Tea Party governors unwittingly help California, hurt themselves

[Travis]

Yes it seems that new governors of Wisconsin and Ohio have turned down money from the Feds for high speed rail and so the FRA has reallocated that money to California and Florida. What's strange is that both of them ran on "create jobs" campaigns. Apparently they just drew the line at any jobs that have anything to do with Commie Public Transportation. Wisconsin's idiot elect Walker apparently thought he could just use the high speed rail money for more roads.

Nope. Instead their $620 million will go to California where we are committed to building a functioning high speed rail system that will be whisking people from San Diego to San Francisco and Sacramento by 2025. Along with it will be 160,000 jobs plus cleaner air!

Thanks Tea Party idiot Governors!

 

[tyr_13]

Elections have consequences indeed.

EDIT: But you didn't put 'teabagger' anywhere in your title or OP. How are we supposed to derail the thread now?

 

[Tony]

I hope some of that money makes it to Houston to fund the expansion of our light rail network.

 

[steinhenge]

I hope some of that money makes it to Houston to fund the expansion of our light rail network.

I hesitate to refer to what we currently have here as a "network". Other than that, I absolutely agree.

 

[Travis]

I hope some of that money makes it to Houston to fund the expansion of our light rail network.

I believe this money can only be used for high speed lines but there is one in the works in Texas and...get this...it might be funded in part by SNCF. It appears that the French rail giant wants to help fund high speed rail lines from San Antonio to Dallas and Dallas to Houston.


But right now California and Florida benefited because both states have high speed rail projects in the advanced stages of planning. The California project will begin breaking ground for construction in the Fresno area next year.

 

[Kestrel]

I hope some of that money makes it to Houston to fund the expansion of our light rail network.

Unless you plan to extend it to Dallas and run the trains at 150 MPH, probably not.

 

[Drachasor]

In Ohio our guy is insane (apparently he thought he could use the money on whatever he wanted), BUT the railroad we were going to get was stupid. It would connect Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland, cost more than driving by a good bit, provide no transportation when you got there (and frankly our public transportation sucks), AND be slower (when you take into account boarding...I think it might have been about as fast as the speed limit on the highway).

I'd be all for a high-speed rail in Ohio and a good public transportation system to go with it, but we weren't going to get either one. It would just have been a joke and a joke is a waste of money.

 

[Travis]

My understanding is that the Ohio C3 plan was only to lay the groundwork for a truly revolutionary high speed rail system. It should be noted that there were plans to expand to Detroit in the west and Pittsburgh in the east.

However now that groundwork won't be laid and Ohio will have to wait for something else.

 

[Drachasor]

My understanding is that the Ohio C3 plan was only to lay the groundwork for a truly revolutionary high speed rail system. It should be noted that there were plans to expand to Detroit in the west and Pittsburgh in the east.

However now that groundwork won't be laid and Ohio will have to wait for something else.

The best the Ohio lane could do would be 110MPH by 2022, and it would start at peak speeds of 79. It would share rails with freight (which would limit the speeds). Making things even get to 110 would require more modifications. Anything higher would require completely new lines, which we weren't planning on and would have cost a lot more. Note that 110MPH doesn't meet anyone's definition for HSR that I am aware of.

Overall it just wasn't a very good plan.

 

[The Painter]

Overall it just wasn't a very good plan.

Kudos to the Governor for turning it down instead of just taking it because it was there. One less "bridge to nowhere". Maybe the Governor isn't an idiot ( as some here have said ) after all. Maybe this decision was based on need and practicality and not greed.

 

[Drachasor]

Kudos to the Governor for turning it down instead of just taking it because it was there. One less "bridge to nowhere". Maybe the Governor isn't an idiot ( as some here have said ) after all. Maybe this decision was based on need and practicality and not greed.

The guy is an idiot, no doubt. He thought he could spend the money on something else that wasn't related to trains at all.

It doesn't take average intelligence to reach the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Ultimately I would love to see a HSR network go from LA to BC. Or at lest to Seattle.

 

[The Painter]

It doesn't take average intelligence to reach the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.

Sometimes all it takes is serendipity.

edit; Looking into this a little bit shows that this was an issue before the election. One of the issues he ran on. It's old news.

 

[theprestige]

I keep thinking about it, and I keep thinking that HSR is best when you have a very dense population at Point A, and they all need to get to Point B, and getting them there quickly will generate a lot of wealth for everybody involved: Point A, Point B, the HSR operator, and the investors (in this case, us taxpayers).

I mean, Japan's got a pretty dense population. China just has a lot of people, so any movement of people for the purposes of economic activity is going to be on a large scale.

But it's not like there are a lot of workers in Sacramento who need to get to a lot of jobs in San Franscisco. It's not like there's a lot of jobs in LA waiting for a lot of workers in Fresno.

Indeed, while California doesn't seem to have a shortage of workers, it doesn't really have a lot of jobs, nor does it seem interested in producing more jobs in the future.

Maybe the HSR will connect homeless people in Northern California with Welfare checks in Southern California?

 

[TragicMonkey]

I wish they'd do something to connect the major cities on the East Coast with a supertrain. That would be awesome, and would get millions of people off of I-95.

 

[drkitten]

I keep thinking about it, and I keep thinking that HSR is best when you have a very dense population at Point A, and they all need to get to Point B, and getting them there quickly will generate a lot of wealth for everybody involved: Point A, Point B, the HSR operator, and the investors (in this case, us taxpayers).

I mean, Japan's got a pretty dense population. China just has a lot of people, so any movement of people for the purposes of economic activity is going to be on a large scale.

But it's not like there are a lot of workers in Sacramento who need to get to a lot of jobs in San Franscisco. It's not like there's a lot of jobs in LA waiting for a lot of workers in Fresno.

No, but there is a huge amount of of business travel between SF and LA. High-speed rail generally isn't for commuters, but for businessmen. That particular corridor is one of the more heavily travelled flight lanes, for example. HSR has the potential to be both faster and cheaper than a train for those business flights.....

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

I keep thinking about it, and I keep thinking that HSR is best when you have a very dense population at Point A, and they all need to get to Point B, and getting them there quickly will generate a lot of wealth for everybody involved: Point A, Point B, the HSR operator, and the investors (in this case, us taxpayers).

Southern and central California from the coast to just east of the I5 corridor has a transportation problem. Generally speaking the roadways can accomodate the traffic density of ten years prior. The system is in a perpetual state of expensive catch up.

I mean, Japan's got a pretty dense population. China just has a lot of people, so any movement of people for the purposes of economic activity is going to be on a large scale.

It is true that China, Japan and even the eastern seabord of the US has a denser population than the area we are speaking. Still, it is a very dense area of population we are speaking of and it is likely to get more dense in future decades.

But it's not like there are a lot of workers in Sacramento who need to get to a lot of jobs in San Franscisco. It's not like there's a lot of jobs in LA waiting for a lot of workers in Fresno.

Not necessarily true. The cost of rent or even the cost of parking in San Francisco is enough that I have known people to turn down job offers that included a 20% pay raise. Increasing the mobility and decreasing the cost of said mobility of especially the unskilled or the lowered skilled workforces could have a positive impact on the economy and the economy of the surrounding areas.

Indeed, while California doesn't seem to have a shortage of workers, it doesn't really have a lot of jobs, nor does it seem interested in producing more jobs in the future.

I would agree there is a labor over supply and work under demand in California. I think increasing the mobility would help in meeting the flucuating demands of labor across the state. Especially if it was easier to work in one city without having to move. I was last down there before the current recession. There was recovery going on in the engineering sectors hurt badly by the dot com crash. A major barrier for individuals I knew personally was a seeming necessity to move to fill a new job, especially in smaller and start up companies that had questionable futures.

Maybe the HSR will connect homeless people in Northern California with Welfare checks in Southern California?

It also might connect major shopping centers and tourist attractions with other populations. Currently it is more economic in time and cost to take a vehicle over a train along the I5 corridor if there or two or three people. If HSR takes off and spreads I could see this rising to only being true for at the three to five people mark. Especially as the cost of personal auto ownership increase. Even though we are talking about California at the moment I am very excited at the prospects of connecting southern and central California with Portland and Seattle in the future. That would better my concert opportunities!

 

[WildCat]

Yes it seems that new governors of Wisconsin and Ohio have turned down money from the Feds for high speed rail and so the FRA has reallocated that money to California and Florida. What's strange is that both of them ran on "create jobs" campaigns. Apparently they just drew the line at any jobs that have anything to do with Commie Public Transportation. Wisconsin's idiot elect Walker apparently thought he could just use the high speed rail money for more roads.

Nope. Instead their $620 million will go to California where we are committed to building a functioning high speed rail system that will be whisking people from San Diego to San Francisco and Sacramento by 2025. Along with it will be 160,000 jobs plus cleaner air!

Thanks Tea Party idiot Governors!

Problem is it wouls have cost those states far more than the $620 million., and the "high-speed rail" (in scare quotes because this is anything but) will be a big money-loser. Sometimes you do need to look a gift horse in the mouth.

Let California be the test for high-speed rail, if it fails big I'm sure they'll be running to the feds for yearly bailouts/subsidies. But at least we won't be all-in nationwide on this white elephant.

 

[WildCat]

I hope some of that money makes it to Houston to fund the expansion of our light rail network.

The money wold be far better spent on maintaining existing light rail networks, but that's not nearly as sexy as "high-speed rail!!!!!!!!!!!!" so we'll spend billions on high-speed rail nobody will use while the light rail, which is heavily used, falls apart from lack of maintenance. Chicago's (in many cases) 100-year old light rail needs a lot of work right now, but there's no money to fix that.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Problem is it wouls have cost those states far more than the $620 million., and the "high-speed rail" (in scare quotes because this is anything but) will be a big money-loser. Sometimes you do need to look a gift horse in the mouth.

I would agree that not every area is a good spot for "HRS" to start up in the US.

Let California be the test for high-speed rail, if it fails big I'm sure they'll be running to the feds for yearly bailouts/subsidies. But at least we won't be all-in nationwide on this white elephant.

California does seem to me to be a perfect place to test this. As is the eastern sea board. As for yearly bailouts/susbsidies, isn't California a donor state?

The money wold be far better spent on maintaining existing light rail networks, but that's not nearly as sexy as "high-speed rail!!!!!!!!!!!!" so we'll spend billions on high-speed rail nobody will use while the light rail, which is heavily used, falls apart from lack of maintenance. Chicago's (in many cases) 100-year old light rail needs a lot of work right now, but there's no money to fix that.

I would agree that maintaing and expanding light rail is also a good idea. We should not be abandoning these systems to enact HSR. I imagine they could compliment each other well. A little more expansion of the light rail in the Beaverton/Portland area and I would barely need a car at all. As is my primary use for my car is my work commute and grocery shopping. Considering how much I buy at once in groceries if there was a better connection at the times I shop I would not need my vehicle for that. I would definitely give up my 20 minute work drive commute for a 30 or 40 minute bus/light rail commute. I have done it in the past.