Quote:
Originally Posted by econgrad
^
I am not worried about it, I just think Urban's thesis statement is bogus, but he is right about the length of time (25 to 30 years) to really know what will happen, and therefore not really worth debating...
|
which part is bogus (please enlighten me)
Fact
Sacramento is not included in the intial proposal (and neither is San Diego)
Fact
Fares raised from the intial system will be used to build spurs to San Diego and Sacramento
Fact
Assembly Bill 3034 wont change that
From the Sacramento Bee..
AB 3034 would also eliminate a requirement to complete the segment between San Francisco and Los Angeles first. Instead, the bill would allow various regions to compete for funding.
(in much the same way cities now compete for state transportation dollars and if you've even once paid attention to that you will know that Sacramento receives a vastly disproportionate share of transportation fuding.)
The article goes on to say
$9 billion would be used mainly on construction, and the other $950 million would be made available to improve regional transportation systems, such as the Bay Area Regional Transit.
Most of the system route has been set. The authority has yet to give final approval on a route between the Bay Area into the Central Valley.
(How can the sytem route be set if they're going have cities compete for funding? Because again Sacramento is not in the intial proposal)
The only question is whether the route will end in Merced or come as far north as Stockton.
Nearly another billion dollars will be spent in SF and LA on new stations (like the new Transbay Terminal), while Sacramento sits for decades and watches (not as a participant but a spectator)
Fact
There is no chance this comes in on budget. None, zero, zilch, nadda.
Look at the Bay Bridge origionally estimated cost $1.2 billion in 1997 and the price had risen to $5.1 billion in 2004
Boston's Big Dig was estimated at $2.8 billion in 1985 but as of 2006 that had risen to $14.6 billion.
There's no chance this will be built on budget given the costs of construction, the environmental challenges that will arise and just the fact that it will be an enormous public works project.
Probability
When the intial system comes in billions of $$$ over budget the proponents of high speed rail will move alleviate public concern for cost overruns by proposing to divert all available revenue from fares (once its up and running) to pay off the enormous bond service and debt (which will take decades to pay off).
(Remember the tolls on the Golden Gate were supposed to be temporary but are permanent just to pay for the upkeep)
Do you honestly believe that voters in LA and SF will suddenly clamor to have connections to Sacramento or that supporters can return to the voters and ask for a second bond to cover cost overruns?
Like i said to neuhickman, if you honestly believe the costs are worth it to establish a HSR sysytem between LA and SF with the line ending in Merced or Stockton, so be it. I can certainly respect that.
But the facts are stacked so high against the chances of Sacramento ever seeing high speed rail that I would question anybody's reasoning and logic for believing that Sacramento can't be blown off by the state simply because it's the Capital. I mean that kind of 5th grade logic is comical.
The money spent for HSR would be better spent enhancing rail locally and regionally.
Prev
Linear Mode
