posted
The California High-Speed Train initiative (Prop 1A) has passed. I believe the high-speed train should be completed by 2020. I am sort of ambivalent. I have always liked the idea of a fast train from SF to in 2.5 hrs. However, it is going to cost Calif. 10-20 billion from Calif. bonds plus an additional 20-60 billion is projected from federal and other sources required. Calif bonds to cover "not more than" 50% of the cost..which makes me wonder what cost overruns will occur, especially in a state with a tremendous fiscal defecit.
I was very pleased to see Measure Q pass...to provide a commuter train from Larkspur (just above the Golden Gate Bridge) to Cloverdale, Calif., about 40 min north of Santa Rosa, Calif. It will be funded with a 0.25 cent tax on each gallon of gas at the pump. I hope it will eventually extend further north..possibly Eureka?
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm glad the Larkspur-Cloverdale Measure passed. That area really needs commuter service. Hwy 101 is a complete mess during the commute times. And the depot in Cloverdale is already built and pretty much ready to go!
As far as high speed rail, I'm very disappointed that it passed. It is a very poorly written bill and takes a route that is very questionable (in my opinion). There are just so many things wrong with that bill. I predict an enormous boondoggle, with cost overruns like we've never seen before.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I fully expected 1A to fail, given our present financial picture, I am not unhappy it passed. I agree that we will probably have a cost well over anything forecast but I am pleased enough Californians see the need for this kind of infrastructure investment.
Posts: 406 | From: La Grange, CA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It may not be perfect, but at least it is something. Waiting for perfection would leave us waiting forever. It may be a boondoogle, but in the end it will be useful. That was how old Huey Long played it on purpose in Louisiana. He was as crooked as they came, but he got a lot of things built, many of which proved to very useful for years afterward. People held their nose and voted for him anyway because at least he got things done.
As of the last time I looked: 96.6% ( 24,584 of 25,423 ) precincts partially or fully reporting as of Nov. 5, 2008, at 11:43 a.m. (California time for those elsewhere)
State Ballot Measures 1A - Safe, Reliable High-Speed Train Bond Act ...YES:...4,971,000.....52.3% ...NO:....4,547,349.....47.7%
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you know something is really wrong with it when train advocacy groups (such as TRAC---Train Rider's Association of California) can not come up with an endorsement OR rejection of it. They came out and basically said, "Do what you feel is best"---because their own board could not come to an agreement on what to do with it.
I understand their hesitation in endorsing it.....I read the thing, and it's pretty ridiculous. Unfortunately, the majority of voters don't read or learn enough about Measures and what they vote on. They hear an ad for "high speed train" in California, and hear how it will be "green", fast, efficient, blah blah blah...and then they vote Yes.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Forget that its environmentally friendly and will be convenient once finished. It is a job creator. Jobs are desperately needed-especially in the valley. And unless you are on the central coast, the route is EXTREMELY advantagous. It will serve the central valley metro centers AND the bursting at the seams Antelope Valley. If people had honestly assesed the long term benefits and not just the short term costs, it whould have passed even more overwhelmingly. It goes to show that during financially tight times we tend to become so very short sighted. A resounding YES YES YES for HSR!!! And Smitty, I read the measure and admit there are vagueries. It isn't perfect, but its a start. WE either pay NOW or pay later for a crumbling infrastructure and poor valley air. Billions to the tax dollar black hole we call highways, congestion, and respitory illness. I would say those are more significant than 'blah, blah, blah'. Prop 1a beats doing nothing.
-------------------- Patrick Posts: 387 | From: Bakersfield, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by smitty195: We should not settle for mediocrity. It is our money.
Explain what makes the planned system mediocre. Is not perfect. Nothing impacted by the political world, or human being in general is, but it looks really good to me.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by smitty195: Well, you know something is really wrong with it when train advocacy groups (such as TRAC---Train Rider's Association of California) can not come up with an endorsement OR rejection of it. They came out and basically said, "Do what you feel is best"---because their own board could not come to an agreement on what to do with it.
That's pretty typical of TRAC. Several years ago I compared literature of both TRAC and RailPAC, and found TRAC to be a rather whiny, confrontational group, while RailPAC was more down to business. I joined RailPAC.
RailPAC had no trouble endorsing 1A.
I predict that the high speed train will have cost overruns, experience some highly publicized and embarrassing technical glitches in the first couple years of operation and be declared a "boondoggle" by columnists (if any are still around in 2020) bloggers and talk radio hosts.
Then after ten years of operation everyone will agree it is indispensable.
posted
Gotta luv what Google thinks we "want' to see for ads at this topic. Last time I checked we were discussing California Prop 1A relating to a high speed rail initiative. To you rich kids in Sunnyvale, we are NOT discussing Prop ATE.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Toy: Then after ten years of operation everyone will agree it is indispensable.
That's exactly what happened with BART.
Mr. Toy,
It might not even be that long.
I worked in DC on WMATA from 1972 to 1978 and heard all the same songs: It cost too much, It's a boondoogle, No one will ride it, It should have been a monorail/maglev/rubber tire/bus lanes or whatever the flavor of the moment happened to be. At one point shortly before I left DC there was a study done to cut the ultimate system from 98 miles to something like 65 miles. After the second part was opened and people could both cross the Patomac to get to the Pentagon and airport and go north to Silver Spring all that whining went away and build the full system came back. Today it is an indespensible part of the Capital area. Even a couple of the early dotted lines for maybe someday are in place and the dotted line to Dulles Airport looks like it is about to be built.
Same song was sung in Taipei when I was there in the early 90's. They are now building the "probably won't ever happen" phase 2.
Same song on Taiwan High Speed Rail. Recently got a couple articles emailed to me from someone I know there talking about what a difference it has made in the long distance traffic. It is more than covering its operating costs after not quite 2 years in operation. Not enough of an operating surplus to cover the cost of borrowed money to build it, unfortunately. But, the reduction in imports of petroleum might make that a cost worth covering by the government.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lets not forget that this is going to create jobs desperately needed-especially in the San Joaquin Valley. The revenue generated just by the jobs created were enough for me to support it. What are the estimated figures? Some 450,000 jobs? That's a lot of wages being spend in the markets. Sometimes we need to invest money to make money. Let the nay-sayers say what they will. History will prove them wrong.
-------------------- Patrick Posts: 387 | From: Bakersfield, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now here's an interesting talking point: what happens to the facilities and infrastructure on the San Joaquin Route once this project is finished in the next 10 years? Construction is estimated to begin in late 2010. I guess it will take anywhere from 5 years to build to 10 years with setbacks considered. Is there really a need at that point for all the California Car's and F59's? What about the facilities in the smaller towns like Hanford and Merced? What would be the fate of the San Joaquin? Would it exist to serve as a connecting service for the smaller towns? I just don't see that being justified, however who knows. Until the extensions to SAN and SAC are build, will the rolling stock be sent down there? Maybe some of it could be sold to Amtrak (from the state of CA) and be reconfigured to place on LD's? Many questions to be answered in the next few years as they reveal the business plan and complete the engineering plans.
-------------------- Patrick Posts: 387 | From: Bakersfield, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by amtraxmaniac: Now here's an interesting talking point: what happens to the facilities and infrastructure on the San Joaquin Route once this project is finished in the next 10 years?
Plenty of places to use them. The San Diego HS line is supposed to be quite a ways inland. Coastal service, and Santa Barbara end will still be needed. Maybe a couple of coast line trains all the way north to SF. Capital Corridor will still be there. Good modern passenger equipment sitting around unneeded does not seem to be a likely problem.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
