First California High Speed Train approved

[Sesc]

From LA to San Francisco in 2.5 hours. Link.



(Larger version)

So ... welcome to this century? Of course, you don't have the money yet, you'll start the tracks in the middle of nowhere, and it'll take 15 years to finish it. But still, congrats

And now be nice and buy German quality engineering.



That beauty can reach 250mph. You do want the fastest produced train in the world, do you?

[Sree]

On one hand, I live in northern California, and my parents and a lot of friends live in southern CA. This would be a godsend to me, driving 350 miles is a bitch, especially if you hit LA traffic. A lot of people make this trip as well, so this would save a lot of gas.

On the other hand (being a student in this state) it's annoying as fuck. Year after year they cut classes in universities. UC tuition is rising higher and higher to the point of absurdity. We can't afford to educate our future, but hey, lets at least spend 69 billion dollars to make sure we can send our future from LA to San Francisco without the need for cars or planes.

[calutron]

Depending on how they give out the contracts, most of the money can be re-circulated within the US.

[KHAAAAAAAAAAN!!]

Well, those trains sure as shit better have earthquake sensors.

[Lightfighter]

The idea is pretty damn cool, and should it somehow (against all odds) get completed while I'm still in school in Cali, it'll be very useful besides. But alas, I don't really see that happening, considering the state's massive deficit (reflected in my constantly increasing tuition...) and the inevitable years of red tape and bureaucracy.

[Fiat]

Meanwhile, in California...

[Lutris]

Originally Posted by KHAAAAAAAAAAN!!

Well, those trains sure as shit better have earthquake sensors.

Well, our bullet trains seem to manage well enough.

[Midknight]

O.o ..weren't they the state that was sending gov workers home 4 days a week so they could save money on the electricity bill they already couldnt pay for???

[KHAAAAAAAAAAN!!]

Originally Posted by Lutris

Well, our bullet trains seem to manage well enough.

That's because your bullet trains have earthquake sensors.....

[Xiph0]

I'm all for this. Anyone who lives in CA knows how fucking long this state and how shit awful a drive it is (~700 miles top to bottom, or 1,126 km). Being able to kick back on a train and read a book instead, and get there faster would be awesome.

O.o ..weren't they the state that was sending gov workers home 4 days a week so they could save money on the electricity bill they already couldnt pay for???

Building infrastructure will bring in jobs and in the future, much more investment from foreign companies. That and the Fed is helping us pay for it in large part. If the Prop passes in November allowing property taxes to be raised [raises were banned in 1970, it's a huge reason for our budget problem] we should be okay.

[VeritasK]

I thought you needed more infrastructure for this wonder...

[Warlocke]

Originally Posted by VeritasK

I thought you needed more infrastructure for this wonder...

For the trains and everything else in this country, it seems.

Though, if one ran through my town, I'd railroad it like the Hogwarts Express.

[Darth Kali]

I wish they would do something like this on the east coast. Less bullety, but more efficient. And certainly not the old, slow trains that currently share tracks with CSX.

[Darth_Revan]

Originally Posted by Darth Kali

I wish they would do something like this on the east coast. Less bullety, but more efficient. And certainly not the old, slow trains that currently share tracks with CSX.

I wish they would, but I doubt it will happen any time soon. The stupidest thing our country ever did was rip up so much of our rail infrastructure when Eisenhower pushed through the Interstate Highways Act. The automobile would be the saviour of mankind! Who needs trains when you can have your own cars and drive in 8-lane logjams to work every day!?!

Turns out that 50 years later, a lot of people would like them back, but the East Coast is so damned built up that you would have to eminent domain thousands of properties and take 20 years to build it back again. Not to mention the cost, or the political capital.

I can wish, but in the meantime, I just fly everywhere.

[Darth Kali]

Originally Posted by Darth_Revan

I wish they would, but I doubt it will happen any time soon. The stupidest thing our country ever did was rip up so much of our rail infrastructure when Eisenhower pushed through the Interstate Highways Act. The automobile would be the saviour of mankind! Who needs trains when you can have your own cars and drive in 8-lane logjams to work every day!?!

Turns out that 50 years later, a lot of people would like them back, but the East Coast is so damned built up that you would have to eminent domain thousands of properties and take 20 years to build it back again. Not to mention the cost, or the political capital.

I can wish, but in the meantime, I just fly everywhere.

This. There are so many places that dried up and died because of the closing of train stations from the 50s to the 70s. Now urban sprawl is pushing people back out to these locations. I wonder if the technology is available to make an expanded underground system in the East Coast...

[TRH]

Originally Posted by Darth Kali

This. There are so many places that dried up and died because of the closing of train stations from the 50s to the 70s. Now urban sprawl is pushing people back out to these locations. I wonder if the technology is available to make an expanded underground system in the East Coast...

DIgging out underground rail tunnels are expensive as fuck; that's the reason a lot of places use elevated train tracks instead of subways. As for building one along the East Coast, if political pundits had their way something like that would have been built ten years ago; seriously, just trawl through Thomas Friedman's NYtimes columns - every third one whines about how there should be high speed rail from Boston to Washington. The sad fact is that so long as most Americans think there's no difference between a governmental budget and a family one, we won't be seeing any large-scale infrastructure spending.

[Wildfeather]

Can you clarify the difference? It seems to me that a family budget would include long-term planning (like increased education, increase fuel efficiency, reliable transportation) using different terms, but the same ideas.

[TRH]

Originally Posted by Wildfeather

Can you clarify the difference? It seems to me that a family budget would include long-term planning (like increased education, increase fuel efficiency, reliable transportation) using different terms, but the same ideas.

Well, what I meant specifically was that whereas a family generally has limits on the amount of money it can borrow, a national government does not, and this is especially true of the US government, since thanks to the Euro crisis investors are falling all over themselves to buy up Treasury bonds, resulting in extremely low interest rates despite all the borrowing. People still trust America to service its debt, far more so than they would, say, Spain or even France. As such, we have a much greater capacity for deficit spending than most people realize. They just keep going "we're broke, we're in debt, that means we can't pay for anything anymore". That's what I meant.

[Rin]

Originally Posted by TRH

Well, what I meant specifically was that whereas a family generally has limits on the amount of money it can borrow, a national government does not, and this is especially true of the US government, since thanks to the Euro crisis investors are falling all over themselves to buy up Treasury bonds, resulting in extremely low interest rates despite all the borrowing. People still trust America to service its debt, far more so than they would, say, Spain or even France. As such, we have a much greater capacity for deficit spending than most people realize. They just keep going "we're broke, we're in debt, that means we can't pay for anything anymore". That's what I meant.

There's also that fictional bullshit number that supposedly each person owes. It's bullshit because people owe their taxes based on various idiomatic factors. Just because evenly distributing the debt might make it seem like I, and everyone else, owes, say, $35,000, doesn't mean anyone in particular owes it. It's a scare tactic that has no practical value in the real world. This ain't a restaurant tab that everyone splits evenly.

[TRH]

Originally Posted by Rin

There's also that fictional bullshit number that supposedly each person owes. It's bullshit because people owe their taxes based on various idiomatic factors. Just because evenly distributing the debt might make it seem like I, and everyone else, owes, say, $35,000, doesn't mean anyone in particular owes it. It's a scare tactic that has no practical value in the real world. This ain't a restaurant tab that everyone splits evenly.

Agreed. Most misinformation you get from following policy debates of any sort hinge less on direct falsehoods and more on the flaws in the metaphors that you use to grasp the issues involved.