Finally - build it! Join the rest of the wold with modern high-sped transportation infrastructure.

Ignore the NIMBYs and flat-earthers.

Really -- these people think that this could be built in 9 years. It took more than 20 years before a tunnel was build for Devil's Slide

I'm sorry, but did I miss the mass of people traveling between SF and Bakersfield. Really -- 5.1 million riders in 2025 going to 9 million just 2 years after that. Where do these projections come from?

Boondoggle!

> Ignore the NIMBYs and flat-earthers.

What he really means is: "Ignore the taxpayers, voters and EVERYTHING in Prop 1a except the bond money, which the CAHSR Authority will spend any way they please, regardless of the law."

There, fixed.

The entire thing is a payoff to organized labor. These projects require "prevailing wage" which is determined by the going union labor rates. We could get it done cheaper but.....it wouldn't be union labor. This thing will NEVER deliver what was promised. It needs to be killed. NOW, before we waste anymore taxpayer money. Take some of the money that is being pi**ed away on this and spend it on repairing our EXISTING infrastructure before it's too late.

The technology is outdated. Self-driving cars and the Hyperloop will make high-speed rail irrelevant. Menlo Voter is right. The money would be better spent to repair the infrastructure and also fix the water supply. Do we really need Jerry Brown's vanity project?

Hyperloop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yah, I hear ALL those hyperloops in Europe and China have made trains plans and automobiles OBSOLETE!!!!

Seriously, concern trolling about how you don't mind infrastructure investment and taxes is one thing (we know you're not) but going full fantasy with hyperloop is a dead giveaway.

I find it amusing how conservatives suddenly love Musk!!

Boondoggle --

noun:

1. work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value.

verb:

2. waste money or time on unnecessary or questionable projects.

Johnny:

I'm not a conservative and I'm not the one that posted about hyper loops.

The fact is our CURRENT infrastructure is crumbling and needs repair. All the medium speed rail project does is draw money away from fixing current infrastructure. Infrastructure, that even IF, MSR(I refuse to call it "high" speed rail since it never will be. It will be medium speed rail at best.) was in place would still need to be repaired.

We need to not be throwing money away on Brown's vanity/organized labor payoff project and fix what we have.

Bob:

you're quite right, MSR is a boondoggle.

I'm with Menlo Voter and Bob on this.

Kill HSR and Kill it now. Focus on Local Infrastructure repair which should have done years ago. That might be part of the plan make our roads so miserable and expensive (tire repair and well alignment) to drive on that we start thing about Public Transportation.

Bakersfield solves the affordable housing issue for the big employers.

@Menlo Voter: How can it not be HSR if its 200+ mph revenue service cruising speed is faster than that of all other HSR systems in the world today?

Menlo Voter - you say you're not a conservative but you attack labor unions and a project that will help end our destructive addiction to cars.

We've run out of room for cars here. It's time we join the rest of the world and invest in public transit and dense walkable neighborhoods. The ridiculous 20th century dream of auto-centric suburbs has proven to be a disaster. Time to give it up.

@Peter

If you want to displace cars, then the HSR money should be used to fund better local public transportation options.

A good chunk of $100B could be used to extend BART, build a second transbay tube, increase the frequency of bus service, extend VTA light rail, etc. Those solutions would truly displace cars. People need cars most for local travel convenience, not long distance travel convenience.

HSR will NOT displace short distance car trips. It will displace air transport primarily. Today, if people want to geobetween SF and LA quickly, they take a plane. People who drive today don't need the time savings today. Why would they need it when HSR is built unless it's priced below airfares?

Frankly, the biggest roadblock in creating more dense neighborhoods is not conservatives. It's NIMBYs. It's really, really hard to build any type of dense housing on the peninsula because all the NIMBYs want to preserve their sense of suburbia.

Apple,
HSR should help local transportation by contributing to the electrification of Caltrain. However, if we could take the money allocated to HSR and use it for local projects like you've suggested I would be all for it. My understanding is that that is not an option.

If a high-speed rail project is to be built, it should be done by the Federal Government, as was the interstate highway system, the vast majority of funding and planning for international airports in the U.S., and major shipping ports and facilities. They can best determine the corridors with the most demand.CHSR now intends to put in a spur to match up with the projected, privately funded LA to Las Vegas line; this is the only route that makes any economic sense in
California, but of course CHSR could not consider it since it involves another state.

Peter:

supposedly the money for "MSR" is only supposed to be spent on "MSR", but the High Speed Authority has already broken the law by spending it on things not HSR. Like Caltrain electrification. By using absolutely tortured logic they say it is.

Reality Check it's not high speed rail because it won't be able to make the SF to LA trip in the time backers of this boondoggle sold the voters. That would require grade separation up the peninsula and that isn't going to happen.

> Focus on Local Infrastructure repair which should have done years ago

Yeah, and it DIDN'T happen years ago, and probably won't just because y'all suddenly claim to support it. It's a red herring claim: "don't build this and spend it elsewhere, except I won't support that spending when the time comes."

Build it.

Peter:

I didn't attack labor unions. I attacked the crooked politicians that they have bought and paid for. There's a reason all public works projects have to be done at "prevailing wage," and that wage just happens to be the going union scale. The public could be getting their projects done more economically if unions hadn't bought the legislature. That's not a conservative viewpoint, it's a realistic viewpoint.

home:

sorry but you're wrong. We've been paying for the repair and upkeep of our infrastructure for years without complaint through our gas taxes. Just one problem though, the governor and the Legislator have been siphoning off about 80% of the incoming gas taxes and putting them towards other things and our roads and bridges (and our cars) have suffered for it.

Don't build it. Stop diverting gas taxes.

This article says that $100m out the $5B raised by the gas tax is diverted to the general fund. If my math is correct that is only 2%.

Web Link

" When voters approved $20 billion in transportation bonds in 2006, those bonds were to be repaid from the general fund, but state officials decided to use the truck fees to pay them off, freeing up general fund money for other purposes." And those purposes weren't infrastructure.

I've also read differently as to the amounts diverted. If I can find it I'll link it.

@Peter

Actually, it may be an option to take HSR money and spend it on other non-HSR things. It's technically illegal, but by the time the lawsuits are all resolved, the money will have been spent. There's no way to claw the money back.

If the governor provides political cover to spend money in this way, the attorney general is not going to prosecute.

You have to keep in mind legal options are very different for politically favored organizations.

"It's technically illegal, but by the time the lawsuits are all resolved, the money will have been spent."

Remind me, when you run for office, not to vote for you.

I'm in no way a supporter of the CAHSR project (as others have mentioned, improving regional public transportation infrastructure would be a much more effective way to improve commutes and reduce the number of cars on the road, and the CAHSR Authority has rough roughshod over the requirements of Prop 1A)...but...

In fairness, Prop 1A does account for providing some funding for regional transportation projects.

From the Prop 1A Quick Reference Guide, 2008:

"Other Passenger Rail Systems. The remaining $950
million in bond funds would be available to fund capital
projects that improve other passenger rail systems in order
to enhance these systems’ capacity, or safety, or allow riders
to connect to the high-speed train system. Of the $950
million, $190 million is designated to improve the state’s
intercity rail services. The remaining $760 million would be
used for other passenger rail services including urban and
commuter rail."

(source: Web Link )


That said, Prop 1A requires those railways to provide MATCHING FUNDS. Observe:

"(f) In order to be eligible for funding under this section, an eligible recipient
under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) shall provide matching funds in an
amount not less than the total amount allocated to the recipient under this
section".

(source: Web Link#prop1a )


Sooooooooo... Where is Caltrain going to get matching funds for the funds it receives from CAHSR/Prop1A?

Also, (and this I'm less clear on), each Operating Segment is suppose to have a funding plan before construction. It's not clear to me if funding for regional transportation systems is included in that requirement, but if it is, Caltrain cannot spend any of the funds from CAHSR until CAHSR has a funding plan for the SJ->SF segment.

The bonds were approved 10 years ago and where is the project today -- still being debated, lawsuits and challenges pending, officials redesigning the project, and yet the HSR released a report that in just 9 years "bullet trains [will be] whisking passengers between San Francisco and Bakersfield."

If the last 10 years are any indication of what's to come, this debate will still be occurring in 2025, and the project will be well over budget.

Who wants to make a bet? History is on my side.....Devil's Slide tunnel and Bay Bridge to name 2 recent examples.

Prediction: HSR will never go all the way to San Francisco in the next 20 years, if ever. Cost and the attorneys making their bones in lawsuits will see to that. BUT an electrified Caltrain will get passengers the rest of the way after transferring in San Jose.

I thought this was all "Shovel Ready" after the 2008 election.
Just like the "Big Dig" in Boston. On time on budget. Check it out.
Generations are retiring on that one.

HSR does nothing to help reduce traffic within the bay area. It is designed to be long-haul. The highest priority for funds should be to enhance regional and local transit.
The local NIMBY's who fight the hardest against transit-oriented density are the school crowd. They fight hard against more dense local housing, which has low traffic and provides customers for local businesses every day of the week, including mornings and evenings. Instead, they should be working with the city to find ways to provide adequate space for classrooms.

Isn't it sad and ironic that environmental groups push HSR when one of its biggest impacts would be to promote growth and SPRAWL in the central valley where there are not sprawl limits.

Absurd waste of public funds.

Can somebody please tell me of a state project that was completed on time and on budget?