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

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Need one airline system?

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

supply = demand

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Not always.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

it explains why two rail services don't make sense. california should foot the bill.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Not really.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

really. unless you like to subsidize duplicate services at a loss.

[politikitty.livejournal.com]

supply creates it's own demand.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

clearly, given the success of amtrak.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Well, for one thing, Amtrak in CA doesn't own the rail line, so they can't keep to a schedule due to the freight trains interrupting them so often. I won't take Amtrak again due to that, whereas if they hadn't been continually interrupted, it would have been a nice experience and I might have done it again. I know it's an anecdote, but I see no reason why that wouldn't be the case for a large enough number of people to be a significant part of the problem with Amtrak.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

so this new system should put amtrak out of business.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Probably should, but since Amtrak is gov't funded, it probably won't.

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

That's the major issue with Amtrak. They don't own the rails and can't get railroads to leave their schedules alone, or upgrade the tracks.

[moonchylde.livejournal.com]

Yeah, when freight has right-of-way it plays merry havok with schedules.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Yeah, Amtrak set records for ridership, so yeah.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

so that record ticket revenue must be paying for the new investments right?

[moonchylde.livejournal.com]

Only if it is cheaper than mp3s and has a better sound.


This is faster and will be more reliable than Amtrak; the question is the price of tickets.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Why do you always ask "If a tree falls in the forest..." questions? I mean, do you just pick random things that you know have no current market value for giggles or what?

[politikitty.livejournal.com]

Take it up with Jean-Baptiste (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=supply+creates+it's+own+demand).

[dwer.livejournal.com]

except for the fact that he's not talking about obsolete equipment.

[prock.livejournal.com]

Yes.

Next question?