Post a New Topic
Original post made
on Aug 23, 2008
It's simple. If California wants to move forward it should build the high speed rail. However, if California wishes to go backward it should not build the high speed rail.
James, it's far from simple. There's nothing simple about the proposed California High-Speed Train. You are not alone in talking about California "moving forward." How do you see the State moving forward? Is getting into deeper debt moving forward? If you can't make your current mortgage payments, would you borrow even more money to "move forward?" The State currently can't get a budget together. They are almost $20 billion in debt. They are talking seriously about raising taxes. Are more taxes moving forward? Adding to that tax burden by borrowing $10 billion more to build a train is not, in my mind, moving forward. It is building a pork-barrel project that will make hundreds of individuals very rich, and the rest of us even poorer. Do not think for one minute that this train won't hit your pocket book very hard; you and all the rest of us.
Now, about the train. They said, ten years ago, it would cost a total of $23 billion. And, it would be paid for by a sales tax. Now, ten years later, they are saying that it will cost $45 billion. The down payment and that's all it is, a down payment will be the $9.95 billion bond issue. That bond issue will cost twice as much during the life of the bonds. Cost who? You and me, James. Now, here's the hard part. They say $45 billion. We actually know that it will cost three times that much, well over $100 billion. Who will pay for that, James? You and me. That is not moving forward. That is building a boondoggle with other peoples' money. That's a scam. That's the gravy train. That's not moving forward.
You are assuming a lot Martin. This train is a great way to spend 45 billion. "A few hundred people will get rich"?? Um and the rest of us get a really great train from NorCal to SoCal. How can you call it a boondoggle when it hasnt even been built yet?
Mountain View will be able to connect to LA in less than 2.5 hours. Plus the train will be one of the cleanest forms of transportation on earth, reducing California's need for oil. Its simply a great idea and people like Martin are willing to sacrifice the bright future of this state for a little savings at tax time, how selfish.
Don't worry, Mr Engel is just opposed to to their trains path messing up his small communities "little establishment".....
Yes, the HSR is going to take only 2.5 hours to travel from SF to LA...but it won't go faster than 70 mph on the peninsula...and it will stop in every small town in the Central Valley so as to re-energize their economies, and it won't cost us anything.
"They are talking seriously about raising taxes. Are more taxes moving forward?"
Yes it is. Taxes should be raised, starting with the vehicle license fee.
"Now, about the train. They said, ten years ago, it would cost a total of $23 billion. And, it would be paid for by a sales tax. Now, ten years later, they are saying that it will cost $45 billion."
A very good argument for building now what most certainly will be built eventually.
Hey, Martin, I just want to add a voice of support for your concerns about the massive spending that this project would entail.
This high speed rail project will be tied up in the courts for years because of environmental and right-of-way issues. There is no money for it, and it will not be built for decades, if ever.
Meanwhile, the taxpayers will be on the hook for $10 billion++
Sound like a good way to spend our money? In a state that's already massively in the hole?
Somehow they manage to pull this off all over Europe and Asia. I don't buy that somehow we can't pull it off. Spain, which has a similar pop density has built a successful system.
As for a "stop at every small town" problem, obviously there will be Local, Express and Limited-Express trains. High speed rail systems run around the world. These issues have been sorted out.
I lived for a few years in a smaller city outside of Nagoya in Japan. The people who lived in Nagoya could hop on a Limited-Express "Nazomi" bullet train and be in Tokyo 1.5 hours later. I would hop on a local bullet train for a couple of stations, then transfer to an Express "Hikari" train which would be non-stop to Tokyo for the rest of the trip.
A great deal of the railroads in Japan are privately owned. Why not a privately-owned high-speed rail line in California? Let investors take the risk rather than the taxpayer.
In Japan, the governments (local, regional and federal) bares a lot of the burden of the initial construction costs however.
Especially now, as the network expands into less populated regions of the country like the city of Kanazawa, southern Japan (Kyushu) and Aomori.
These projects would all be impossible without heavy government support for the initial construction.
More on the Shinkansen here at Wikipedia:
Having the taxpayers assume the cost of construction, then letting a private company take over after the financially risky part of the project is done would be the worst of all possible arrangements. I'm suggesting that private capital assume the risks and the profit. If no private companies are interested in building a high-speed railroad across California, maybe that's a sign that it's destined to be a white elephant, winning awards for its coolness, but with low ridership, not really helping the environment or energy usage much.
Just handing over built infrastructure to a private company is not what is being suggested.
The answer is a PPP (Public private Partnership). An arrangement between private enterprise and government that has been successful around the world, and in America.
Or have a government company, a new one or Amtrak run the thing.
Do you have private companies building Airports? Highways? Other key transit infrastructure? No. Mostly publicly funded, with expansions paid for through user fees and other taxes. At best you have PPP arrangements in some cases.
More on PPP here:
I think that if we used the raised Unimodal Skytrans and put Bike and walkways underneath where existing rails are we could have the best of the world. The high speed train could be run along the coast to SF or to San Jose and on to Sacramento from LA along Int.5. From there we could use skytrans <www.unimodal.com>into the populated areas. Larger freight could be accommodated along existing track space with a raised Maglev rail and smaller tracks could travel to other places along power lines or canals or even dowm El Camino. It needs 4 ft. The existing Railroad tracks could be replaced by bike and pedestrian pathways.
This system is also very cost effective.
Sunnyvale - Heritage District Neighborhood Assoc. where the tracks are. (downtown).
The solution to accomodating the HSR is obvious: rip out the stupid Light Rail!
Hearings will be held this week and next week on the detailed plans for High Speed rail (3pm Jan 29th at the Santa Clara Convention Center). They are considering stations in Redwood City and Palo Alto.
Unless they are planning on running the tracks around/under Mountain View unobtrusively, we should have a station here instead of those two areas, since we are already at the nexus of Caltrain and Light Rail.
Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Post a comment
Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online.
Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information
We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.
Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?
- Bailey Park
- Blossom Valley
- Castro City
- Cuesta Park
- Jackson Park
- Monta Loma
- North Bayshore
- North Whisman
- Old Mountain View
- Rengstorff Park
- Rex Manor
- Shoreline West
- St. Francis Acres
- Stierlin Estates
- Sylvan Park
- The Crossings
- Waverly Park
- Whisman Station
- another community
Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.
Draeger’s Los Altos eyes upgrades, expansion
By Elena Kadvany | 4 comments | 2,789 views
Housing is for People
By Steve Levy | 18 comments | 1,762 views
College Visit: Lehigh and Lafayette
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 4 comments | 1,240 views
Is Coffee a Date?
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 490 views
The Opposite of What You Don't Want
By Caroline Fleck | 0 comments | 344 views
Home & Real Estate
Shop Mountain View
Send News Tips
Circulation & Delivery
Palo Alto Online
© 2015 Mountain View Online
All rights reserved.