Comments on: The High-Speed Rail Numbers Game: Is $13 Billion and 110 MPH Enough? http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/06/24/the-high-speed-rail-numbers-game-is-13-billion-and-110-mph-enough/ Covering Los Angeles's livable streets movement Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:23:58 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Erik G. http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/06/24/the-high-speed-rail-numbers-game-is-13-billion-and-110-mph-enough/comment-page-1/#comment-7701 Erik G. Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:46:34 +0000 http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=2531#comment-7701 We need to get to France circa 1965 before we can get to France circa 2009. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistral_(train) We need to get to France circa 1965 before we can get to France circa 2009.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistral_(train)

]]> By: DJB http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/06/24/the-high-speed-rail-numbers-game-is-13-billion-and-110-mph-enough/comment-page-1/#comment-7541 DJB Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:48:06 +0000 http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=2531#comment-7541 The text of CA's Proposition 1A (2008), which authorized $10 billion in bonds to pay for CA's high-speed rail system, suggests that the $10 billion will be enough to pay for most of one leg of the system in CA. Given that people who pitch infrastructure generally tend to understate the cost, to make the public more likely to accept the project, we should probably expect the capital cost of CA's system to exceed $15 billion, if it goes all the way. Given these considerations, it is clear that $13 billion is only seed money for a national high-speed rail system. I'm torn on this issue and actually voted against CA's high-speed rail bond. On the one hand I like the idea of sustainable long-distance transportation. On the other hand, I worry that such a train could facilitate mega-commuting (e.g. live in Bakersfield, work in LA). Also, I tend to vote against bond debt in general because CA has no plan to pay it back. I tend to think we should focus on promoting rail WITHIN REGIONS before we try to link CA's major downtowns together with a high-speed train. I'd rather see the Subway to the Sea, than a train to Sacramento which duplicates what I can already do fairly quickly and sustainably on a Greyhound bus. The text of CA's Proposition 1A (2008), which authorized $10 billion in bonds to pay for CA's high-speed rail system, suggests that the $10 billion will be enough to pay for most of one leg of the system in CA. Given that people who pitch infrastructure generally tend to understate the cost, to make the public more likely to accept the project, we should probably expect the capital cost of CA's system to exceed $15 billion, if it goes all the way.

Given these considerations, it is clear that $13 billion is only seed money for a national high-speed rail system.

I'm torn on this issue and actually voted against CA's high-speed rail bond. On the one hand I like the idea of sustainable long-distance transportation. On the other hand, I worry that such a train could facilitate mega-commuting (e.g. live in Bakersfield, work in LA). Also, I tend to vote against bond debt in general because CA has no plan to pay it back. I tend to think we should focus on promoting rail WITHIN REGIONS before we try to link CA's major downtowns together with a high-speed train.

I'd rather see the Subway to the Sea, than a train to Sacramento which duplicates what I can already do fairly quickly and sustainably on a Greyhound bus.

]]>