Posted on 02/25/2010 10:06:14 AM PST by NormsRevenge
The California High-Speed Rail Authority has long touted the wonderful fantasy of high-speed trains. On the authority's Web site, viewers are shown a sleek, ultramodern train zooming through a backdrop of green rolling hills and lush scenery, all at speeds up to 225 miles per hour. Not only is high-speed rail fast, but you'll be able to hop on a high-speed train without going through those bothersome security checkpoints they have in airports, resulting in a travel time from San Francisco to Anaheim of under three hours.
Is anything missing from this picture? Only reality.
When the imagination of dazzling sapphire-blue trains is swept aside, all that is left is an inadequately funded financial catastrophe. ..
The authority estimates it needs approximately $42.6 billion to build the first section of the high-speed rail network, from San Francisco to Anaheim. To obtain the requisite amount, the authority must seek money from state, federal and local governments and private institutions.
State funding for the project is provided by Proposition 1A. In theory, near-bankrupt California will sell $9 billion in bonds to finance the project, increasing our state debt by roughly 20 percent.
Federal funding for the project is mostly limited to grants from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, of which the authority has received only $2.25 billion. .. In reality, the $2.25 billion the authority received is less than half the $4.7 billion it requested, and a small fraction of the $17 billion to $19 billion in federal funds the authority projects it needs to construct the high-speed rail system.
President Barack Obama has allocated an additional $5 billion for high-speed rail over five years, but these funds are to be distributed throughout the nation, not just to California. ..
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
and you thought Don Quixote was whack..
to add to the mix and make it even stickier..
Study: High-speed rail would drain passengers from Bay Area airports
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14467088?source=most_viewed
California’s high-speed trains — loaded with the potential for cheaper fares and peaceful trips — could steal about 6 million passengers each year from the three Bay Area airports combined, new estimates show.
San Jose would be hit hardest, according to consultants at SH&E, a Virginia-based aviation firm the Metropolitan Transportation Commission contracted to study the bullet train’s impact on Bay Area airports.
Airport executives, Bay Area officials and transportation experts will review the report Friday.
The $42.6 billion San Francisco-to-Los Angeles bullet train expected to begin operation in 2020 could directly cause operations at the San Jose, San Francisco and Oakland airports to drop 6.1 percent, said the independent report released this week.
SH&E forecasts that by 2035, San Jose would lose 12 percent of its projected passengers because of high-speed rail, followed by a 9 percent diversion at Oakland and a 4 percent loss at San Francisco. They figure the three airports would carry slightly more than 100 million total passengers without the bullet train but that each would carry about 2 million fewer travelers if high-speed rail is built as planned.
Translated to total airport activity, the train project is estimated to reduce overall operations at San Jose by 9.2 percent, at San Francisco by 5.3 percent and at Oakland by 5.2 percent.
...
Of course it is. They estimate it at $50 million per mile and here in Michigan we got some $40 million from the feds for it.
Exactly how fast to you want to travel a mile if a few minutes is too long?
Well I mean the Chinese and Japanese have to buy our bonds where else are they gonna put their money?
With the money they didn’t spend from the stimulus, they could build a couple dozen of these. Funny, they have plenty of money for slush funds, but none to build anything real.
The idea that you wouldn’t have to have security is another fantasy. These would be just as much a target as any airliner.
I don’t know of a single passenger rail system in the USA (neither local like Atlanta’s MARTA or national like Amtrak) that does not lose money each time a person rides. A good argument against passenger rail is to simply list the existing passenger rail systems and how much they lose per passenger.
Does anyone know if the passenger rail systems in the rest of the world (that are being held up as a shining example of what we should emulate) make money or are the all also money losers?
A 300 mile long railway uses a lot more land than two airports (one at each end). I expect that greenies will be fighting greenies, over the environmental impacts of the right of way.
$42 billion dollars and 250mph train? Yeah, right. Double the cost and cut the average speed to 45mph. Why? Because CA environment groups will sue every mile claiming animals real and imagined will be harmed. By the time it is built, if ever, it will have so many curves and trestles that the train will barely be able to move.
They already buy $50 billion a week. The well is running dry.
Good points! OTOH, freight rail usually makes a lot of sense. Diverting more highway heavy transport to rail would produce a lot of benefits (besides long-term cost savings): much less wear and tear on highway infrastructure; reduced highway congestion; and improved safety for passengers in small vehicles.
It’s cool anything they don’t buy Washington DC can buy!
California High-Speed Rail Authority web site
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/
notice the prominent Gubby and Obama links..
(how can ya help but not notice.-)
“The California High-Speed Rail Authority has long touted the wonderful fantasy of high-speed trains....”
Yeah!....and without money it’s just another fart in the wind...
“$42 billion dollars and 250mph train? Yeah, right. Double the cost and cut the average speed to 45mph.”
Exactly right, dead on. The idea of giving CA politicians access to the funds necessary to even study the impact on the Fresno spotted newt is stupid, given their record. Never heard of the Fresno newt? No problem. One will be invented.
Not only the land but the cost of the infrastructure to build 350 miles of track is a LOT more than two airports.
AND
When all is said and done, it will not be cheaper than air travel unless it is subsidized by the Gov. which guarantees a loss.
This thing is SO STUPID.
“I don’t know of a single passenger rail system in the USA (neither local like Atlanta’s MARTA or national like Amtrak) that does not lose money each time a person rides. A good argument against passenger rail is to simply list the existing passenger rail systems and how much they lose per passenger.”
And this is why railroads in the US were more than happy to hand off their passenger service to Amtrak.
“Never heard of the Fresno newt? No problem. One will be invented.”
Are you talking about the Upper East Fresno large spotted newt, or the Upper East Fresno slightly less large spotted newt. They are separate species, you know, and each has to be protected, just like all the other seven million species of Fresno spotted newt. They may all look the same to you, but EPA scientists can tell them apart.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.