(CA) High-speed rail would fail in new vote, poll finds

[alp227]

Source: SF Chronicle

About two-thirds of California voters would like a second chance to decide whether to sell $9 billion in bonds to help pay for the state's high-speed rail system - and most of them would reject the measure in a new election, according to a Field Poll released today.

The idea of putting the bond measure before voters next year was endorsed by 64 percent of poll respondents. And 59 percent said they would vote it down, while 31 percent said they still support the bond measure. Ten percent were undecided.

The poll follows recent announcements that the project, which aims to take travelers from San Francisco to Los Angeles in about 2 hours and 40 minutes, will cost more than expected and take longer to complete.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority said in early November that the project could cost $98.5 billion, more than double previous estimates. Officials also pushed the projected completion date from 2020 to 2033.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/06/BA811M8KKJ.DTL

[Laelth]

1. This is significant, if also slightly depressing. k&r n/t

-Laelth

[Throd]

2. Kil it now.

[nebenaube]

5. yeah, do that...

Because the car culture out here is just so sustainable. Sorry but in my opinion that would be a grave mistake for our children.

[Throd]

6. A $100 billion choo-choo isn't the answer.

[Old and In the Way]

3. It's not the concept, it's the execution.

Under-estimating initial costs hurts these programs in the long run.

[Kolesar]

4. $9 billion = a month in Iraq

Iraq wouldn't pass a referendum this week, either.

[gyroscope]

7. Because building more highways would be so much cheaper

....not

[DaveJ]

8. $100 billion seems sort of ludicrous to me

I guess the cost is all accounted for, but getting out my calculator, at 800 miles that's over $23k per foot. The same price could buy $100k homes for 1 million families. (not that there are any $100k homes in CA)

I definitely want more rail lines, but this is sort of like charging $50 for a glass of water to someone dying of thirst. If rail is a necessary step for our well-being, it should not come with this kind of (what I consider to be) extortion. Perhaps when we run out of oil altogether, and we see that rail is a necessity, it will get done under fairer conditions.

[SkyDaddy7]

9. It will seem like a bargain a decade from now!

And wwith each passing decade to come we will look back & say "WHAT THE FUCK WERE WE THINKING...WHY DID WE NOT DO THIS WHEN IT WAS ONLY $100 BILLION?"

[DaveJ]

10. If you mean due to the cost of fuel, that's not necessarily true

We probably have the less fuel efficient building technique now than we will have later. That $100 billion would be better spent developing high tech, energy efficient, automated construction technology.

[gyroscope]

12. And you think an 800-mile eight-lane freeway would be cheaper?

lol.

hsr is a bargain compared to putting in another freeway.

[Xithras]

17. Except that we would never build a freeway like this.

First, we already have freeways connecting these cities. More than one, in fact. Once you get out of the LA basin, I-5 is rarely congested. Even if that were to change, we could add lanes to it, end to end, for a fraction of the $100 billion we're spending on high speed rail.

But an even bigger issue is that the rail system itself was designed to ROUTE AROUND the areas of highest congestion, so it will offer zero effective relief to our most badly congested roadways, and will do next to nothing to prevent those congested areas from becoming even worse as the population grows. It's not designed to be a commuter rail system, WHICH IS WHAT WE NEED, but is instead designed to offer an alternative to air travel (by their own declaration), which means that it will be used primarily by business executives and vacationers. I don't support spending $100 billion so that San Franciscans can get to Disneyland faster.

California has real traffic problems, and we need to get people out of their cars. To do that, we need a comprehensive high speed commuter rail system. The California HSR plans don't even pretend to address that problem, and one member of the HSR board is even ON RECORD as stating that solving regional traffic issues is not one of their planning considerations.

Spending $100 billion on a rail project that is NOT intended to remove a significant percentage of cars from our freeways is simply insane. I don't know of ANY other HSR system on the planet that was designed this way.

[DonCoquixote]

11. and consider

they re getting funds Florida's governor turned down. Cali, I thought you were smarter than Florida.

[krabigirl]

13. People love their gas-guzzlers too much here. It is sad. Nt

[AndyTiedye]

14. We Need It!

[slackmaster]

15. Fucked-up plan based on inaccurate and misleading analysis is fucked up

Give us a realistic plan with a credible cost-benefit analysis, and we'll vote for it.

[Xithras]

16. Yes, and the problem is that the construction is contingent on voters approving MORE funds.

The last measure only approved $9 billion in bonds, which will build a small segment. Making the system functional will require the voters to approve additional bond sales, and it's highly doubtful that they will pass at this point. The project was sold so dishonestly, and is planned to poorly, that it's highly improbable that HSR will survive another election.

I doubt we'll see a re-do. In all probability, the $9 billion will be spent, the initial stretch of rail will be built in the southern Valley, and the project will die once that's completed. I'm sure Union Pacific will be thankful for the rail upgrade, once they start running their freight trains on it.