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

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Yes. Commuters do not travel the routes they are building.

If this is correct and is such a lie, then why do I not see this being trumped about in news about CA? Surely such a lie would be a big whistleblower or mudraker story, garnering perhaps a Pulitzer.

Or, if you say it's a lie, what are your sources for that?

Almost. I live pretty far from my job at 15 miles (20-45 minute drive).

That's just plain unnatural.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

If this is correct and is such a lie, then why do I not see this being trumped about in news about CA? Surely such a lie would be a big whistleblower or mudraker story, garnering perhaps a Pulitzer.

I don't know. I haven't heard anyone making a big deal out of it being for commuters though, everyone here knows it's not for that.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

OK, so "everyone knows". But what are your authoritative sources?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Do a google search, look at the articles. I haven't found one yet that mentions anything about it being for commuters.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/12/first-leg-of-california-high-speed-rail-project-chosen-critics-say-its-a-train-to-nowhere.html
http://www.kcet.org/shows/socal_connected/undertheinfluence/transportation/growers-ready-to-battle-high-speed-rail-126920110321.html
That's just a sample.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

So blogs and editorials. Great, I suppose, if you consider blogs and opinion pieces to be reliable.

But what I refer to for an authoritative source is the study done by the California High-Speed Rail Authority on Revenue & Ridership Projection, which states there will be 2.3 million intra-regional commuters (http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6149) who will utilize this transit system.

You say this is a lie. Where can I pull the data that this is a lie in a study similar to what the California High-Speed Rail Authority has put out?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Did they have a source for where they came up with that figure? Because I don't know of any way they can get more than 10% of that even existing, much less to use the train.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Source was: Forecasts of riders and revenue for the high-speed train were developed from 2005 to 2008 by Cambridge Systematics (CS), a national leader in transportation economics and modeling, with extensive current experience in transportation issues throughout California.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Let's see, there's a study reported on in Feb. 2011 for Riverside and San Bernardino counties (where one end of the rail line will start initially) that shows that there are only about 64,000 residents who work somewhere outside the neighboring counties (where taking the train would actually be useful). And there's also the comment that some of the supposed long-distance commuters might actually be due to a records problem. For example, even though I lived in San Diego, my parents' address was my permanent address for a lot of things, so I would have shown up as a long-distance commuter due to working so far away from my "home address". A lot of students has this situation as well.

http://beaconecon.com/Misc/RIR_UCRiverside_E1.pdf (page 4)

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

OK, but this isn't a specific study that's been performed over a period of time on the transportation model, as was the one done by Cambridge Systematics. Further, their only source of data is the US Census Bureau. How long was this Beacon Economics study performed, where did they perform their study, and where was the actual data gathered from that wasn't from the US Census?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The transportation model isn't relevant. The issue is the claim about the number of long-distance commuters even existing. The Census Bureau database is an adequate enough data source for determining that.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

what's the average CALIFORNIA commute, I wonder...

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

http://thesource.metro.net/2009/10/29/average-commute-times-for-your-city-courtesy-the-census-bureau/

[dwer.livejournal.com]

45 to 59 minutes 392,334
60+ minutes 517,657

That's quite a lot of people who could benefit from some mass transit.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

And a lot of people that would be unable to benefit, as they would be too spread out from where they need to get to. Mass transit works when there's a lot of people in one spot that need to all get to the same other spot.