Quote:
Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist
Once again, as has been pointed out numerous times but is still often ignored by the Ayn Rand-disciples and neo-Hoovers, the cost of not building high speed rail is not zero. We know we're going to (or at least should be if we want to remain an economically competitive country) need to build hundreds of billions of dollars of infrastructure in the coming decades. We should be investing in modes of transportation that do not encourage sprawl (with the wasteful traffic that results), that does something to reduce the US consuming 1/4 of the world's oil, and that encourages much greater productivity.
Alarming state report predicts $294 billion shortfall for transportation over next decade
San Jose Mercury
11/5/2011
http://www.mercurynews.com/traffic/c...015?source=rss
The suggestion made above that we can take care of our national $2.2 trillion infrastructure shortfall if we just spent a few billion dollars less on AIDS drugs for Africa or not helping to provide clean drinking water for a couple of impoverished countries is laughable. |
You have to get over name-calling and especially over oil. I don't believe that there is anyone left who believes that commuter cars will be primarily oil driven in 25 years when HSR is done.
Interestingy, solar is now slipping as a generator of electricity as the technical advances in natural gas recovery have continued. However, the solar advocates are confident that they have innovations coming soon that will push down their cost of production. Ethanol and wind also claim they can be the cost leader. A fascinating field to watch in the near future. This should result in lower costs for rail as well.
Unfortunately, sprawl is now just a fact in California; it can't be undone. The best way to mitigate it is to make rapid rail connections from Union Station to Palmdale, Riverside and Irvine; and Sacto. to SJ. Plus subways within the central LA region.