Trains! XVI: A Personal Conflict
I found a new favourite site: Ballotpedia! It’s great: it tells you about the measure etc, arguments for and against, and the supporters, editorials, and top five contributors for and against. For instance, on Prop 5, I found I had the option of voting against George Soros or against Martin Sheen. Since Martin Sheen’s doing ads against the Death With Dignity thing up here in Washington State, I decided to not vote against him in this instance. And besides, he’s far less obnoxious than George Soros.
So now, I am at an impasse. California has no money, and I’ve already screwed over the poor BART by voting no on B, but here I am facing a huge personal crisis.
California Proposition 1A (2008)
Proposition 1A, or the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century will appear on the November 2008 ballot in California. …
Prop. 1A asks voters to approve the issuance of $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds. This would partially fund a $40 billion, 800-mile high speed train under the supervision of the California High-Speed Rail Authority. The train would run between San Francisco and Los Angeles, with Anaheim, California, designated as the southern terminus of the initial segment of the high-speed train system. Estimates are that the train system would be completed in 2030, and that it would take passengers between San Francisco and Los Angeles in about 2 hours and 40 minutes.
Supporters: Ahnuld, plus the High-Speed Rail Authority (I’ll be they are) and a coalition hired by the High-Speed Rail Authority (I’ll bet they are too). Against: the cities of Menlo Park and Atherton, plus these arguments:
• There is no guarantee the project will ever be completed.<br/> • It is a political boondoggle and a waste of money.<br/> • If politicians can’t fix the budget crisis, healthcare or the schools, why think they can build this project competently?<br/> • Proposition 1 is a creature of special interests who are notorious for their cost overruns and stand to “make billions off this scam”.
So, basically, it’s the monorail but on a statewide (California-sized statewide) scale. But it’s high speed. Why can’t we be cool tooooooooo?!
Update: Here’s the propaganda video from the California High-Speed Rail Authority:
(They kind of lost me a little when they got to the buses. I’d really rather they junked every bus in the state and built this thing instead.)
I don’t know what to doooooooooooo.
October 19th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
When in doubt, do not give any element of the government more money.
October 19th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Oh, that’s no help! Trains! High-speed trains! I’ve voted to screw the children, addicts, and BART, but these are trains! High-speed trains!
October 20th, 2008 at 12:21 am
They need a catchy tune. “Monorail! Monorail!!! MONORAIL!!!! Mono… Doh!”
Funny, they didn’t mention the Acela on the East Coast corridor (Washington-Boston), which is a re-badged TGV (Le Tren avec Gran Vitesse!!). Perhaps because even though the train could go over 200 mph, it spends most of its time doddering along at 75, and the maximum is only 150, because of the crumby track and signalling. (It’s the track and signalling which cost the most – but that’s not as sexy as a sleek new train).
In France they go so fast they make the cars on the parallel expressways look like they’re parked – and you know the typical Frenchie is pushing his Citroen to 100 mph when he can.
Anyway, I still don’t understand why they don’t go with the LA – Vegas run first. Surely they could get the casinos to “chip in” (hehe).
October 20th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
It’s ok to vote NO on the crazy ground ‘plane. It’s not a real train it’s a flying car-thing, and it’s going to cut the state down the middle lengthwise just to run it through everybody’s backyards (but mostly poor people who won’t be compensated). And there won’t be any cool dive-down hairy flying into Burbank like Southwest airlines does, there won’t be any rollercoaster fun stuff at all. It’ll be like standing in an elevator going sideways while a rich pickpocket takes your money and gives it to a friend of his who’s a drunk.
October 20th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Oh dear, under pressure from my goal of posting my ballot today, I succumbed to my baser instincts (TRAINS!!!) and voted yes… Oh dear I’m so ashamed… But… But… WHY CAN’T WE BE COOL TOOOOOOO?!
I’m a horrible fiscal conservative…
October 21st, 2008 at 3:12 am
I’ll be there for the inaugural run!
Actually, isn’t Ahnauld pretty desperate for funds right now? And the bank situation… May be a while yet.
Reminds me of my favourite line from Eurotrip. In Bratislava: “How do we get out of here? Are there any trains?”. “Oh yes. The train it comes soon. They are building it now.”
October 21st, 2008 at 1:43 pm
@ ninme -
relax, you made the right choice on BART, $300+ million/mile is simply ridiculous. Commuters on I-880 are mostly headed for jobs in the Golden Triangle bordered by 237, 880 and 101. Only some are headed for downtown San Jose. The abandoned WPML ROW between Niles and East SJ that Santa Clara county purchased a while back should be paved over and dedicated to a network of BRT routes. Sure, you’d have to run buses at 2 minute headways during rush hour to achieve the same capacity as a BART train every 15 minutes, but the cost of the extra driving staff would be peanuts compared to the debt service on tunneling straight across San Jose.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWvaaI37HU0
You also made the right choice on high speed rail, which is neither a monorail nor a maglev system. It’s simply a modern passenger railroad, just like those already in service or under construction all around the world. The cool factor actually wears off pretty quickly, which is fine – infrastructure is supposed to be dull. What matters is that HSR is useful, safe, punctual and will run on renewable electricity, with affordable fares. It will be faster than a Ferrari and competitive with air travel for distances up to 400-600 miles, with none of the hassle. The technology for running steel wheels trains at 220mph is already in service between Beijing and Tianjin in China. SNCF (France/Europe), Renfe (Spain) and NGV (Italy) all plan to upgrade from 186-200 to 220mph top speed in the next few years. The main issue is economics, not technology.
October 21st, 2008 at 11:15 pm
You’re a great comfort, Raphael. My crack about the monorail, however, was a reference not to the style of transportation system itself but the political catastrophe it became in Seattle (a vote to spend an obscene amount of money on it, an obscene car tax levied for years to come on just the cost over-runs because they spent that much money without actually doing anything), and all for what? A monorail, a total gimmick that is incompatible with any of the other forms of transportation they’re building in the area (light rail, buses), and with a design that they couldn’t even deliver on (it was turning into this mid-Soviet-era concrete thing rather than the brushed-aluminum-and-glass designed to tempt the voters into passing the damned thing in the first place).