STATUS OF CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL & THE AUTHORITY

Imagine if you can ride on a new California “high speed train” in 2025. Imagine that a new 700-mile stretch of steel rail lines is placed between Sacramento/San Francisco and Los Angeles/San Diego. The transit coaches you step into and sit in are built in Europe. The driving units are made in foreign lands and when delivered generate electrical power via smoking their diesel stacks.

The concept for this “so called proposed California approach” is a carbon copy of the high-speed rail French TGV trains which now serves some areas in Europe. The concept is based on going forward by looking in the rear view mirror! Why are we looking toward Europe for solutions? Don’t we have any of our own ideas? Americans have never been short of better technological solutions because of our innate inventiveness and courage to advance in front of every other nation on this earth.

Why go backwards? The proposed solution further attempts to link these newly made passenger steel rail corridors with local freight lines on the same gauge track, made from and parts forged in foreign countries. Oh my, how can we possibly move forward to “UNITED WE STAND?”

What legacy are we giving to our next generation for the next hundred years of enlightened travel use? We have and will still experience bad urban design futures given to us by our Governor Gray Davis in response to the electrical power crisis. Should we also go backwards to update a bankrupt railway system in the same manner of our electricity needs to show that we are currently paralleling third world capabilities for proper solutions? Or should we succumb to such a passive short term rail transportation “fix-up” because our aircraft industry has taken such a hit, due to September 11 terrorist action?

Why should we be constantly reminded of an early American Iron Horse concept and attempt to get Federal handouts in the way of emergency money to patch up a bad working, money losing, unfinished, old fashioned rail road system?

What is wrong with the conclusion found in the CHRA scenario? First this Board wants a fading railway industry to provide the old technology to be manufactured in foreign countries and shipped to California. They do this in the same week of the 24th October 2001, when NASA has a vehicle orbiting Mars. Are these men fearful of challenging American inventors and giving them the incentive for creating a whole new transportation industry in California?

Imagine for a moment this our California, the seventh largest economy in the world without leadership to form any new transportation expectations for our children’s mobility betterment in the new millennium. It is preposterous to think that we do not want to engage the existing manufacturing resources found only in California to create a worthwhile advanced high speed ground transportation system.

Let’s place the whole CHRA concept in the can. Why should Californians pay so much for an updated 190 mph steel-wheel-steel-rail system? This is not a high-speed ground transportation system by any stretch of the imagination. Let’s find some new leaders who are brave enough to forget what was not completed for passengers by the private railroad companies of the past. They do a good job moving heavy freight; let them continue to do this well.

In fact let’s ask for a new set of CHSRA decision makers who are not grouchy old men who loved riding in the trains of the past century. They are still playing with their boyhood Lionel steam engine locomotive railroad fantasies on their living room floors. There are better folks who should represent California’s future on the California High Speed “Rail” (This should be substituted by High Speed Ground Transportation) Authority. These elderly gentlemen are unskilled in risk analysis of future alternative transportation technologies and therefore cannot lead Californians into an appropriate future.

Their present efforts have led to a sorry state of affairs. When one reads the following address to the “stakeholders” in a recent CHRA memo (October 12, 2001 from which summarized is “The Authority and FRA are reviewing staff recommendations for a first screening alternatives for the Bay Area Merced, Los Angeles-Bakersfield, Los Angeles–the Inland Empire, Orange County and San Diego regions. After receiving public and agency comments, staff will prepare a final draft for Authority approval at the November 14, 201 board meeting to be held in Bakersfield. The “Draft First Screening Report” and technical reports for each region are available on the Authority’s public website (www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov) Some of the key decisions may include: 1.0 Elimination of Maglev Technology; 2.0 Elimination of steel wheel steel rail that cannot share tracks with other services in urban areas; 3.0 On the San Francisco Peninsula, only continue investigation of Caltrain Corridor shared-track alternatives; 4.0 Elimination of a direct link to Los Angeles International airport; and 5.0 Investigation only “non-Electric” incremental improvements of the existing “Surfliner” service along the coast between Irvine and San Diego.”

The SCAG Maglev Task Force memo (October 18, 2001) was blunt, short and to the point about the status of the CHRA Project. “In summary, the screening report from the HSRA states that a high speed “train” operating on a dedicated track is no longer part of the vision. The new vision includes intercity trains that operate on shard track. There would be no service to LAX and only non-electric service south of Irvine. Also Maglev technology is excluded as an option. It has also been determined that a dedicated system is not practical in the Bay Area and in the Losaan corridor. As a result, a conventional train system is now envisioned. Essentially, the new direction can be described an incremental improvement to the existing system.”

Only one conclusion can be drawn from the above statewide effort – no guts no glory. That is this is a mock “court” and study effort, set up with disregard for proper procedures to deliver a technological judgment, which unbeknown to all Californians has been arrived at in advance. Simply put this CHRA has produced a kangaroo court solution.

To resist the frigidity of old Iron Age technology, one should combine the body, the mind and the heart - to keep leadership thoughts in parallel with the vigor of the risk taking to be shared by all California citizens. To this end we should exercise Californians goals for better urban/environmental survival through advancement of a new transportation industry.

California has risen to projects such as the aqueduct, national highway and freeway systems, ports and airports. It has population groupings that are desperately looking to advancing speedier transportation solutions, far beyond the present wing lock and gridlock. We have world famous Universities, Research, Manufacturing, Space, Communication and Financing Institutions with abilities to challenge the purpose of creating such a better high-speed ground transportation system.

There is a better mobility system than steel-wheel-steel-rail for future Californians. Let’s make this transportation ignorance our daily opponent, indifference to future realistic technological possibilities our constant challenge, and lift our spirits toward new solutions as a means of new millennium inter-city mobility. Let’s not be fearful of making it so.

Throw out this CHSRA Board and start anew. They are focusing on the wrong transportation direction for the future of California.

BY Graham Kaye-Eddie – Master Urban Designer.

Makabusi Inc. – Bakersfield – California

Email – makabusi@pacbell.net

Train's next stop up in air

Another local viewpoint of what happened at the CHRA meeting in Bakersfield.

The greatest problem we have in high speed ground transportation is the single word TRAIN. It's imagery is too strong in the minds and limited experiences of the decision makers, staff and consultants. There is a Maglev revenue service vehicle in California. One wishes that all the participants would take a tour and ride the maglev vehicle as well as pay for the ride. Let's invite them to Six Flags Magic Mountain!

TODAY IN HISTORY

On this day in 1939, Social Security Administration approves first unemployment check

BART Board endorses plan for South Bay extension

Transportation in California.

Air Pollution in California

A Sierra Club report gave the Bay Area an unflattering ``C-minus'' grade for efforts to reduce smog through public transit spending.

River towns reconnect with waterfront potential

Cities across the nation are reconnecting with rivers; riverfront redevelopment is booming for aesthetic, environmental, and economic reasons and also as an "antidote" to sprawl.

CITIES BECOME POST-NOMADIC

After a half-century of ever-increasing mobility, Americans are becoming more sedentary. What does this mean for cities?

More Americans than ever are logging onto the Web

nternet usage reached record levels in October as 115 million Americans went online, according to Nielsen/NetRatings. The total represents a 4 percent increase from September and a 15 percent jump from the same period last year. In addition, more than 176 million Americans, or 62 percent of the population, had access to the Web, a jump from 57 percent a year ago, the rating service estimated. The biggest growth came in sites devoted to the home and fashion. Top Web properties for the week ending Nov. 4, the most recent available, and the number of unique visitors for each (in millions):

1. AOL/Time Warner 39.3

2. Yahoo! 31.6

3. MSN 28.9

4. Microsoft 10.0

5. Lycos Network 9.4

6. eUniverse Network 7.8

7. eBay 7.5

8. Disney Internet Group 7.3

9. Excite@Home 7.2

10. Google 6.9

- Associated Press Business & Finance

Why real estate values may hold up in a recession

Why real estate values may hold up in a recession There is a good chance of coming out of this recession without a great deal of deflation in the housing market, but hold onto your seats. An "Economic Scene" feature. By David R. Francis

Skyscrapers Are Here to Stay, Says Panel of Experts

At a symposium on skyscrapers at the National Building Museum, an architectural panel agreed that skyscrapers will persist as a powerful presence in cities.

Electric Cars May Lose Push in Northeast

New York, Massachusetts and Vermont are considering postponing the requirement of the sale of electric cars.

CALIFORNIA OFF-YEAR ELECTIONS ARE A MIXED BAG

Slow-Growthers win 6 of 9 ballot measures in California.

Monorail supporter's mind still on one track

After a loss at the polls, it looks like Denver's monorail is little more than a dream.

Study prescribes med school By Barbara Anderson

California would have more doctors to treat a diverse population if the state built a medical school in the Central Valley, according to a study that shows minority physicians are most likely to practice medicine where they receive their education. A Central Valley medical school would allow the state to recruit students who are interested in providing care to underserved minorities and people living in rural communities, say researchers at the University of California at San Francisco.

"The development of a new University of California medical education program in the Central Valley would increase the number of physicians practicing in this region," according to the UCSF study, "Holding Onto Our Own: Migration Patterns of Underrepresented Minority Californians in Medicine."

The Central Valley is one of the most medically underserved areas of the state. The number of doctors per 100,000 patients is lower in the Valley than in the state, or nationwide. For example, Fresno County has 169.5 physicians per 100,000 people. The national average is 224, and the state average is 215.4.

Hispanic and African-American physicians are more likely than other physicians to treat low-income patients and work in sparsely populated areas, the UCSF study shows. But Hispanic, African-American and American Indian physicians are scarce in the work force.

And fewer minority students are entering medical school in California. The number of California minorities deciding to go to medical school dropped from a high of 310 in 1994 to 258 in 1999.

Equally disturbing, UCSF researchers say: Enrollment by California minorities in state medical schools decreased from 59% in 1993 to 43% in 1999.

Changes in affirmative action policies in California are part of the reason cited for the drop in medical school enrollment, but the study says another roadblock is the lack of space for those who want to enroll.

California has nine medical schools but exports more students than any other state. In 1999, the state lost 56% of first-year medical students to out-of-state schools.

"We currently lose many Valley medical students to other states," says Dr. Deborah Stewart, associate dean of the UCSF-Fresno Medical Education Program, which trains medical school graduates in seven specialities.

Once students leave the state for medical school, they don't return to California to attend medical residency programs, she says. Most medical school graduates spend three to five years in training before opening practices.

A medical education program in Fresno could attract minorities, "if they actively recruited people from the Central Valley," says Lydia Mata, a third-year UCSF-Fresno medical resident who attended medical school in San Francisco.

Fresno was her first choice for residency training. "It fit our lifestyle and our family situation," Mata says. She was raised in the San Fernando Valley, but her husband is a Dinuba native who teaches math to community college students in Madera.

Mata plans to remain in Fresno, but she doubts that building a medical school will automatically lead to an increase in minority physicians in the Valley.

"To get people to come out to this area, it has to start before medical school," she says. "You have to target them at high school and college to get them to come to medical school and to come back."

Opening a medical school in the Valley makes sense, the report says, because of the existing residency program administered through UCSF, which has outreach programs for Hispanic middle and high school students.

One idea would be for medical students to study basic sciences at the proposed UC Merced and transfer for two years of clinical training at UCSF-Fresno.

Another model in the report would allow students to study at any of the UC medical schools before transferring to UCSF-Fresno for clinical training.

The last option: Build a new medical school in the Valley, either in Fresno or Merced, with clinical training provided by the UCSF-Fresno program.

Other recommendations in the report to increase minority physicians in the state:

Provide funding to recruit minorities to residency training programs in California.

Expand outreach and programs to educate health professionals who are willing to work in underserved areas.

The reporter can be reached at banderson@fresnobee.com or at 441-6310.

© 2001 , The Fresno Bee