High speed rail

[PLC1]

Should it be built? Is it a boon, or a boondoggle?

Here's an article about the subject in California:

California high-speed rail cost estimate soars

Which leads one to say, "boondoggle."

but, one argument for "boon"

To offset that sense of shock, the rail system's backers are stressing it would serve over the near-term as a jobs program. California has a double-digit unemployment rate and forecasters expect it will ease only gradually.

The Authority said on Tuesday that a bullet-train network across California would create 100,000 jobs over the next few years and "another 1 million jobs moving forward."

On the other hand:

"For too long, High-Speed Rail Authority officials trumpeted the dream, but showed little taste for confronting economic and political realities," State Treasurer Bill Lockyer said in a statement.

and further:

The Authority is also trying to capitalize on other concerns for Californians, notably fiscal and environmental ones. It said high-speed rail would be a bargain compared with $170 billion over the next 20 years to expand highways, airport gates and runways -- each contrary to California's efforts to combat global warming.

better to spend 98 billion than 170, but how realistic is that?

and this article claims:

But the plan also says the system would be profitable even at the lowest ridership estimates and wouldn’t require public operating subsidies.

However, it also says:

It also calls for retaining the most controversial aspect of the proposed rail line — starting construction in the Central Valley. Critics want to start in more populated areas of southern or northern California in case money runs out before the full system is finished, which they worry would create a “train to nowhere.”

The first stage calls for a train from Fresno to Corcoran. Now, I live just south of Fresno, in fact between Fresno and Corcoran, and have since 1974. In that time, I've never yet had occasion to go to Corcoran.

The plan is to continue the rail to Bakersfield. At least, more people have heard of that one. I've been through Bakersfield on the way to Los Angeles, but have never been there except maybe to stop for a burger or something.

But, the feds are adamant that the line go through the valley instead of connecting places most of the country has heard of, like, say for example, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

I have my doubts, frankly.

and $98B? Could it be better spent, or perhaps not spent at all since both the federal and state government is broke?

What do you say?

 

[Pandora]

Oregon is trying to do the high speed rail too. The voters have turned it down I think twice. The cost is out of this world and for less than half the price we could get lots of new busses for all the cities affected.

I do admit I like the idea of a quick trip to Seattle but not at the tax payers’ expense. The federal government says they will pay a portion but it’s not really even half and we get stuck with the rest and in the end I doubt that many people would use it. Oregon is very spread out and people like their cars.

 

[dogtowner]

well you live there so tell me, is the highway congestion an issue between metropolises or within them ? I was there a few years back and drove up to LA from San Diego and I did not find it to ne congested. ends points were but thats quite obviously highly anecdotal.

light rail around metropoli would seem to make sense. between SanDiego and LA or LA and Bay area (other more appropriate examples my ignorance prevents me from offering).

so far as I know, no rail is without heavy subsides but the point regarding road expansion makes you have to consider it. clearly you have to weigh cost to benefit and go for max bang to buck.

but as we're talking California you have to be mindful to it's enormous money issues. expensive and elegant probably needs to give way to simple survival at this point.

 

[PLC1]

well you live there so tell me, is the highway congestion an issue between metropolises or within them ? I was there a few years back and drove up to LA from San Diego and I did not find it to ne congested. ends points were but thats quite obviously highly anecdotal.

light rail around metropoli would seem to make sense. between SanDiego and LA or LA and Bay area (other more appropriate examples my ignorance prevents me from offering).

so far as I know, no rail is without heavy subsides but the point regarding road expansion makes you have to consider it. clearly you have to weigh cost to benefit and go for max bang to buck.

but as we're talking California you have to be mindful to it's enormous money issues. expensive and elegant probably needs to give way to simple survival at this point.

Highway congestion is not an issue in the valley. It is a major issue in the LA and San Francisco Bay areas, but it is easy to zip along state route 99 (east side of the valley) or Interstate 5 (west side) at 80, just keeping an eye out for the zoomies.


SF already has a light rail system, BART. I would personally much rather ride BART than battle the traffic and the behind the wheel idiots there. Whether it pays for itself through fares or not, I'm not sure.

and yes, as I've said, both the state and federal governments are broke. The deficit in California isn't as big on a per capita basis, but if the state could borrow money more easily, it probably would be.

 

[steveox]

Wait a minute,,I thought california is bankrupt?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Funniest part is:

1.) The law that authorized the High Speed Rail project in California, said that the first segment would be built (as you mentioned) between two places that few have ever heard of, not near any major population centers... and also mandated that later segments would NOT be built until that first segment was profitable on its own with no further subsidies!

2.) When the first proposal was made, it was said to cost some $25 billion. Half of that ($12 billion) was said to come from private investors, the rest from gummint. Now the Business plan has come out, and (also as you mentioned) the cost has somehow tripled to more than $90 billion... but only $5 billion will now come from private investors.

No, I don't see anything wrong with this project, do you? Full speed ahead!

After all, California had this extra $90 billion just lying around, with nothing better to spend it on.....

---------------------------

ON EDIT:

BTW, California's population is about 37 million. Let's see, $98 billion divided into that comes out to...

...approx. $2,600 for every man, woman, child, and illegal alien in the state.

...put another way, a little more than $10,000 from each family of four.

My family is five people, plus a grandma we're supporting makes six. Hey, I had nothing better to do with $16,000 that will be taken from me (one way or another)... before the first train even pulls out of the station. And certainly before my sorry rear end ever hits one of the seats. Not that I had any real need to go at high speed between two towns in the Central Valley, hundreds of miles from my house, that I haven't even driven through in at least the last thirty years.

 

[Gipper]

Funniest part is:

1.) The law that authorized the High Speed Rail project in California, said that the first segment would be built (as you mentioned) between two places that few have ever heard of, not near any major population centers... and also mandated that later segments would NOT be built until that first segment was profitable on its own with no further subsidies!

2.) When the first proposal was made, it was said to cost some $25 billion. Half of that ($12 billion) was said to come from private investors, the rest from gummint. Now the Business plan has come out, and (also as you mentioned) the cost has somehow tripled to more than $90 billion... but only $5 billion will now come from private investors.

No, I don't see anything wrong with this project, do you? Full speed ahead!

After all, California had this extra $90 billion just lying around, with nothing better to spend it on.....

Well they must pay for those high cost union jobs...that help fund the Commie Party.

 

[dogtowner]

Highway congestion is not an issue in the valley. It is a major issue in the LA and San Francisco Bay areas, but it is easy to zip along state route 99 (east side of the valley) or Interstate 5 (west side) at 80, just keeping an eye out for the zoomies.


SF already has a light rail system, BART. I would personally much rather ride BART than battle the traffic and the behind the wheel idiots there. Whether it pays for itself through fares or not, I'm not sure.

and yes, as I've said, both the state and federal governments are broke. The deficit in California isn't as big on a per capita basis, but if the state could borrow money more easily, it probably would be.

OK thx, much as I thought.

Seems like the better high speed lines are between major cities that see a lot of traffic. Seems like mandated two fail this test. The train needs to run full to be efficient so I'm not sure why those two were picked. NY Boston Philly may make sense on this coast. Land is costly to expand I95 and travel is frequent. They are instead trying to set up Richmond to DC. Maybe Fredericksberg to DC for the commuters but no need from Richmond.

Light rail makes more sense so I don't know why the fascination with hih speed. Keeping up with the Suzuki's I guess.

 

[steveox]

Amtrak should get into high speed rail for Auto Train. It takes 16 hours from Sanford Florida to Lorton VA. High Speed would cut that half of time. I rather get on train 10 AM be at Lorton by 6PM You just eat lunch on train. No sleeping.

 

[PLC1]

OK thx, much as I thought.

Seems like the better high speed lines are between major cities that see a lot of traffic. Seems like mandated two fail this test. The train needs to run full to be efficient so I'm not sure why those two were picked. NY Boston Philly may make sense on this coast. Land is costly to expand I95 and travel is frequent. They are instead trying to set up Richmond to DC. Maybe Fredericksberg to DC for the commuters but no need from Richmond.

Light rail makes more sense so I don't know why the fascination with hih speed. Keeping up with the Suzuki's I guess.

That's what it appears to be to me. If Japan and China can have HSR, then so can we. If the neighbors buy a new car, then so can we, never mind that our credit cards are maxed out and the bank account is drained.