Calif. Leads in Push for High-Speed Rail

(CBS)  Could high-speed rail one day come to a city near you? In his State of the Union address this week, President Obama proposed billions for rail transit to create jobs of the future. But as CBS News correspondent John Blackstone reports, the challenge is convincing Americans to give up their cars.

In Davis, Calif., Marty Devault starts his day facing a long and brutal commute. It is some 75 miles from his home near Sacramento to his office in San Francisco. The freeway is routinely jammed. but Devault doesn't sit stewing in traffic. He climbs on a commuter train and settles in for a relaxing hour-and-a-half ride.

"This is a much more civilized way to travel," he said.

Civilized, yes - but imagine how much more civilized this it could be. California envisions a network of trains crossing the state within 10 years. The trains would run up to 220 miles an hour, making the trip from San Francisco to Los Angeles in 2 hours, 40 minutes. It's a six hour drive.

The plan got a big boost Thursday when President Obama announced $8 billion in grants for high speed rail - with the biggest chunk going to California.

"The state of California is getting $2.3 billion towards our high speed rail project this is really great great news," California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said recently.

That's a small part of the $42 billion price tag, but to get construction started on the planned 800 miles of track, California voters have already approved almost $10 billion in bonds.

"The people have understood the difference between spending and investing in our future, and building the high speed rail is investing in our future," Schwarzenegger said.

"I would say it's almost like building the original railroad from east to west," said Tony Daniels, the project manager for California's high speed rail initative. "This is a massive project."

Daniels knows what a battle it has been to bring super-fast trains to the United States. He moved here from England 30 years ago with dreams of modernizing American rail travel

"China does it. All Asia does it. The Japanese, the French, the Germans - Why not us?" he said.

Daniels says building high speed trains is more economical than building more roads or expanding airports.

"It's taken a long time for finally the U.S. to turn around and recognize that there's another mode of travel like this that can save billions of dollars," he said.

But critics say the plan is on track to waste billions of dollars on trains most Americans won't use.

Dedicated train riders like Marty Devault do see promise in high speed rail - but American travelers now largely ignore train travel as an alternative even as they crawl on crowded freeways. The challenge for high speed rail is to change America's entrenched car culture.

[breadymiller]

I am assuming that this train will slow down going through towns? Like Palo Alto, Redwood City, etc.

[wsclaus]

The reason people prefer cars to trains is largely that American trains are slow, tracks are bad, and there are few routes available on which to ride. We've been way behind the Europeans, Asians and other parts of the world for decades. Give us high-speed, comfortable, safe trains with plenty of routes to choose from, and you'll see a huge flock of Americans leaving their cars in their garages when they need/want to travel. Traveling by train in Europe is a dream: comfortable, relaxing, fun and FAST. Why risk your life on the interstate or the Autobahn and arrive tense and exhausted? And, of course, no expensive gas to buy, and no being squished in economy class in a plane. Think of it! --W. Clausing, Portland, OR

[WakeUpC22]

If we can manufacture an economically feasible car train then that would be the most useful. http://www.seat61.com/Motorail.htm The problem with that however is how to make it economical...

[Noval53]

America has a third world rail system when it comes to passenger service. Oil companies, auto & tire manufacturers, and airlines have all conspired together for decades to keep it that way. They have succeeded; so now we're stuck with terrible traffic in many cities, high fuel prices, and disgustingly awful air travel service. With all of Europe's flaws, they have excellent rail passenger service. Building fast rail will create jobs, cut fuel use, reduce traffic & pollution; so that we can continue to drive at our leisure.

[John_Hardisty]

No doubt the long-term success of high speed rail systems and whether they are worth the investment will be debated for years, maybe decades. And there are serious questions about the build-out of the systems now slated to receive federal stimulus billions. But this ?seed money? will get projects going. The scramble will be on as to how this money is allocated. Watch California, particularly the state?s flat, rural Central Valley. It is being eyed as the location for a test track to certify 220 mph trains that will be used throughout the country. The track will need a ?heavy maintenance facility,? which comes with 1,500 high-paying jobs and revenue projections for local government agencies and support businesses. Adding to these ?rewards? are temporary construction jobs and material/equipment purchases. Proposals for 15 sites in the Central Valley already have been submitted to the California High Speed Rail Authority, which is expected to make a selection in 15 months. A fierce political and public relations battle between communities to win this coveted economic development prize already is shaping up.
John Hardisty
Bakersfield
http://www.svs2help.com

[erich_1-2009]

"California envisions a network of trains crossing the state within 10 years. The trains would run up to 220 miles an hour, making the trip from San Francisco to Los Angeles in 2 hours, 40 minutes. It's a six hour drive."

Current cost analysis is showing that it is less expensive to fly Southwest Airlines from San Francisco to Los Angeles than a Bullet Train. Southwest charges $72 after all fees Roundtrip from S.F. to L.A. An Airline can do the trip from San Francisco to Los Angeles in around 45 minutes not the 2 hours, 40 minutes proposed by the Train. ...and then there is that matter of the Billions of Dollars...I don't care that we passed a Proposition for this, we don't have the money!

[Scola2]

Yeah right. Even if you could pay me to take Southworst, it's more like an hour and 15. Add to that from downtown San Francisco to SFO takes around 35 minutes, longer at rush hour. Then you need to be at the airport at least an hour in advance to get through the security line. Fly to LAX. Now wait 10-15 minutes to get to the gate after landing. Then allow 20 minutes minimum to get your rental car. Then it might be 45 minutes or more to get to downtown LA. End to end you are well over 3 hours.

There are lots of things California should cut funding for before we kill the engines of our future prosperity. Our bloated prison system jumps to mind.

[Cyber998]

Because it's not like airports and airplanes don't cost billions of dollars.

See how long the domestic airlines last without all their federal subsidies (tax-free fuel and multi-billion loans are just the start). San Fran airport alone has many billions of dollars in bonds owing.

[eus109937]

The San Francisco bay area trains are packed, the new LA area trains are packed, the Northeast cooridor trains are packed, the NYC and NJ trains are packed, Chicago area trains are packed, Toronto and Montreal area trains are packed. Put them in and people will use them; there is no doubt about it. Now is the time; this country should no longer wait for more rail lines.

[ffoulkes-2009]

Only put them where people are packed, and people will use them..otherwise...

[RobAla]

Sounds like a cool thing, except for the fact that we don't have the money. We have to get rid of this national debt or we are all in deep doo-doo. We need to cool it on new programs, until we get the spending under control. The US is not Europe, and I am unsure as to how many people would ride. AMTRAK is in trouble.

[us_1776]

And do you think this country has the luxury to have people stuck for hours and hours in rush hour traffic? Or has the luxury to burn enormous quantities of gasoline while people are stuck in traffic? Or have our goods and services stuck in gridlock as well? The cost of all these inefficiencies plus the costs of trying to build wider and wider roads far exceeds the cost of putting in these rail systems.

[us_1776]

The only issues with Amtrak and other rail systems currently is that we do not have good railbed AND the network is not large enough to attract more riders.

I grew up in an area with great commuter rail with a large network and the cars were always over half-full and over-full at rush hour.

What caused the demise of good rail networks was the bribes that were being handed out by the Detroit automakers to county and city politicians back in the 40's and 50's. And many of us were dumbfounded when we saw them tearing out track and dismantling a perfectly good rail system. And what did we get instead? Tons of smog and pollution, rush hour gridlock, more fuel required to move the same number of people because each person now had their own 3,000lb. car. Getting rid of our commuter rail systems was one of the dumbest things we ever did in this country. And finally we are seeing that we can no longer expand our way out of the gridlock problem. Making 16-lane interstates doesn't work because the secondary roads cannot handle the traffic either. The only way that works is to take pressure off of the highway system by augmenting our transportation with commuter rail.

[fedup12]

Rail infrastructure is something we should be investing in. Letting our rail system go to he!! is one of the stupidest things we have ever done.

Get them darn inefficient big rigs OFF our roads.

[timdgrim]

Right you are. To let the rail system deteriorate was a big mistake.
18 wheel trucks should mostly be used for short haul delivery, from rail system distribution point to final destination.

[retm-w]

Sure let's put some more people out of work (truck drivers). We haven't lost enough jobs, now you want to cut more. They already use rail for long distances, ever see how many trailers are hauled by rail? High spped rail has been talked about for years, and the research says enough people won't use it to make it cost effective. Just like Amtrak.