So facts from people we don't like are to be ignored?
I just know that you're not making the case that there are special groups that we can trust with statistics and special groups we can't. Because that's an insult to our intelligence. Sources have bias. We multi-source to eliminate them. No need to impeach the source. Argue the facts.
Edit: I can't seem to connect to the Japanese statistics page, but that too is sourced, and I can't imagine they'd just flat out lie about the contents of a publicly available document...
Thanks for the link. This statistic does not have a separate category for high speed trains and consequently cannot be used to make statements about them.
The relative drop in rail traffic is much more likely due to the fact that local short distance routes have been closed down aggressively in the past 20 years. In Germany, also medium speed trains routes (160km/h), like the ones serviced by the InterRegio, have been cut.
Using this statistic to make any claims about high speed trains is naive or intellectually dishonest.
Cato produces some of the best work in the Think Tank world. I've seldom seen anyone out-argue them with evidence. As far as conflict of interest goes, they famously turned down a donation from Fannie Mae during the bubble because they didn't want it to look like they were not legit.
