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

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

And yet, it is not stupid in other countries.
Why is that?


Population density.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

I hear excuses like that, but they don't fly with me.

Supposedly we're the best, most energetic, most capable, wealthiest, most free country in the entire world. We are the United States of America, the most superior nation to ever grace the planet, the pinnacle that all others should aspire to.

And yet, we can't do thing that other countries can. Like high-speed transport. Like full health care systems. Like nuclear power. Like a slow-switch over to non-polluting systems. Full deployment of high-speed internet. Etc, etc, so on and so forth.

IF we are the best nation on the Earth, then we should be able to do these things easily and have them make a profit with no problem, regardless of our population density or size of the nation or what-the-fuck-ever. IF we are superior, we should be able to do anything any other country can do and do it better.

The message I get? We Americans are deficient and inferior in quite a few respects to other countries.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Besides, most of these high speed train routes are planned for extremely populous areas, or some of the most successful routes operated by Amtrak currently, which is exactly the role the CBO suggested for financing any new projects-- focus on areas with high ridership, e.g. the Northeastern corridor. Those areas are comparable to European countries in population.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

And yet, "everyone knows" there are no commuters.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Who says that broadband saturation is a dictate of who is the "greatest nation on Earth"?

I think saturation of our ultimate technological achievements in general is pretty good marker.

So your measurement of "greatest nation on earth" is one which can single-handedly reverse the laws of economics?

My measurement is one where said nation can consider the 'laws of economics'...and then wave them aside as irrelevant without any repercussion.

I can't understand if you're being jingoistic or myopic.

Hierarchical and very tired of all the "AmeriCAN'T" rhetoric that gets thrown about. We can't do this. We can't do that. And we can't come up with anything better than already exists. We have to be stagnant and woeful. Horseshit. There's always better. There's always advancement. There is always MORE.