"The beginning of the end" was ARRA 09 and the "$8B for HSR provisions within such. Those funds should simply have been allocated amongst existing rail passenger agencies with "shovel ready" projects with the objective of "incremental improvements" with immediate employment opportunities. The rest is "Fantasyland" (a position I have consistently held since the Administration's HSR initiative began) and was "easy pickings' for the opposition.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
OK, I finally read it. No real comments, other than it was written with a predetermined conclusion.
The final paragraph, however was a leap straight into fantasyland. Maglev!! Japan and China are already building trains that run via magnetic levitation! Uhh . . . that is did, and after the experience built no more.
Nope. Maglev is a solution looking for a problem.
Yes, I am a believer in the true high speed trains. The new high speed railroads are an order of magnitude more expensive than the middling upgrades being talked about elsewhere, but the benefits are also an order of magnitude greater.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
The Wall Street Journal carries a report today that could hardly be called "optimistic" regarding the California HSR initiative:
SAN FRANCISCO—California's ambitious plan for a high-speed rail system hit a big roadblock Tuesday, as an independent panel urged lawmakers to deny authorizing the issuance of $2.7 billion in bonds to kick off the $98.5 billion project.
The California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group—which the state legislature appointed to analyze funding for the rail system—questioned the California High-Speed Rail Authority's plan to start construction without any assurance of future funding from the federal government, among other factors.
Moving ahead "represents an immense financial risk" for California, the group said in its report, echoing concerns from critics who say the project could leave state taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars in future costs. The panel appeared to leave the door open to supporting state funding in the future, if the rail authority addresses its concerns. While the report isn't binding, it puts pressure on California lawmakers as they decide whether to release billions of dollars in state bonds for the project.
Mark DeSaulnier, chairman of the California State Senate Transportation and Housing Committee, said the report is "not good news" for the high-speed rail plan.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
For your reading enjoyment, here is The Journal's editorial "take" on the developments immediately noted:
Governor Brown won't hear of such fiscal realities. His spokesman said the peer review study "does not appear to add any arguments that are new or compelling enough to suggest a change in course."
Let's not forget that his supporters in the unions, who picked up the tab for the 2008 bond campaign, love this Solyndra on rails. So does the Obama Administration, which wants to make an high-speed rail example out of California. The Golden State would merely burnish an unfortunate reputation for fiscal lunacy unless legislators, who are at last starting to raise doubts, get off this ride.
Posted by Vincent206 (Member # 15447) on :
The goal of the HS&IPR grants has been somewhat distorted by most commentators, both pro and anti. No knowledgeable person expected $8bn to build any sort of "national network of high-speed rail lines". But the end result of the grants will be improved service on some of the most essential rail corridors in America. However, the plans to build new corridors--both high speed and regular speed--seem to have died out. WI, OH and FL returned their grant money and CA HSR, despite the efforts of the governor, appears to be in serious trouble. Consequently, most of the HS&IPR (note the inclusion of the ampersand) money has been re-directed toward upgrading the most successful Amtrak corridors. Parts of Chicago-St. Louis will be running at 110mph soon. I know that isn't true HSR, but it is an improvement and it should be successful. The Vermonter is going to trim 90 minutes off its schedule time, the Downeaster is expanding, the Surfliners will be improved, North Carolina will have more service and the Cascades will be more reliable with faster trains. None of those trains will be cruising at true HSR speeds, but those trains will be serving plenty of satisfied passengers.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Wholly concur with your thoughts, Mr. Vincent, but the problem as we, and many another member of this Forum, all know is that you can't sell something to a pol or the media using phrases such as "incremental improvements". They think in terms of "$8B for High Speed Rail' - and too many of 'em are dumb enough to think for that price tag, the USA would have an HSR system on a par with any in Europe or Asia.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: For your reading enjoyment, here is The Journal's editorial "take" on the developments immediately noted:
Let's not forget that his supporters in the unions, who picked up the tab for the 2008 bond campaign, love this Solyndra on rails. So does the Obama Administration, which wants to make an high-speed rail example out of California. The Golden State would merely burnish an unfortunate reputation for fiscal lunacy unless legislators, who are at last starting to raise doubts, get off this ride.
Have a sneaking suspicion that the WSJ would have no problmem whatsoever if the money was being spent in the Northeast Corridor. Sometimes their insularity is breathtaking.