California high-speed rail on track to start construction in July Comments on Stories, posted by Editor, Danville Weekly Online, on Jan 11, 2013 at 8:15 am
A 2-hour-and-45-minute-trip from San Francisco's Transbay Terminal to Los Angeles' Union Station could be a reality by 2029, but that a host of political, financial and logistical obstacles must be hurdled before high-speed trains reach the Bay Area.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, January 10, 2013, 7:05 PM
Posted by TC, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2013 at 10:46 am
Another use of "General Fund Money" and the biggest reason California schools and universities had to give back money to the state government that had been originally budgeted for the schools. This railyway was brought about due heavy lobbying by the construction industry. Never again vote for anything that will be coming out of the "General Fund".
Posted by C. R. Mudgeon, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2013 at 10:51 am
Just think, it's only 16 years away!
I got a kick out of the statement that "we are reaching our limits in the air". Are these limits due to immutable laws of physics? Perhaps they are constitutional limits that prevent Southwest from using planes larger than their current 737s? Or are they fundamental obstacles to adding a runway at SFO (or spacing the current ones farther apart)? Claiming that we have zero ability to increase and improve air travel between the Bay Area and SoCal in the next 16 years is ridiculous.
Also, given the pace of technology advances in things such as automatically-guided cars, that could couple automatically to form "car-trains" (as well as other new technologies), it would seem impossible to predict what the bullet train will be competing with in 2029. By the time the bullet train is completed, it may already be obsolete....
In the meantime, the myriad of travelers who are clamoring for a faster way to get between Bakersfield and Madera can celebrate the ground-breaking this July.
As a side comment, it is obviously a trivial thing to be "on track" for holding a groundbreaking ceremony (as the article stated). All you need are some politicians, some reporters and photographers, and some gold-plated shovels. Actually completing the project on schedule, now that's a different story!
Posted by Huh?, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2013 at 6:40 pm
I love how people with no knowledge of the financial and energy costs of transporting people over a 300 mile distance nonetheless feel comfortable heaping scorn and abuse on a project which will afford massive economies in both - something that's obvious to anyone with an understanding of basic physics and the nature of fuel sources available for fixed-point vs. mobile transportation modalities.
Seems like the confidence of the criticism is inversely proportionate to the amount of actual knowledge of the subject.
But that's nothing new here in America. Those with the least understanding yell the loudest.
Posted by Give it a rest, a resident of the Diablo neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2013 at 8:36 pm
How many public tranporation agencies are you aware of that aren't heavily subsidized with tax dollars? Lost in the inflated HSR numbers provided by JB and the unions are the negative impact on transporation projects that have already been funded, while bond debt continues. One of those transportation projects includes the San Jose International Airport which BILLIONS on the past two expansion projects but is currently struggling to the point that the incremental revenue projections used to sell the bonds hasn't materialized, requiring even more subsidized funding. How is the HSR going to help solve the finacial problems of a financially failing International Airport that has been heavily funded with tax dollars?
Are we canibalizing currently failing transportation projects/expansions for the sake of providing union construction jobs to build another failing system that will provide more even more public employee union jobs once built? How many projects do you think taxpayers can subsidize?
Let's look at BART as an example. Even though the the system requires increasing rates of tax dollar subsidies that hasn't stopped the unions from demanding increased wages at the same time - which leads to increased cost for ridership. The Bart employees have made ever increasing demands for compensation, while at the same time their unfunded pension & medical costs are skyrocketing (and they contribute zero dollars toward their own pensions).
This state has more debt that can be reasonably supported and paying hundreds of billions to fund this failed project, and then billions more to subsidize the operation, while cannabalizing other projects, just doesn't make economic sense. That is, unless, you consider that the unions are running the state. Only then can you make sense oot of nonsense.
Posted by Tom, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Jan 15, 2013 at 7:55 am
What is so very sad is we the people voted for this. It is the same mentality of a person who takes out a huge loan for a degree not at all in demand and wonders why they cant get a job and wants the loan forgiven. The country has moved to entitled mentality. Greece is just a few years ahead of us.