Should it be built? Is it a boon, or a boondoggle?
Here's an article about the subject in California:
Which leads one to say, "boondoggle."
but, one argument for "boon"
On the other hand:
and further:
better to spend 98 billion than 170, but how realistic is that?
and this article claims:
However, it also says:
The first stage calls for a train from Fresno to Corcoran. Now, I live just south of Fresno, in fact between Fresno and Corcoran, and have since 1974. In that time, I've never yet had occasion to go to Corcoran.
The plan is to continue the rail to Bakersfield. At least, more people have heard of that one. I've been through Bakersfield on the way to Los Angeles, but have never been there except maybe to stop for a burger or something.
But, the feds are adamant that the line go through the valley instead of connecting places most of the country has heard of, like, say for example, Los Angeles and San Francisco.
I have my doubts, frankly.
and $98B? Could it be better spent, or perhaps not spent at all since both the federal and state government is broke?
What do you say?
Here's an article about the subject in California:
California high-speed rail cost estimate soars
Which leads one to say, "boondoggle."
but, one argument for "boon"
To offset that sense of shock, the rail system's backers are stressing it would serve over the near-term as a jobs program. California has a double-digit unemployment rate and forecasters expect it will ease only gradually.
The Authority said on Tuesday that a bullet-train network across California would create 100,000 jobs over the next few years and "another 1 million jobs moving forward."
On the other hand:
"For too long, High-Speed Rail Authority officials trumpeted the dream, but showed little taste for confronting economic and political realities," State Treasurer Bill Lockyer said in a statement.
and further:
The Authority is also trying to capitalize on other concerns for Californians, notably fiscal and environmental ones. It said high-speed rail would be a bargain compared with $170 billion over the next 20 years to expand highways, airport gates and runways -- each contrary to California's efforts to combat global warming.
better to spend 98 billion than 170, but how realistic is that?
and this article claims:
But the plan also says the system would be profitable even at the lowest ridership estimates and wouldn’t require public operating subsidies.
However, it also says:
It also calls for retaining the most controversial aspect of the proposed rail line — starting construction in the Central Valley. Critics want to start in more populated areas of southern or northern California in case money runs out before the full system is finished, which they worry would create a “train to nowhere.”
The first stage calls for a train from Fresno to Corcoran. Now, I live just south of Fresno, in fact between Fresno and Corcoran, and have since 1974. In that time, I've never yet had occasion to go to Corcoran.
The plan is to continue the rail to Bakersfield. At least, more people have heard of that one. I've been through Bakersfield on the way to Los Angeles, but have never been there except maybe to stop for a burger or something.
But, the feds are adamant that the line go through the valley instead of connecting places most of the country has heard of, like, say for example, Los Angeles and San Francisco.
I have my doubts, frankly.
and $98B? Could it be better spent, or perhaps not spent at all since both the federal and state government is broke?
What do you say?