backtop


Print 105 comment(s) - last by The Raven.. on Jul 12 at 7:22 PM

New rail line will allow trips between the Bay Area and LA in under 3 hours

California, a state of 37 million people, is fast growing and in many ways almost a country unto its own.  The state in many cases is the best-case scenario for high-speed rail in America, and thanks to voter approval, the state will be trying to implement precisely such a system, despite high costs.  The plan received a final green light via Senate ratification of a general funding bill [PDF] and will now begin.

I. The Nation's Largest Bullet Train Bid Takes Off

The project will build out high-speed lines between the San Jose/San Francisco are (southern California) and San Diego/Los Angeles (the Bay Area).  The first phase of construction will complete a line from Los Angeles to the central valley of California, while a second push will finish the connection to the Bay Area.

The project is expected to take up to 20 years to complete due to the massive construction effort needed, coupled with the expected hurdles such as suits from environmentalists and private property owners.

California High Speed Rail
[Image Source: U.S. DOT/State of Calif.]

But the payoff will be 2 hour, 40 minute commute between LA and San Francisco aboard a state-of-the-art 220 mph train.

The project is not without its dangers.  First and foremost, it is a very expensive bid for a state that is already cash strapped.  California is ponying up $4.6B USD, in return for $3.3B USD in grants from President Obama's Stimulus Bill.  The project will be financed by bonds, with $2.6B USD needed for the initial 130-mile stretch of track.


II. Ideological Divide

While voters in the state approved the bond plan, support in recent weeks sunk from 52 percent to 39 percent amid reports discussing the financial concerns.  The approval by the state senate was a close 21-16 vote along party lines.

At a time when many are calling for a return to conservatism in America, the sweeping expansion of one of America's largest socialistic institutions -- the government owned transportation lines (private-public rails, federal highways, state highways, etc.) is fodder for much debate. 
 
U.S. Federal Highways
Some conservative think tanks say we should be moving to privatize the federal highway system, not adopting broader socialism. [Image Source: Wikimedia Commons]

Advocates argue transportation routing is a non-excludable good and by its very definition a "public good", hence an ideal candidate for mild socialism.  Some critics have gone as far as to suggest privatizing the federal highway system and scrapping high-speed rail bids, as well.

Many believe the project passed only due to heavy eleventh hour lobbying by Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, who swayed his party colleagues to overlook potential short-term fallout from their voter base.

III. Advocates Hail Victory as Job-Creator

U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood comments, "No economy can grow faster than its transportation network allows.  With highways between California cities congested and airspace at a premium, Californians desperately need an alternative."

President Obama was a vocal supporter of the plan.

Obama speaking
President Obama and his DOT say the project, which mixes state bonds and federal funds will drive job growth. [Image Source: U.S. Aid]

Europe, China, and Japan all have high-speed rail systems.  However, rail in the U.S. is light in both speed and usage.  In theory high-speed rail systems have many advantages, including speed, congestion reduction, and cost.  However, U.S. rail projects have suffered from budget bloat and from the challenging of dealing with the U.S.'s sparser population outside its cities.

Critics are swift to point to failures overseas, such as China who recently was forced to slow trains along its burgeoning $1T USD line due to allegations of corruption and substandard construction materials.  However, Germany, France, and Japan all have very successful systems which service millions and have opened new economic opportunities.

President Obama and Governor Jerry Brown believe the new line will create jobs, and they're both eager to put their money where their mouth is.

IV. Critics Sound Off

State Sen. Tom Harman (R, Huntington Beach) conjured the spectre of the embattled $398M USD Gravina Island Bridge in Alaska, which was colloquially referred to as the "bridge to nowhere" in the 2008 presidential race.  He commented, "It's unfortunate that the majority would rather spend billions of dollars that we don't have for a train to nowhere than keep schools open and harmless from budget cuts."

The comment may seem a slight to Bay Area residents, but the rhetoric stems from the fact that the first phase of construction will only travel through the central valley region of the state, stopping short of the Bay Area.  The Bay Area will be connected in the second phase push.

State Sen. Tony Strickland (R, Moorpark), a Republican running for U.S. Congress in the fall, comments, "This bill is spending money we just simply don't have here in California."

California high speed train
California is racing ahead with high-speed rail, despite objections.
[Image Source: U.S. DOT/State of Calif.]

Indeed, the timing might not be ideal, but for better or worse Calif. is forging ahead with high-speed rail.  Amid a divided state government and equally deep ideological divides across the nation as a whole, all eyes will surely be on this bold experiment in transportation and union/state mixed socialism in years to come.

Sources: Calif. State Senate, Sen. Steinberg, DOT



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: What this article fails to mention...
By Braxus on 7/9/2012 3:08:03 PM , Rating: 2
This is definitely going to become California's version of Boston's Big Dig.

Another thing that recently got tied to high-speed rail is funds to electrify CalTrain. More I read up on this project, the more admendments I find are being added outside the scope that people did not vote for.

Wondering at the end, how much will actually be spent on the high speed rail project and how much for other side projects that got added on.


RE: What this article fails to mention...
By Shig on 7/9/2012 6:02:09 PM , Rating: 2
Since the debate here seems to focus on 'collectivist money' being used only on one state. Let's look at it from an economic standpoint.

California's GDP in 2010 was higher than the combined GDP of Vermont, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Alaska, Rhode Island, Maine, Idaho, New Hampshire, Delaware, West Virginia, Hawaii, New Mexico, Nebraska, Mississippi, District of Columbia, Arkansas, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Kentucky.

The rest of the High Speed Rail 'collectivist money' will most likely be spent in the Northeast corridor (NY, Philly, Washington DC, Boston), the Texas Triangle, Midwestern linkages with Chicago, and Florida.

The roads are at capacity in most major cities, as are airports, what infrastructure would you guys propose for an increasing population? Investing in your most productive economic zones sure is an evil socialist plot amirite.


RE: What this article fails to mention...
By SPOOFE on 7/9/2012 6:05:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
what infrastructure would you guys propose for an increasing population?

Double-decked freeways designed with an eye towards longer-distance drives (greater distance between offramps on the top level vs. the bottom level) would handle things quite well. And don't give me the "earthquake" retort, because we have skyscrapers and towering interchanges already.


By ritualm on 7/9/2012 7:02:26 PM , Rating: 2
Elevated freeways are already an eyesore and harshly divides areas, for no reason other than keeping road traffic slightly less congested. Double-decker freeways make it even worse.

Boston didn't Big Dig its downtown highways without a reason.


RE: What this article fails to mention...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/2012 6:55:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
California's GDP in 2010 was higher than the combined GDP of Vermont, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Alaska, Rhode Island, Maine, Idaho, New Hampshire, Delaware, West Virginia, Hawaii, New Mexico, Nebraska, Mississippi, District of Columbia, Arkansas, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Kentucky.


Ah this talking point again.

Check the per capita rankings. California has the HIGHEST population in the country. Hello?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_b...

You and SPOOF have made a nice argument to point out that California has a healthy GDP. It seems however that you're willfully ignoring the the obvious. That they spend their money carelessly and recklessly!

Despite their praise-worthy GDP, California is in a budget crisis. Now they are hardly unique, lots of states have that problem. But how on Earth can you gross that much revenue and be broke? Oh I know, you appoint a bunch of Liberals and do sh#t like build trains nobody wants to use!


RE: What this article fails to mention...
By Shig on 7/9/2012 7:09:10 PM , Rating: 2
@ lowest gdp per capita, that's why rail is going in, more efficient transportation increases that number. Right now California wastes way too much money on sitting in traffic jams...the highest gdp per capita areas have the most efficient transportation and high population densities, like Manhattan. Ty for making an excellent point for high speed rail.

Austerity isn't the answer, infrastructure spending is one of the few good uses of money during a recession.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/2012 8:30:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
infrastructure spending is one of the few good uses of money during a recession.


With money you don't have?


"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki