"Hope" train - count me aboard.
2
Paul,
I totally agree with your comment. We are making a huge policy mistake by failing to test and compete America's 2nd generation superconducting Maglev invented by Long Island scientists, Drs. James Powell and Gordon Danby. Their new system can be the basis for a 300 mph, Maglev network for passengers and freight, built along the rights of way of the Interstate Highway System and after testing and certification as a public carrier by the Government, it coulld be built with private equity and would not require a subsidy for its operation and maintenance. The competition wouid not break the bank (about $600 million) and the network would save American's about $1,000 per capita in reduced cost of travel and cost of goods transported. This remarkable guided surface transport system can be the basis for a new industry and would be a leader in global sales. The concept for the Interstate Maglev Network is explained better than I can do here on the website, www.magneticglide.com. The President knows about Japan's passenger-only superconducting Maglev system but he does not know about Powell & Danby. Their system is better, it carries highway freight trucks and it will operate in a levitated mode on conventional railroads so that it can access our older stations without being disruptive to the existing infrastructure. We are nuts to ignore this system. Thanks for writing your comment.
I totally agree with your comment. We are making a huge policy mistake by failing to test and compete America's 2nd generation superconducting Maglev invented by Long Island scientists, Drs. James Powell and Gordon Danby. Their new system can be the basis for a 300 mph, Maglev network for passengers and freight, built along the rights of way of the Interstate Highway System and after testing and certification as a public carrier by the Government, it coulld be built with private equity and would not require a subsidy for its operation and maintenance. The competition wouid not break the bank (about $600 million) and the network would save American's about $1,000 per capita in reduced cost of travel and cost of goods transported. This remarkable guided surface transport system can be the basis for a new industry and would be a leader in global sales. The concept for the Interstate Maglev Network is explained better than I can do here on the website, www.magneticglide.com. The President knows about Japan's passenger-only superconducting Maglev system but he does not know about Powell & Danby. Their system is better, it carries highway freight trucks and it will operate in a levitated mode on conventional railroads so that it can access our older stations without being disruptive to the existing infrastructure. We are nuts to ignore this system. Thanks for writing your comment.
7
In 2008, California and the rest of the nation was at the beginning of a recession, one, which is still gripping parts of my state and other places in the union. I normally support all things to do with public transportation, but this was different: I voted against it because I felt/feel the state just cannot afford it. Those bonds will become due in 2048, more than likely long after I am gone. (I have no children so that one doesn't hold water with me.)
The HSR has some major flaws: Location and politics! (What, politics in California?) I live on the western edge of the Central Valley, about 60 miles east of San Francisco. While Contra Costa County is considered one of the 'Bay Area' counties, geographically we have more similarities with the Central Valley. Politics has played a huge role, when we found out about three years ago that the first portion of funds released went largely to public relations firms that had ties to the authority muckety mucks. (Forming another authority was a mistake to. Do not tell me that there are/were not competent hands in the already existing Caltrans to handle such details. No Bay Bridge talk allowed.)
We would have to drive almost 150 miles to reach the closest HSR station in either Fresno or Madera County. And, and, and...The way legislation is written; No riders on the train until it is ready to embark/debark passengers in LA AND SF, likely about 2024 at the earliest.
The HSR has some major flaws: Location and politics! (What, politics in California?) I live on the western edge of the Central Valley, about 60 miles east of San Francisco. While Contra Costa County is considered one of the 'Bay Area' counties, geographically we have more similarities with the Central Valley. Politics has played a huge role, when we found out about three years ago that the first portion of funds released went largely to public relations firms that had ties to the authority muckety mucks. (Forming another authority was a mistake to. Do not tell me that there are/were not competent hands in the already existing Caltrans to handle such details. No Bay Bridge talk allowed.)
We would have to drive almost 150 miles to reach the closest HSR station in either Fresno or Madera County. And, and, and...The way legislation is written; No riders on the train until it is ready to embark/debark passengers in LA AND SF, likely about 2024 at the earliest.
1
For me the key measure of a new transportation system is its sustainability performance, primarily measurable in energy, greenhouse gases and materials used per passenger mile but also measured by lands required, opportunity costs of the investment compared to other investments needed in creating a more sustainable economy, safety per passenger mile, costs per passenger mile, national security impacts from the fuel used, etc. Will the CA bullet train be better than all other alternatives if viewed through these measures? Hard to say. Electric trains are more likely to be powered by sustainable energy than airplanes, but not necessarily cars. Energy use per passenger mile increases with speed and weight. I agree with others that investing the funds in better performing local transit systems, especially using the likely most sustainable transport technologies of all - Personal Rapid Transit and electric bicycles - might be a better investment.
Even Ronal Reagan Use To Say... Progress is our most Important Product. Let's get on with it... Great Things Will Happen Along The Way!
2
"But what the transcontinental railroad was to its century, the bullet train can be to ours."
More political boondoggle, payola, more bought-and-paid-for politicians, and loss to farmers all along the way. Yes, the "train-to-nowhere" will certainly be Brown's crowning achievement.
Funny that you mention the Irish and the railroad. My ancestors came from the "old sod" as well in the 1850's, 2 fought in the Civil War, and one, my great-great grandfather had a son , most of whose sons worked as engineers on one or another of the New York Central's lines, and rather than a ranch, my souvenir is a broken pocket watch made in the 1880's. Well, 2 clans, 2 paths.
While the Transcontinental provided much for a fledgling nation and state--and a ranch for your clan, I'm afraid the the "bullet -train-to-nowhere" isn't going much of a reprise of that celebration. We'll be saddled with debt, a train that in its first leg will take people from one hick town to another, and Brown (who I think, after his father, may be the best governor we have ever had) will be long gone and we will be stuck with a modern Godzilla.
It may create a few well-paid jobs for engineers, designers,scientists , but the brunt of the work will be done by poorly paid Laotians, the Hmong, and the Mexican laborers who live in the Central valley.
Like the Keystone XL, the reports of wealth and jobs will be greatly exaggerated by those with the most to gain.
I'm Headin' back to County Mayo.
More political boondoggle, payola, more bought-and-paid-for politicians, and loss to farmers all along the way. Yes, the "train-to-nowhere" will certainly be Brown's crowning achievement.
Funny that you mention the Irish and the railroad. My ancestors came from the "old sod" as well in the 1850's, 2 fought in the Civil War, and one, my great-great grandfather had a son , most of whose sons worked as engineers on one or another of the New York Central's lines, and rather than a ranch, my souvenir is a broken pocket watch made in the 1880's. Well, 2 clans, 2 paths.
While the Transcontinental provided much for a fledgling nation and state--and a ranch for your clan, I'm afraid the the "bullet -train-to-nowhere" isn't going much of a reprise of that celebration. We'll be saddled with debt, a train that in its first leg will take people from one hick town to another, and Brown (who I think, after his father, may be the best governor we have ever had) will be long gone and we will be stuck with a modern Godzilla.
It may create a few well-paid jobs for engineers, designers,scientists , but the brunt of the work will be done by poorly paid Laotians, the Hmong, and the Mexican laborers who live in the Central valley.
Like the Keystone XL, the reports of wealth and jobs will be greatly exaggerated by those with the most to gain.
I'm Headin' back to County Mayo.
2
Sounds nice, but I do not want to pay for it, I don't live in California. So, no federal money. The train tickets are certain to be only 25% or 30% less than airfare due to "competitive pricing"...just lower enough to get some business.
A better choice would be to block all Interstate Highway ramps in urban and near suburban areas to facilitate thru traffic, as originally intended, and force commuters onto surface streets. Then, public transport would be needed, popular, and well used.
A better choice would be to block all Interstate Highway ramps in urban and near suburban areas to facilitate thru traffic, as originally intended, and force commuters onto surface streets. Then, public transport would be needed, popular, and well used.
Californians, I'm sure, say the same thing about "Interstate" 45. And "Interstate" 37. And "Interstate" 27. And don't forget the new "Interstate" 2, down in the Rio Grande Valley.
3
My rough math says that you can never have more than 10 million one way trips when this thing is built. My rough math shows operating costs - after writing off 60 billion of taxpayer money - of 2 billion per year. If you do the arithmetic that means that a one way ticket will need to cost $200. A family of 4 off to SF to see the sights will pay $1600 for the weekend. This isn't happening so the numbers will be MUCH WORSE. Right now we cannot even get the San Diego airport by train. The fastest public journey between my house and LA's west side takes three hours at a minimum. Yet none of this will change after investing 60 billion dollars. What we need in California is a better light rail system, not this.
2
I don't recall anyone objecting to Boston's Big Dig at twelve billion plus. It now daily helps hundreds of thousands of Boston commuters every day and will for decades to come. The proposed California rail project will help millions of Californians for the rest of the century as well as business and commerce. What's the problem? Other than the fact it's highly desired by a large Democratic voting state and by our current black Democratic President, what's not to like?
7
When I moved out of CA in '85 there were about 26 million folks here. Today, what is it, 38,000,000. We moved back in '11 & live in the foothills. Every time I travel anywhere west of Sacramento I am shocked at the traffic...everywhere and all the time. It is intense! This will make more jobs than the Keystone Pipeline and have real value. Build it!
4
The problem is the condition of the railroad tracks. Upgrade the tracks with concrete sleepers, heavy rail and all trains run faster. But the USA is spending billions playing policeman to the world, as China laughs all the way to the bank.
4
I enjoyed the article, however I would like to see more about possibly different modes of transportation across California. Some might say that a train is the right option, for it is fast and comfortable mode of transit. I personally would like to hear more about Elon Musk's new Hyper-loop technology which is a small pod that fits inside a low pressure tube using the little amount of air to elevate it on air bearings. This device, if built, could reach speeds of over 600 miles an hour and make the journey from LA to San Francisco in under half an hour.
1
It oughta' be a maglev!@
1
If California were lying in Europe of China, this rail project would have been completed 10, 20 years ago. Not even worth controversy.
Almost every great public works projects has major detractors when started. Years go by, everyone loves it. To read of complaints about the "new" Stapleton Airport of Denver in the 1920's, was to read of the same complaints as the new DIA got going.
Almost every great public works projects has major detractors when started. Years go by, everyone loves it. To read of complaints about the "new" Stapleton Airport of Denver in the 1920's, was to read of the same complaints as the new DIA got going.
3
Think small, live small. Think big -at least you have a chance!
3
". . . the transcontinental is considered to be one of the greatest technological feats of the 19th century."
For the Native Americans and the buffalo, it was used as a tool of extermination.
For the Native Americans and the buffalo, it was used as a tool of extermination.
2
I'm no longer in California where I lived for almost four decades. This is because I don't have the time to wait for the reforms that will undo the destruction the Republicans wrought there. They destroyed the world's greatest university system, they turned most cities into parasitic entities which preyed upon the citizen instead of fostering citizenship. The Republicans ruined just about everything that made California the golden state by putting a price on it and selling it off to highest briber.
I do, however, support the high speed rail and here's a story that can illuminate part of the reasons why. When I was 15 a friend of mine and I put together our savings from a Summer job at the beach and road the bus to the High Sierras (the train passes them).
The bus was late and we had beed routed thru every small town so we were getting angry since they were so incompetent (so much for free enterprise), so we hitched rides into the mountains and recouped our schedule.
We spent two weeks in the late Summer hiking, climbing, and fishing High Sierra lakes & mountains.
The train will boost the travel for people of moderate means to visit these mountains and this in turn will create jobs to accommodate these travelers.
There will be more skiers (if it ever snows again) and other year-round activities.
Washington State is the one other place I've found that didn't throw everything away for self-serving dogma. It'll take California years to recover but the train is a start.
I do, however, support the high speed rail and here's a story that can illuminate part of the reasons why. When I was 15 a friend of mine and I put together our savings from a Summer job at the beach and road the bus to the High Sierras (the train passes them).
The bus was late and we had beed routed thru every small town so we were getting angry since they were so incompetent (so much for free enterprise), so we hitched rides into the mountains and recouped our schedule.
We spent two weeks in the late Summer hiking, climbing, and fishing High Sierra lakes & mountains.
The train will boost the travel for people of moderate means to visit these mountains and this in turn will create jobs to accommodate these travelers.
There will be more skiers (if it ever snows again) and other year-round activities.
Washington State is the one other place I've found that didn't throw everything away for self-serving dogma. It'll take California years to recover but the train is a start.
1
Great, lets get even more people into wilderness areas so they can be destroyed even faster. The problem is that there are too many humans in California, the southwest, the U.S. and Earth.
1
I moved to California 17 years ago at the age of 51. I wish that I had come to San Francisco decades earlier. This Golden State has both been and represented and created the future since the gold rush. Jerry Brown is a visionary focused on creating a bold and bright future for ALL of California, not just the wealthy coastal cities and Silicon Valley.
Build the train -- add a permanent small yearly tax assessment to every individual state return if necessary, but build it with or without federal monies.
What passes for conservatism in this country may keep their gaze focused firmly back toward the 19th century, but, in my old age, I will join Governor Brown and look toward the future. Human time moves only forward. The real Golden Age lies ahead -- not in our past.
Build the train -- add a permanent small yearly tax assessment to every individual state return if necessary, but build it with or without federal monies.
What passes for conservatism in this country may keep their gaze focused firmly back toward the 19th century, but, in my old age, I will join Governor Brown and look toward the future. Human time moves only forward. The real Golden Age lies ahead -- not in our past.
6
Railroads are fun and exciting, most of us older folks have some good free floating feelings about the lure of a train ride. And yes as one person that lives near sacramento a viable link by rails using more than the existent 1890's technology we currently employ in the region sure sounds sweet
But!!!!!
There are so many side issues that slowly degrade this vision.
A) boring huge long tunnels across earthquake fault lines
B) the need to rent cars on either side of your train ride so as to navigate out very spread out lifestyle
C) the physical length of our golden state
D) the soon to be self navigating car and the possibility of a totally new paradyme to use our concrete roadways to summon our ride in a modular vehicle that with our final destination entered in a smart phone shows up at our house when summoned and continues to effortlessly shift us from one linked up rolling transport all the way until our now solo car deposits us at our final destination.
In this last vision there is no need to own some specific vehicle. It's all part of some mass futuristic web of interchangeable rolling boxes.
Now if it's more efficient at some point to have a section of this with iron rails instead of a concrete path , well so be it. I have a feeling that computer control trumps iron rails.
To bud this on the premise that the high plateau at and near the tehatchapi pass will now be 15 minutes from downtown la isn't sufficient
But!!!!!
There are so many side issues that slowly degrade this vision.
A) boring huge long tunnels across earthquake fault lines
B) the need to rent cars on either side of your train ride so as to navigate out very spread out lifestyle
C) the physical length of our golden state
D) the soon to be self navigating car and the possibility of a totally new paradyme to use our concrete roadways to summon our ride in a modular vehicle that with our final destination entered in a smart phone shows up at our house when summoned and continues to effortlessly shift us from one linked up rolling transport all the way until our now solo car deposits us at our final destination.
In this last vision there is no need to own some specific vehicle. It's all part of some mass futuristic web of interchangeable rolling boxes.
Now if it's more efficient at some point to have a section of this with iron rails instead of a concrete path , well so be it. I have a feeling that computer control trumps iron rails.
To bud this on the premise that the high plateau at and near the tehatchapi pass will now be 15 minutes from downtown la isn't sufficient
The California Bullet train like almost all of these will continue to be a drain on the finite resources of California. You have to question all the assumptions on these projects. 67,000 jobs annually that is a stretch at best. But at 68B that works out to 1M per job neither one of those figures are guaranteed. While it may indeed take anywhere from six to ten hours to travel from LA to San Fran how many people will go directly from Downtown LA to Downtown San Fran.
Most people will go from one suburb or out lying town to another so they will decide that driving a car will be faster and cheaper than taking a train. By the time the train is built self driving cars may be the norm and will definitely be in production. With sensors on roads your ten hour trip can be cut to four to five hours. Undercutting the bullet train. So it will be obsolete by the time it is built.
Most people will go from one suburb or out lying town to another so they will decide that driving a car will be faster and cheaper than taking a train. By the time the train is built self driving cars may be the norm and will definitely be in production. With sensors on roads your ten hour trip can be cut to four to five hours. Undercutting the bullet train. So it will be obsolete by the time it is built.
CARS are becoming obsolete. This is the future. We do not move into the future with obsolete technology.
The rest of your rant is just grumpy-old-man.
The rest of your rant is just grumpy-old-man.
7
But that still leaves the capacity issue.
At 65 mph, a lane-mile of Interstate can clear 2,350 vehicles per hour. If these magical sensors allowed for less following distance, that would boost capacity somewhat. But sooner or later you still run out of lanes.
At 65 mph, a lane-mile of Interstate can clear 2,350 vehicles per hour. If these magical sensors allowed for less following distance, that would boost capacity somewhat. But sooner or later you still run out of lanes.
4
Like the writer's family, my family's fortunes were enhanced by an ancestor who worked for a railroad. In my case it was my grandfather, who was a physician for the Pennsylvania Railroad. Over six decades I have watched the fortunes of the railroad industry decline into a perilous state and then revive. Railroads, both for freight and passenger, are once again a vital component of a prosperous and fluid America. It is only those who are ignorant of how important railroads are already in so may areas of our nation who lack the vision of how well they can serve new places in ways that the fruitful imaginations of some are beginning to show us.
5
In 1864, we did not have airplanes, trucks, cars and buses. We had the Pony Express and horses. Rail then made sense for freight and passengers.
If you were asked to fund SF or Sacramento to LA, you would think it funny. The so-called "bullet train" would be slower than plane and. likely, cost more than any alternative.
This line, like other lines, would not just cost so much money to build. It will require taxpayers to subsidize operations until they shut it down. Money from the fare box revenue would be a fraction of the annual costs.
If you were asked to fund SF or Sacramento to LA, you would think it funny. The so-called "bullet train" would be slower than plane and. likely, cost more than any alternative.
This line, like other lines, would not just cost so much money to build. It will require taxpayers to subsidize operations until they shut it down. Money from the fare box revenue would be a fraction of the annual costs.
2
Actually, no: It won't cost more than any alternative, and will not require subsidies. HSR worldwide is mostly profitable.
And yes, flying is faster if you don't consider the time required to get to the airport and to get through security. And the fact that when you land in LA, you need to deal with LA traffic to get to where you want to go. HSR will terminate at Union Station from where you can take the subway.
And yes, flying is faster if you don't consider the time required to get to the airport and to get through security. And the fact that when you land in LA, you need to deal with LA traffic to get to where you want to go. HSR will terminate at Union Station from where you can take the subway.
5
My taxes help fund SF to LA, and I expect to contribute more taxes as well as fares, yet I don't think it "funny." Where are you getting your ideas?
2
" flying is faster if you don't consider the time required to get to the airport and to get through security."
But what about the time going to and coming from the HSR station. It might not be much for city center to city center but I am sure that most trips would be suburb to suburb. When our daughter was young, my wife used to fly to visit her parents in Cleveland. It was a 7 hour trip by car but not much, if at at all faster by air when you considered driving east to Newark Airport and then driving east again from the Cleveland airport. Today with all of the TSA security
theater it would probably be faster and cheaper by car.
But what about the time going to and coming from the HSR station. It might not be much for city center to city center but I am sure that most trips would be suburb to suburb. When our daughter was young, my wife used to fly to visit her parents in Cleveland. It was a 7 hour trip by car but not much, if at at all faster by air when you considered driving east to Newark Airport and then driving east again from the Cleveland airport. Today with all of the TSA security
theater it would probably be faster and cheaper by car.
2
$68billion is cheap compared to the amount that would have to be spent to improve existing roads and airports to handle future growth in California. And a railroad scales much more easily than roads or airports (you just add extra trains).
I can't wait to ride it.
I can't wait to ride it.
21
For those with little or no faith in the efficacy of major infrastructure, let's review a simple story. In 1820, it cost today's equivalent of $100 to move a ton of wheat from Buffalo to Albany. There was no outcry for an alternative transport structure; that was simply the way things were. Ten years later, the cost to move the same ton of wheat from Buffalo to Albany was $3. The difference: the Erie Canal. No one stood on a soapbox and demanded change but once it was in place, the Canal completely changed American industry, agriculture, and transportation forever.
13
Unlike Europe or Japan , when we step out of the future train in LA, we will still need to rent a car since there is no significant public transportation at the end point. Use that money to add a lane to HW5 and regional transport, I would love to see a commuter train from Monterrey-Salinas to San Jose and a faster train from the bay area to SF. If that train will come to be it will just add more urban congestion to the central valley.
3
Have you been to Union Station and downtown L.A. recently? There's a subway there now that enables you to get around pretty easily without a car.
4
At last, progress to assist future generations. I have taken bullet trains in Europe and Japan. What a joy to ride through the countryside not having to contend with road rage and the dodging and ducking of autos close by. This is a great project that I suspect will eventually connect Portland and Seattle, all the way to Vancouver. Sometimes we do get it right in America, slowly, very slowly.
7
Houston and Dallas are planning a high speed rail line. I understand it will be privately funded say like Chesapeake bridge and tunnel. Houston also has been developing light rail service downtown and would like to direct it north to Bush airport. It would be a great for the economy in that part of town. Regarding building cost of light weight rail Houston comes in on time and under budget. Houston transit has some very big plans unfortunately not many people want to pay for it.
Elon Musk has a brilliant idea on a link from La to San Fran. The failure of the pneumatic subway was because of 19th century technology. It can be done. Let him and private investors pay for it. Not the tax payers.
Elon Musk has a brilliant idea on a link from La to San Fran. The failure of the pneumatic subway was because of 19th century technology. It can be done. Let him and private investors pay for it. Not the tax payers.
I am very much in favor of high speed rail in America. However, one thing that must be given very serious consideration with regard to such high profile projects is security. Rail system infrastructure will be fixed in place and therefore subject to sabotage. It doesn't seem feasible to protect hundreds or thousands of miles of track from monkey-wrenchers, terrorists and crazies. Simple fencing will not be adequate and electrified fencing is not feasible for a variety of reasons. This means some sort of combination of visual monitoring and live people in place. No such system is foolproof.
I don't believe such possibilities should preclude high speed rail but in the current climate they must be given thorough consideration.
I don't believe such possibilities should preclude high speed rail but in the current climate they must be given thorough consideration.
1
We can't let fear make our decisions for us. You can find danger in anything, if that's what you're looking for.
6
You need to research the transcontinental railroad a little better. Not only did the railroads get a 400 foot wide easement but every other section (a square mile) for ten miles on either side of the right away. You talk about the $30 per months wages as being meager but then you admit that from his wages, your great-grandfather bought a 1000 acre ranch in the foothills. Actually while railroad workers received above average wages.
We do need high speed rail but not between SF and LA. We need it between Sacramento, Stockton and the foothills and San Francisco and between the outlying communities and LA.
We do need high speed rail but not between SF and LA. We need it between Sacramento, Stockton and the foothills and San Francisco and between the outlying communities and LA.
3
It's about population growth management. Present population routinely overloads I-5 (and I-15) and the feeder highways on both ends and the number of people and cars will continue to rise. 152 to San Jose is particularly horrendous. Try driving south on 15 from Las Vegas on a Sunday afternoon. 580 has ten lanes yet paralysis can strike any time. Number of motorists who don't understand "slower traffic keep right" will rise. Licenses are easy to get.
Looking at freight is worthwhile also since trucks share the highways with passenger cars. Compare it to railroad lines shared by freight and passenger trains. Freight lines are saturated with freight volume leaving passenger trains the lowest priority. Back on the highway, everybody knows what happens when trucks pass each other on a California highway. Freight volume has a direct relationship to population. Let's drive with more trucks for 400 miles!
Aircraft cannot be electrified and cannot begin to carry anywhere near the weight for the same energy used. Next generation air traffic control systems are short term volume management. Rationing air travel for longer hauls and impassable mountains can be painless with modern trains. It's already being done around the world.
The notion of rolling stock shortages is a farce. Plenty of proven equipment on the rack from big name producers making subway cars today.
Looking at freight is worthwhile also since trucks share the highways with passenger cars. Compare it to railroad lines shared by freight and passenger trains. Freight lines are saturated with freight volume leaving passenger trains the lowest priority. Back on the highway, everybody knows what happens when trucks pass each other on a California highway. Freight volume has a direct relationship to population. Let's drive with more trucks for 400 miles!
Aircraft cannot be electrified and cannot begin to carry anywhere near the weight for the same energy used. Next generation air traffic control systems are short term volume management. Rationing air travel for longer hauls and impassable mountains can be painless with modern trains. It's already being done around the world.
The notion of rolling stock shortages is a farce. Plenty of proven equipment on the rack from big name producers making subway cars today.
3
In a discussion over whether the train is a good idea at all the number $68 billion is mentioned in passing as perhaps being a bit steep. A much more effective use of that $68 billion would be to provide free airline tickets to anyone who wants to travel among the destinations that the train will go to. $68 billion will cover decades of free travel. If they are giving out a $68 billion freebie for people to occasionally save a few hours on travel time free plane tickets should be the way to go.
3
Who flies from Fresno to Bakersfield?
2
Careful; you're attempting to apply logic to the discussion!
3
BART could be extended down the Peninsula and into San Jose. Cal Train could have WIFI and improved tracks with expresses into San Francisco and San Jose. Local transportation systems are inadequate which is why so many of the Tech companies have their own buses. Upgrading the existing infrastructure should not be put on the back burners yet again. BTW, high speed rail from Sacramento to Los Angeles is now called Southwest Airlines.
8
67,000 well-paying jobs a year for 16 years, and then jobs for keeping it running. Then there's that pipeline project that will create 35 permanent jobs. Decisions, decisions.
35
Ah, but you forget - that pipeline will make very rich people very much RICHER. But equally important, voting for that pipeline will also fills the coffers of the politicians who support it. The 35 permanent jobs? A pittance for the peasants.
3
Well, the choice is, as always, between "California dreaming" and national nightmare. I'm "all aboard" with Ms. Sharp. We desperately need a 21st century transportation system that is energy efficient and environmentally friendly. I'd hope that President Obama would have specifically added a new national, high-speed rail system that runs on green energy to his recent budget proposal for repairing our antiquated and dilapidated infrastructure. Such a system should be multi-purpose moving freight, military supplies and equipment as well as passengers like the original National System of Interstate and Defense Highways of the Eisenhower era. If we are to compete with Europe and China, such a national system is essential. It will save money and the environment in the long run by taking cars and trucks off the highways and passengers out of the congested airways.
24
"Such a system should be multi-purpose moving freight, military supplies and equipment as well as passengers like the original National System of Interstate and Defense Highways of the Eisenhower era."But I doubt that IKE was behind it--remember his warning about the Military-industrial complex who benefited the most for 6-lane freeways as they moved their rockets from L.A. to Vandenburg AFB
America had been digging canals with great fervor, and enormous investment, right up to the minute the first smoky, dangerous trains appeared. Canals take forever to put in place compared to rails. The transition was nearly instantaneous and obvious. Rail networks grew everywhere; maps circa 1900 look like dense vegetation. When trucks and autos made even finer distribution possible, and on already existing horse and wagon infrastructure, rail started a much slower decline, less rapid because the rail network was already in place and did not need expansion. Now, we have zero infrastructure for the high speed train, and vast infrastructure for cars and trucks. If history is any guide, the next transition will be one utilizing what we already have unless, and it's a big unless, the next thing shows up with obvious and overwhelming economic advantages. Forget the environmental motivations: we know that doesn't sell. Although I don't have a crystal ball, it does seem clear that whatever we do has to mesh with local and door-to-door transit and freight to be successful, and we haven't got those solutions on the drawing boards, let alone in place.
1
Abraham Lincoln would have never gotten approval from congress for the transcontinental railroad except for the Civil War when all of the conservatives from the south were not there and could not block the approval of the railroad.
High speed rail is reality in most of the modern world having started in Japan with the Shinkansen line, which opened in 1964. It is part of the infrastructure of most of the modern world. Mexico is presently accepting bids to build their first high speed rail line. High speed is a solution for transportation in a world of increasing populations and a need to reduce carbon pollution.
Stopping high speed rail is just another example of the Luddites among use driving the United States into becoming a third world country.
High speed rail is reality in most of the modern world having started in Japan with the Shinkansen line, which opened in 1964. It is part of the infrastructure of most of the modern world. Mexico is presently accepting bids to build their first high speed rail line. High speed is a solution for transportation in a world of increasing populations and a need to reduce carbon pollution.
Stopping high speed rail is just another example of the Luddites among use driving the United States into becoming a third world country.
3
I love the idea that CA will again lead the way in starting to bring the U.S. into the new century. These Republicans in Congress are so narrowed minded that they can't see the future. OH, how they pine for the past.
If the trains don't benefit the rich, they have no interest in them. Let's face facts. Rich people would not ride the rails so the rails are not wanted. This one event exposes the problems with an oligarchy. And if the Dems have good sense, they would do everything they could to educated the public on the merits of an improved infrastructure.
We really are the laughingstock of the world of high speed rail countries.
If the trains don't benefit the rich, they have no interest in them. Let's face facts. Rich people would not ride the rails so the rails are not wanted. This one event exposes the problems with an oligarchy. And if the Dems have good sense, they would do everything they could to educated the public on the merits of an improved infrastructure.
We really are the laughingstock of the world of high speed rail countries.
3
How will the travelers who live in the big cities get to and from the high speed train if it runs only in the Central Valley? I have not seen any discussions of end-to-end solutions.
2
How do they get to regional airport hubs? Shuttles and cars. Your point? Something this big and specialized can't be everywhere.
2
Far from frivolous, this would be a great step to begin catching up with the rest of the world on high speed rail while providing significant economic stimulus. There should be more action on infrastructure projects like this, and it's typical that California will lead on it.
7
The thing that this author completely fails to account for is that 112 years ago the train's demise came with the airplane. Budget airlines can now provide transportation at the same price as train travel and in many cases the trip time is much quicker than if it were by train. With these rail projects being in the billions of dollars to even get started, trains look less and less able to overtake the airline industry.
I would guess that you haven't been to Europe much and enjoyed their great transportation system - by rail.
Who said they want to take over the airline industry? It would be nice to have more than one option. And I'm guessing they will provide seating spacious enough for human beings!
Who said they want to take over the airline industry? It would be nice to have more than one option. And I'm guessing they will provide seating spacious enough for human beings!
6
This boondoggle will produce just one more scar on the land of a massively over-populated California. What about improving the existing rail service - better rails, replace crossings with overpasses and underpasses, and a parallel set of tracks. You may not get "high speed" rail, but it would be much faster than what is available right now. It would probably cost one-tenth of the white elephant being proposed.
1
You'd still have to get through the Tehachapi Mountains between Bakersfield and Los Angeles. Incrementalism rocks, but it does have its limits - and one of those is topopgraphy.
Meanwhile, Chicago is following that exact strategy: building flyovers and underpasses to unsnarl rail traffic there. Nearly six dozen such projects constitute the Chicago Region Environmental And Transportation Efficiency (CREATE) Program. And it could use your support.
Meanwhile, Chicago is following that exact strategy: building flyovers and underpasses to unsnarl rail traffic there. Nearly six dozen such projects constitute the Chicago Region Environmental And Transportation Efficiency (CREATE) Program. And it could use your support.
3
It seems ludicrous that the author posits the accomplishments of the robber barons as an argument for a publicly-funded railroad. Those barons earned their robber status; they were well-remunerated for their persistence and capital, as were their partners in Washington, DC. The public was not asked for funds; valuable rights of way and property were extracted from private and public owners, but not capital. The end result was a money-making industry for those who provided the capital. A bullet train is NOT a money-maker, and CA will be stuck with the maintenance bill.
The money would be better spent on improving existing systems, or assisting the enormous intermodal freight system that carries CA's goods to market. There are too many advances in transportation coming to bet on long distance passenger rail.
The money would be better spent on improving existing systems, or assisting the enormous intermodal freight system that carries CA's goods to market. There are too many advances in transportation coming to bet on long distance passenger rail.
I love the inspiring history and perspective in this article. But I'd like to see more about the economic justification for this project, other than the fact that the money spent on it will pay salaries for thousands of construction jobs. The trans-continental railroad made possible commerce between the populous coasts and the ore, timber, ranches, and farms of the heartland. What new economic horizons -- other than workfare for its builders -- will the California railroad open up?
It will put the Central Valley within an hour, give or take, of both endpoints. That alone is a huge economic benefit.
4
California High Speed Rail has been in the works since the 1990s.
The first route suggested was from the bay area to Manteca by Altamont pass, using the same route pioneered by the Western Pacific RR.
It would have served the growing communities of Stockton and then run south down the San Joqauin Vally to LA. and north to Sacramento. Then the politicians got involved. An alternate route was proposed from SF through San Jose, the Pacheco Pass and just north of Los Banos, where a station was planned in an are where there were no commuters, but the land was owned by Rusty Reyes a state legislator. The commission was headed by political pick, Medi Morshed among others. The route was planned to aid the developers as the housing boom was on.
Another opposition to the line came from Southwest Airlines, who's president vowed to fight it to the end. Traffic between the Bay Area and LA is ever growing, HSR would take away at least 50% of that and the air traffic also.
Get on the train, sit at a table, have something to eat, use your laptop, and take about the same amount of commute time as a plane takes. No long lines and security checks, do not have to get there and hour early to get the train, do not have to wait for your luggage to appear, if it does, do not travel like a sardine in a can.
It will bring business to the Valley towns. Commute from Sacramento or SF in an hour, and return the same day. As usual, the the troglodytes can not see beyond their wallets.
The first route suggested was from the bay area to Manteca by Altamont pass, using the same route pioneered by the Western Pacific RR.
It would have served the growing communities of Stockton and then run south down the San Joqauin Vally to LA. and north to Sacramento. Then the politicians got involved. An alternate route was proposed from SF through San Jose, the Pacheco Pass and just north of Los Banos, where a station was planned in an are where there were no commuters, but the land was owned by Rusty Reyes a state legislator. The commission was headed by political pick, Medi Morshed among others. The route was planned to aid the developers as the housing boom was on.
Another opposition to the line came from Southwest Airlines, who's president vowed to fight it to the end. Traffic between the Bay Area and LA is ever growing, HSR would take away at least 50% of that and the air traffic also.
Get on the train, sit at a table, have something to eat, use your laptop, and take about the same amount of commute time as a plane takes. No long lines and security checks, do not have to get there and hour early to get the train, do not have to wait for your luggage to appear, if it does, do not travel like a sardine in a can.
It will bring business to the Valley towns. Commute from Sacramento or SF in an hour, and return the same day. As usual, the the troglodytes can not see beyond their wallets.
7
It was mainly Chinese labor that built the railroad east from California and Irish immigrant labor west from the Missouri River, meeting in Utah. How did that Irishman wind up going the wrong way?
2
The bullet train sounds grand, but I think we need more and better regular trains instead, to serve the needs of many more regular people at reasonable expense. That's where the incentives and grants should have gone.
3
But does it serve all the cities along its route? That's the catch.
The Transcontinental rail did.
If it does not serve the cities along the route, then state
or federal money should not be involved.
And why 2.5 hours? Why not just run an airplane shuttle, between
smaller area airports (not LAX or SFO), with the shuttle having
its own entrance and security just for itself, carryon only,
tickets buyable on the spot? The extra cost of the extra nice, extra friendly,
smiling, extra fast security and ticket people for eternity would be
FAR less than the interest on the overrun cost of government
inspired light rail.
The Transcontinental rail did.
If it does not serve the cities along the route, then state
or federal money should not be involved.
And why 2.5 hours? Why not just run an airplane shuttle, between
smaller area airports (not LAX or SFO), with the shuttle having
its own entrance and security just for itself, carryon only,
tickets buyable on the spot? The extra cost of the extra nice, extra friendly,
smiling, extra fast security and ticket people for eternity would be
FAR less than the interest on the overrun cost of government
inspired light rail.
2
Apples and oranges. This is passenger service. All transcontinental lines are built for freight.
1
A history of railroading in America that I once read said that the rights-of-way for lines line Union Pacific, Penn Central, Central Pacific, Santa Fe, etc., were acquired by the USG through eminent domain proceedings, then sold to the Vanderbilts, Harrimans, Stanfords, etc., at fire-sale prices. Today, many of those abandoned lilnes have become real-estate gold mines for the railroads; and neither the USG nor any of the states seem willing to use eminent domain to reclaim the lands, or to obtain rights-of-way for bullet trains.
1
I'm a sucker for a good conspiracy theory. What's its ISBN?
2
Let's see now. There's the future we just stumble into by seeming happenstance, where any decisions made are in private behind closed doors. Any results that resemble a public good are completely coincidental to the process.
Then there's a future that is the subject of a public process, with at least some thought given to the common good and solving real problems that exist currently and will only worsen without action to address those needs.
Moreover, the solution is one where much of the funding, costs, whatever, you want to call it, stays in local communities in the form of good paying jobs, instead of converting workers into profit centers whose primary goal is generating cash flow to out of state investors,
The difference in the effects of economic benefits to society as a whole is marked. We've seen what decades of disinvestment in such projects and leaving things to private capital do. That leaves gaping holes in society's needs, as well as individual workers impoverished and communities stripped bare of the resources it takes to address issues we share in common, like transportation, a clean environment, and provision of basic government services such as education to ensure our future is a common good, rather than a profit center for a few.
Good for California. Other states may not need a railroad, but they certainly have other unmet needs. And millions of Americans still need good-paying jobs, as well as the communities they live in need their prosperity.
Then there's a future that is the subject of a public process, with at least some thought given to the common good and solving real problems that exist currently and will only worsen without action to address those needs.
Moreover, the solution is one where much of the funding, costs, whatever, you want to call it, stays in local communities in the form of good paying jobs, instead of converting workers into profit centers whose primary goal is generating cash flow to out of state investors,
The difference in the effects of economic benefits to society as a whole is marked. We've seen what decades of disinvestment in such projects and leaving things to private capital do. That leaves gaping holes in society's needs, as well as individual workers impoverished and communities stripped bare of the resources it takes to address issues we share in common, like transportation, a clean environment, and provision of basic government services such as education to ensure our future is a common good, rather than a profit center for a few.
Good for California. Other states may not need a railroad, but they certainly have other unmet needs. And millions of Americans still need good-paying jobs, as well as the communities they live in need their prosperity.
3
Surly the money would be better spent on new weapons development or better mind control techniques especially if we want to continue running down the militaristic road of life (and death) we have so embraced since WWII. Besides, we'd be doing Californians a favor as we all know how much they love to drive their SUV's.
3
Interesting to find a Californian willing to accept that the state's fortunes need to be "revived". To listen to Moonbeam, the state remains a paradise, instead of the place middle- and upper-middle-class workers, not to mention businesses, abandon at record pace for TX and FL -- to escape crushing tax burdens and to find jobs. He also claims that last year CA had a net increase in population, but doesn't pause to analyze how many were recent retirees and the indigent. And, of course, he won't even talk about the small business that seems to be escaping the state at high speed DESPITE the absence of a bullet train.
At a time when last-mile broadband and other workplace trends are militating to less business travel, CA seeks to fund a rail boondoggle between its two largest cities, and hopes to tie together the state eventually. Yet CA is regarded as having among the worst schools in the nation, when once (during my lifetime) they had the best -- interestingly, this trend began with Moonbeam's FIRST terms. You might think more basic investments would be worthier targets for $68 billion of debt.
Today is not 1864, and the challenges that face us now, if one doesn't include a hideous civil war, are far more complex than they were then. Among other things, a manual laborer saving his wages for a few years can't purchase 1000 acres of rich farmland -- and if he did in CA, he'd likely be starved of water to save the smelt.
The money should go to education.
At a time when last-mile broadband and other workplace trends are militating to less business travel, CA seeks to fund a rail boondoggle between its two largest cities, and hopes to tie together the state eventually. Yet CA is regarded as having among the worst schools in the nation, when once (during my lifetime) they had the best -- interestingly, this trend began with Moonbeam's FIRST terms. You might think more basic investments would be worthier targets for $68 billion of debt.
Today is not 1864, and the challenges that face us now, if one doesn't include a hideous civil war, are far more complex than they were then. Among other things, a manual laborer saving his wages for a few years can't purchase 1000 acres of rich farmland -- and if he did in CA, he'd likely be starved of water to save the smelt.
The money should go to education.
1
Richard, that "Moonbeam" talking point is 40 years old. The rest of us have moved on. Time you did likewise.
7
Bravo Ms. Sharp! I couldn’t agree with you more.
I have the frequent embarrassment of taking our “high speed” Acela from NYC to either Boston or Philadelphia. It is embarrassing to call such a train high speed.
I lived in Japan in the late 70’s & traveled frequently on the Shinkansen; & it wasn’t new even then. Now I can take the Eurostar from London to Paris in little over 2 hours, go from Madrid to Seville, or Rome to Milan, or all over China in true “high speed” trains. While here, in supposedly the most advance economy of the world, I poke along to Boston in 4 hours; and that’s if everything works which it often doesn’t.
Yes, as Ms. Sharp states it’s high time to be a little daring, as our forefathers where when they built this great country. Let’s take a few billions from our bloated defense budget (remember that we spend virtually as much on defense as all the rest of the world combined). Let’s drop our $3.5 billion a year stipend to Israel, a scarcely needy country that shows little gratitude, combine the many overlapping agencies of our Federal government and direct these funds to building up all of our infrastructure – not only high speed trains but highways, bridges & airports.
I have the frequent embarrassment of taking our “high speed” Acela from NYC to either Boston or Philadelphia. It is embarrassing to call such a train high speed.
I lived in Japan in the late 70’s & traveled frequently on the Shinkansen; & it wasn’t new even then. Now I can take the Eurostar from London to Paris in little over 2 hours, go from Madrid to Seville, or Rome to Milan, or all over China in true “high speed” trains. While here, in supposedly the most advance economy of the world, I poke along to Boston in 4 hours; and that’s if everything works which it often doesn’t.
Yes, as Ms. Sharp states it’s high time to be a little daring, as our forefathers where when they built this great country. Let’s take a few billions from our bloated defense budget (remember that we spend virtually as much on defense as all the rest of the world combined). Let’s drop our $3.5 billion a year stipend to Israel, a scarcely needy country that shows little gratitude, combine the many overlapping agencies of our Federal government and direct these funds to building up all of our infrastructure – not only high speed trains but highways, bridges & airports.
12
Who has the bullet train? Even though the rest of the industrialized world has had them for decades, Americans are acting like children being dragged to the dentist. It seems that many people, particularly out here in California, are hesitant to give up the "freedom" of sitting in traffic on crowded freeways. Every time I've found myself in such a predicament, I fantasize about whooshing down the meridian at slightly less than the speed of sound, looking at all the stalled vehicles and thinking Suckers!
14
With the welter of podiums for every half-baked opinionated in the world, it is next to impossible for any "big" idea to gain any traction. Everything gets bogged down in a shrill chorus of ill-considered, usually self-centred, thoughts, all of which are given their day in court, as it were. Sometimes, freedom of speech turns into a tyranny and mediocrity results. This is a roundabout way of saying the high-speed railroad would be a welcome return to America saying "we can do this."
2
Three questions:
1. How many people fly between the various stops of the CHSR every day?
2. How many people drive between the various stops of the CHSR every day?
3. What will be the maximum number of passengers the CHSR can carry every day?
1. How many people fly between the various stops of the CHSR every day?
2. How many people drive between the various stops of the CHSR every day?
3. What will be the maximum number of passengers the CHSR can carry every day?
1
Delta Shuttle currently flies 1,140 seats each way between LA and the Bay Area. It plans to replace some RJs with 717s in June, which will increase inventory by 24%, to 1,412 each way. Good summary here:
http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2015/02/delta-to-put-bigger-airplanes...
An Acela train currently has 4 business-class cars (65 seats each) and 1 first-class car (44 seats), for a total of 304 seats per train.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonrabinowitz/2014/07/02/amtrak-looking-to...
California's trains will likely have more cars and therefore more seats per departure.
http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2015/02/delta-to-put-bigger-airplanes...
An Acela train currently has 4 business-class cars (65 seats each) and 1 first-class car (44 seats), for a total of 304 seats per train.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonrabinowitz/2014/07/02/amtrak-looking-to...
California's trains will likely have more cars and therefore more seats per departure.
5
A bullet train is going to boost California's economy and one that would run from Albany to Buffalo in New York would kick start the depressed upstate economy. It is time the state that built the Erie Canal started to think big again.
10
Michael gets it, folks: The midpoints benefit as much as, if not more than, the endpoints.
5
I am sorry for you KATHLEEN SHARP for you are living in la-la land.
The so-called California High Speed Rail project went from a technically feasible and economically viable project to a political and businessman's wet dream of power and riches.
The Transportation Planners that fought for years to get such a project off the ground had it correct. Once the politicians and the land-housing interests got into it the project went into the toilet.
The project will go better than 50% over budget. It will take twice as long to build, and the ridership will not hit 1/3 of its projections.
How can I make such a prediction. East. Look at any large transportation project of the last 25 years. Go back and look at the original projections.
If the people passionate about transportation had been left alone and ran such a project it would have worked. But greed will doom it.
The so-called California High Speed Rail project went from a technically feasible and economically viable project to a political and businessman's wet dream of power and riches.
The Transportation Planners that fought for years to get such a project off the ground had it correct. Once the politicians and the land-housing interests got into it the project went into the toilet.
The project will go better than 50% over budget. It will take twice as long to build, and the ridership will not hit 1/3 of its projections.
How can I make such a prediction. East. Look at any large transportation project of the last 25 years. Go back and look at the original projections.
If the people passionate about transportation had been left alone and ran such a project it would have worked. But greed will doom it.
3
Please! Please! Oh, please let this project go forward. The ultra-wealthy, such as the Walton family, have so much cash now after all their investing in Communist China, Communist Vietnam, India, Bangladesh... that they can't park their money in Switzerland at positive interest rates anymore; the Swiss banks are actually charging the rich to store all that cash. Sooner or later the USA simply has to return to innovative infrastructure building. Whether it's by ALL OF US paying a little more in taxes, or by marching with pitchforks and torches through our streets... a turnaround for our nation's soul may already be too late in coming, so we'd better not wait any longer. Even if that means cutting subsidies to oil companies, obsolete tank makers, and Afghan real estate developers.
9
The train is a shameful waste of taxpayer money. It will cost at least 2X of the current published budget and the State knows it but wont admit it. Starved of money, the train will be starved of rolling stock and there will be too few trains on the schedule to attract serious customer interest. the train will never recoup the bloated capital costs and not even cover operating expenses; it will be on welfare forever, thank you California taxpayers.
7
Welfare? Who supports the airports and their infrastructure? the highways and it's infrastructure? The taxpayer supports them and they should do well to support the trains too.
Where did you ever get the notion that we should not support public transit? And if you know anything about the trains in the far east and Europe, you know that people set their watches by the trains, they are that on time. Apparently you don't have faith that the U.S. can do what other countries do. .
And did you read this article? The author took great pains to educate us on the history of the railroad? Can you not extrapolate?
Where did you ever get the notion that we should not support public transit? And if you know anything about the trains in the far east and Europe, you know that people set their watches by the trains, they are that on time. Apparently you don't have faith that the U.S. can do what other countries do. .
And did you read this article? The author took great pains to educate us on the history of the railroad? Can you not extrapolate?
3
Sometimes I think the editors just throw darts to arrive at their picks. This is nothing but a cynical rant, arrogantly certain of the outcome without a shred of evidence to support it.
Witness the power of three recommends, gold flag.
Witness the power of three recommends, gold flag.
3
"Yet the $68 billion mega-project is controversial."
-- I still think that money would be better spent on local transportation infrastructure, subways and railways, like the BART system in San Francisco or the Expo Line in LA.
-- I still think that money would be better spent on local transportation infrastructure, subways and railways, like the BART system in San Francisco or the Expo Line in LA.
11
Why not both, and all?
1
Dear Ms. Sharp,
$68 billion dollars to start with? Then you suggest that "the price tag will certainly swell before the last bolt is tightened by 2030"?
I implore you to read Dee Brown's book "Hear That Lonesome Whistle Blow" which reports the history of the Trans-Continental Railroad. It's not pretty. Here's one quote which neatly summarizes that bit of the "American Experience":
"The politicians and corporations enjoyed the frequent showers of money that fell upon them from railroad stock manipulators and gave away America".
As soon as "Oil" became king, these well heeled folks managed to pry government away from the rail system and build the inter state highway system just to engorge their pockets.
Now you want a 200 mph train, at an undetermined cost, zipping around a state that is already prone to earthquakes?
Really, who is making the money on this one?
$68 billion dollars to start with? Then you suggest that "the price tag will certainly swell before the last bolt is tightened by 2030"?
I implore you to read Dee Brown's book "Hear That Lonesome Whistle Blow" which reports the history of the Trans-Continental Railroad. It's not pretty. Here's one quote which neatly summarizes that bit of the "American Experience":
"The politicians and corporations enjoyed the frequent showers of money that fell upon them from railroad stock manipulators and gave away America".
As soon as "Oil" became king, these well heeled folks managed to pry government away from the rail system and build the inter state highway system just to engorge their pockets.
Now you want a 200 mph train, at an undetermined cost, zipping around a state that is already prone to earthquakes?
Really, who is making the money on this one?
"Now you want a 200 mph train, at an undetermined cost, zipping around a state that is already prone to earthquakes?"
In a word, yes. C.f. Japan.
"Really, who is making the money on this one?"
Does it matter, as long as the thing is built?
In a word, yes. C.f. Japan.
"Really, who is making the money on this one?"
Does it matter, as long as the thing is built?
1
That's the point. This is an effort to please the people, not corporate theft. Although Corporations will greatly benefit. It will benefit the environment, individual health, not sharing the hi way with trucks, thus greater safety. The number of jobs will help the economy. In the future, ideas such as Elon Musk's tube rail, or the maglev technology will be available. Look to the future because we have maxed out on the past.
1
Back to the Future in the best sense of the phrase. I'm glad to see this project moving and the benefits when it's finished will make the comments of detractors vanish. This service exists in Europe and Japan for good reason, and with longer distances to cover in the US, the reasons will be even better here.
3
Wonderful story. I would be educated even more if you could say how your great-grandfather earned/worked his way from Ireland to San Francisco. Thanks.
1
The author makes a terrific case NOT to build this rail project.
An unmentioned environmental benefit will result from the reduction of north-south air travel.
2
But there's the problem right there. The airlines will suffer. We can't have that, now, can we?
1
If the conservatives are correct and waste is the inevitable child of government spending, I would much prefer to bribe Americans in America than Pashas in a land I have never seen and can hardly spell. At least we might see some of the proceeds returned secondhand.
The leaps forward our country has taken have most been joined at the hip to infrastructure. In addition to the TC railroad, consider the Erie Canal, the Niagara Falls power project, the Interstate Highway System, the Panama Canal, the internet, the Apollo program, etc.
[The moon shot is a favorite target for those claiming it to be wasteful, even pointless, yet this 'pointless' project gave us telemedicine, a big push in electronics and computing, an earthshaking perspective on ourselves -- think the environmental movement without 'Earthrise' -- and Tang!].
Infrastructure rules.
The leaps forward our country has taken have most been joined at the hip to infrastructure. In addition to the TC railroad, consider the Erie Canal, the Niagara Falls power project, the Interstate Highway System, the Panama Canal, the internet, the Apollo program, etc.
[The moon shot is a favorite target for those claiming it to be wasteful, even pointless, yet this 'pointless' project gave us telemedicine, a big push in electronics and computing, an earthshaking perspective on ourselves -- think the environmental movement without 'Earthrise' -- and Tang!].
Infrastructure rules.
20
Inspiring essay. High speed rail generates only one tenth of the carbon dioxide per passenger mile that air travel does. In addition, passenger jets fly at high altitude which doubles the effect of ground based combustion on the atmosphere. The result is a twenty fold reduction in global warming by rail travel over catching a plane.
10
Meanwhile, those who push for the Keystone pipeline, its few thousand temporary jobs and flow of oil to foreign markets, are the same who oppose projects such as high-speed rail and its ongoing benefits. A wonderful column.. What a great nation we were.
24
California needs to do something, and quick. It doesn't have room for one more automobile.
1
Yeah, but these are only temporary jobs.
Yeah, but a larger number of permanent jobs than any oil pipeline, and it serves people directly, FWIW.
1
Yes, this train has left the station (pun intended). Decades ago society turned to the automobile for speed and convenience. We built roads and bridges to everywhere. Our cars are faster and more comfortable. Now this infrastructure is deteriorating and requires more maintenance each year. With the gas prices falling more people will travel than ever before. And we won't even discuss other infrastructure projects such as water and sewer lines, (or the National Debt, which is another subject). So, with all these needs not being met, we're talking about spending billions for high speed rail? This isn't 1869 and we're not living in a country with a bright future on the horizon.
1
Automobile travel is so late-Twentieth-century. Vermont's a pretty uncrowded place, so it probably still works pretty well there, but many of our acquaintances here in NYC don't even own a car; ours sits in the garage for days at a time, and would sit longer if the alternatives worked better (as they do elsewhere in the world).
Gas prices will not stay low forever. We should be thinking about where society will turn next for speed and convenience, not where it turned decades ago.
Gas prices will not stay low forever. We should be thinking about where society will turn next for speed and convenience, not where it turned decades ago.
3
"we're not living in a country with a bright future on the horizon. "
I'll bite: Who's "we," and what country do "we" live in?
I'll bite: Who's "we," and what country do "we" live in?
2
I tend to song lyrics. "The City of New Orleans" "Our father's magic carpet made of steel".
It worked then and can work still.
It's just a matter of who to pay off to allow it. That much hasn't changed.
It worked then and can work still.
It's just a matter of who to pay off to allow it. That much hasn't changed.
2
This is why journalists shouldn't set national policy. They don't understand technical issues, or engineering.
Freight rail and high-speed passenger rail are two different things. Freight rail opened up this country, but speeds now are not much greater than speeds then, because most freight doesn't care how fast it gets to its destination. Higher speeds increase costs, so you go as slowly as you can afford to based on other factors.
High speed passenger rail is a political creation, nothing more. So you can get people from one end of CA to another in half the time. Big deal. The real question is why people want to make the trip (if they really want to make it) and why it has to be so fast. Ignore the rail services in Europe: there is so much politicking there you don't know where the govt. stops and real life starts. You also have to think about the people in between: high speed rail, or even moderate speed rail, is a blight on the cities it passes thru between the great metropolises. But I guess we know where the votes and money are.
Freight rail and high-speed passenger rail are two different things. Freight rail opened up this country, but speeds now are not much greater than speeds then, because most freight doesn't care how fast it gets to its destination. Higher speeds increase costs, so you go as slowly as you can afford to based on other factors.
High speed passenger rail is a political creation, nothing more. So you can get people from one end of CA to another in half the time. Big deal. The real question is why people want to make the trip (if they really want to make it) and why it has to be so fast. Ignore the rail services in Europe: there is so much politicking there you don't know where the govt. stops and real life starts. You also have to think about the people in between: high speed rail, or even moderate speed rail, is a blight on the cities it passes thru between the great metropolises. But I guess we know where the votes and money are.
5
Your cynical, snarky intro and conclusion diminish the effect of the solid points you make in the rest of your comment. Resist the impulse to degrade the opponent: it degrades you along with him.
1
"So you can get people from one end of CA to another in half the time. Big deal."
Tell that to Richard Branson, who's reaped huge profits from the upgrades that Her Majesty's Loyal Taxpayers paid for, on the West Coast Main Line. Those upgrades cut travel time only by 25%.
It is a big deal.
Tell that to Richard Branson, who's reaped huge profits from the upgrades that Her Majesty's Loyal Taxpayers paid for, on the West Coast Main Line. Those upgrades cut travel time only by 25%.
It is a big deal.
2
So let's deal with what Daedalus says.
There are two reasons why higher speeds increase costs.
The first is that the amount of energy required for a trip increases with the square of the speed.
The second reason (specifically for steel wheel on rail) is that the maintenance costs also scale up with speed. This is owing to the mutual wear of the wheels on the rails.
The first reason is true no matter which mode of transport it is, air, road, or rail.
The second could be mitigated if Americans could ever make themselves take seriously the technology the Japanese are now currently deploying in the Chuo Shinkansen project. Basically, maglev makes the infrastructure contactless, as the vehicle is suspended, propelled and guided by magnetic fields. That is not any Gee Whiz Fantasyland Futureworld project. That is right here, right now. The technology the Japanese are using was invented by Americans (Powell and Danby).
Regarding the argument that there's no need, one thing we can definitely say is that if it is not built, no one will come; then what?
If they haven't already committed to the technology, the flexibility of maglev should actually allow the middle cities along the route to be well served, while still providing the benefit of speed.
There are two reasons why higher speeds increase costs.
The first is that the amount of energy required for a trip increases with the square of the speed.
The second reason (specifically for steel wheel on rail) is that the maintenance costs also scale up with speed. This is owing to the mutual wear of the wheels on the rails.
The first reason is true no matter which mode of transport it is, air, road, or rail.
The second could be mitigated if Americans could ever make themselves take seriously the technology the Japanese are now currently deploying in the Chuo Shinkansen project. Basically, maglev makes the infrastructure contactless, as the vehicle is suspended, propelled and guided by magnetic fields. That is not any Gee Whiz Fantasyland Futureworld project. That is right here, right now. The technology the Japanese are using was invented by Americans (Powell and Danby).
Regarding the argument that there's no need, one thing we can definitely say is that if it is not built, no one will come; then what?
If they haven't already committed to the technology, the flexibility of maglev should actually allow the middle cities along the route to be well served, while still providing the benefit of speed.
1
I have lived abroad and enjoyed the speed, comfort and low cost of riding bullet trains since the 1980s. A massive high-speed rail infrastructure project would allow the U.S. to catch up with other countries.
It would create so many jobs (and new income tax revenues!) and help so many struggling Americans stymied by the high cost of private transportation and scattershot public transport systems.
It would help our planet by ridding our air of so many carbon-belching planes and our roads of too many carbon-spewing cars. Is there a price tag you want to argue over when it comes to our planet, or sparing our sons from more Middle East wars fought over oil?
We are Americans. Certainly, we can build a new kind of railroad.
It would create so many jobs (and new income tax revenues!) and help so many struggling Americans stymied by the high cost of private transportation and scattershot public transport systems.
It would help our planet by ridding our air of so many carbon-belching planes and our roads of too many carbon-spewing cars. Is there a price tag you want to argue over when it comes to our planet, or sparing our sons from more Middle East wars fought over oil?
We are Americans. Certainly, we can build a new kind of railroad.
8
But that we could have real, European-style railways everywhere in the United States. Sadly, I fear we will have to put up with the indignity and exploitation of air travel where the price of oil goes down and the fares go up. Oh, for a bullet train between Richmond, Virginia, and Charlotte, North Carolina, where my daughter lives. I tried Amtrak once before realizing that the journey was scheduled for an unbelievable seven hours--imagine three hundred miles and it was to take SEVEN hours. The TGV in France covers the same distance in less than half that time. But back to the Charlotte trip. It actually took more than TWELVE hours--thanks, but no thanks, to right-of-way freight trains on the line. Such "service" is nothing less than a pathetic disservice. Needless to say, I haven't boarded an Amtrak train since.
31
300 miles in 7 hours was because AMTRAK by legislation is literally relegated to the side when it comes to track time. Since they do not own the tracks the giant railroad freight lines have track priority. Which means Amtrak sits by the side for hours if freight trains are scheduled. Not a level playing field by any means.
19
But you said it anyway. You railfans crack me up: take THAT, Amtrak!
1
"a journey of 1000 miles begins with the first step"
"a journey of 300 miles sometimes ends badly"
"a journey of 300 miles sometimes ends badly"
California has a higher population density and a more urban population now than France. It's geography favors an integrated rail network that should have been planned together with the construction of the interstate highway system.
The belief that driverless cars will somehow in the absence of a rational mass transportation system solve the problem of moving a growing population around efficiently is complete fantasy.
The belief that driverless cars will somehow in the absence of a rational mass transportation system solve the problem of moving a growing population around efficiently is complete fantasy.
61
We struggle to update our rail system from circa 1940 to circa 1990. We should forego even the bullet train and focus on the next step beyond - that's the goal to which our nation should aspire. Elon Musk proposed something bold and new for "rail" transport. It's been derided, but primarily because we've become a nation of apathetic pessimists. We've forgotten that we can do great and inspiring things, and we've allowed our congress, our leaders, our media, to convince us that our time of doing great things is ended - that we must accept strife, penury and ultimate decay. I can think of no better words to end than those of JFK, 53 years ago - we choose to go to the moon and do these other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.
38
It might be useful in such a comment to elaborate on Mr. Musk's idea. I have no idea what you're referring to...
1
We choose to go to L.A. in a Habitrail!
1
Have you read Richard White's book Railroaded? It gives a great deal of insight into the history of how priorities are and have been set in the construction of the transcontinentals. One thing you might want to mention here when you speak of faith in the government is how those elected to Washington personally benefited (and still do) during construction and how citizens were railroaded while your great-grandfather worked, well documented in Mr.White's book. Decisions by those elected rigged the deck affecting competition. Our nation continues to suffer from legal profits made by Senators and Congress from insider information that they use to their own benefit while deciding on the future of rail, and this has been consistent since its conception.
21
Maybe so, but if the price of a modern infrastructure is a bit of graft, then I suppose that's what we'll have to accept. Congress has ground to a virtual standstill since they've forbidden earmarks. It's a pathetic statement, but someone is going to end up getting richer, no matter what, and I'd prefer the end result also includes an infrastructure that at least makes it possible for us worker drones to have a pathway to success.
2
My great great great grandmother's brother was the civil engineer constructing Michigan's first railroad, the Michigan Central. Simultaneously, he was the first Speaker of the Michigan House of Representatives.
1
This needs to be done if nothing else to convince people that we can put high-speed lines in places to place car traffic. I hope it does get done.
8
By 2020 China will have 12,000 of high speed rail.
By 2020 the always exceptional US will still be involved in perpetual war in the Middle East, will still be wasting over a half trillion dollars on the wildly over budget, unneeded, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, still subsidizing BIg Carbon to destroy the atmosphere, still have the most inefficient, high cost healthcare in the world, and, perhaps, have the flag of Koch Propaganda & Pollution flying over the Capitol Building.
By 2020 the always exceptional US will still be involved in perpetual war in the Middle East, will still be wasting over a half trillion dollars on the wildly over budget, unneeded, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, still subsidizing BIg Carbon to destroy the atmosphere, still have the most inefficient, high cost healthcare in the world, and, perhaps, have the flag of Koch Propaganda & Pollution flying over the Capitol Building.
75
I'd agree with most of your comments but for the F-35. We do need a new strike fighter in our portfolio. The F-18 / F-15 / F-16 are venerable but it would probably be only as capable as the next gen Chinese / Russian / Euro fighters. The AV-8B is decades old. The A-10, well, that I consider in the category of the B-52, it should be just too good to retire (but we will anyway). And we've scaled back the F-22 procurement so that despite it's technical superiority, it will be tough to maintain dominance. So, costly though it might be, that's the future if we want to maintain an air-dominance dependent military.
The F-35 doesn't work, hasn't worked, and will never work.
http://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/384088/the-pentagons-15-trillion-...
http://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/384088/the-pentagons-15-trillion-...
2
Having traveled on bullet trains in both China and Japan, I don't understand why we wouldn't want to have the same thing here. They are fast, clean and get you were you need to go in a safe, comfortable, way. As a resident of Connecticut, where many people are dependent on Metro North for access to jobs, I am frankly embarrassed by the condition of our train service. Yes the cars are mostly new, but the infrastructure they run on is in serious need of upgrades. And once again,-- although not likely the fault of Metro North-- we have had a serious accident and loss of life. We can do better. Perhaps if California is able to build a bullet train, it might finally encourage other much needed upgrading of our public transit system. One can only hope.
38
"although not likely the fault of Metro North"
-- If there was no crossing there would have been no accident.
-- If there was no crossing there would have been no accident.
2
"Nowhere else in the country can you find such bold, stubborn faith in the idea that government can actually do something for its citizens."
...the operative words here being "in [this] country". Japan has had its bullet train since the sixties.
It seems that all the Republicans (and too many Americans in general) know is to retrench, cut, and hunker down. The idea of vision, of real inventiveness and growth (not the Rick Perry steal-it-from-somewhere-else "growth") seems to have been lost in this country, while other countries go on to surpass us in transportation, infrastructure, energy, education, investments in citizens, and too many other areas.
...the operative words here being "in [this] country". Japan has had its bullet train since the sixties.
It seems that all the Republicans (and too many Americans in general) know is to retrench, cut, and hunker down. The idea of vision, of real inventiveness and growth (not the Rick Perry steal-it-from-somewhere-else "growth") seems to have been lost in this country, while other countries go on to surpass us in transportation, infrastructure, energy, education, investments in citizens, and too many other areas.
23
It makes sense to improve public transportation and thereby decrease carbon emissions. It also makes sense for government to have the power to see the need for public infrastructure investment and make it so. But let's not make the mistake of seeing the bullet train as the means of continuing to "grow" an economy that is still overwhelmingly fossil-fuel based. That economy, and that society, has no future. The bullet train needs to be part of a transition away from fossil fuels, away from unsustainable "growth."
2
"...the idea that government can actually do something for its citizens" is anathema to some interest groups. They will do their best to prevent this project from succeeding.
6
That has been true since the first major roads and the Erie Canal in the early 19th Century. We've always had this debate. We've always gone past it and done the right thing to build our country, until now anyway.
8
The Erie Canal eventually paid for itself and brought business to New York harbor. Cities like Boston and Norfolk could not compete with it.
Will high speed trains pay for themselves.
Will high speed trains pay for themselves.
This is an excellent contribution to show what persistence may achieve. Compare that with the early days though does not make sense to me. In Europe people are racing at top speeds criss and cross over the continent. Why do things, which are good for the citizens, good for the economy and good for the public health have to take so long to get achieved in the USA. Everything we want we can do bragged President Reagan, there are no limits. Well, it seems to me, there are nothing but limits if someting needs to be done for the public. The most important defense for this country for instance is to protect our children against enemies like the measles today. Let the Government act for the protection of the population a home, and build a hundred high speed lines, but some senators can not stop to try to stick their noses in foreign business.
10
There are some significant differences between the construction of the transcontinental railway and California's proposed bullet train. Federal government aid to the transcontinental railway consisted primarily of granting the right of way and loan guaranties. There was no direct taxpayer funding involved, and more importantly, no ongoing subsidies for operations.
How about a small comparison of taxpayer dollars spent per job created:
Bullet train: Huge.
Keystone pipeline: Zero.
How about a small comparison of taxpayer dollars spent per job created:
Bullet train: Huge.
Keystone pipeline: Zero.
4
How about a comparison of value to the country?
Modern train system: Huge.
Keystone pipeline: Zero.
Modern train system: Huge.
Keystone pipeline: Zero.
42
Permanent jobs:
Keystone pipeline: 35
Whoopee do!
Keystone pipeline: 35
Whoopee do!
7
Yes, I'm sure you live with no benefits from any petroleum products at all. The train system is a 19th century answer to the 21st century. It will not pay for itself and there will be massive subsidies to keep it going. No thanks.
1
Good description of the benefits to California of completing this project.
2
It'll be a corrupt boondoggle like the big dig. It will go horribly over budget. Also, how are they going to get around the environmental aspects? We can't even build an overpass here because they found some cave spiders in the ground. Then you need ridership. Trains in Europe are eXpensive, but everything is there. However, driving is cheap here. Even if they build it I bet ridership will never be cost effective.
2
On a trip to Portugal a year ago, we debated whether we needed to rent a car, then decided to rely on public transportation.
It was a breeze. A train from Lisbon to Porto took a couple of very short and comfortable hours. Arriving in Porto we were dazzled by the immense tiled murals in the station. We were in a civilized land, clearly.
(I know, I sound like Rick Steves; it's hard not to, given the pure pleasure of the experience.)
A train back to The Lisbon region, a quick change of lines, and we were on our way to the Alentejo, to the small walled town of Evora. Here, a quick cab ride took us from the station to the town, with its 12th century cathedral, and Roman (ruins under the police station.)
Back to Lisbon by high-speed bus. Right into the city, where we walked and took the subway wherever we wanted to go.
Wake up America. And don't tell me of Portugal's debt crisis, as if public expenditure and irresponsibility were synonymous. Do you know how many tons of greenhouse gases could be saved if Americans got out of those fat SUV's?
It was a breeze. A train from Lisbon to Porto took a couple of very short and comfortable hours. Arriving in Porto we were dazzled by the immense tiled murals in the station. We were in a civilized land, clearly.
(I know, I sound like Rick Steves; it's hard not to, given the pure pleasure of the experience.)
A train back to The Lisbon region, a quick change of lines, and we were on our way to the Alentejo, to the small walled town of Evora. Here, a quick cab ride took us from the station to the town, with its 12th century cathedral, and Roman (ruins under the police station.)
Back to Lisbon by high-speed bus. Right into the city, where we walked and took the subway wherever we wanted to go.
Wake up America. And don't tell me of Portugal's debt crisis, as if public expenditure and irresponsibility were synonymous. Do you know how many tons of greenhouse gases could be saved if Americans got out of those fat SUV's?
94
The entire European peninsula of EurAsia is tiny compared to the CONUS, and one European country is much like a US state, and a small one in Portugal's case.
I had similar good experiences with subways in Boston for law school and in London visiting. It works.
However, the US is a bigger challenge. We can do it. We'll need to do it.
Still, we need to face that the sheer scale of the thing is a new problem compared to one city or a small European country, or even a European rail pass.
It won't help to minimize the challenge. We'll need some new thinking to make if work for us. We'll have to be creative. We will, but we have to think of it that way, not just as doing what others have done.
I had similar good experiences with subways in Boston for law school and in London visiting. It works.
However, the US is a bigger challenge. We can do it. We'll need to do it.
Still, we need to face that the sheer scale of the thing is a new problem compared to one city or a small European country, or even a European rail pass.
It won't help to minimize the challenge. We'll need some new thinking to make if work for us. We'll have to be creative. We will, but we have to think of it that way, not just as doing what others have done.
9
Once again California shows the way, this time with the inspiring public works project that shows Americans — at least some of us — still believe we can make the world better by working together. And they are doing it! Bravo.
It speaks volumes that our embarrassing congress sees a very different future for us: every man for himself, devil take the hindmost, no socialist infrastructure, health care, or education projects, renounce science and all it's work. In other words, "Forward, into the Past."
It speaks volumes that our embarrassing congress sees a very different future for us: every man for himself, devil take the hindmost, no socialist infrastructure, health care, or education projects, renounce science and all it's work. In other words, "Forward, into the Past."
29
American once led the world, but now we're totally paralyzed in unproductive, reckless partisan politics and unprecedented political influence by a cloistered elite (Sydny Adelson, Koch, Tea Taliban, etc.). So we're ceding the world to Communist Chian and others. The US government gave the world the internet, a tool to advance all nations, now we're sitting back letting the world use our innovation to eat our lunch daily.
We have met the enemy, and it is us.
We have met the enemy, and it is us.
59
It's clear that our car- and airplane-dependent transportation system is overstretched, unsustainable and can't be expanded much further. Yet, while high-speed rail has long been a no-brainer for Europeans and Japanese, we have only just broken ground and will take longer to build a single line than China has taken to build the world's largest system.
The ferocious opposition high-speed rail attracts - especially from conservatives and libertarians - speaks not to our tradition of democratic debate, but to a serious lack of vision on the part of a country whose tendency to call itself the world's greatest looks increasingly anachronistic when substantial development and progress seem to be things that only happen in other countries. A politician who accepts that we're a declining country is doomed, but anyone else who doesn't is ignorant or delusional.
The fact that virtually every talking point against it can be traced back to some report by a right-wing think tank funded by the industries that stand to lose if we can ever wean ourselves off cars and airplanes shows the extent to which large corporations have managed to thwart progress in this country and poison political discourse with their own self-serving arguments, eagerly repeated on talk shows, the floor of Congress comment sections on websites and in private discussions.
The ferocious opposition high-speed rail attracts - especially from conservatives and libertarians - speaks not to our tradition of democratic debate, but to a serious lack of vision on the part of a country whose tendency to call itself the world's greatest looks increasingly anachronistic when substantial development and progress seem to be things that only happen in other countries. A politician who accepts that we're a declining country is doomed, but anyone else who doesn't is ignorant or delusional.
The fact that virtually every talking point against it can be traced back to some report by a right-wing think tank funded by the industries that stand to lose if we can ever wean ourselves off cars and airplanes shows the extent to which large corporations have managed to thwart progress in this country and poison political discourse with their own self-serving arguments, eagerly repeated on talk shows, the floor of Congress comment sections on websites and in private discussions.
85
"It's clear that our car- and airplane-dependent transportation system is overstretched, unsustainable and can't be expanded much further."
We've been here before. Near the end of the 19th Century there was well founded concern that we had reached the limits of horse transport, especially in our big cities which were choked with traffic and horse manure.
This is also not far distant from the "need" for whale oil.
Things end. When we reach the end, we must do the next thing. We're there, again.
We've been here before. Near the end of the 19th Century there was well founded concern that we had reached the limits of horse transport, especially in our big cities which were choked with traffic and horse manure.
This is also not far distant from the "need" for whale oil.
Things end. When we reach the end, we must do the next thing. We're there, again.
10
Isn't that why we crushed the unions, because they impeded progress? And now look who's impeding progress....
1
"Divide and conquer," "every man for himself" conservatives and libertarians oppose the common good/general Wefare in any shape or form.
They probably object to the proposition that we are a "United States."
They probably object to the proposition that we are a "United States."
3
Perhaps this will set an example, a test case, to turn our pitiful country around. Too often we read of the slick infrastructure serving other countries as ours collapses, sputters, and stalls. Maybe it is just the death throes of American Empire, but maybe there is hope. Infrastructure and Empire are not unrelated. It represents the choice to spend our money on military installations all over the globe bristling with high-tech weapons, rather than education and domestic spending.
37
What? So late and not a single comment on this brilliant and thorough exposition of a first rate plan! Well here's mine. Outstanding! Inspiring! Bravo! Brava! All the best, California, and umm, Go Bears!
30
Great. And when you go $100 billion over budget (and you will) please don't ask me, a resident of MA to help foot the bill with my taxes. I don't need it and am happy to hop from LA to SFO on one of the 25 flights a day for $100.
6
I paid for your Big Dig.
You're welcome.
You're welcome.
And just how do you think the Boston subway system gets built? Here, after 10 seconds on the Google Machine, is the MBTA proudly trumpeting that they are getting almost $1 Billion from the Feds to extend the T Green Line.
http://www.mbta.com/about_the_mbta/news_events/?id=6442453618&month=...
So you see, that's MY tax money that's going to pay for YOUR train. And that's how it works, and that's a good thing. We ALL have a stake in the local, regional and national infrastructure.
http://www.mbta.com/about_the_mbta/news_events/?id=6442453618&month=...
So you see, that's MY tax money that's going to pay for YOUR train. And that's how it works, and that's a good thing. We ALL have a stake in the local, regional and national infrastructure.
3
So, how's the Big Dig working out for you? After all, federal taxes paid approximately 27% of the cost. In addition, federal loans helped cover the myriad budget overruns (and what was that final construction tab again, 190-sum-odd percent more than anticipated at the time of substantial completion?).
Why should I, a resident of Texas, help you foot the bill for an infamous roadway project? I don't need it!
By the way, in the summer of 2012, Dana Levenson, the chief financial officer for the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, estimated the project's final cost to be approximately 24.3 Billion bucks...for a three-and-a-half mile long street.
[sigh]
Why should I, a resident of Texas, help you foot the bill for an infamous roadway project? I don't need it!
By the way, in the summer of 2012, Dana Levenson, the chief financial officer for the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, estimated the project's final cost to be approximately 24.3 Billion bucks...for a three-and-a-half mile long street.
[sigh]
3
This bullet train is a huge waste of taxpayer money, which would be better spent if it were added to the ten Trillion dollar, twenty-year budget of our Middle East Wars, which bring great profits to our dear friends, the Saudis.
And if we were not the puppets of those Islamic Aristocrats, we could cut the taxes of our own rich people, who need greater incentives to "create jobs" in China and India and around the world. (It's all about the economic concept of "comparative advantage" - of the rich.)
And if we were not the puppets of those Islamic Aristocrats, we could cut the taxes of our own rich people, who need greater incentives to "create jobs" in China and India and around the world. (It's all about the economic concept of "comparative advantage" - of the rich.)
20
A great perspective! I can't come up with a better alternative to a set colliding issues for future generations, if efficient growth is to continue in the U.S?
2
The real problem underlying traffic jams and slow transportation in California is the growth in the number of people in the state. Since 1970, the number of people in California has doubled, increasing by about 20 million. Traffic jams, water shortages, and expensive housing are the result.
9
And the real problem of tne increased population in CA is a direct result of the general overpopulation of EARTH.
5
There's nothing wrong with California that getting rid of 15 million people wouldn't help--and I'm a Californian in exile. However, the people are there, and they aren't leaving. So something needs to be done, and I'm glad they have the courage to try it.
7
Which is why we need a major infrastructure upgrade, which is now possible because we voters reduced our obstructionist Republican minority to such a low percentage of the Legislature that they can no longer veto every effort to raise state revenues to deal with real-world problems. That, and a visionary governor who's actually picked up the reins and is trying to move the vehicle forward.
Seems to me that Florida has grown a bit since 1970, too. Any issues down there?
Seems to me that Florida has grown a bit since 1970, too. Any issues down there?
1
Today we have ten years of environmental and Nimby lawsuits costing a billion dollars. Private business can't weather that and politicians dont have that long view.
3
The Chinese are building 16,000 miles of high speed rails (HSR) for $300 billion or a mere 5 times what the incompetent governments of California and the US are ripping out of the taxpayers' wallets for a train that will extend one-thirtieth the distance of the Chinese system. The Chinese have difficulty making loan payments on lines which have as many as 25,000,000 passengers per year and which are located among populations substantially greater than San Diego-LA-Bay Area. The debt service of this train will be 6 times greater than those of China. Who will pay for the losses caused just by the stated construction cost--even without counting cost overruns and without discounting the inflated passenger estimates? And none of the above takes into account the minor detail that Americans have zero experience in building either the rails or the rolling stock. Let the Chinese build it and it may even make money! Otherwise, it is destined to lose billions each year--which we will probably have to pay to the Chinese in the long term, anyway.
9
Gee, made in China is cheaper? Who knew.
But then, quality is made in China, and in the case of railroads, they are in China instead of here.
We need to bite the bullet and do what is needed. It is time to think like we did with the big railroad and the Eisenhower interstate and electification of the nation. We've done big things before. They were expensive. They were well worth it.
But then, quality is made in China, and in the case of railroads, they are in China instead of here.
We need to bite the bullet and do what is needed. It is time to think like we did with the big railroad and the Eisenhower interstate and electification of the nation. We've done big things before. They were expensive. They were well worth it.
10
I wouldn't be entirely comfortable with accepting Chinese engineering standards or construction materials. We've ceded far too much of our capabilities to foreign nations.
2
My guess is that the Chinese government has to do a lot less negotiating over rights-of-way than state/federal authorities here will have to.
2
As a frequent traveler to Europe, I enjoy riding the TGV and ICE trains in France and Germany. I also take an electric train to work daily here in Indiana. But to consign myself to Amtrak, which I have occasionally done on overnight trips, is a complete nightmare and the exorbitant cost in fare and time do not make train travel competitive with air travel. Only in a few regions of the USA, like the Northeast, is train a viable alternative but one pays a premium for Acela. This groovy California train, in a state that worships the internal combustion engine as one of its false gods, is so obviously a boondoggle that even I feel compelled to criticise it. Let's upgrade existing rail service in the Midwest and make it a viable alternative to driving, since gasoline will ultimately cost much more than it does in this bubble, before pandering to the already spoiled brats of the ultra-rich left coast and giving them a toy that they don't even want or really need.
17
Hey, hands off our money. We are going to have a train and continue to lead at the nation in innovation and farsightedness.
The midwest will never do it. That's a pipe dream...at least at the present time.
The midwest will never do it. That's a pipe dream...at least at the present time.
3
How could an overnight trip by train fail to be "competitive with air travel," especially when your hotel room moves with you?
Far from being "exorbitant," the idea of Pullman travel might be one whose time is coming again!
Far from being "exorbitant," the idea of Pullman travel might be one whose time is coming again!
5
Nothing's groovier than riding a Lionel train to work. Trippy.
2
I enjoyed this article. Big picture and inspiring. It gives it all a good perspective. Big ideas like this are what has made America what it is today. Let's not get bogged down.
78
"Big ideas like this are what has made America what it is today. "
Living in Queensland, as you seem to do, how can you possibly make this statement? The big ideas that made America great haven't been seen in years,what passes for success now is simply the 1% who capture all the money, an ignorant populace who constantly votes into office the people who do them the most harm.
It's kind of like trying to promote that wonderful opera house in Sydney to people who only want to listen to POP-TARTS (I have borrowed that wonderful phrase from another poster elsewhere).
The great America of which you so fondly speak disappeared decades ago. It went to the moon and never returned.
Living in Queensland, as you seem to do, how can you possibly make this statement? The big ideas that made America great haven't been seen in years,what passes for success now is simply the 1% who capture all the money, an ignorant populace who constantly votes into office the people who do them the most harm.
It's kind of like trying to promote that wonderful opera house in Sydney to people who only want to listen to POP-TARTS (I have borrowed that wonderful phrase from another poster elsewhere).
The great America of which you so fondly speak disappeared decades ago. It went to the moon and never returned.
Bake:
You are so right!
No Golden Gate bridge; no Hoover Dam Dam; no Panama Canal; no interstate highway system...
Mike W.
You are so right!
No Golden Gate bridge; no Hoover Dam Dam; no Panama Canal; no interstate highway system...
Mike W.
1
Only a very small percentage of the CA population needs to travel regularly between LA and SF or Sacramento. A much, much larger percentage of the population uses the archaic regional transit systems every day to get to work in the LA, SF, and Sacramento areas. That money should be spent on improving regional transit in those areas.
40
"Only a very small percentage of the CA population needs to travel regularly between LA and SF or Sacramento."
Trains. Are. Not. Planes.
They make these things called "stops" along the route.
Some of the most important stops, in fact, will be in the Central Valley, whose people and businesses desperately need fast, frequent connections to LA and San Fran.
Trains. Are. Not. Planes.
They make these things called "stops" along the route.
Some of the most important stops, in fact, will be in the Central Valley, whose people and businesses desperately need fast, frequent connections to LA and San Fran.
39
That's what we said about the Internet, and, frankly, the Interstate. If it's completed on time - and it may not be, but it'll get done - I'll be 83. I wanta ride that train.
8
That may be true, but one shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Also, population patters have a way of conforming to efficient transportation infrastructure. Once complete, a much larger percentage may travel between those population centers regularly precisely because the means exists to do so.
8
In your own article, the numbers speak for themselves: The transcontinental reduces 6 months of travel to a week. The time ratio is 26 to 1. The new bullet train will change at best 10 hrs to 2.5 hrs, a ration of 4 to 1. Nearly 7 times less effective. The biggest challenge we face is to overcome what I call our "horse" mentality, that is whenever we feel like going somewhere, we getup on our "200+ hp" vehicles and drive there. People in China, India, Japan and even Europe don't have that mentality and trains work out just fine for people in those regions. Unlike most cities in the US, cities in those countries also have a strong local transportation network, which makes it easier for a "horseless" person to travel locally once they reach their destination. Although I am in favor of the bullet train concept I think it will be far less utilized even in California. Hate to be fatalistic, I think most people in the US still prefer to get up on that horse and ride to where they want to go.
6
I don't think so..I like to drive too, but for a long trip, say from NYC to FL I drive only to avoid flying - a brutal experience. A fast train would be the ideal alternative - safe , comfortable, stress free, and environmentally more efficient than any other way. It is really unfortunate that France and other European countries have had 186 mph trains for well more than 30 years, Japan has its bullet trains and China is building. I believe that the real culprits in this nonsensical situation are the corporate owners and their lobbyists in the trucking and airline industries who have blocked the development of fast trains in this country using the legislative power of their bought and paid for politicians. The incredible condition of our infrastructure and transportation systems in this country are the inevitable outcomes of our absence of term and campaign funding limits and inadequate regulation of capitalism taken to an unacceptable level of power and influence.
7