Since I'm on the board for my neighborhood planning group here in San Diego, I've sat through a couple presentations on this whole high speed rail plan. In a nutshell, it's a complete boondoggle.

At best it'll be at least a decade before the main links between LA and SF are done, and likely 20+ years before it reaches us down here. The saddest points were that they don't have nearly enough funding and keep talking pie in the sky hopes about getting private funding based on promises of increased traffic. The really sad point though: Their best projections had eventual ticket costs only about equal to flying! So much longer trips at the same (or possibly more) cost, in a few decades. Sign me up. Really the only positive it had was location of stations and avoiding airport issues. Makes me wonder if that's partly why they're making flying that much more a pain with the TSA stuff. Then again, I'm sure they'll extend all that crap to the trains too.

All this actually does suck, because I'd love to be able to take the train up to LA, SF or maybe even Vegas some day (and that's not even on the plans last I saw).

Aren't these the same people who whine that we can't keep spending money on "expensive" highways?

The question is, is this an investment that will pay off financially? Will it facilitate ease of travel for businesses, will it attract tourists, etc? If so, great. If not, put it on hold.

I assume some econ type people have crunched numbers?

This is just smoke and mirrors. Once again, it is make work for unions, and gives the appearance that she is doing something.

We really need to get back to politics being a part time affair, not a full time career with insane retirement benefits after 1 term, and remove the ability of politicians to vote themselves raises. And of course, every law/statute that is passed, they can't be exempt from

test of comments

The best and fastest high speed trains run in a straight line. That’s easy to accomplish in China ‘cause they tear down every obstacle and nobody says a word. Also the major Chinese cities are great distances apart. Not so easy to do in the USA because of existing infrastructure, environmental concerns, and close proximity of cities. Did I mention that we’re also broke?

"There is no end to the good that can be done with other people's money. If California wants this train, Californians should pay for it."

Won't work. The state will just borrow money to fund it, until it goes bankrupt. Either way, the taxpayers of the other 49 (56?) states wind up stuck with the tab.

Christopher, I'm not convinced that direct democracy is causing California's problems. The huge public-sector benefits were never on a proposition AFAIK. The real problem is that no form of self-government is going to work when you have a state full of spoiled brats.

And while we're on the subject, here's a curiosity question for our Blogmistress. And I'm not asking to be snarky. Amy, from what you've written, most of your work consists of telecommuting and virtual-office work that you could do almost anywhere, and the same goes for Greg. So: why haven't you bailed out of California? Do you really enjoy L.A. enough to make it all worth while?

Well before you totally dismiss it, I have seen 25 years ago one of the first operated high-speed train in the world: namely between Paris and Lyon (France), and I have seen the economical growth that came with it (specially for Lyon) (of course with different pre-train economical situation than CA). It took a few years, but nobody would go back. To put simply: once you are connected to the high-speed train, you never take the airplane again (on this line).

But once again: "Devil is in the detail".

Now to avoid been flamed: I am not glad that I left honolulu, except for one reason: they are building a train that will be ridiculously expensive for the outcome benefit(s).

PS: I also took the shinkensen in japan, it was great, and I am sure that it helped a lot the economy. But again different situation, different outcomes.

test

There is no end to the good that can be done with other people's money. If California wants this train, Californians should pay for it.

The same boondoggle has been pushed in New York. Proponents imagine a high speed rail line from NY to Albany to Syracuse to Rochester to Buffalo. I live in Syracuse and can drive to any of those cities in under 3 hours - 6 for NY, without being groped by the TSA. You know that's coming. Somebody might bomb a train. Never mind that you could drive a truck onto the tracks, no bomb needed.

What it really means is that the downstate legislators wouldn't need to put up with traffic to get to Albany. For all the good they do, I'd make them walk. Both ways, uphill, in the snow.

This is just smoke and mirrors. Once again, it is make work for unions, and gives the appearance that she is doing something.

We really need to get back to politics being a part time affair, not a full time career with insane retirement benefits after 1 term, and remove the ability of politicians to vote themselves raises

The high speed rail situation in California got its start via a ballot measure. California voters own this one as much or more than the politicians. Our proposition system is responsible for a big chunk of our budgetary mess. Direct democracy is a dumb idea. People vote for things because they sound like good ideas, but don't understand the implications of how they are funded.

Direct democracy is a dumb idea. People vote for things because they sound like good ideas, but don't understand the implications of how they are funded.

In California they do, but there are 23 other states that recognize referenda, and you don't see the excesses common to CA. Californians just aren't very good Americans. It's a shame that we can't ship them all off to Venezuela, where'd they'd feel more at home. Then we could populate the state with people who deserve to be here.

Christopher,
Then, like MarkD said, let the californians pay for it. I live in Illinois, will never use the damn thing, so why the hell should my tax dollars go to build it?

@nico,
I lived in Yokohama for several years, and used to have to travel to Yokosuka all the time. 16 miles. In traffic, it was a 4 hour commute. Rail makes more sense, due to a lack of space to build large highways. Much more practical for moving large numbers of people.

No other state is as ready, as able, or as determined to develop a high-speed rail system in the near future.

Really? Because if California was so ready, able and determined, why would they need federal funding? Ready, able and determined doesn’t seem to follow, if you need other people’s money to complete it.

As Will Rogers said, "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."

But France--sophisticated France!--has subsidized bullet trains. And national health care, for that matter. And a small military, relative to GDP.

The Japan of the early to mid 1970s (which is when the Shinkansen started - or at least was extended to the area of Japan I was in) is very different from California, or even Japan today.

There were few good roads, and many fewer private automobiles than now. The express trains that ran on the regular tracks were pretty fast - Amtrack would be jealous even now - figure half Shinkansen speeds or 60 - 70 mph average, when the roads were more like 20-30 mph. Trains were the dominant mode of transportation even then. That's important, because you can easily and inexpensively and conveniently get to the station.

Air travel was expensive and airports less convenient to reach (and this was before Narita and the $100 cab ride to city center.)

In those circumstances, with most of the country's population along one line, high speed rail made sense. I'm sure the fares will not make it economically viable for decades, if ever, for California.

Build it, and they won't come. At least not in numbers sufficient to pay for it.

It seems people are only going to wake up out of this mass-stupor when America goes broke. The "good" news is, it looks like that day is coming soon. The bad news is, it'll probably trigger another depression and take ten to twenty years to recover from, if America recovers at all. People are going to have to re-learn what poverty is before they will wake up and grasp what "there is no money" means, and how to prioritize expenditure meaningfully (not waste money on retarded things like forcing car makers to put cameras in the back).

"But France--sophisticated France!--has subsidized bullet trains. And national health care, for that matter. And a small military, relative to GDP."

France also happen to have a national debt of over $2 trillion, a debt to GDP ratio around 80% and rising (= in the red 'danger zone'), a chronic fiscal deficit, rising unemployment, and is in such financial trouble that they've recently had to institute massive austerity measures (government spending cuts) and raise their retirement age in order to keep paying for all the government programs, triggering riots as people are naturally angry that their 'free stuff' is getting cut and that they're going to have to work harder and harder for less. Oops. Guess there are limits to how much you can 'plunder, borrow and spend', even in progressive Europe.

(It's actually ironic that Europe is busy waking up to the fact that the great socialist dream doesn't work as well as they thought, and trying to move further right, just as America is doing things like socializing its health-care and making no effort to trim deficit spending, thinking it can live the great socialist dream just as Europeans are realizing it doesn't work.)

America has also been effectively subsidizing the defense of Western European countries for a long time by operating major military bases that protect the region.

The TGV (French high-speed train) incidentally is operated by a state-owned but (as I understand) privately run company that turns a profit. The math works a little better in Europe, as most the rail infrastructure investment is a sunk cost, Europe is much smaller and denser population-wise, has much lower car ownership, and already has other public transport infrastructure that allows you to get almost from anywhere to anywhere. Also, they mostly operate major routes that are very busy and generate income, not building expensive rail to Nowheresville. Also, most the development was done in the days when their economies were more productive, and the days when government actually spent money on getting things done; nowadays, in case you hadn't noticed, government spends most the money on bureaucracy and high wages and over-regulation and employee benefits and paperwork; those good old days are gone; read the following:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/opinion/12brooks.html

"Decades ago, when the federal and state governments were much smaller, they had the means to undertake gigantic new projects, like the Interstate Highway System and the space program. But now, when governments are bigger, they don’t.

The answer is what Jonathan Rauch of the National Journal once called demosclerosis. Over the past few decades, governments have become entwined in a series of arrangements that drain money from productive uses and direct it toward unproductive ones.

New Jersey can’t afford to build its tunnel, but benefits packages for the state’s employees are 41 percent more expensive than those offered by the average Fortune 500 company. These benefits costs are rising by 16 percent a year."

> And a small military, relative to GDP.

It's more that they're incompetent.

And even MORE to the point, they're France. They, like the rest of Europe, are counting on America to keep the naughty boys away.

To imagine that they can be our model is to be a father hoping to move in with his son over the garage to eat pizza and play video games.

Enjoy your very own Simpson's Monorail!

I'm left wondering when the Advice Goddess and family will flee the foundering ship of California? things will get worse - much worse - before they get better.

I lived in South Korea for two years in the late 80s. They had a semi-high-speed train between Seoul and Pusan. It would have been full high-speed if it didn't stop at almost every station in between. It was comfortable and convenient. It ran on time to the second. It stopped at those intermediate stops exactly six seconds. If you didn't jump on or off as soon as the door opened, too bad, your problem. That's the good part.

The other part is how it was paid for. They made the highway between Seoul and Pusan a toll road and the toll was higher than a train ticket, thereby boosting the passenger count. The rail system was cross subsidized by auto owners in other ways. Auto registration was the equivalent of several thousand dollars per year, imported cars carried a 50% duty, and gasoline was taxed at about $3 per liter—not gallon, liter. All this went into the government transportation pot and a lion's share went to the railroads. This also resulted in most people not being able to afford a car. Almost all private cars were driven by chauffeurs—meaning they were only for the rich. Small trucks and tractors were taxed a lower rate. Many middle class people who could show a need had a truck but no car. I saw many rural school children being taken to school on a trailer hooked to a garden tractor.

Americans can have high-speed rail if we want to live this way.

Crid-

What kind of pizza--you mean we can just order in the rest of our lives? From Nicky's Wood-Fired?
And you say this is not to be aspired to? And what would be a better existence?

I am disappointed to learn that the French, represented as so sophisticated in recent editions of this blog, are now being portrayed as douche-bag parasites of limited resolve and intellect.

I say, back to the pizza.

You know, this is just so stupid.

Forget the "High Speed!" buzz. You can't stop anywhere and still go fast. Any US highway vs the Interstate ought to show you that.

That said, there is plenty room to place trains where people want to go - in the medians of the existing interstates, and the system can be more intelligent than the passengers. Step into the station, pay via your phone or a Speedpass waved at a terminal and select where you're going, and the train can then figure out how fast to go to save energy. If only one of you are at a stop, you might have to wait for the next train, but the system can learn, too.
And so you have 30 seconds to get in or out. That's easy, too, when you have IN and OUT doors.

Lots of noise surrounds this stuff now, because the LAST damned thing anyone wants to talk about is how to move people. Something else is always more important when a camera starts rolling.

Taking France as an example of what to do in politics, military matters, and economics, is like asking the first contestant to be kicked off of Hell's Kitchen about cooking. They might sound like they know what they're talking about at first...but then their food will suck or make you vomit.

I went from San Luis Obispo, CA to LAX in March. It took six hours and numerous stops. Luckily I was able to pay for the upgrade to first class. I had to beg the porter to let me smoke at one of the stops on the deck.

I got off at the far end -- I could see my luggage (two of fifteen pieces) in the luggage car -- I had to pick it up in the luggage area over a quarter mile away.

As far as using Europe, but especially France for an example of anything:

... you know frankly, going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. You just leave a lot of useless noisy baggage behind. -- Jed Babbin

There was a Goddess Blog about some country in Europe that the income tax was about 52% of your income. No -- let me decide where and when to spend my money.

You know, it's great fun to bash on France. Interestingly enough, if you read your history, that's the way these things always go: focus on some external country/enemy/whatever. This is a way of avoiding the real issue: just how bad - really, awfully terrible - the situation at home is.

France has more debt? So what? That doesn't change the fact that the USA has far too much.

Is the only joy we can hope for watching some other country go down the crapper slightly ahead of us? Or do we, maybe, want to do something to climb out of this hole? Like: stop spending our neighbor's money (and get them to stop spending ours)?

> I say, back to the pizza.

We can tell this. We can tell it from the tone and posture of your comments. We can tell from your teenage resentment of the forces that have sheltered and ennobled you. We can tell from the shallow, consistent, spitball sarcasm in topics which mean nothing to you. We can tell from the station in life you describe, and from the nickname you've given yourself. It does not surprise us, it cannot surprise us, that you think fulfillment of responsibility is something to be mocked, and that unpleasant truth is a personal affront.

Chow down, big guy.

Why is the right wing so obsessed with France? Why not... England, or Italy, or Greece? Why always France?

On a continent of duplicitous ninnydom, the Frogs have no peers.

@Nicole -

It ain't us, sugar. It's the lefties who always say "Why can't we be more like France". Started when Billy Jeff was dippin' his wick in every pot that came along. The lefties said "Why can't we be more enlightened like France? They accept that their political leaders have mistresses."

Of course when we responded with "Why can't we be more like France? They get most of their power from nukes." the left just turned into jibbering idiots.

@randomguy -

We aren't bashing on France so much as pointing out that the left in this country is actively trying to BECOME France, while we point out that France is in a state of advanced decay and ask them "Do you really want to do that to us?"

Their answer is always "Well, we won't make the same mistakes they did." Yeah? Bull.

"We can tell this. We can tell it from the tone and posture of your comments. We can tell from your teenage resentment of the forces that have sheltered and ennobled you. We can tell from the shallow, consistent, spitball sarcasm in topics which mean nothing to you. We can tell from the station in life you describe, and from the nickname you've given yourself. It does not surprise us, it cannot surprise us, that you think fulfillment of responsibility is something to be mocked, and that unpleasant truth is a personal affront."

That's an easy target, but you write so well sometimes. (Take a lesson, Jody.)

"Why is the right wing so obsessed with France? " Well, admittedly part of it is because bashing France is just plain fun. But part of the reason the right wing is obsessed with France is because the left wing is obsessed with holding up France as a model of human perfection.

Another reason, though, is that France has since the First Republic done everything it could to undercut other Western nations, while at the same time enjoying the benefits of Western modernity. During the U.S. Civil War, France backed the Confederacy -- something the leftists seem to conveniently forget. We all know about the French government's collaboration with the Nazis during WWII. And the French Resistance was regarded as vengeful, undisciplined and incapable of carrying out non-trivial missions; they were not trusted by the Allied commanders. (Unlike, say, the Dutch Resistance, who successfully hid about 200 stranded Allied soldiers, at great peril to themselves, after the Battle of Arnhem.)

France was allowed to retain full benefits of NATO membership even after de Gualle abrogated most of France's responsibilities under the NATO treaty, a situation that caused a huge amount of resentment among other NATO members. France's govenment-owned TotalFinaElf oil company was heavily involved in the UN Oil-for-Food scandal. During the Iraq War, France sold Russian-made GPS jammers to Saddam's Republican Guard.

France isn't any better towards its fellow Europeans. France has a "super share" of Airbus that gives them control over the company, even though EADS stockholders and other investors bear the bulk of the financial burden. Airbus has a boondoggle program called the A400 military transport, basically a somewhat larger copy of the Lockheed Martin C130 (which they could have just bought). The A400 program has been going for nearly twenty years, as long as the American V-22 program, and it has yet to deliver an operational aircraft. The French government has been sucking money out of other European governments to keep this honeypot full, and there's no sign that it will ever end. (And unlike the V-22 program, the A400 isn't pioneering a radical new technology.)

And the pattern continues, Cousin Dave! Note how French courts just laid all of the blame for that Concorde crash that killed 113 people 10 years ago at the feet of Continental Airlines, and conveniently absolved Air France & French officials of any responsibility.

Mind you, plenty of other European powers supported the Confederacy. They still had colonial aspirations in the New World, and a weak, divided America would be less able to enforce the Monroe Doctrine & stand in their way.

And yet, and yet, whenever Amy Alkon sojourns to France, she absolutely gushes over the lifestyle there, and the quality of the people. Why the French top us American in all regards, by Alkon's accounts.

I would say Paris in nicer than any American city, and not by a small stretch. But then, most European cities are much nicer than most American cities. Does anyone really think that Detroit or Houston or Toledo is a nice place to live? Alkon herself says she would deign to live in only two American cities, so much of an intellectual desert America is, coast to coast. A wasteland!

By my reckoning, Italian cities are also so wonderful. Oh, for a life in Florance. Rome. Would that a man had many lives.

And in Thailand, the cities are somewhat run-down--like American cities--but the people are so much nicer. It is hard to meet a rude Thai person. They are also much more honest that Americans. Why are such a large fraction of Americans crooks, cheats and liars? Also sniveling whiners?

But back to the pizza, baby.

"You know, it's great fun to bash on France. Interestingly enough, if you read your history, that's the way these things always go: focus on some external country/enemy/whatever. This is a way of avoiding the real issue: just how bad - really, awfully terrible - the situation at home is.

France has more debt? So what? That doesn't change the fact that the USA has far too much."

Huh? That was exactly my point; I wasn't "bashing" France, and the USA's national debt to GDP is even worse than France's (and heading in an even worse direction, as I pointed out if you would actually read carefully, as at least France is cutting fiscal spending). I was merely pointing out facts against BOTU who was mockingly trying to suggest that we take France having socialized healthcare as a reason why the US should too, in a logical fallacy based argument. I like Paris, and there is plenty good about France, but I'm all about facts and truth only, that's all.

"And yet, and yet, whenever Amy Alkon sojourns to France, she absolutely gushes over the lifestyle there, and the quality of the people. Why the French top us American in all regards, by Alkon's accounts."

WTF? BOTU, this is the intellectual level of debate I would've expected from a 12-year old. It's wrong on so many levels, my mind boggles.

Meanwhile, in France...

Dude, that was before the surgeries.

Jus' sayin'

Seriously... We're cool for now.

To each their own.

Blechhhh.

I remember late the '08 campaign, or maybe during inaugural celebrations, Michelle was accused of wearing something pricey and Italian (IIRC) to a charity event of some kind; investigation proved that she's picked it up for a song in a second-hand store. She's just the sort of woman who makes things look expensive.

There's things not to like about her, but in years like these, we should be grateful for a First Lady with gentle fashion impulses. Lord knows we've had FL's who got carried away with that stuff.

I see french-bashing is again fancy. I won't give in except for the first one.

@crid: yes business was done between chirac and saddam, so now 2 questions:

1) is it not the US (reagan and later rummy) that backed-up Iraq (and Saddam) against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war? (i have read somewhere about 40 billion $ under the reagan administration)

2) What did the US gained from this war?
the following is an excerpt from some website, so i do not endorse the accuracy of the numbers, but the order of magnitude seems correct.

(The following from 2006 when we had only spent $300,000,000,000)

So, just exactly how much is $300,000,000,000? Well, it's $1,000 for every man, woman, and child in the USA. But what could you do with that kind of money other than killing people and trying to mould a country into our image, protect Israel? If GWB cared enough about this country to borrow $300 billion, what kind of things could he do with it? Let's put it into perspective:

The cost of the entire Apollo Moon Program (in 2006 dollars) -- $135 billion
The cost of tuition for al 17,000,000 college students this year -- $272 billion
Current expenditures for all public education in 2002–03 -- $388 billion
Yearly cost of all Public Libraries -- $1.1 billion
Current Gross Income of all US Airlines -- $25.2 billion (On which they made $2 billion)
Jerry Lewis MD Telethon -- $0.066 billion
American Cancer Socitey Research and Support Programs -- $0.581 billion
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) budget (a component of the National Institutes of Health, is the Nation’s principal agency for cancer research,receives its funds from the U.S. Congress.) -- $4.83 billion
Breast: $0.557 billion
Colorectal: $0.251 billion
Lung: $0.264 billion
Prostate: $0.309 billion
Twenty Year Cost to repair all the dangerous (27%) Bridges in the USA -- $188 billion
Twenty Year Cost to upgrade America's drinking water treatment plants -- $161 billion
Five Year Cost to ensure the reliability of the national power grid -- $50 billion
Clean up 350,000 chemically contaminated waste sites over the next 30 years -- $250 billion.
Fourteen Year Cost to stop sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows ( 850 billion of gallons of raw sewage annually into rivers, streams, lakes and oceans) -- $390 billion
Hurricane Katrina 2005 -- $81.2 billion
Hurricane Andrew 1992 -- $44.9 billion
Hurricane Wilma 2005 -- $20.6 billion
Hurricane Charley 2004 -- $15.4 billion
Hurricane Ivan 2004 -- $14.2 billion
Hurricane Hugo 1989 -- $12.6 billion

And then the US human loss. Dead and the guys that are back with a trauma (physical or mental)...

So there are many easy way to bash France, I humor that also since I live here and left from there for some reasons.

But when a f**** bunch of Idiotic Washingtonian war mongers increased my federal taxes on a useless war, I am NOT amused!!!!
So don't start on saddam/iraq/coward france, because there was no need to go there, and it was wrong and we all pay for this.

One last note about the "humanitarians", why do you give an interest to poor Iraqis and not the guys from myanmar, north korea, and 90% of Africa? so you the "humanitarians" do not start either! The life of iraqis sucked before, you know what, it still suck.