Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You mean it's beyond your ability of process information to come up with better ways to spend $68 Billion? That seems rather warped to me.
There isn't a better way to spend $68 billion than high speed rail. Just in.
Quote:
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Federal transportation officials have extended the deadline that the California High-Speed Rail Authority has to start spending more state money on the project.
As a condition of federal grants, the project must put up state money to match the federal dollars. The Los Angeles Times reported that with the deadline changed from April 1 to July 1, the Legislature could move on Gov. Jerry Brown’s request to transfer $250 million to the bullet train from the state’s ambitious plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The three-month extension is part of a new state-funding contribution plan.
California High-Speed Rail Authority chief Jeff Morales wrote in a Feb. 20 letter to the Federal Railroad Administration that, among other things, delays in the start of construction and acquisition of property in the Central Vally made the new funding plan necessary.
Construction is not likely to start before this summer, putting the project more than a year behind the schedule that rail officials described in 2012.
The train, with a current price tag estimated at $68 billion, would connect Southern California to the San Francisco Bay area. Voters approved it with a 2008 ballot measure, and Brown has been a staunch supporter.
Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown has done his job in getting this thing going. He still supports it and as long as he's governor of the Golden State, this thing will happen.
^^^^^
Great that person has finally been ban and hope C-D ban the IP address as well.
I would give the nod to Canada on this subect, but see it as a pretty broad comparison being that California is a state and Canada is a country. A province like British Columbia vs California would have been a more realistic comparison.
There isn't a better way to spend $68 billion than high speed rail.
Hahaha No and this statement^ is ridiculous, extremely partisan sounding and doesn't really reflect much common sense. Thank God California is not so liberal that something so expensive can't just be rammed through at the will of a few uber liberal oligarchs.
Quote:
Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown has done his job in getting this thing going. He still supports it and as long as he's governor of the Golden State, this thing will happen.
Darling this is California, not China where the 'great leader' can unilaterally decree something like this. LOLOLOL This boondoggle has been help up in court and opposition since it passed voters in 2008 based on lies and inaccurate projections and cost estimates. But your adorable for thinking it's that simple tho. LOL
Hahaha No and this statement^ is ridiculous, extremely partisan sounding and doesn't really reflect much common sense. Thank God California is not so liberal that something so expensive can't just be rammed through at the will of a few uber liberal oligarchs.
Darling this is California, not China where the 'great leader' can unilaterally decree something like this. LOLOLOL This boondoggle has been help up in court and opposition since it passed voters in 2008 based on lies and inaccurate projections and cost estimates. But your adorable for thinking it's that simple tho. LOL
LOL keep telling yourself that.
Your state's citizens want it and you need it. It's their right to get this, they voted for it and it passed in 2008. It's your state's priority to build this, even if corrupted "I just want to become Governor" types like Newsom oppose it.
Quote:
Officials from Gov. Jerry Brown to Mayor Ed Lee have steadfastly supported the embattled California High-Speed Rail Project, which Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom recently withdrew his support from. California now has until July 1 to find funds to match the federal grants.
It’s not exactly surprised that this calculating and politically ambitious centrist would cave in to conservatives like this, particularly as Newsom tries to set himself up to succeed Brown in four years. But it’s a sharp contrast to more principled politicians like Brown, and to those trying to create the transportation system future generations will need, as President Barack Obama took a step toward doing today by announcing new federal transportation funding.
While Newsom’s new tact may play well with myopic, penny-pinching, car-dependent moderate and conservative voters, many of his allies and constituents were furious with his about-face on a project that promises to get riders from downtown San Francisco to downtown Los Angeles in less than three hours.
Among those unhappy is San Francisco resident Peter Nasatir, who forwarded the Guardian a well-written letter that he has sent to Newsom’s office:
Quote:
Dear Lt. Gov. Newsom,
I am a long time San Francisco resident, and although I have criticized many of your policies, I’ve always respected your commitment to be at the forefront of controversial issues. Even if the issue could have wrecked your political career, you still had the guts to take the lumps for a righteous cause.
That is why I’m so shocked you would publically decry the High-Speed Rail project. Yes there are cost overruns. Yes the public is sour to it today, but what would you propose as an alternative: more freeways, more runways? Every expert in the field has already signed off that runways and freeways have expanded as far as they can. Are you not a leading voice in demanding technical innovation in all levels of government?
Could you have said something along the lines that the trajectory the project is going is troubling, but Californians for generations to come will benefit from it. This project must be saved, because to do otherwise will send California back 60 years.
You are a political maverick who had put his career on the line many times with such controversial positions as same-sex marriage, and walking the picket line with hotel workers on Union Square. High-speed rail is coming. The economy demands it, the environment demands it, and Central Valley population growth demands it. You may get some votes from moderates in the short run, but in the long run, you have positioned yourself as the most prominent person in the state to be on the wrong side of history.
I agree with Peter Nasatir. Your state's far too large at this point to not have this. Your state's super-commuting is only increasing. Your metropolitan areas are sprawling inland. Your roads and infrastructure for those people is beyond inefficient and obsolete for the number of people out there today and even worse, tomorrow.
You need this. Look I get you have schools to fix and people in poverty to aid, but you also have a commitment to lead an example for other western states and more importantly, provide essential infrastructure for Californians. Like I said, you act like funding is impossible to attain, you act like the credit system is busted, you act like there's no private industry that could support segments of this. You act like it's beneath you to borrow examples from Europe, China, and Japan.
This is the most inexpensive it's ever going to be to build this thing, you're making a mistake opposing it when it's at it's best opportune time to build it.
controversial $68-billion high-speed rail project in California has lost support from a majority of Californians, a USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll found.
Across the state, 55% of the voters want the bond issue that was approved in 2008 placed back on the ballot, and 59% say they now would vote against it...
The poll shows that concerns about the project extend broadly across regions, ethnic groups, income brackets and even political affiliations. In Southern California, 67% of voters said they would reject issuing bullet train bonds if they could vote again.
If California was an independent country it would be as liberal or more liberal than Canada
the only thing on the way is that it is physically located within the United States
that alone makes California not as liberal as Canada
Overall, Canada is substantially more to the left on the political spectrum compared to California and has a far less vocal far right component to it. I've spent a good deal of time in the interior portions of California and it gets really, really reactionary.
I'm actually quite surprised that California might get a high speed rail line before Canada gets one, though a high speed rail corridor running from Windsor to Quebec City (or even just Toronto to Montreal with Ottawa along the way) makes a lot of sense.
Agree with the others, in this case it's certainly Canada.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
