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

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Well, then get your helicopter. People far smarter than I have done the studies; high-speed rail is a good project. It reduces traffic congestion, reduces pollution, and will be competitive with airlines.

But you're not going to like ANY project, Bruce.

I kind of think it's funny. Isn't Atlas Shrugged, or the Fountainhead, or whatever about a guy wanting to build a fast train?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

yes. And authorities on high-speed rail know far more about it than I, and I'm perfectly happy to say so.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Nope. I get to pick and choose.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Oh, I dunno if it's wholly arbitrary. I am somewhat informed on most of these issues. But, yes, I pick and choose with authorities on subjects I'll listen to. There are those who, for example, suggest that the Washington Times is an authority on the news, or that Bill O'Reilly is an authority on politics. I disagree, so I choose other authorities to listen to.

I will say that when it comes to something as non-political as a high-speed rail project, the statistics don't tend to lie. We're not talking about a line from Kansas City to St. Louis. This is california. They know their stats, they know their traffic.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

I don't know. Depends on how far into the red it goes, how many jobs it created, if it reduces pollution significantly, if it's fast enough... a government project doesn't have to make a profit to be successful. Look at WWII. Look at NASA. Look at SSI.

Re: WWII was a success? Broken Window, much?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

You don't think WWII, viewed as a government project, met its goals? Ok.

I don't have a specific system, Bruce. I weigh each projects on the various merits -- recognizing that something I think is a merit may not be something everyone thinks is a merit -- and I make my own decision.

Of course it's subjective. EVERYTHING is subjective. I tend to think that if a government program is in the black, or close to being in the black, and helps a lot of people that's good. You have different views. That doesn't make it arbitrary, nor does it make it irrelevant, it simply makes it not yours.

Re: WWII was a success? Broken Window, much?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Ah, well. The US was a contractor brought into the project after there had been too much scope creep. :D (Actually, that might be fun, to write the history of WWII as a series of project reports.

The US goal in WWII was to gain the surrender of the Axis countries, save the UK, free Western and Eastern Europe (and, incidentally, parts of Africa) and lose as few US soldiers as possible. Those goals were, for the most part, achieved. That makes it a success from the perspective of completing the project. What I'm getting at is that saving money, or making a profit weren't really on the radar.

In the SCA, when we're fighting melee, there are different kind of victory conditions. Maybe it's "fight to the last man standing". Maybe it's "hold the fort against defenders for longer than they held it against us". Maybe it's "hold two of three flags during a timed resurrection battle".

Each one of those victory conditions results in a different set of strategies to achieve that victory. Certainly, it's easier when your troops aren't really dying, but I think the point is valid -- different projects have different success parameters.

The functions of Math aren't subjective (to a point, I'm sure there are theoretical mathematicians who might disagree with you) but both the source of the numbers and how we interpret the results are VERY subjective.

The high-speed rail system in California has significant potential to achieve several goals, but profit (or even breaking even) may not be one of them.