California Requests Stimulus Funding For Bullet Train 567
marquinhocb writes "Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger requested $4.7 billion in federal stimulus money Friday to help build an 800-mile bullet train system from San Diego to San Francisco. 'We're traveling on our trains at the same speed as 100 years ago,' the governor said. 'That is inexcusable. America must catch up.' Planners said the train would be able to travel from Los Angeles to San Francisco in two hours and 40 minutes, traveling at speeds of more than 200 miles per hour. About time! There comes a point when 'let's add another lane' is no longer a viable option!"
Re:Fly Southwest (Score:5, Informative)
Amtrak is subsizided by the feds. There IS a way that this could compete with airfare, just not fairly.
Airlines get subsidized by the feds, too -- consider all the airlines that have been bailed out in the past twenty years (some of them multiple times), plus federal funding for airports.
I don't know, air fair is pretty cheap. (Score:1, Informative)
Air fair from san francisco to san diego is $29 each way. That travels at 300+ mph.
Re:It will never happen (Score:5, Informative)
Spain, with its very similar geography, has shown this can be done on budget and (mostly) on time, so long as the project adheres to tested technology, as is the plan. And it's pretty popular. If Spain can do it, surely California can as well. It just takes willing
Re:It will never happen (Score:3, Informative)
Clearly you've never seen the San Joaquin Valley. Once you get past the Cajon Pass from the south it's all fault free, mountain free flat land all the way to Sacramento.
And it smells like asparagus. I hate the I-5...
Re:It will never happen (Score:5, Informative)
I simply worry about their ability to get it done at all.
Not the NIMBY's and the environmental impact, just the corruption factor and the fact that it's Tax-N-Spendifornia. If they were in the black it'd be one thing but they want the federal gov't to pay for it when they are deep in a major budget crisis? If I were the feds (or the rest of the nation) I'd say "screw you, come back when you can manage your own budget and maybe we'll talk."
I think you may be mistaking California for Massachusetts. If California were Tax-N-Spend, it wouldn't have a budget issue. The issue in California is that they can't tax. All budgets in California must (1) be balanced, and (2) be passed by a super-majority. The legislature's made up of the Senate consisting of 25 Democrats and 15 Republicans; and the Assembly having 49 Democrats, 29 Republicans, 1 Independent, and 1 vacancy. So the Dems have a significant majority (and have since 1970), but not enough to pass a budget on their own. And the California Republican party has maintained incredible party discipline for a while now, absolutely refusing any increases in taxes, period. So, obtaining taxes for services has become essentially impossible.
This has been complicated by being "tough on crime." Things like Three Strikes laws have dramatically increased California's prison population in recent years. This has resulted in an increase in funds that must go to prisons. This, combined with a refusal to increase taxes means that much more of the limited government revenue is going into the black hole that is the prison system. Because of this, pretty much every aspect of California's selection of services have been significantly cut back for at least a decade now. The impact on the University of California in particular has been huge; they lost 20% of their funding in this past year alone, on top of significant cuts before the budget crisis. (The increase in tough on crime laws is bi-partisan, the democrats have their fair share of blame in this one. The lack of increase in taxes to cover for shortfall is a R-party issue entirely though.).
Re:Fly Southwest (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/map.htm [ca.gov]
Granted, you may not trust those numbers, but still, I'd say that's comparable. Plus, you don't have to deal with the cattle-car rush that is the boarding on a Southwest flight. I'd take the train in this case... similar price, reasonable speed and none of the hell that comes along with modern air travel...
And, this will be a train from San Diego to LA as well...
the myth of Massachusetts (Score:5, Informative)
I think you may be mistaking California for Massachusetts.
And I think you may have your head up your ass and have no idea what you're talking about.
MA is 23rd as of 2008 [boston.com]. Damn near dead average.
Re:This makes a lot of sense (Score:5, Informative)
You know, Tricky Dick Nixon promised us that Amtrak would only be living on the public teat for a couple of years, and then private investors would buy it. Didn't work out that way.
Which was obviously bullshit, because the railroads were getting out of passenger rail service because it was unprofitable. This is different because it's a proven technology being applied to a known market.
I've ridden on both Amtrak and high speed rail (Deutsche Bahn ICE), and there is simply no comparison. Amtrak is slow and cramped, and a throughly frustrating experience. The fact that it's faster to drive than ride, shows just how worthless Amtrak is. Amtrak should die, but doesn't because the reps from all the rural states (ironically, the ones that rail the most against "big government" and "government waste") continue fund it as being necessary. As the Amtrak Commissioner said back in the late 90s, they lose money on every run. They lose money on the capital expenditures on the high traffic Northeast Corridor, and they lose money on every trip on everywhere else. DB ICE on the other hand, is FAST and comfortable. I'd prefer it flying any day. Big seats. The ability to walk around. Tables. It's great. An American would say, "This is the future of travel!", while everyone else in the world would say, "It's 20 years old, jackass."
building the whole system will provide a lot of meaning full jobs.
Nope. It shifts jobs from productive activities to wealth-destroying government waste.
Oh come on. Public infrastructure as always provided jobs, and promoted investment. There's already significant travel between SF and LA, and Cal HSR simply takes advantage of this situation.
Oh, and the people of California want it. How do I know this? We put it to a vote.
Re:Fly Southwest (Score:3, Informative)
I'm just speccing out the price for a second class ICE (our bullet train) ticket from Bremen to Nuremberg, that's about 430 kilometers; roughly 265 miles. Travel time is four hours. If I want to go on monday at 9:00, I have to pay the full price (106 EUR, ca. 151 USD). If I go on the 2nd of November I can go for 59 EUR (ca. 85 USD); if I go in December I can get the second-cheapest ticket for 39 EUR (57 USD). In theory there is also a 29 EUR ticket but I've never see those in the wild.
In short: At least in Germany, 240 USD is a pretty steep price for 250 miles unless you want to go first class and don't have a rebate card. Just print yourself a ticket and take the train instead.
Re:It will never happen (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, it goes back much further than a decade - it all starts with Proposition 13 [wikipedia.org]. (Most Slashdotters are probably too young to even remember it.)
Re:It will never happen (Score:5, Informative)
That's one way to look at it, but here [wsj.com] is a different take:
...voters diluted the Gann Spending Limit in 1990, when they passed Proposition 111, exempting infrastructure projects, disaster spending and a number of other state expenditures from the spending limit.
Prop. 111 freed politicians in Sacramento to use the revenues that gushed in during the dot-com boom and housing bubble to grow the state budget to unsustainable levels. If Gann hadn't been neutered, a Reason Foundation study found in February, California would have been rolling in a $15 billion surplus this year.
Re:SHOULD it happen? I'm not convinced. (Score:4, Informative)
Being used to transportation in North America, this amazed me more than any of the technology involved in the trains. Also the things were sparkly clean. I think it comes down to respect. They are willing to keep the trains and buses clean out of respect. I believe they make sure they are on time for the same reason.
We aren't incompetent or too corrupt to get it done. North America simply isn't respectful enough for public transit.
Re:It will never happen (Score:1, Informative)
Oh, it goes back much further than a decade - it all starts with Proposition 13 [wikipedia.org]. (Most Slashdotters are probably too young to even remember it.)
Wrong - Tax revenue from property tax has grown faster than any other California revenue source, outpacing inflation + population growth by 50%+
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It will never happen (Score:3, Informative)
As I recall part of the problem with California's prison costs is guards often make $100K or better. $100K is a lot for a no skill job. Gray Davis in particular gave them a 30+% raise just because they were a huge campaign supporter.
Re:SHOULD it happen? I'm not convinced. (Score:5, Informative)
High speed trains like the german ICE (used in a variety of countries, including China), the french TGV or the japanese bullet trains do not run on regular rails. Rails for speeds exceeding 200km/h need to be specially built. In Germany we have a high speed rail network, next to rails for slower moving trains. Similarly to a highway, you sometimes have 4 rails next to each other. Two for every direction and high or low speed. In cases where there are only 2 rails, the rains usually only go slow. So there should be no delay by freight trains or other slow trains on the high speed network.
Re:It will never happen (Score:5, Informative)
Don't kid yourself -- they're not looking to build a bullet train, they're looking for another handout.
California pays more in federal taxes then it received in services every year. According to the Tax Foundation (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html [taxfoundation.org], page 5) in 2005 California received $0.78 from the federal government for every dollar paid. In 2005 (the most recent report) they were 43rd among states for money received. Saying they are looking for another handout is a bit of a stretch.
Re:It will never happen (Score:3, Informative)
You most likely have not lived east of the Mississippi. There are HUGE swaths of populations that could use fast, convenient mass transportation. Not just New York and "surrounding areas." Think the entire eastern seaboard. Think Chicago to New York. Think St. Louis to Atlanta. Don't think they're big enough? Check the size of these metropolitan areas and some of the cities running between them.
If you don't want to compare metro areas, fine. But then you might as well knock out SF - it's quite small in comparison to many other eastern cities.
Re:yeah, just like amtrak (Score:5, Informative)
"Unlike, say, the massive socialist US interstate system."
Which facilitates massive movement of goods and people in a way rail never can.
Rail currently handles 40% of all goods shipping in the U.S. Before NAFTA this figure was much higher, close to 75%, but it has dropped because of the difficulty rail has crossing borders. So you're wrong; rail is a very efficient method for massive movement of goods that has lost ground to more expensive truck freight because of political restrictions on its use.
Re:yeah, just like amtrak (Score:1, Informative)
No; while that used to be the case, the interstate highway system for about the past decade has run a deficit that's made up from general taxes. As Wikipedia summarizes [wikipedia.org]:
Re:Airports and airplanes make way more sense (Score:3, Informative)
Why tear up land for something like this? I've used trains a number of times, and although interesting rail is just not as good a solution as buses or, especially, air travel.
Trains use much less land than highways to transport an equivalent number of passengers and are more energy efficient than other forms of transportation.
And here I'm not just talking big planes. I'm talking regional airports that, if funded to the same level, could provide an amazing degree of flexibility in travel, to places all over and not just two fixed points.
Regional airports in California aren't equipped to handle large planes nor additional air or ground traffic. They have issues with noise and safety issues and are typically underfunded. They also have insufficient linkage with the local public transit systems.
Airplane travel is not even that much different in terms of fuel consumption than trains, and could be improved if we spent R&D money on that instead of more train follies. For a nation as spread out as America, it's more important to cover more area.
We're not talking about putting bullet trains all across America...only through California's highly populated, highly trafficked west coast transportation corridor. This is one of the busiest transportation corridors in a state with a population of 36,756,666, over 12% of the U.S. population.
Operating airplanes and airports is VERY expensive. Airplanes require carefully formulated, costly, high energy-density fuels. Bullet Trains operate on electricity which can be generated through many technologies. Airport terminals are expensive. Airplane baggage handling and safety precautions are expensive. Many existing California airports are overtaxed and cannot easily be expanded. Our air traffic control system is old, dangerously out of date and frequently understaffed and overstressed.
Because (Score:3, Informative)
Los Angeles to San Francisco is the busiest air corridor in the United States with an estimated 60 million passengers per year expected by 2020. It is one of the top 20 corridors in the world.
The airports can't handle much more traffic and it costs a substantial amount of money to build new ones (upwards of $20 billion), connect highways, etc.
So high speed rail makes real sense. There isn't even a place to put another airport in the bay area unless you stick it way out of the way.
The links to San Diego and Sacramento don't cost anywhere near the price of the main segment of LA to SF and are just there to complete the system. I don't even think they are part of the first stage and may never end up being built.
Re:It will never happen (Score:4, Informative)
Well, the fact that the road network is nearly fully state-sponsored may have something to do with it...see e.g. Interstate Highway system [wikipedia.org].
Re:SHOULD it happen? I'm not convinced. (Score:2, Informative)
High speed trains like the german ICE (used in a variety of countries, including China), the french TGV or the japanese bullet trains do not run on regular rails.
Not correct for the ICE: it can run on 'regular' rails - however, only with a reduced speed; indeed, for "high speed" it needs special rails. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercity-Express#Route_planning_and_network_layout [wikipedia.org])
Re:It will never happen (Score:3, Informative)
It's better to think of a continuum of service speeds rather than a discrete separation between bullet trains and local trains. This high speed railroad map of Europe [wikimedia.org] shows there are lines within England which are handling >200km/h trains. Network Rail has proposed upgrading the London to Edinburgh line to 320km/h+ by 2020 but they need funding to the tune of £34 billion.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)