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 JediJeb on 7/10/2012 3:41:21 PM , Rating: 2
The real question would be why it will take 20 years to build it. The Transcontinental Railroad was built in six years going from Sacramento to Iowa and they didn't have the interstate highway system to provide transportation of the labor and materials needed to do the work or computer drafting and engineering software to help calculate all the necessary problems that go with an engineering feat such as this. Of course they also did not have environmentalist trying to stop them ever inch of the way either, so that has to be considered. The thing is if it really needed to be done they should be able to do the project in at least half as much time as projected. Even though there are problems with the one in China, they managed to build theirs on a much shorter time frame, so what keeps up from doing work in a timely manner now days?


By knutjb on 7/10/2012 8:59:06 PM , Rating: 2
The transcontinental railroad wasn't encumbered with the: EPA and other federal acronyms wanting their own 10 year studies not liking their or the other's results and then wanting to do another 10 year study, environmentalists who don't want progress of ant kind, land owners not wanting a railroad until someone writes a massive check for their mostly worthless property (back then it put you on the map and money in the bank to have one), whomever has their panties in a twist, and whatever bureaucrats invent to add to the rules.

No, I am not against rational rules. We don't have rational rules. I spent several years in the military tracing end-user rules back up to the originating federal law. I was astounded how creative rule writers were. Much of the stuff they invented had little to no relevance to the law. The vague laws don't help either.

My question is who is getting all the money, I know we are getting the shaft.

BTW LA to San Fran? Disneyland to LA to Vegas is the sensible route in Ca. If LA to San Fran were so great the railroads would be doing it now. They don't because passenger rail travel is a money loser. Amtrak has not made money yet and likely never will so long as the government has their fingers in it.


RE: What this article fails to mention...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/11/2012 12:41:59 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The real question would be why it will take 20 years to build it.


Unions and Government regs.

It also only took a year and a few months to build the Empire State building!


RE: What this article fails to mention...
By johnsmith9875 on 7/11/2012 9:44:00 AM , Rating: 2
The Empire State building was also built during the stock market crash and following great depression.

Visionaries decided to go ahead with construction despite the fact the economy was in a shambles and everybody was in debt.

If Luddites like the anti-rail people here were in charge back then, the Empire State would just be a statuette on somebody's desk.


By KoS on 7/11/2012 11:01:48 AM , Rating: 2
You do realize there is a big difference between the two? One is funded by public money, while the other was privately funded.

Right now the public doesn't have the money to purchase a high speed train. Back then, John J. Raskob and Pierre S. du Pont had the money to finance the construction of the Empire State building. Not everyone was in debt up to their ears back then.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/11/2012 11:19:33 AM , Rating: 2
You missed the point entirely....wow


"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer














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