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

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

MMmmm... I love permanganate.

[namey.livejournal.com]

/drools a bit

[telemann.livejournal.com]

rofl ;) DOH!

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Don't be silly. Nothing good has ever come from building trains across country.

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

& hopefully it will aid to reduce the unemployment rate by making accessible transportation to a work-site. hear hear

[reflaxion.livejournal.com]

So what you're saying is that job creation and easing dependence on oil are fueled by socialism, and thus, pure evil. Clearly, the only patriotic thing to do at this juncture is to drive SUVs into employment agencies.

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

agreed, as work/jobs are never a bad thing.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Me either. Personally, train rides are the most relaxing way to get from point A to B ;)

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I don't think so ;)

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Obviously. This is rule one of True Internet Economics: government investment doesn't count.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

yay, trains!

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Ah, the mighty iron horse. It's what separates civilization from barbarism, I tells you. And about time a governor realized that they can't have their low-tax utopias and a modern society at the same time.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

are they gonna close amtrak?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I think it's a bad thing, a poor use of money (it's a waste of it), and doesn't create jobs, just shifts them. I think their ridership estimate is grossly overinflated and it'll run deeply in the red forever like Amtrak. Plus it'll cost at least twice as much as the official estimate. And won't do anything to help the roads as the people who drive that far instead of fly now do so because they need to take things with them in their car or their going sightseeing on the way, so they won't take the train. Plus you still have to get from the train stop to wherever you really want to go and you'll have no car to do so when you get there.

Now, if they had a train that you could drive your car onto and take it with you, that would be useful. Or if they had quick rentals of SMART cars or some other small (even electric) vehicle at the train stations, that would mitigate the issue somewhat.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

the biggest problem with train-lines is having to slow down due to crossing roads. If that can be avoided, there's no reason why this can't work, and work well.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

And here is the problem righhhhhtttt here...


"Estimates vary from 22 million to up to 96 million riders per year)."


I'd be shocked if it tops 20 million riders a year in it's peak years because rail is fucking STUPID.

Go compare the costs speed and convenience of a high speed rail ticket from Boston to Washington (or vis-versa) with pretty much any other form of transportation and it loses on all measures.

Air travel is cheaper and faster and equally convenient.
Car is faster, cheaper, and massively more convenient.
Bus is FAR FAR cheaper, more convenient, and only a little slower.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I see the point about the expense, but that's not a big deal to me. Big projects are not cheap. Your points about sight seeing, and not being able to take lots of luggage, is a bit odd-- you can take plenty of stuff (with no extra charges for extra bags), and there is no limit of stuff you can check in for the baggage car. As for sight seeing, I'll have to disagree--I've seen some beautiful landscapes from my train window seat--- nothing like Interstate highways at all. Good point about car rentals at train stations, but most of the major cities along the Eastern corridor have plenty of cabs and car services waiting at stations when trains arrive, to take you anywhere. Our air system is just about at its limit, with increasing price increases for jet fuel, costs and fees tacked onto riders, train alternatives are very promising.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

because rail is fucking STUPID.

Oh.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I kinda doubta it.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

they need two train systems?

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Do you have any figures for the cost comparison with air travel?

Beside frankly I think that's a load of shit.

[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".

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

http://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/amtrak

Shortest trip from Washington to Boston traveling with 2 weeks notice is 6 hours 40 minutes and costs $235 1 way.


http://www.priceline.com/travel/airlines/lang/en-us/fare_results_ret_ow.asp?session_key=400011AC5C0011AC20110321013138456230266666&plf=pcln&path=bak

Same trip on a flight costs between $65 and $90 and takes approximately 90 minutes


http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=FQh-UQIdsoRo-ylb5PZa3sa3iTEqXYjUIkVSwg%3BFZ9WhgIdw7bD-ykbMT0NLWXjiTGg6GIBJL98eA&q=Washington+D.C.,+DC+to+Boston+Ma&aq=t&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=53.696917,79.013672&ie=UTF8&ll=40.63063,-74.036865&spn=6.502543,9.876709&t=h&z=7&saddr=Washington+D.C.,+DC&daddr=Boston+Ma

Driving directions put the travel time at 8 hours and 30 minutes (obviously not including traffic effects) and cost would obviously vary depending on the fuel efficiency of the vehicle and the exact price of gas. However assume 24 MPG and $4.00/gallon gas which would make it ~$70 - $75 in gas with another $15 or so in Tolls


Travel By Bus is even preferable...

https://www.greyhound.com/farefinder/step2.aspx?

Trip costs $40 and takes between 9:40 and 13:30 hours depending on the exact times of departure.

So even in the one place in the country where we do have High Speed rail, which is of course the only place where it makes sense it cannot actually compete with *ANY* other method of transportation.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Oh since I forgot to mention it, at the low end the High Speed rail costs $70 and takes ~8 hours but you have to be willing to depart at 3:15 AM.

More typical departures cost between $135 and $160 and also take 8 hours

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Need one airline system?