California High Speed Rail Is an Attractive Investment

I remain unconvinced that high-speed rail is anything other than another boondoggle. I'd have to see a mountain of evidence that it would reduce carbon emissions and more to convince me it would not be a financial loser.

Some questions:

Who is going to build it?

What experience to they have in doing this?

How much will right of way cost?

What about the demand for intermediate stations; if the thing stops every 50 miles it ain't gonna be 'high speed'.

I do stipulate that it might be good substitute for air travel, which as we are now aware is really a bad thing for the atmosphere, but as for replacing cars....

....nuh gonna happen.

Plus, in the current envrionment where the concrete-headed ReThugs are blocking what should be done as far as taxes and expenditures are concerned I'd much rather see the state spend the money on more Solar Roofs or the Solar Grand Plan.

What if every Californian could come home and plug in his all-electric car?

This scheme could be made a reality and we can afford it.

Those who think we can and will abandon the trillions, yeah with a big fat T, we've got invested in roads, traffic control, highways and all the infrastructure cars use are dreaming. The quickest way to avoid the Road to Olduvai Gorge is a combination of The Solar Grand Plan and all-electric cars.

High speed rail is a wrong turn we cannot afford at the current time.

We need to stop consuming oil ASAP and the scheme I outline here is the quickest way to that.

Both sides raise great points and A. Citizen, your concerns are valid.

To try to answer your question about the intermediate station dilemma, think of it this way. Intermediate stations don't necessarily mean slower trains. At those stations as will be with most, bypass tracks - two middle tracks - will allow express trains to bypass so-called intermediate stations while station (boarding and alighting) tracks - two outside tracks - will permit those non-expresses to stop. Unless witnessed first-hand, this is an unfamiliar concept to many.

I believe the entity that builds California's high-speed rail system must have a proven track record (pun intended). This has to be done right and that's an absolute, if this is expected to set a precedent. If built correctly, as Robert points out, people will flock to hsr. The evidence is there in Europe and Asia and even the northeastern U.S. with the Acelas. Daily commute ridership went from 45% of the 10,000 daily commuters between New York and D.C. to 54% after the higher speed Acelas went into service. Peter Richmond points this out in his Nov. 7, 2007 Parade magazine article: "A Better Way to Travel?" Travel-density worries here in California I believe are unfounded in my opinion. I understand by 2050, projections are that 8 million will call the eight-county San Joaquin Valley home. As mobility increases and the numbers moving increases, the need for infrastructure other than highways is paramount, particularly with escalating oil prices. What's more, not all travelers will have to go end to end. Those boarding at the intermediate stops will travel both north and south from say between Bakersfied and Sacramento, or from say between Merced and Bakersfield.

I'm also a firm believer that the airlines would be wise to form strategic alliances with the high-speed rail enterprise and vice versa, in other words "training" for trips under 1000 miles, and "planing" for trips over the 1000-mile threshold. (This generalization is an oversimplification, but I think the point is clear). Arrangements such as these exist elsewhere.

I also believe that financing should involve public and private concerns (PPPs). And we shouldn't overlook foreign investment. This too should be encouraged.

The last thing I have to say is Argentina, China, England, France, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Spain (my apologies to the systems or the ones under construction that I may have overlooked) can't all be wrong. If Japan as the first in the 1960s didn't take that initial step, high-speed rail may not have come about for years, if not decades, thereafter. As I understand it, Japan's Shinkansen (Bullet Train) trains leave stations every 7 minutes. This wouldn't surprise me in the least. When I paid a visit to El Cajon/Grossmont in San Diego County, the San Diego Trolley light rail trains frequented stations about once every ten minutes and they operated from early in the morning to late at night. If the ridership isn't there, then why this many trains?

"A Citizen" brings up excellent points. Especially the investment we have already made in highways and the like infrastructure along with the freedom personal vehicles provide. I think electric cars and/or hydrogen are the way to go here along with road infrastructure maintenance/improvement. Do we really need to scare the land further with a 400 plus mile railroad line?

Comrade Cruickshank's love affair with HSR in it's current form is misguided. The French example and many others are all government subsidized, not private enterprise. A "French Bank" subsidizing Argentine HSR probably has associated "buy French" equipment associated with it with all entities again doing any "investment" as an organ of the French government.

Comrade Cruickshank states: "Given that HSR is such an undisputed global success, it should not be difficult to attract private investment. Proposition 1 is the necessary first step to bringing that about. If we vote for it, we will build it - and they will come."

With a name like "Jay Gould", I understand how to milk any government "building" as Crickshank states here for personal and corporate profit at the expense of taxpayers. Crickshank's statment quoted here points out how NO INVESTORS or PRIVATE ENTERPRISE has stepped forward to build HSR. Where are they RIGHT NOW if this is a profit making enterprise? The HSR authority obviously has generated ZERO EXCITEMENT in the private enterprise sector on HSR. Quite the opposite when you consiuder after 6 years and $10 million in taxpayer money spent they haven't even lined up the UP Railroad for key right of way agreements!

And now Proposition 1 wants to saddle the state taxpayers with a $10 BILLION dollar bond for our grandkids to pay off. Plus, don't forget those federal matching taxpayer dollars too.

Heck, at least we had the "Big Four" and the Credite Mobillier (sp?) milking us back then. Now it is the government itself this time and without the middle men! I guess that is progress!

Mr. Gould- If you would stop with the personal innuendos and slights (Comrade Cruikshank/Crickshank) you may even get someone to take your points seriously.

Post a comment