever added anything of substance to any conversation, I would gladly discuss the issues that he raised. Do you see anything in his “reply” to my comment that was actually replying to my comment? Was there anything substantive in it at all? A comment like that would something to start his own thread for.
synonymouse Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 11:21 am
I tire of my own repetitiveness.
The only reason I obsess on a few points is that I think they are obvious to everyone but diehard PB supporters.
#1 Many Peninsulans profoundly oppose aerials and the associated blight and have every right to do so. Pursuing one’s own best interests is recognized as a right in the Constitution. PB should have known better than to start a war with residents who are by and large supportive of the hsr concept.
#2 The Tehachapi detour is a significantly longer and therefore slower route than Tejon. It is not too late to perform a thorough and fair reconsideration of the various possibilities of routing thru the Grapevine area. PB has simply not made a convincing case against Tejon, given its much more direct alignment that could greatly improve the fiscal viability of the hsr.
Happy Turkey Day!
Al-Fakh Yugoudh Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
I will agree with you on the poor choice of the Tehachapi alignment, which would prolong the trip to LA by at least 50 miles, with very little benefit other than some pork for the Antelope Valley.
However, the Peninsulans’ opposition to aerial structures is utterly misplaced. Aerial structures, when well designed, add character to the city landscape. Check some good examples:
http://voony.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/viaducts-in-the-urban-fabric/
BruceMcF Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
It is absurd to claim that including Fresno and Bakersfield in the system is “very little benefit other than some pork for the Antelope Valley”, and its simply false to claim that the higher risk western access to the LA Basin can both save 50 miles and also serve Fresno and Bakersfield.
Eric M Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
50 miles only puts on about 13 minutes to the trip time, but adds a lot more potential riders.
Nathanael Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Syn is wrong about the Tehachapi alignment. I suggest you read the engineering documentes on the CHSRA website which explain why the Grapevine alignment is practically impossible to construct and extremely risky, both in terms of being destroyed by earthquakes and in terms of going massively over budget.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
The Tejon gamble only saves substantial miles by stripping Fresno and Bakersfield off the corridor, and running through the Central Valley without being able to connect to Fresno and Bakersfield would be gross incompetence.
thatbruce Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Are you meaning Palmdale/Lancaster there instead of Fresno and Bakersfield? An alignment via Tejon Pass, for all its obvious faults, doesn’t preclude running through the existing cities on the eastern side of the Central Valley, but does remove the Antelope Valley cities from the route.
HSTSheldon Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
ThatBruce, I think BruceMcf is saying that even if you go Tejon, if you want to include Fresno and Bakersfield, you will not be saving 50 miles, it will be much less. My cursory glance at the map would estimate only about a 25 – 30 mile saving which is not worth pursuing if you can avoid a base tunnel by going with Tehachapi.
Victor Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
This will not happen BruceMcF, Bakersfield and Fresno will have stations and be connected to each other, Don’t like It? Too bad, So sad, Not.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
No, I’m meaning Fresno and Bakersfield. The “50 mile saved” figure requires skipping Bakersfield, and is based on a proposal that also skipped Fresno. Include Bakersfield, and the “miles saved” is on the order of 10 miles (precise mileage will vary of course based on Bakersfield alignment.
And only a gambling addict would pick Tejon over Tehachapi to save 10 miles or so. If someone had elected to take on that massive increase in project risk to save 10 minutes, the anti-HSR talking points would adopt that massive gamble with public funds as reason to blast the CHSRA … and, indeed, with substantial justification.
Eric M Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
And why is there still a discussion about Tejon v. Tehachapi anyways?! Tejon has already been determined not to happen. Enough of beating a dead horse!!
BruceMcF Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
That’s why … because its been determined that it won’t happen.
WHENEVER the CHSRA makes a decision, no matter how well or poorly made, the opposite of what they decided will automatically be elevated to “how it should have been done” by the committed opponents of progress in building the HSR.
political_incorrectness Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Mutual feelings about the tiredness. *yawn*
Nathanael Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
Clem, you haven’t been paying attention to Syn. Syn is a troll, classic Usenet style.
Peter is easy to discuss with.
Nadia Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 11:22 am
For the record – here’s the actual text of the letter (instead of the media’s version of it):
AN OPEN LETTER ON HIGH SPEED RAIL
To: Governor-Elect Jerry Brown, State and Federal Legislators Serving the Peninsula and Roelof van Ark, CEO, California High Speed Rail Authority
Subject: Resetting the planning process for Caltrain and the high speed rail project on the San Francisco Peninsula
Our city is committed to working collaboratively to build better transportation solutions on the San Francisco Peninsula. We understand the desirability for cities on the Peninsula to reach general agreement on a transportation vision that will guide the Peninsula into the future.
By working together, we will have greater influence on how to improve both Caltrain and high speed rail. We will attract more federal and state funding, as well as private investment, when we agree upon the plan we have for transportation in our respective communities.
Now that preliminary high speed rail funding has been designated for the Central Valley, we have the time to complete the planning process the right way.
Our city requests:
1. An independent ridership study, which is essential to inform the scope of the design alternatives. For example, it may dictate whether we need two tracks or four tracks in some areas – options that have tremendous cost and design ramifications. This analysis is vital and we ask for it to be completed as quickly as possible.
2. An independent review of the budget and business plan for high speed rail in California. Planning for this project must be grounded in reality.
3. An informed discussion among all relevant parties about the freight issues and opportunities on the Peninsula. Freight has environmental benefits for our communities, but there are design constraints that need to be resolved. We want an open dialogue directly with the freight operators and freight customers to develop solutions and build a consensus along the corridor.
4. Restoration of the alignments that our city prefers most in the Alternatives Analysis. If our desired alternatives are excluded from the Alternatives Analysis, there is no real opportunity for creative problem solving around both design and funding.
5. A more thorough vetting of alternatives, with adequate analysis of impacts, before the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) goes forward. There must be agreement between our city and the California High Speed Rail Authority on the final alternatives that are studied in the Draft EIR. There is no need to rush completion of the EIR, only to have it sit on a shelf and become stale. This document should be a viable plan that has the full support of our city.
We understand that other Peninsula cities may be expressing common recommendations.
Peter Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 11:59 am
I don’t see anything about this letter I would disagree with. It seems very common-sense. I am especially pleased that it calls for a discussion with UPRR and the freight customers.
How does this match up with Pat Burt’s “quote” regarding excluding alternatives that the city doesn’t want?
I grew up in the UK while the IRA’s terroirst campaign was in full swing, and bombings were generally relegated to being the last item on the news. Two observations:
1) The IRA almost always used cars or trucks to deliver its bombs. The only was to stop those is to screen every single vehicle, something TSA won’t ever do
2) The IRA never managed to bomb a train or plane – and taht was before full body scanners or “enhanced” pat downs.
When travelling by train in the UK, you were constantly reminded not to leave bags unattended and to report unattended bags. Simple, yet extremely effective.
Also, if you want to blow up a train, you’re better off targetting the infratsuture, not actualyl boarding the train… there are no plans to put a bomb-proof security fence alongside the entire RoW.
thatbruce Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 9:47 am
I’m not sure that the (P)IRA ever seriously tried to bomb a train or a plane, although the Docklands Bombing did damage the DLR infrastructure.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
There was definitely a train bombing in Spain, and it was the local rail that was targeted because it would cause the most immediate impact to the greatest number of people.
But nobody is going to be hijacking a train to fly it into a building.
Italy has had experience with intercity high speed train bombing twice. Although high speed at the time meant approximately 100 mph.
In both occasions the bombs were placed in unattended bags at the Florence train station, and were set to explode under the long tunnel in the appennine mountain range which separates Florence from Bologna.
In 1974, the Italicus Express train bombing caused only 12 deaths and approximately 50 injured passengers, in spite of the large amount of TNT placed in a large suitcase. Fortunately the train was slightly off schedule and the bomb exploded just outside the tunnel where it would have made more damage.
In 1984, just before Christmas, the “904 Rapid Train” bombing caused 17 casualties and 250 wounded in a similar bombing, which this time, occurred right at the center of the 12 mile long tunnel.
Since then all trains between Florence and Bologna have policemen on board, often in plain clothes, who “profile” passengers for possible bombers and also who ensure that no bags are left unattended. This is probably more true now that the new HSR line that just opened has even longer tunnelling (3 tunnels of nearly 50 miles in total).
As somebody said above, bombing a Walmart store would probably cause more damage than bombing a train, in addition in the case of Walmart the large amount of fat flab flying all over the place would surely terrorize America and maybe convince people to stop eating junk food.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italicus_Express_bombing_1974
http://www.enotes.com/topic/Apennine_Base_Tunnel
Nathanael Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:14 pm
In the UK, any unattended luggage will be destroyed.
That pretty much eliminates any non-suicide bombings.
Is anyone taking bets on what the “big announcement” is that was tweeted a little while ago by the Authority with the mysterious – stay tuned?
Nadia Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 11:28 am
strike that – just saw the press release – the Authority staff is recommending where they will start – from the press release:
Spanning about 65 miles, the recommended segment would start near Madera, include the construction of two new stations – one in downtown Fresno and the other east of Hanford – and continue south to Corcoran.
Estimates place the cost of the proposed section at $4.15 billion, which leaves enough money to – if necessary – connect these tracks with existing rail lines as per a federal “independent utility” requirement.
The cost of the project accounts for two new stations, right-of-way acquisition, viaduct construction, site preparation, grading, vegetation restoration, rail bridge construction, roadway realignments, relocation of existing railways and utilities. The final track would be ready in 2017.
The Authority will also consider three other options for beginning the 520-mile project, however, each of them would either leave more money unused or limit the expandability of the project.
Starting with these first 65 miles – from near where trains will eventually turn west toward San Jose, south through Fresno toward Bakersfield – allows the greatest flexibility to build in either direction as more federal dollars become available, van Ark said.
“Starting here gives us flexibility to build in either direction – north and west to the Bay Area or south to Los Angeles – as more federal dollars become available,” van Ark said. “The funding other states are sending back to Washington – if redirected to California – would allow us to extend initial construction all the way to Bakersfield.”
Peter Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 11:55 am
“allows the greatest flexibility to build in either direction as more federal dollars become available”
I hadn’t thought of it that way. That does sound like a good reason to choose that section.
Victor Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 7:14 pm
It’s just like I predicted, Fresno to Bakersfield(almost), Plus bonus miles to go into Bakersfield proper If California gets the refunded Federal HSR Grant money, Stupidity in the Midwest is their loss and Californias to gain, If It happens that way of course.
Nathanael Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:16 pm
It’s an excellent choice of starting segment. Selfishly I would rather the redirected funding go to NY or VT, and the SE corridor really deserves it as well, but I like the potential for construction to go all the way to Bakersfield.
Rail screening is simply impossible when you think about the huge number of people entering and leaving those stations. Just another D.C. politician who doesn’t live in reality.
I take the Madrid Cercania line everyday to work. In fact, I take the same line (to Alcala de Henares) which was the target of all 10 bombs. To the credit of the Spanish government, and that of the community of Madrid, the politicians did not mandate ridiculous ‘safety’ procedures a la the TSA in the US. In fact, I put my ticket through the scanning machine and walk directly onto the train. Moving many, many thousands of people each day, the Cercania would not function if it had airport style security, nor even security the level of the AVE. I could not imagine the Atocha station (the main hub of Madrid) were such procedures put into place. It simply does not make sense to do. Terrorists could simply bomb the Atocha station, or use plastique explosives, etc etc etc.
The TSA has, like all bureaucracy, sought ways to expand its presence so as to ensure its survival. The federal government has used the “security” discourse to desensitize Americans to the loss of civil liberties. Luckily, not all countries follow suit. Kudos to Spain.
So, if I’m reading this correctly, the TSA would want to set up staffed, secured stations complete with body scanning machines and metal detectors at such out of the way places like the California Ave Caltrain station? San Antonio, Lawrence, Atherton, etc? Should I have to go through security when I take the Highway 17 Bus to Santa Cruz?
The mind boggles!