US DOT awards nearly $1B for California high-speed rail construction
23 November 2011
The US Department of Transportation (DOT) awarded a $928.- million grant to the California High-Speed Rail Authority for initial construction of California High-Speed Rail. Construction will begin next year in Fresno.
The grant, when combined with voter-approved state support and previously-awarded federal dollars, will fund the construction of the first usable segment of the California system in the Central Valley. In the recently released business plan, the Authority embraced a phased implementation similar to those used for international systems.
California’s 220-mph high-speed rail system will connect to the rest of the state’s transportation network. Travelers moving throughout the state will connect to local transit and commuter service to reach their final destinations, reducing the need to add more highway trips through a state that is home to six of the ten most congested metropolitan areas in the nation. A recent study by the Texas Transportation Institute found Californians consumed more than 38 million gallons of fuel while stuck in traffic last year.
The first construction project will put more than 100,000 people to work during the next five years. Over the course of the network’s construction, more than one million jobs are expected to be created, and the economic activity spurred by the new system is expected to add up to 450,000 new non-high-speed rail jobs to the California economy by 2040.
To date, the DOT has invested $10.1 billion to put American communities on track towards new and expanded rail access and improved reliability, speed, and frequency of existing service.
High speed train will not significantly ease congestion.
As it is intended for long distance travel between cities, commuters are unlikely to flock to high speed rail. Commuters are the main cause of congestion and they mostly travel from the suburbs to the city.
High speed rail is more competition for the aeroplane than for the car.
Posted by: Arne | 23 November 2011 at 06:44 AM
As one who used to travel between San Diego to L.A. on a regular basis, I disagree. Out of desperation, i would sometimes take the train but it was an embarrasement, sometimes slowing down to a crawl (5mph) or even stopping along the way (not at a station).
No, this won't solve the congestion but it will help. People don't change their behavior (driving) until there is some reasonable alternative.
Posted by: danm | 23 November 2011 at 07:25 AM
USA needs 100,000+ miles of very high speed inter city e-trains and as many miles of commuters e-trains. At lease $2T to $5T is required or about the same as 3 Oil wars.
Funding will not come from private industries. One way to finance the construction would be with a progressive $0.005/gal/month liquid fuel tax for the next 120+ months.
Unfortunately, a country tied down with continuous political-economical-speculation-greed problems cannot take important meaningful decisions.
Posted by: HarveyD | 23 November 2011 at 07:29 AM
High speed rail might make sense San Diego to LA, but I have big doubts about it connecting Norcal to SoCal.
There are 4 airports in NorCal (SFO, OAK, SJC, SAC), and 5 in SoCal (LAX, BUR, ONT, Irvine, San Diego) that provide faster, more direct, point-to-point service. It's much easier to add flights than 600 miles of winding high-speed track. Trains are only more efficient than planes per passenger mile if the trains are relatively full of passengers. Otherwise, they're a huge sunk cost that may never be recouped.
Posted by: HealthyBreeze | 23 November 2011 at 11:10 AM
HB....Planes are by far the least efficient way to move passenger and cargo, specially over land areas. Our old ways (planes/trucks/private gas guzzlers) are using too much energy that we no longer have and we can no longer afford.
Sooner or latter, we will have to change our acquired ways based on 20 million/barrels/day for more efficient transportation/living means such as:
1) very high speed passenger e-trains.
2) high speed cargo e-trains + e-tractors at each end.
3. high speed commuters e-trains.
4. electrified city buses + light rails e-trolleys.
5. electrified cars and light trucks.
6. electrified farm and industrial machinery.
7. electrified boats and off-road vehicles.
8. clean electricity generating plants (solar, wind, wave, hydro, geothermal etc)
9. clean electricity more efficient heating (heat-pumps etc)
10. highly efficient (150+ lumens/watt) lighting.
Resistance is futile.
Posted by: HarveyD | 23 November 2011 at 12:27 PM
They say above;
"A recent study by the Texas Transportation Institute found Californians consumed more than 38 million gallons of fuel while stuck in traffic last year."
Like Anne said, this will not ease city traffic.
On the other hand, I find the concept of 220 mph streetcars intriguing.
From the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/californias-high-speed-rail-system-is-going-nowhere-fast/2011/11/08/gIQAKni2IN_story.html
November 13
THINGS JUST WENT from bad to worse for high-speed passenger rail in California. After . . voters approved a $9B bullet-train bond in 2008, officials said they could build 800-mi by 2020, for $35.7B
On Nov. 1 the state said it would cost $98.5 billion, with completion in 2033.
Some want and could not care less what it costs.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 23 November 2011 at 09:31 PM
TT:.....how can China afford to build over 100,000 Km in less than 20 years? Couldn't we do as much and even more by using some of the almost 20,000,000 Americans out of work.
Posted by: HarveyD | 24 November 2011 at 05:33 PM
China built the great wall.
Can we? - - At what cost?
Do we want to?
Couldn't we do as much and even more by using some of the almost 20,000,000 Americans out of work.
Sure, bring an unemployed nurse anesthetist from Hoboken to Fresno to carry hod.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 24 November 2011 at 10:26 PM
Rank stupidity, amplified by eco-Druid religious Hysteria. The HSS train will NEVER be finished.
There is nowhere near enough funds to even get a reasonable facsimile. So it will remain a testament to eco-druidism, much like Stonehenge.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | 25 November 2011 at 08:37 AM
TT....in the not too distant future, it will get progressively more difficult to push more and more low quality manufactured goods, junk foods and pollution on the majority.
The saturation point will soon be reached. Past that point, we may have to start to produce more general well being, cleaner environment, better more accessible health care, improved public services, more effective crime prevention (not more jails), improved, environment friendly housing, more public parks, shorter work-weeks, etc.
Our grandchildren will not necessarily want larger gas guzzlers, larger inefficient houses, more ultra large TVs, more 1-lb hamburgers, more junk food, more obesity, more pollution, more cancers, more law suits, more border guards, more border fences, more policemen, more jails, more oil wars, etc.
Past and current dreams will change. Fun driving a 4-ton gas guzzling monster at 100+ mph on public roads may soon be considered immature.
Building more efficient, much cleaner running, very high speed inter-city e-trains and commuter e-trains may be considered much more realistic and constructive.
Posted by: HarveyD | 25 November 2011 at 08:57 AM
As long as we have an economic system that it based on what is in it for ME and not US, then we will have problems. General well being does not come from the aggregate of selfishness.
Posted by: SJC | 28 November 2011 at 07:11 AM