California government approves beginning construction on high-speed rail line from LA-SF

[Drex]

California high-speed rail gets green light

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- California lawmakers gave the green light to start building the nation's first dedicated high-speed rail line, a multibillion dollar project that will eventually link Los Angeles and San Francisco.

The move marked major political victories for Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown and the Obama administration. Both have promoted bullet trains as job generators and clean transportation alternatives.

In a narrow 21-16 party-line vote that involved intense lobbying by the governor, legislative leaders and labor groups, the state Senate approved the measure marking the launch of California's ambitious bullet train, which has spent years in the planning stages.

"The Legislature took bold action today that gets Californians back to work and puts California out in front once again," Brown said.

Brown pushed for the massive infrastructure project to accommodate expected growth in the nation's most populous state, which now has 37 million people. State and federal officials also said high-speed rail would create jobs.

"No economy can grow faster than its transportation network allows," U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement. "With highways between California cities congested and airspace at a premium, Californians desperately need an alternative."

The bill authorizes the state to begin selling $4.5 billion in voter-approved bonds that includes $2.6 billion to build an initial 130-mile stretch of the high-speed rail line in the agriculturally rich Central Valley. That allows the state to draw another $3.2 billion in federal funding.

The first segment of the line will run from Madera to Bakersfield.

Senate Republicans blasted the decision, citing the state's ongoing budget problems. They said project would push California over a fiscal cliff. No GOP senators voted for the bill Friday.

The final cost of the completed project from Los Angeles to San Francisco is projected to be $68 billion.

"It's unfortunate that the majority would rather spend billions of dollars that we don't have for a train to nowhere than keep schools open and harmless from budget cuts," Sen. Tom Harman, R-Huntington Beach, said in a statement.

Dan Richard, chairman of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, which is managing the project, said California would have lost billions of dollars in federal aid if the Senate fails to pass the bill before adjourning Friday for a monthlong recess.

California entered a contract that called for the federal government to provide money for building the Central Valley segment if the state also put up its share, he said.

"Not only will California be the first state in the nation to build a high-speed rail system to connect our urban centers, we will also modernize and improve rail systems at the local and regional level," Richard said Friday.

California was able to secure more federal aid than expected after Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin turned down money.

Before Friday's vote, at least half a dozen Democrats in the 40-member Senate remained opposed, skeptical or uncommitted. Some were concerned about how the vote would impact their political futures, while others were wary about financing and management of the massive project.

In recent days, Democratic leaders included more state funding to improve existing rail systems in an effort to entice support for the bullet train.

The bill authorizes the state to sell nearly half of a $10 billion high-speed rail bond that voters approved four years ago under Proposition 1A. In addition to financing the first segment of high-speed rail, it allocates a total of $1.9 billion in bonds for regional rail improvements in Northern and Southern California.

The upgrades include electrifying Caltrain, a San Jose-San Francisco commuter line, and improving Metrolink commuter lines in Southern California.

One dissenter, Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, said public support had waned for the project, and there were too many questions about financing to complete it.

"Is there additional commitment of federal funds? There is not. Is there additional commitment of private funding? There is not. Is there a dedicated funding source that we can look to in the coming years? There is not," Simitian said.

The Bay Area Council, a group of business leaders from the San Francisco Bay and Silicon Valley areas, cheered the vote.

The bill, which already passed the state Assembly, heads to Brown for his signature.

The problem? It's nothing like what they originally proposed in 2008.

Here's what opponents have to say:
5 Reasons the California High-Speed Rail Project Shouldn't Get More Money

Some of the biggest problems:
1) To cut costs, the plan was changed so that it would utilize non-highspeed railroads in some parts instead of building new, dedicated high-speed lines
2) Their estimates on the speed of the train are far too high: the actual trip will probably take 2-3x as long as voters were assured
3) The cost of tickets is now estimated as twice what was proposed originally
4) Even with the reduced costs, it will cost twice as much as what was proposed originally
5) According to research by UC-Berkeley, it will take 70 years of use to make up for the greenhouse gas emissions produce during construction. If it's not popular, it will never make up for the environmental damage done. The rail will cost 36 times as much as the UN recommends for worthwhile greenhouse gas reduction efforts.

I love the idea of high-speed rail, but this seems like a horrible implementation of it.

[aurik]

Infrastructure investments are always a good idea in a flagging economy.

[Demosthenes11]

The republicans in this state gutted the real idea / bill and this is what we are left with. Like Mr. Stewart says, republicans fuck things up to a terrible level and then complain when shit's broken

[BaneTheBrawler]

We had a similar project floating around here in MN, connecting Rochester (And the Mayo Clinic) to the Twin Cities, which I think would be pretty goddamn awesome. There's a lot of cool shit to do in the cities, but it's a two hour drive at the minimum. This would make it more practical to go fuck around up there for a day. Plus, it would probably get a fair amount of business from Mayo alone. I dunno what happened to it, though. Probably got gutted, same as that one.

[archibaldcrane]

We had a similar project floating around here in MN, connecting Rochester (And the Mayo Clinic) to the Twin Cities, which I think would be pretty goddamn awesome. There's a lot of cool shit to do in the cities, but it's a two hour drive at the minimum. This would make it more practical to go fuck around up there for a day. Plus, it would probably get a fair amount of business from Mayo alone. I dunno what happened to it, though. Probably got gutted, same as that one.

Wisconsin gutting the Twin Cities>Madison>Milwaukee>Chicago part of it hurt it plenty I'm sure. Ironically, Wisconsin turning down that money helped California snag extra federal funds.

Side note:

We've been building railways for over 120 years. How the fuck is this one this expensive and slow to build? Need to import some chinese up in this bitch.

[Correction]

How the fuck is this one this expensive and slow to build?

There's a reason the CLF loves this project.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

If the cost overruns are similar to other govt. cost overruns, it will only end up costing Cali $400 billion dollars.

[Jaybar]

There are a few cheaper alternatives to a high-speed rail that give the same benefits. I don't know what our fixation is on high-speed rail when our inner-city and suburb->city transportation is lackluster. I don't know what the situation is over in Cali, though, as far as transportation from LA < - > SF . Do a lot of people commute on that route or is this just some way to get bored people from LA into SF?

[BaneTheBrawler]

Unless I am mistaken that stretch of highway is among the busiest in the world.

[Cantih]

Any route going in our out of LA will be plenty busy.
I've seen a traffic jam on the LA/Vegas route, BETWEEN the cities.

[Churchill]

Unless I am mistaken that stretch of highway is among the busiest in the world.

I-5 isn't bad until you get to the mountains north of LA, then it's a fucking nightmare and that highway is in complete disrepair

[Warudo Ecksu]

I-5 isn't bad until you get to the mountains north of LA, then it's a fucking nightmare and that highway is in complete disrepair

I've driven down I-5 at 90MPH with no issues till those mountains, and other trips I've just dealt with unbearable traffic all the way down 5. I guess it probably depends on time of day and year. But yeah those mountains fucking suck. Traffic can get backed up pretty badly causing it to take an extra 45 mins to get to LA. Not to mention traffic in LA is always bad no matter what. Likewise, traffic in/out of San Francisco is a complete nightmare. I really hate driving to either city.

$80-120 one way to get to LA in just under 4 hours sounds like a waste. It's a 5 hour drive from south bay and only $30 in gas for my car. I think I'd only make use of this "high speed train" if I was being extra lazy.

[Jaybar]

I can see that 4hrs being good for businessmen - capable of working or spending some leisurely time in place of driving. Of course, that's always a perk with trains. But the cost...

[Warudo Ecksu]

well a round trip flight is $150 and is only an hour. I'm sure that would be the route most businessmen take. Train just seems useful for a last minute emergency unless they drop the price.

[archibaldcrane]

It'll be pretty fucking cool if they ever do finish it though.

http://www.cityofsancarlos.org/image...d-rail-map.jpg

[Salodin]

Cool yes, but at that cost, what's the point? Better areas to invest in infrastructure then a railroad like that.

I mean,once you get there you're still stuck walking around or taking the current busses and trains to get around. This doesn't seem to solve the congestion problem unless they fix the current issues they have now.

[Acturus]

The republicans in this state gutted the real idea / bill and this is what we are left with. Like Mr. Stewart says, republicans fuck things up to a terrible level and then complain when shit's broken

Ditto in Florida. We voted for it in 2010. Rick Scott comes into office and gives the middle finger to the federal funding for our light rail, then green-lighted the project with state-only funds. It's on a much smaller scale, and it's using a lot of the existing infrastructure.

[archibaldcrane]

Cool yes, but at that cost, what's the point? Better areas to invest in infrastructure then a railroad like that.

I mean,once you get there you're still stuck walking around or taking the current busses and trains to get around. This doesn't seem to solve the congestion problem unless they fix the current issues they have now.

My main interest in it is easy trips to SF, so that's not a problem for me - their existing transit is pretty solid.

[Melena]

I-5 isn't bad until you get to the mountains north of LA, then it's a fucking nightmare and that highway is in complete disrepair

Found out 3 weeks ago when the Wife and I drove to Disneyland that they are doing construction on I5 now. Leaving Anaheim had a good five mile stretch that was pretty much a parking lot.

[Ashmada]

According to research by UC-Berkeley, it will take 70 years of use to make up for the greenhouse gas emissions produce during construction. If it's not popular, it will never make up for the environmental damage done. The rail will cost 36 times as much as the UN recommends for worthwhile greenhouse gas reduction efforts.

They're being so pessimistic. I'd estimate them making up the cost in greenhouse emissions in a single year from the loss of population due to stabbings alone.