Chengzhi "George" Yang presented an alternative route for California’s High Speed Rail project, route: {:controller=>"articles", :action=>"show", :id=>"where-do-we-o-re-high-speed-rail"} --> Monday in the has been a contentious issue in the Bay Area since voters approved funding for the new transportation system in 2008. to prevent construction of the new rail system from the beginning, charging that the project’s and that the environmental impact of the project would be extremely detrimental. that if the rail system is developed, it would require subsidies from the state.
“The system was sold to the people of California under false pretenses,” said Dr. Alain Enthoven, who is a professor emeritus at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business. Enthoven is the co author of a report titled The CHSRA Knows Their Proposed High-Speed Train Will Forever Need An Operating Subsidy.
“This plan was a financial loser,” he said, noting that if the current business model is implemented, it will lose one to two billion dollars a year. Enthoven said when the original plan was shared with voters, the proposed cost of a ticket to ride the high speed train was about $50. The price estimate has since quadrupled. Enthoven was enthusiastic about Yang's route.
With dozens of
The last-mile problem is still an issue. There's the option of taking a shuttle or a bike. However, that adds more time to the commute. That's probably not a reasonable ask of a person who could jump on a plane for the same price.
This project is not about building a high-speed train or an improved railroad. It's about the politics of getting and spending large amounts of taxpayers' dollars. The mistake is in believing what the rail authority, the Governor or the Legislature claim regarding HSR. What everyone involved wants is to obtain the "free" $3.3 billion from the FRA and as many dollars as they can extract from the State Prop.1A bond issues. We need to pay attention to what all these people are actually doing, not what they say. No one in Sacramento gives a damn about how to build a better railroad. All that they care about is demonstrating to their respective constituencies how many dollars they can bring into their districts.
The movie “Railroader”, released from Apollo Productions & All American Records (AAR), features some classic music by the legendary ZZ Top. The futuristic greener planet needs are outlined and the California High Speed Rail plays a pivotal role. http://www.prlog.org/11976935-la-futura-from-zz-top-just-released-on-cd-and-the-future-of-high-speed-rail-is-here-now.html What we do not need is a melodramatic script with so-called dead end rerouting. Bike paths and landscaping under the tracks is one solution...or to go underground at a cost to the VCs. The VCs could lease back the land at a discount and profit via tourism, retail and the like. AK Entertainment
It's easy to imagine that the NIMBYism on the Peninsula may be worse than the East Bay. Oakland, due to its current sad economic state, may very well be much more interested in the development opportunities that come with high speed rail. Connecting farmers to customers in Bay Area via high speed rail doesn't make much sense to me. You're not going to ship almonds at 180 mph. I always liked the idea of high speed rail, but I am aghast at the costs. It good that other ideas are being presented, but why are these arguments still going on?
BTW, more people travel from the Bay Area to Southern California using Oakland Airport. So if we place the Station in SF, than people from Berkeley, Oakland, Livermore will face the same problem Alan just mentioned. So why not pick the cheaper option?
As you probably know, I am also against spending the money in the first place. But as long as Mr. Brown is hell bent on spending the money, we should at least get something somewhat useful out of it.
BART already serves San Francisco and will soon serve San Jose. So why build the tunnel or the spur line with billions that might shave off mere minutes of travel time? Spend the money to modernize BART trains instead and make them faster and smoother. Look at what they do in Europe, the High Speed Rail only have to link to Regional Transit at 1 or 2 station. As for farm products, those trucks currently clog I-580, taking them off will ease traffic and help the environment. They don't have to travel at 180 mph and they can travel at hours when the passenger traffic is light. You don't really think there are enough people to warrant a train very five minute, 24 hours, everyday, do you?