Proposition 1A passed 53 percent to 47 percent in California on Tuesday. The network will eventually extend from Sacramento through San Francisco and L.A., to San Diego.
The bonds authorized by the proposition provide for about $10 billion or one-third of the cost for the whole system. In an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, Mark Baldassare, president of the Public Policy Institute of California, said:
Voting for bond measures like high-speed rail was an opportunity for voters to say, "Well, there is something we can do." It pointed out just how desperately Californians feel we need to make investments in the future. For it to pass at this time even by a narrow margin I think says a lot, because it was a big price tag.
Now maybe Obama will consider funding high-speed rail for the Midwest, which has been creeping along for years now. High-speed rail should be a crucial part of a plan for energy independence.
Comments
View as Flat
racc Posted 10:34 am
06 Nov 2008
This could end up being the most important vote of the election. It is better transportation and better for the environment. These are the types of solutions that we need.
This marks the movement away from cars and airplanes.
More at:
http://everyoneforever.org/blogger/labels/High%20Speed%20 ...
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:56 am
06 Nov 2008
Is this a maglev system or some 155 mph Amtrak clunker?
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:35 am
06 Nov 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:36 am
06 Nov 2008
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 11:40 am
06 Nov 2008
http://www.monorails.org/tmspages/MagShang.html
"The Transrapid in Shanghai has a design speed of over 500 km/h (310 mph) and a regular service speed of 430 km/h (267 mph). Shanghai Maglev is the fastest railway system in commercial operation in the world. Other maglev lines are under consideration in China."
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:54 pm
06 Nov 2008
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 1:39 pm
06 Nov 2008
Wonder if we should have had high-speed rail from Vancouver to California on the ballot?
In other nearby news, it looks like one county will be municipalizing their electricity (but ballot measures failed in two other counties).
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:33 pm
06 Nov 2008
http://superstructgame.org/StoryView/808
Permalink
greentiger Posted 6:15 pm
06 Nov 2008
Speaking as a northerner, here's hoping LA is ready for train commuters when this thing opens up and makes the city in the south a bit more non-car friendly.
Permalink
Duggles Posted 10:50 pm
06 Nov 2008
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/24.44.html#subj1
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:56 am
07 Nov 2008
I think the main objection to maglev locally was either that the rights-of-way would have gone where people didn't want it to go, and/or that they were afraid of the magnetic aspect, in terms of health. Mainly, I don't think maglev is worth the price, at this point -- high-speed rail does just fine.
Speaking of right of ways, some have commented previously (for instance, Wolverine), that the California system will go through Pacheco Pass, which many environmental groups in California are concerned about, some to the point of opposing the whole project.
On this web page the High-speed authority tries to defend their decision, and I'm not familiar enough with it to know the details -- although I will note that there is currently a road through that area, and train tracks often take up less than roads do, so I'm not sure why a train through that area would be any more destructive than a road.
But I think the bigger point is that the California system should have a large "demonstration effect", that is, hopefully the rest of the country will see how fast, inexepensive, and comfortable the California system is, and be more willing to push to build more. This is important because I think a high-speed rail network is a critical part of a solution to our energy problems, that is, carbon emissions and peak oil. Without this, when oil prices go back up, there will be great pressure to do some environmentally catastrophic things, like double down on tar sands, oil shale, coal-to-liquids, and ethanol. It's critical that the US move toward an electric rail-centered transportation system.
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 6:19 am
07 Nov 2008
Not fair Jon, you left out the subsidy cost. The airlines are private companies that pay expenses and stockholders out of ticket prices. Rail is nearly twice the cost of air.
"We find that for
the California Corridor air transportation, at $0.13/pkt costs, is significantly less expensive
than the other two modes overall. High speed rail and highway transportation appear close
in their average full cost, with rail costing $0.24/pkt and highway costing $0.23/pkt."
http://nexus.umn.edu/Papers/CaliforniaCorridor.pdf
"By comparison, if taxpayers manage to get away with spending "only" $40 billion building California's high-speed rail line, that amortizes out to about $2.6 billion per year over 30 years. If the rail line carries the high ridership estimate of 58 million riders per year, and they go an average of 400 miles each (probably also high), that works out to 11 cents of subsidy per passenger mile, or 15 times the subsidies to driving. (And you won't see the high-speed rail line carrying many ton-miles of freight.)
Instead of using existing highway subsidies to justify even large subsidies to rail, it is time to end all subsidies and let the transport chips fall where they may."
"in short, the Antiplanner alternative calls for funding California surface and air transportation out of user fees, not tax dollars. If, after highway subsidies are eliminated, anyone thinks they can build and operate a rail line out of user fees, more power to them. Until then, taxpayers should not have to throw good money after bad."
http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=514
Things Everybody Should Know About Energy
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:48 am
07 Nov 2008
Permalink
odograph Posted 8:52 am
07 Nov 2008
... geez think of all the solar-thermal plants we could have built for the same money.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 10:39 am
07 Nov 2008
Yeah, and just how many average joes do ya know would be willin' to vote to spend the money for that?
Don't get me wrong, it's a good idea, but chances are they'd never vote for it.
It's not "visible", and the energy tycoons would argue that it'd rack up their utility costs.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:28 am
07 Nov 2008
Or, we could split up into sectarian groups, a la "life of brian" -- I could be in the "high-speed train liberation front", and you could be in the "solar thermal liberation front"? Just a thought (and I'm sure you had other reasons that will drive me crazy).
Permalink
odograph Posted 12:26 am
08 Nov 2008
If I'm going to drive you crazy, I'll ask you for those seat mpg for operating bullet trains ... I tried dredging wikipedia for real-world bullet trains results without success.
(Note that California is in budget crisis, and not in a position to do the merely "good." There are lots of "good" things in this world. We should on the other hand be spending where we "must." That is more arguable say, to eliminate our current imports of coal-generated electricity.)
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:13 am
08 Nov 2008
Fast electric trains in tubes running in the freeway median should carry passengers and the express delivery now done with planes.
A whole new system should be mass produced in sections and installed efficiently. Do it like the original tracks and highways were built and it would be far too expensive.
With modular mass production a gravel road would accept the tube sections, then they would be backfilled in place. Compare this process to highway construction. It would be much faster and cheaper.
200 mph in a tube would be safe and energy efficient. I also think that the trains ought to be more like buses, with wheels for the highway and wheels for the tube/track.
Let the public own the tubes, like we own the highways, and let private companies or individuals own the vehicles/trains, like they own planes.
Trains can be assembled in the tube from all the individual vehicles, with air filled bumper sections to prevent any sort of deadly accidental deceleration.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:32 am
08 Nov 2008
Permalink
odograph Posted 1:38 am
08 Nov 2008
Have a good weekend though, it wouldn't be fair form me to hijack your attention. I'll try to find something later.
(amazing ... yes, 2-way freight would be another sensible but less sexy investment)
Permalink
odograph Posted 1:39 am
08 Nov 2008
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 3:46 am
08 Nov 2008
Here's the problem in a nutshell: The route over Altamont Pass would have worked just as well as the chosen, more environmentally harmful route. The decision to choose Pacheco Pass was driven by the San Jose business community whose concern was about business interests, not about the train or the environment. Unfortunately, there are very few if any high level political appointees who are not lackeys of the business class, and the High Speed Rail Authority is no exception. Their purported justification for choosing Pacheco Pass -- that it would be less environmentally harmful -- is laughable at best. The San Jose business community couldn't care less which route is more environmentally harmful, they just want more people coming to San Jose to spend money. Remember, the route originally proposed was over Altamont Pass and was not changed until the San Jose Chamber of Commerce protested San Jose's position at the end of a spur route instead of being along the main route.
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 4:36 am
08 Nov 2008
The new Boeing is expected to get about 100 seat miles / gallon. Boeing has determined that it could build hydrogen powered planes, so they could be powered by fission or fusion (sun) power. Solar to liquid is also a factor.
To fly from San Diego to Sacramento, or New York or Paris we only need two miles of concrete at each end. Compare that to the material in a rail line. Consider all the earth moving, compacting, concrete and steel work etc, using enormous amounts of diesel fuel, natural gas and coal.
Things Everybody Should Know About Energy
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 8:17 am
08 Nov 2008
While I agree it would be better if the electric system for the trains were run by renewables (and it is possible, though I doubt that's parta the plan right now), when comparin' the GHG emissions from the plants for the required energy output of the trains and stations, to the emissions from additional vehicular traffic should the trains not be built, I still think the trains would release less GHGs.
I can't think of any numbers right off-hand (and it would probably be weak to compare to another system anyway, due to differences in routes, lengths, and ridership numbers) but I'm pretty sure the numbers would swing that way.
Likewise I don't know if the EIA would detail the GHGs from powerin' the trains, but it would include a predicted number of riders and the number of vehicles taken off the roads as a result, and also would probably calculate the emissions from those vehicles.
I once made the same argument of coal plants as a caution against convertin' the automobile industry to an entirely electric-based output. Then someone on this site showed me the numbers that suggested that even with the increase in GHGs from coal plants to compensate, the reduction of GHGs from vehicles still made up for it.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 8:21 am
08 Nov 2008
Hate to break it to ya, but it takes a little more than just a concrete runway to build and operate a modern-day major airport.
Plus air travel is among the least efficient in terms of energy efficieny and GHG emissions. Much worse than either trains or cars.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 10:53 am
08 Nov 2008
As for the tracks needed, I believe that there is less room needed for a high-speed rail than for a four-lane road -- and much of that is steel, I don't know how much high-speed lines use concrete. As for hydrogen in planes, that's way, way, off, and I'm talking about a technology that has been around for decades.
Wolverine, if what you say is true than that is a tragedy -- although I can understand having San Jose being an easy link to get to. However, as unfortunately we have what I would describe as a global triage situation, it seems to me that high-speed rail is critical, and this is a critical part of getting theh US used to the idea. I'm still wondering though -- couldn't they even use the road that currently goes through Pacheco Pass? Build next to it? Does it necessarily have to destroy an ecosystem? I think pressure on them is probably a good thing, at least they will hopefully do a better job.
Permalink
odograph Posted 9:22 pm
08 Nov 2008
You understand I'm sure that they can't make such a map without assuming an MPGe, and without the CO2 intensity of our current power mix.
I'm cynical enough to think that such marketing materials will use "happy numbers" for those, which is why I'd really like a comparison to real and operating bullet trains.
We do know that US trains in general operate near 40 MPGe
On the one hand electric trains don't burn fossil fuels directly, on the other hand they suffer transmission losses from the power plants.
All told, it sounds like a slim win, if and only if the train is as efficient as promised and attracts a full occupancy.
... you know, I had the sudden idea that BioD might pop up, and we could ask him how many electric bicycles $10B would buy, and if he could calculate the CO2 saved per year by that route.
But again, I think turning off the coal plants should be a higher priority.
Permalink
odograph Posted 9:40 pm
08 Nov 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:51 am
10 Nov 2008
Permalink
odograph Posted 7:35 am
12 Nov 2008
Permalink
snedunuri Posted 10:04 pm
15 Nov 2008
Oh really? Hmm what was that $12 billion subsidy, oops, I mean bailout, er I mean help, oh to hell with it, lets just call a spade a spade, I mean welfare for the airline industry in 2001? That was about 30 times the support Amtrak ever got. And you can bet Al Queda wouldn't have been able to take out 3000 people with a train. Oh, and BTW, guess which industry is going to be lining up at the trough soon as this auto bailout is done. Hint: not Rail.
To fly from San Diego to Sacramento, or New York or Paris we only need two miles of concrete at each end. Compare that to the material in a rail line. Consider all the earth moving, compacting, concrete and steel work etc, using enormous amounts of diesel fuel, natural gas and coal.
You conveniently leave out that CO2 emissions per passenger mile from aircraft dwarf anything from a train. Who cares how much concrete got built. The real issue is what is the net benefit. And trains win handily, in terms of pollution, safety, and number of communities served.
Permalink