California High Speed Rail: Federal Funding Secured

McClatchy:

WASHINGTON -- California's high-speed rail plan will receive up to $624 million in additional federal funds, Transportation Department officials announced Thursday.

The new funding adds to the $715 million in federal funds previously awarded to California. It arrives courtesy of Ohio and Wisconsin, two states where recently elected Republican governors decided not to accept their own allotment of high-speed rail dollars.

Read the whole story: McClatchy

Comments

[harpo73]

09:31 AM on 12/14/2010

Japan has a kick butt rail system - why not the USA - what is wrong with us - we flounder around.

[judiNJ]

11:56 AM on 12/13/2010

Well, maybe they will get New Jersey's share, too, since the Gov. decided to throw it away. Oh, wait, I think NY has dibs on it.

[REDSTATEREFUGEE]

03:35 PM on 12/12/2010

The first link in the new high speed rail system will be completed in the Central Valley of California, which, IMHO, has been ground zero in the Great Recession, so any workers that can be employed from local communities will benefit greatly from this massive project. CV unemployment ranges upwards of 20%, so beginning there will be a welcome relief. Thanks, California Dems in Congress for helping us out.....

[Michael D Montoya]

12:49 PM on 12/12/2010

Dear Ohio and Wisconsin: THANK YOU for rejecting the high speed rail funding and giving back dollars that California had already rightfully earned but distributed to 2nd class heartland states. Rest assured we will put the money to good use and build a world class transportation system that we deserve.

It is forward thinking like ours that has built the 8th largest economy in the world --- one that carries the rest of the nation and provides welfare to conservative southern red-states.

What needs to change next is an equal amount of tax dollars coming back to California than what we put in. Meaning $1.00 taxed equal $1.00 in return benefits. The red states will whine and holler as they are welfare states but the time has come for them to stand up and be productive. We are done carrying them.

[SilentSolidarity]

12:38 PM on 12/12/2010

The right-wingers can whine all they want. California will start the construction of the first segment by the end of this year or beginning next year. The planning is there. The funding for the first sections is done.
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/

The construction of the first stations has already started:
http://transbaycenter.org/
and
www.articinfo.com/

[mamacat]

03:54 AM on 12/12/2010

Since the late 1980s Calif has paid in to D.C. about $500 billion more than what he have gotten back from D.C.
This $600 million for high-speed rail represents slightly more than 1/10 of one percent of the difference between what we have involuntarily donated to the Red states, and what we have gotten back from D.C.

It is interesting to hear all of the talk about California being bankrupt because we have a $20 billion deficit, and then to realize that we have given away $500 billion to D.C. that we didn't get back. With a little fairness in the way that the money that we put in to the kitty is taken back out of the kitty and distributed, a whole lot of other states would be in much worse fiscal shape, but California would be truly golden.

We already have the best weather in the country, now if we just didn't have to support the rest of the nation financially, we would be in great shape.

[mamacat]

04:18 AM on 12/12/2010

"we", not "he"

[SilentSolidarity]

11:32 AM on 12/12/2010

Well-said!

[frixx]

03:49 AM on 12/12/2010

I could support this project if all the manufacturing and production was to be sourced in state. In the past LA bought Japanese and Italian rail cars. California can easily build this. Certainly if Boeing can build the C-17 air transports, they can build the cars and supply jobs in state, if not its a boondoggle that will only provide jobs for others. Airline transport is very inefficient and high pollution mode of transportation. We also need to develop methods of transpo that are not reliant on middle east oil. When you factor in the cost of foreign wars to insure oil supply, the cost of oil based transportation is much higher, and isn't worth the cost of American lives.

[mamacat]

04:21 AM on 12/12/2010

In other parts of the world, much of their rail is powered with electricity. We could do the same here. If we generate our electricity cleanly, we generate jobs, clean up the air, and cut down on our trade imbalance. Around one third of our trade imbalance is for imported petroleum.

[NamithaSF]

06:59 PM on 12/11/2010

Cali's don't like trains. BART is a huge failure, always was. BART transports relatively few people and thugs like to ride it back and forth and terrorize people (RIP Oscar Grant).

[skraeling]

01:32 AM on 12/12/2010

you couldn't be more wrong....

[Michael D Montoya]

12:57 PM on 12/12/2010

You are kidding right? PLEASE tell me you are kidding. BART is a fabulous success and we can thank the forward thinking planners from the 60's who had the vision and fortitude to move the project forward despite the naysayers and malcontents. I shudder to think of what the Bay Area freeways would be like without BART, CalTrain and VTA (and even the Altamont Commuter Express and AMTRAK Trains).

Even LA's subways and San Diego's trains are packed. I think you are misinformed.

[bungle]

01:38 PM on 12/11/2010

it would be nice if the nut jobs looked thing up instead they make things up..

[itschuck2c]

05:11 PM on 12/11/2010

http://rea­son.org/fi­les/1b544e­ba6f1d5f9e­8012a8c366­76ea7e.pdf

Maybe you should study that PDF...

[Jimbo24]

04:52 PM on 12/10/2010

Poor California, just not smart enought to understand the financial burden the train will inflict on the state. Kinda makes sense now why they are bankrupt. I pray the rest of the states will not have to bail them out.

[itschuck2c]

07:49 PM on 12/10/2010

In September 2008, Reason Foundation, a non-profit public policy think tank, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and Citizens Against Government Waste published "The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report". The report projected that the final cost for the complete high-speed rail system would be $65 to $81 billion. This is significantly higher than estimates made by the CHSRA by Parsons Brinkerhoff, a British owned construction firm. It also projected fewer riders by 2030 than officially estimated: 23-31 million riders a year instead of the 65-96 million forecast by the CHSRA.
http://reason.org/files/1b544eba6f1d5f9e8012a8c36676ea7e.pdf

[Hitchcockcameo]

12:13 AM on 12/13/2010

Why should I believe any of those sources? Hired guns to give you the conclusion you pay for are hardly credible.

[thepoliticalcat]

09:58 PM on 12/10/2010

Since California's been bailing out the red states for decades, perhaps it's time to collect those dollars and hand them back. Save your sympathies for the red states who will have to sell off their entire population (although, seriously, who would take them?) to pay the accumulated debt they owe California.

[Gasparilla]

03:56 PM on 12/11/2010

A lot of that so called debt is for things like interstate highways that pass through the smaller states.

[SilentSolidarity]

04:47 PM on 12/10/2010

A great website to get more details about HSR construction. http://www.cahsrblog.com/

Republicans are whining because they know that we are moving into a better, energy-independent future while they have to accept the high gas prices, air pollution and c.rappy laissez-faire city planning.

[morris111]

09:36 AM on 12/11/2010

High speed rail will not reduce pollution by any measurable amount. It will be enormously expensive, will NEVER be profitable,and will eternally be a great millstone around the necks of Californian taxpayers. Sounds like a great idea until you start looking at thereal costs involved.

[bungle]

01:34 PM on 12/11/2010

the high speed trains all over the world are very profitable..maybe u should look it up.. but we all knew how much nuts jobs like to make things up...

[Gasparilla]

03:58 PM on 12/11/2010

You are correct. There are few, if any, profitable passenger rail lines in this country, local or interstate. The operating costs will be subsidized forever..

[itschuck2c]

04:05 PM on 12/10/2010

True cost of true high speed rail.. The TGV which is France's high speed rail system spends 15 million to build 1 kilometer of track. Or if you were to build a 62.5 mile run of track...1.­5 billion dollars.

[SilentSolidarity]

04:40 PM on 12/10/2010

And how many accidents happened? 0.
Did you count in land prices? No.
Do you know that 1 mile of light rail track costs more than high speed rail? No.

Do you mention that high speed rial is the only service that doesn't need subsidies and still has a surplus? No.

What exactly are you trying to say? Nothing.

[itschuck2c]

07:25 PM on 12/10/2010

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?? High speed rail in this country is a waste of money. The proposed high speed rail as written is limited to 79 mph, hardly high speed.
How do you that the french railway, TGV,  where I got the data did not figure in land cost??
You do realize that Europe has a population density that can support high speed rail as where the US does not? (Other than possibly the northeast corridor)
The cost of light rail construction varies widely, largely depending on the amount of tunneling and elevated structures required. A survey of North American light rail projects shows that costs of most LRT systems range from $15 million per mile to over $100 million per mile. Seattle's new light rail system is by far the most expensive in the U.S. at $179 million per mile, since it includes extensive tunneling in poor soil conditions, elevated sections, and stations as deep as 180 feet (55 m) below ground level

[morris111]

09:37 AM on 12/11/2010

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[skraeling]

01:36 AM on 12/12/2010

And, it is wonderful..worth every Euro...

[apefool]

03:06 PM on 12/10/2010

wow! the train to vegas that was shot down by the state a few years ago, is it nap time?

[ConservativeCapitalist]

02:51 PM on 12/10/2010

Libs, lilbs, libs.... so little knowledge.

The energy of the future is oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear. Quit chasing fantasies such as 19th century choo choo trains and 6th century windmills.

Are you Don Quixote? How can you call yourselves "progressives" when your ideas are REGRESSIVE?

[Bike Commuter]

02:59 PM on 12/10/2010

Ummm...oil, coal, and natural gas are some pretty old forms of energy. They also aren't forms of transportation, so your point is moot.
 
Last I checked, nuclear wasn't a form of transportation. As a matter of fact, it doesn't directly power any form of transportation that I am aware of. Although, the electricity that it generates can quite easily power high tech trains.

[Mister Wu]

06:36 AM on 12/11/2010

Nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines. Go Navy!

[AirViceMarshalPark]

03:05 PM on 12/10/2010

95% of Norway's power is generated from geothermal, ocean tide turbines, windmills and solar sources. The other 5% is from petroleum for cars and other internal combustion engines.

Don't tell me it can't be done.

[optimist7]

02:24 PM on 12/10/2010

Automakers and big oil thwarted rail development in the US. Now that the automakers have moved so many of their jobs offshore, and big oil's days are numbered, turning to alternative energy, time to return attention to modernizing the country's infrastructure to compete with the rest of the world.