LA Times: California's High Speed Train Wreck (Fresno, El Centro: taxes, live)

[Bluesmama]

Originally Posted by CamaroGuy

Its just a big waste of money. For the time being they should just upgrade the rail lines they have now and run more trains. California really needs to update its canals and aquaducts. Desalination water plants should be considered too.

The "bullet-train" concept was ripest for commencement in the 80's. Too much time has passed and, as far as I'm concerned, they've pissed it away.

[ZhugeLiang]

Originally Posted by user_id

Clearly the state should find a way to spend the money on pay raises for teachers and other public workers. Infrastructure doesn't matter.

That would be an ever bigger waste of money. Teachers don't need pay raises. They need work a decade before getting tenure.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Fix the levees instead, and build more storage to store water from years like the current rainfall year.

What a waste of money.

[tickyul]

I mean, is this thing going to be a huge mess or what.

That fricken route from SF to LA.....and then from LA to San Diego.......it is just not conducive with high speed.....really rough terrain......it will cost quaboodles and quintillions to make that train run at high speed in those area.

I just do not understand this state, broke and wanting to take on this task....wow.

[tickyul]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

As Ive stated before, I would rather see an intra-SoCal high speed rail with a possible line to Las Vegas.

For NorCal Id prefer to see BART modernized and totally ring the Bay going down into San Jose and up into the North Bay and possibly out into San Joaquin County. That would be a far better use of money imo. How about canceling Amtrack and putting together express BART lines to Sacramento?

For the central valley? Perhaps a Light rail in Fresno and Bakersfield.

$43 Billion is a TON of money being spent on one project.

Well, that figure should be mulitiplied by at least 2, this is almost always the case with these OINKER, government-gravy projects. I mean hey, everyone has to get in on this.

[CamaroGuy]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

Fix the levees instead, and build more storage to store water from years like the current rainfall year.

What a waste of money.

Ditto! Build some desalination plants too. I'd rather see some of the dry desert lakes like Owens filled with water again.:-)

[jade408]

I support HSR, but I don't think it will do anything for commuters. This project doesn't solve the "last mile" problem. Everyone will get to the train station, and their office will be 5-10-15 miles away from the stop. The odds of having a bus connection to the office are slim to none. This is the biggest reason I'd prefer the system to start where thereis existing transit infrastructure to connect with. Going from small town central valley to small town 2 does no one any favors.

@18Montclair, I completely disagree with your idea of expanding BART to the outer reaches. It makes a lot more sense to build infill stations, so BART can be more for daily use and not just commute. BART doesn't have capacity for more commuter only traffic, but converting casual users in the middle of the day will help BART on many levels. Additional stations in Oakland and SF would be a better use of funds targeting the Bay Area.

I spend minimal time in the C.V. so I have no idea what sort of systems will make the most sense, and get people out of their cars. I do support additional ACE trains for the commuters and ebart/etc to get people from the CV to the Bay as needed.

I like the idea of this project, but the current management seems to be headed towards the train to nowhere track.

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by jade408

I support HSR, but I don't think it will do anything for commuters. This project doesn't solve the "last mile" problem. Everyone will get to the train station, and their office will be 5-10-15 miles away from the stop. The odds of having a bus connection to the office are slim to none. This is the biggest reason I'd prefer the system to start where thereis existing transit infrastructure to connect with. Going from small town central valley to small town 2 does no one any favors.

It is government's role to spur future growth patterns by implementing infrastructure first. Once trains stations are built and functioning, there will be desire to locate business and such around them so as to take advantage.

[sav858]

Some of these stations will be built where there is already existing employment. I believe the stations in SF, LA, SD, SJ, and Sacramento would all be located downtown. The SF terminus would be the new Transbay Terminal which is right in the heart of the Financial District. I think that is kind of one of the advantages they were touting as opposed to flying; the train will drop you off right in the middle of the city rather than at an airport on the outskirts.

[SDNative70]

Originally Posted by FresnoFacts

You mean taxpayers shouldn't be paying for freeways, airports, etc.?

I guess it is time to make I-5 a toll road that pays its own way.

Taxpayers don't foot the bills for airports, airport users do. You no fly, you no buy.