High speed rail comes to California

[telemann.livejournal.com]

California's high speed rail will start with a spur between Bakersfield and Fresno. The spur has earned some giggles from conservatives, considering how relatively small those two cities are. But this is the start of a high speed rail line that will eventually extend from San Francisco to San Diego. Federal money from the stimulus bill passed in 2010 has jump-started the project, with additional monies from Wisconsin and Ohio (the Republican governors of those states did not accept the Federal grants).

The construction will create 150,000 jobs in California, and some estimates have projected nearly 650,000 permanent jobs will be created along the rail corridor. The project will help reduce overtaxed roads in California, and will remove more than one million vehicles from the state's roads and freeways; and it will also lessen California's dependence on foreign oil by up to 12.7 million barrels per year. Estimates vary from 22 million to up to 96 million riders per year). The final cost of the entire project varies by source, but some estimates have been as high as 81 billion dollars. It's estimated as spurs are completed, profits from those lines would help finance construction costs, making it somewhat cost effective. I think the entire project is a great one, and sure it's going to be very expensive, but then-- most big projects are. The United States has been falling significantly behind on infrastructure investments for some time, we need to do something about it!

Comments

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I think it's a bad thing, a poor use of money (it's a waste of it), and doesn't create jobs, just shifts them. I think their ridership estimate is grossly overinflated and it'll run deeply in the red forever like Amtrak. Plus it'll cost at least twice as much as the official estimate. And won't do anything to help the roads as the people who drive that far instead of fly now do so because they need to take things with them in their car or their going sightseeing on the way, so they won't take the train. Plus you still have to get from the train stop to wherever you really want to go and you'll have no car to do so when you get there.

Now, if they had a train that you could drive your car onto and take it with you, that would be useful. Or if they had quick rentals of SMART cars or some other small (even electric) vehicle at the train stations, that would mitigate the issue somewhat.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I see the point about the expense, but that's not a big deal to me. Big projects are not cheap. Your points about sight seeing, and not being able to take lots of luggage, is a bit odd-- you can take plenty of stuff (with no extra charges for extra bags), and there is no limit of stuff you can check in for the baggage car. As for sight seeing, I'll have to disagree--I've seen some beautiful landscapes from my train window seat--- nothing like Interstate highways at all. Good point about car rentals at train stations, but most of the major cities along the Eastern corridor have plenty of cabs and car services waiting at stations when trains arrive, to take you anywhere. Our air system is just about at its limit, with increasing price increases for jet fuel, costs and fees tacked onto riders, train alternatives are very promising.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

All of the present train services in California are heavily subsidized by the government. Including (especially?) the local routes, which have never delivered all the benefits, promised, but they are fun to ride :D

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

Train travel also does not impose the same kinds of intrusive passenger screening techniques as air travel, for now, anyway.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

That's one reason I've heard from friends that use train service from NYC to DC now.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

Having commuters carry cars with them onto the train probably wouldn't work. The process of loading the cars, securing them for travel, inspecting them and doing the reverse process at destination would add a lot of time at origin and destination and would require a whole lot of ramps, equipment, waiting areas and other facilities at every stop that takes on or discharges cars.

If transit facilities at both ends are adequate, the need for a car would be reduced.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Transit facilities at both ends are not adequate, and won't be, I can pretty much guarantee you. And the car transit thing could be done if the carrying cars were designed right. Ferry's don't seem to have a significant problem with it, and it's the same concept.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

Ferries don't travel at 200 miles per hour. They also don't have the same limitations as trains, such as maximum widths and heights imposed by existing infrastructure. Train length and weight would be another one, given the requirement to haul a half dozen or more autoracks with every passenger railcar.
I like the idea, but the engineering and safety issues around it haven't been resolved yet, and doing so would only add to complexity, cost and time needed for the project.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Also, this train isn't for commuters. Commuters go shorter distances than this train does.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

so, do you think that train turns a profit? If it didn't, would you shut it down?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Sure. In many cases, the services wouldn't exist, because there wouldn't be enough people participating to make it profitable. Do you think that there would be phone-lines to farms in the middle of freakin' nowhere if each farmer had to pay for the lines to be laid?

The bottom line is that if something were truly "good for the country" and would "increase the wealth of everyone", it would be an easy sell to get people to participate.

That presumes that both sides are telling the truth and acting in good faith. That didn't happen, for example, in the health care bill debate. Se: Death Panels.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

I really don't have much of a response to this. We view government so fundamentally differently, at some point, we can no longer converse about it. For example, I'll suggest that a company will only do something if their profit motive is sufficiently fulfilled, so you'll rarely get enough people to sign up for something like this in advance -- and as you've said so often through your posts on this topic, you can't guarantee demand. So why would any company build a wind farm, or a railway? The funds required are so enormous that it would be extremely difficult to get that done. The government HAS those funds, HAS the organization, and every once in a while, HAS the political will to get those kinds of things done.

Most CEOs aren't Elon Musk. Most of them are small versions of Donald Trump, a guy who -- no joke -- bankrupted his own casino.