Consumer
Elder Statesman
The concept: 220+ mph train running between San Francisco to LA, and later a branch line up to Sacramento (the state capitol for those east of the state-line). The idea is about a 2 hour trip SF to LA, without the hassle of air-travel or the time/environmental penalties of a car trip (it takes between 4-6 hours to do that trip via car, depending on traffic, although I've never done it in less than 5, "air time" is about an hour, but there's the airports to contend with on each end).
As a bonus, it would bring a lot of central valley cities where land is cheep and jobs nonexistent into commute range of Silicon Valley and jobs in LA.
It started as a 19 billion dollar project. Latest estimate is closer to 100 billion. No rail has been laid yet. The crowded ends of the line (near SF and in LA) have people lining up to say "not in my back yard". Environmental reviews are being challenged. Republicans in Congress are trying to kill the Federal funding supplement.
To me, I see this as a tremendous example of a project that the government should go ahead and build (and take that risk) for the better good, and then SELL once it is proven. No one will build it. It makes long-term sense, so it's like a Highway (btw, the cost of expanding the highways and airport capacity is more than the project cost over 25 years, not to mention the oil it all costs).
Of course, it is supposed to be paid for by bonds (already voted on and approved...but at the lower price-tag) in state and taxes from the Fed. No one wants to spend money.
So...the government's basically strapped for cash. Is this sort of project even worth it?
Oh, for comparison, the F-35 Stealth/strike fighter program costs so far: 208 Billion and counting....
As a bonus, it would bring a lot of central valley cities where land is cheep and jobs nonexistent into commute range of Silicon Valley and jobs in LA.
It started as a 19 billion dollar project. Latest estimate is closer to 100 billion. No rail has been laid yet. The crowded ends of the line (near SF and in LA) have people lining up to say "not in my back yard". Environmental reviews are being challenged. Republicans in Congress are trying to kill the Federal funding supplement.
To me, I see this as a tremendous example of a project that the government should go ahead and build (and take that risk) for the better good, and then SELL once it is proven. No one will build it. It makes long-term sense, so it's like a Highway (btw, the cost of expanding the highways and airport capacity is more than the project cost over 25 years, not to mention the oil it all costs).
Of course, it is supposed to be paid for by bonds (already voted on and approved...but at the lower price-tag) in state and taxes from the Fed. No one wants to spend money.
So...the government's basically strapped for cash. Is this sort of project even worth it?
Oh, for comparison, the F-35 Stealth/strike fighter program costs so far: 208 Billion and counting....
