Slashdot Mirror
California Requests Stimulus Funding For Bullet Train
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!"
I would draw comparisons between this and the Simpson's Monorail episode, but at least the Monorail got built before they realized it was a gigantic waste of money. The bullet-train would simply be a financial quagmire for this fiscally irresponsible state.
Worth noting:
"Report details why high-speed rail won't meet ridership predictions, deliver on promised travel times, or meet emission reduction targets."
No, actually, if you're willing to spend 45 billion dollars you can add lanes pretty much indefinitely. Why the hell does it cost this much to build a few hundred miles of track? The Chinese were able to build maglev track for about the same cost per mile.
Maybe we should have the Chinese build it. What the hell, they did okay building railroads the first time around.
Public infrastructure as always provided jobs, and promoted investment.
Wrong and wrong. Man, it's sad how these fallacies permeate the debate.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
>>>it's all the overhead it takes to support the roadways.
Supporting railways has FAR more overhead. Laying the rails for one thing, and maintaining them. Second there's the lost time of having people standing-around waiting for the damn train. My boss spend 1.5 hours on his train commute; I only take 45 minutes. Waiting time == non-productive time. And finally because there's no station anywhere near most people homes (I have to walk an hour to get to my station), you have to figure out how to get the people to the train, which is even more overhead to add to the trains' cost.
And then there's the scalability problem. I-95 started as a four lane road, and now in some parts it's 12 lanes wide, so it's increased its capacity by three. You can't do the same with railways - people could kill themselves tripping over the rails when trying to board the train.
And finally look at history:
Our ancestors had a network of rails all over the U.S. which acted as the backbone of the nation during the 1800s and early 1900s. Then in the 1930 and 40s they abandoned them. Why? If rails had been superior then the railroad companies, being the dominant industry of that time, would have killed the car in its infancy. They failed because even though the rail companies were rich and could have squashed the carmakers, they were horribly inconvenient to use. So they died-out, similar to how newspapers are dying out today.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Amtrak costs as much as air or more because air travel is subsidized heavily by the federal government. We spend tonnes of federal money on highway projects and bailing out airlines but trains are somehow held to a higher standard and expected to pay for themselves.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Contrast that with Alaska, the king of federal funding. Though with Tubes behind bars, I imagine it will be less so.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
They're in favor of the *theory* of such trains, it remains to be seen if they will accept the inevitable environmental damage which comes with the actual existence/construction of the trackage and infrastructure.