Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan
HSR wasnt just proposed for shits and giggles. Its in response to capacity issues at the airports and roads. California continues to grow in population and we either have to account for this population growth by building new airports in the LA / SF areas, increase highway capacity or build a new way, HSR.
|
I think there's a middle ground, where, yes, blind opposition to HSR is reactionary and short-sighted, but, yeah, it isn't unreasonable to conclude that $70 billion for a single rail line with middling ridership projections is a bit much.
I mean, wouldn't, say, $30 billion be enough to upgrade every single intercity rail corridor in the state to a medium high speed electrified network (like what you see in 90% of the intercity lines in Europe, or on the Northeast Corridor)? The super high-speed lines like proposed under CA HSR are rare, even in Europe, and not necessary for competing with airlines.
Then take that remaining $40 billion and one could do amazing things with urban transit, desal, affordable housing, conservation, education, or whatever. Even in a high cost state like CA, the remaining $40 billion would be an enormous number. Here in NYC, $40 billion would be enough to completely transform the city's urban transport network, and we have insanely absurd transit improvement costs.
But, all that said, if CA voters don't mind spending $70 billion, and if they're paying the costs for the most part, not the feds, then they have a right to do so.