| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| California High Speed Rail Debate; It's the future | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Mar 2 2012, 11:53 AM (218 Views) | |
| Mike | Mar 2 2012, 11:53 AM Post #1 |
Administrator
  ![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
California Grapples With High-Speed Rail Debate By: Spencer Michels There's a big battle going on throughout the country, but especially in California, over whether to build very expensive high-speed rail systems. In these tough economic times, when the federal and the state governments don't have enough money to support education, health and welfare programs, and when even the sacred military budget is about to be slashed, how can anyone justify sinking billions of public dollars into a fast train? That's the question that Republicans, but others as well, are asking as they try to shoot down, or at least derail, the Obama administration's push for high-speed rail. But the answer they get from the Obama folks, and from California Gov. Jerry Brown, is that this is a good time to build a big, fast rail system. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood spent three days recently in California, talking up high speed rail. When I caught up with him at the state Capitol in Sacramento after a meeting with Brown, I asked if the administration was backing off its support. He was adamant: "California is going to become a model for the nation.... "We are a thousand percent committed to high speed rail in America. This is the president's vision...There's no backing off...that's why I'm spending three days here." California voters decided in 2008 to go for high-speed rail, passing a $9 billion bond issue to pay for the beginnings of a system that would connect San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento with trains that would speed along at 220 miles an hour. The estimated cost of this system started out around $33 billion, but skyrocketed to somewhere near $100 billion today -- a figure the governor says he can reduce. The plan was to start laying rail in the rural Central Valley, and eventually connect the big cities. But times have changed for the worse. The price tag and the economy -- plus plans to start in the center of the state rather than in the cities -- have soured many Californians on the whole project. A recent Field Poll shows that two-thirds of voters would like another chance to vote, and most of them would vote against it. Still, Governor Brown is pushing ahead, confident that private enterprise will supply most of the money for the train, together with $3.5 billion the federal government has put up under the stimulus package. He says he's aware that there are those who want to "shrink back from such a strenuous undertaking." But, he continues, "If you believe that California will continue to grow, as I do, and that millions more people will be living in our state, this is a wise investment." He told fellow Democrats, some of them skeptical: "Spain can build it. China can build it. France can build it. Germany can build it. England can build it. Japan can build it. But oh, we can't build it." And he added: "No, we can build more airport runways, more freeways over the next 50 years. That's twice as expensive. So I'm not saying it's cheap; I'm just saying it's cheaper than the alternative, and it's a hell of a lot better." He and his recently appointed head of the High Speed Rail Authority like to point to other massive projects that were built during tough economic times, despite the cries of naysayers. Both the Panama Canal and the Suez Canal, Brown contends, were considered impractical and impossible, but they got built. In the United States, the transcontinental railroad was built during the Civil War, and the Golden Gate Bridge and Hoover Dam were constructed during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Amateur psychologists (and that includes most political observers) often say that Brown's motivation is his legacy. His father, Edmund G. (Pat) Brown, was governor in the '60s and today is remembered for building, or at least building up, California's vast water system, its highways and its great universities. Now, the son, at 73, in his second go-round as governor, wants to leave something major behind, like his father did. That's the theory, anyway, though administration spokesmen pooh-pooh it. They say high-speed rail will create jobs, reduce pollution and traffic congestion and make it easier and cheaper to get around the state. Meanwhile, those who don't buy that argument are at work trying to stop it in its tracks. One Republican state senator has introduced a bill to put the bond issue back on the ballot. He calls high-speed rail a pipe dream, and he's skeptical that private interests will finance it. Nevertheless, the state is going ahead, with work on a San Francisco rail terminal already underway, and construction in the Central Valley scheduled to start this fall. While nationally there appears to be flagging support for high-speed rail, with three states rejecting stimulus money, in California the debate has not been settled -- not by a long shot. It's a debate that's easy to get going, since nearly everyone has an opinion on whether the fast, expensive train fits our needs and our resources. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/03/high-speed-rail-battle-in-california.html _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ This was a enlightening newscast and despite the naysayers who were given a soapbox, I think it's important to look beyond the rhetoric and to the long term benefits. First the funding argument. The price tag of $100 billion sound high in these hard times. However...that expense is over a 20 year period, tough times don't last. Secondly, with more than 20,000,000 residents and 20 year population growth adding millions more, the cost is not all that extreme. Third, the proposal mentioned in the newscast was to lease out the system to private indistry, which will supply the trains and maintenance in exchange for the rights to profit off the ridership. Now consider air travel. Airlines regularly spend $billions on new aircraft and $billions more in maintenance and upkeep. One new jetline cost roughly $100,000,000. And high speed rail fares will be about 30% of the cost of travel. If dad feels like taking the family out for a show and dinner, Las Vegas to San Francisco is two hours away. Los Angeles to San Francisco is two hours away. The family can be home in bed by 9PM, plus the added economic activity this entails is huge. Now consider the cost of fuel-energy for transportation. High speed rail runs off renewable electrical energy, not high fossil fuel prices. Plus this is a non polluting mode of travel. With populations surging, the air travel system is already taxed. You can only stack up so many planes in the airspace around major cities. High speed rail travels across rural America, through sparsely populated countryside. It only interacts with a metro region as it slows to offload or load new passengers. I'm getting more excited by the minute typing this. 
|
 |
 
|
| Brewster | Mar 2 2012, 11:58 AM Post #2 |
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
|
I agree - that and a nationwide electrical grid are two expensive projects that will pay off big well into the future, similar to the Interstate Highway system in the '50's. Where are the Eisenhower Republicans? |
|
|
|
| Mike | Mar 2 2012, 12:07 PM Post #3 |
|
Administrator
|
Of course it will pay big dividends Brew. Plus, considering that 20-30 million people in California alone can benefit, with that customer base, funding this should be a breeze. Naysayers have always painted gloom and doom scenarios, as progress bumps into those with limited vision. |
|
|
|
| tomdrobin | Mar 2 2012, 12:08 PM Post #4 |
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
|
If we had the Tea Party back in the 50's I hate to think what terrible shape the country would be in. Infrastructure and innovation is one of the things that made this country great. Things like the railroads, the telegraph, the interstate highway system and many more just weren't just projects that private industry took up on their own. Government and been involved right along. Look at all the spinoffs from the space program, look at the internet and what it has become. With the mindset of many today of paring government back to what it was in 1800, their is a denial of the partnership that has been so successful. |
|
|
|
| Mike | Mar 2 2012, 11:45 PM Post #5 |
|
Administrator
|
Tom, In the 50's, America settled the Korean conflict and spent the majority of the next 12 years in relative peace with the world. We were not spending the enormous funds necessary to finance several wars at a time on a credit card. Today, California and the nation has to prioritize spending and government has to be responsible. With that said, funding $500 mil. per year to complete the 800 mile train system in California is very doable and will pay for itself long term. The president is 1000% behind this and his transportation policy, which will be in affect these next five years will result in the birth of high speed transit in America. It's a good day in America when we have a leader who is a visionary and willing to take on domestic needs for the future...and transportation is a major problem facing us into the future. We will have two hundred million more Americans needing transit in the next 50 years, so moving 500,000,000 people around efficiently and with renewable energy is a logical response. |
|
|
|
| Sea Dog | Mar 2 2012, 11:55 PM Post #6 |
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
|
If the right had their way, folks would be riding dinosaurs to work, just like Fred and Barney. |
|
|
|
| Thumper | Mar 3 2012, 12:00 AM Post #7 |
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
|
I saw a blurb on the TV once that discussed the demise of the once large trolley systems in the US. They placed much of the blame on GM and Harvey Firestone wanting to sell cars and tires. Wonder if there was any fact to this premise? We had a trolley system in Pittsburgh PA that ran all over Pittsburgh and connected with communities up to 40 miles away up and down the three rivers. The system was junked and the RR right of way sold off/given away in the late 50s. Now that was some progress. |
|
|
|
| tomdrobin | Mar 3 2012, 12:21 AM Post #8 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
|
We had an interurban electric trolley here in Michigan, but cars and cheap gas made it unprofitable and it was discontinued. In time there may be a economic incentive for something similar, but it will probably have to be very expensive motor fuel before it happens. |
|
|
|
| Mike | Mar 3 2012, 12:27 AM Post #9 |
|
Administrator
|
What excuse does Canada have for ignoring modern high speed rail travel? From reading here and in the news, you don't have the economic restraints we have at present. You have a booming economy, yet it appears you do little to alleviate pollution and remian stuck on this issue as well. Does a Canadian right have that much influence up there? |
|
|
|
| telcoman | Mar 3 2012, 02:25 AM Post #10 |
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
|
We have it on the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor. Trouble with high speed rail is you really need a high density population to make it work. That is way it is so successful in Japan & Europe. On the other hand a high portion of Canadian cities have rapid transit systems, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary & Edmonton. I know Vancouvers, especially the new line to the south is very successful. Bridge tolls & no freeways through downtown, make it an attractive option. Edited by telcoman, Mar 3 2012, 02:28 AM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
7:02 PM May 21
