Stimulus Could GIve Calif. High-Speed Rail

[n2doc]

High-speed rail could get billions more from Obama
By JOHN BOITNOTT

Suddenly, the state of California may have moved even closer to getting high-speed rail.

The California Public Interest Research group hailed news on Thursday that billions of dollars in President Barack Obama's recently passed stimulus plan could be used to pay for the state's new high-speed rail system.

Congress added $9.3 billion in the American Reinvestment and Economic Recovery Act for development of high-speed rail and other intercity rail throughout the U.S.

The amount was a large increase from the Senate version of the bill and came on top of $8.4 billion already designated for other public transit agencies.

“This bill, especially the money for high speed rail, marks a bold step for 21st century transportation,” said John Krieger, with the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. “After decades of looking on with envy at efficient bullet trains overseas, American high speed rail is finally leaving the station.”

more:

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Did-Stimulus-Just-Give-California-High-Speed-Rail.html

[kestrel91316]

1. Give it time - Schwarzedollar will find a way to monkeywrench this, too.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. CA needs other things before it needs high speed rail

[NNadir]

3. Like what, for instance?

High speed rail is precisely the kind of infrastructure we should be building everywhere, not just in California but everywhere.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. There is not that much traffic that the rail would support

SD to SFO with few stops is not going to address much of the pollution or transportation issues in CA.

[tinrobot]

5. Airplanes don't pollute?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. The proposed routes are not good substituion for air travel

I am not against mass transit, but the current CA plan is not mass transit

[tinrobot]

9. The route is supposed to go to SFO

That's an airport. I do not know of any better destination for people who want a good substitute for air travel.

Additionally, people who live far from major airports (i.e. Central Valley) will not need to drive their cars to get to a major city/airport anymore.

[NNadir]

6. Really? Is that a fact?

You mean there aren't huge traffic jams outside of LAX and SFO and Lindberg Field while people drive to the airport at commuter flights.

You mean there are electric powered aircraft?

Who knew?

About 10% of the transportation greenhouse gases released on earth are attributable to diesel freighters and if you must know, rail traffic isn't all that much better.

Electrified national rails - which were rejected by the Eisenhower administration in favor of building the Interstate Highway system - would have made landbased transport in this country well within the reach of being climate change gas free, since electricity is the only major fuel for transportation that can be made available by climate change gas free means on an exajoule scale.

I think that you are completely out to lunch and don't even know what you're talking about.

High speed rail transport presumes electrification.

What you think the infrastructure stimulus plan should do instead of bulding rails? There are a lot of things I think that the stimulus shouldn't do, build or rebuild any car CULTure infrastructure for instance. But of all the stuff I've seen put forth, except for the putative support for nuclear energy alluded to by some paranoids around here who oppose the world's largest, by far, form of climate change gas free energy, the high speed rails are the best.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. I suggest you look at the proposed routes. If it was NE style mass transit that would be different

[tinrobot]

10. The NE is fully populated.

California still has a lot of open space.

You can't compare the two.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. Actually we can. The experience in the NE shows that mass transit is most effective in cities

not between them.

I am pro mass transit where it is most needed, in the cities, not up the central valley

[bananas]

12. You have to look 10-20 years in the future

The LA-SF route won't open until 2018, another 3-5 years for San Diego and Sacramento routes.
Large projects like often take longer than expected.
So think in terms of 2018-2028.
Jet fuel and gasoline could be very expensive by then.
Downtown San Diego is already so congested, they're talking about subways.
There's going to be a lot more local rail service, and high-speed rail can act as an extension of that, and a backbone between cities.
There's no room to expand San Diego airport, with HSR the Ontario airport can be used for overflow.
Las Vegas has a similar problem with their airport, they're looking at building a new one in Primm,
but 30% of their flights are to cities on the Ca. HSR route, so connecting Vegas means they won't need a new airport.

Here's a comparison of California to Spain: http://cahsr.blogspot.com/2008/07/if-spain-can-do-it-we-definitely-can.html