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

[kris-schnee.livejournal.com]

If this particular rail project is such a great idea, why were private backers not able to fund it? The article claims that at least parts of the line are going to be profitable. And if the project as a whole isn't profitable, the claim is that it's good job-creation strategy to take money away from those that earn it to pay people for something that the earners wouldn't willingly pay for. I wouldn't call that "good".

[reflaxion.livejournal.com]

So you're saying that libraries, police, public schools, roads, and the United States military are all bad things? Money is taken from wage-earners to pay for all of these things that otherwise do not receive enough funding.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Yes, they are, although the military is a requirement that we have to suffer with.

[kris-schnee.livejournal.com]

It depends on your answer to the question, "When is it acceptable to use force to take people's property?" One answer to that is "whenever it's useful for society," which would justify this rail project just fine. A different and not necessarily correct answer would be "only for the protection of people's rights," which would justify police and military protection but not transportation. I think I'll actually post an entry about this.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Sure thing chief, you find me any investors capable of footing 60 billion and we'll get right on that.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

High speed rail has enormous up front costs, and many of the benefits are indirect, e.g. reduced costs for road network expansion and maintenance, decreased congestion and resulting economic losses and reduced pollution. It isn't a great fit for free market funding.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

why were private backers not able to fund it?

First, no immediate profit.
If something doesn't pay off in 1-2 years like gangbusters, that's not good enough for venture capitalists and investors these days. If you can't guarantee spectacular increases in profit each year, you're not doing things efficiently.

Also, I'd really like to see a bunch of private investors come up with 60 billion. There's a list of maybe 10-20 people in the world who could do that. A couple of paltry million is nothing.