CA HSR, while a good idea in theory, is probably not a super-smart investment in an age of limited resources. The costs are outlandishly high, the ridership projections kind of suck, and NIMBYs will probably delay it until we're all dead. And the decentralized nature of the state will make it really tough to equal HSR in other nations. I mean, if you're headed to LA, chances are your destination is nowhere near LA Union Station.
If I had that exact same money, and had to spend it on transit, I think urban transit investments and more moderate but comprehensive improvements to existing intercity rail infrastructure would make more sense.
And, yeah, water is kind of important, too, I'd say. SoCal seemed scary dry last time I visited (last Feb., usually the rainy season, I think).
By the time this stuff is built, mini robot pods cars or shared group vehicles might be a thing. They'd cover the last mile much better than public transit.
Sadly, that is not the case today. Despite a much-heralded recovery in the media and by Governor Jerry Brown, California still has one of the nation’s highest unemployment rates. Also, more than 30% of the nation’s welfare recipients are Californians – even though California has just 12% of the nation’s population. It is not surprising, therefore, that California is ranked number one in poverty.
How much of all this is fundamentally related to California being a major center of produce growing and at one time, homebuilding? This is different from some eastern state where poverty is caused
by lack of better paying jobs. Rather in California, poverty is geographically sited
in the state because it happens to have a lot of jobs, that don't pay much.
If the state suddenly became like South Carolina and opened up a bunch of factories and call centers, there would still be cantaloupes in a field near Modesto needing picking and some desperately poor people willing to work in the hot sun to pick them. Maybe this and limiting immigration would drive wages up by restricting labor supply...or just cause the agriculture industry to become uncompetitive. Which would fix the water problem.
"Business friendliness" is just saying that you are comfortable with seeing your neighbor live in extreme, Mexico type poverty, while your state takes your tax dollars and gives them to a company that will hire a bunch of out of state transplants at a lower wage than you get now. Oh, and all this creates growth, which according to the article is bad. Maybe white people growth is better according to the author...
The funny thing is building HSR instead of water facilities will do the same thing, but without throwing people under the bus. A fast train link will integrate the economies of the poorer valley and bring jobs out of the more expensive coastal metros. If water gets scarce, that will force things that use inappropriate amounts of it, specifically irrigated farmland, to adapt or die.
This whole article just seems like an engineered ideological piece.
or people! i dont think moratoriums on legal in migration are that far fetched. if the boat can only handle so many people, why let more on board? california is america's social and environmental policy proving ground which many americans ultimately benefit from, but at what cost to californians already living a strained life?
Kind of contradictory?
To go with the metaphor; If your lifeboat is sinking, and you know how to swim; you should jump into the water. There is another empty lifeboat over there.
Meaning, I don't get why anyone would advocate trying to "saving" places by going against the very values that make them what they are just because one wants a piece of that. Instead leave them alone, we should focus our energy on improving things elsewhere. California should be a modern immigrant gateway and Texas should put more into education and quality of life to become the new California for the middle class.